[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 95435-95458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31057]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Part 902
50 CFR Parts 300 and 679
[Docket No. 151001910-6999-02]
RIN 0648-BF42
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allow the
Use of Longline Pot Gear in the Gulf of Alaska Sablefish Individual
Fishing Quota Fishery; Amendment 101
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations to implement Amendment 101 to the
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP)
for the sablefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) fisheries in the Gulf
of Alaska (GOA). This final rule authorizes the use of longline pot
gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. In addition, this final rule
establishes management measures to minimize potential conflicts between
hook-and-line and longline pot gear used in the sablefish IFQ fisheries
in the GOA. This final rule also includes regulations developed under
the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act) to authorize
harvest of halibut IFQ caught incidentally in longline pot gear used in
the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. This final rule is necessary to improve
efficiency and provide economic benefits for the sablefish IFQ fleet
and minimize potential fishery interactions with whales and seabirds.
This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Halibut
Act, the GOA FMP, and other applicable laws.
DATES: Effective January 27, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of Amendment 101 and the Environmental
Assessment (EA)/Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) prepared for this action
(collectively the ``Analysis''), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) prepared for this action are available from
www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
rule may
[[Page 95436]]
be submitted by mail to NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802-1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; in person at NMFS
Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK; by email to
[email protected]; or by fax to 202-395-5806.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Baker, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NMFS manages U.S. groundfish fisheries of the GOA under the GOA
FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared,
and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) approved, the GOA FMP under
the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the GOA FMP
appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) is
managed as a groundfish species under the GOA FMP.
The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage
fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) through
regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart E, established under authority
of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act), 16 U.S.C.
773-773k. The IPHC regulations are subject to acceptance by the
Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary. After
acceptance by the Secretary of State and the Secretary, NMFS publishes
the annual management measures in the Federal Register pursuant to 50
CFR 300.62. The final rule implementing the 2016 annual management
measures published March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14000). The Halibut Act, at
section 773c(c), also authorizes the Council to develop halibut fishery
regulations, including limited access regulations, that are in addition
to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations.
The IFQ Program was implemented in 1995 (58 FR 59375, November 9,
1993). Under the IFQ Program, access to the non-trawl sablefish and
halibut fisheries is limited to those persons holding quota share. The
IFQ Program allocates sablefish and halibut harvesting privileges among
U.S. fishermen. NMFS manages the IFQ Program pursuant to regulations at
50 CFR part 679 and 50 CFR part 300 under the authority of section 773c
of the Halibut Act and section 303(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The
proposed rule to implement Amendment 101 (81 FR 55408, August 19, 2016)
and Sections 3.1 and 4.5 of the Analysis (see ADDRESSES) provide
additional information on the IFQ Program and the GOA sablefish IFQ
fishery.
The Council recommended Amendment 101 to amend provisions of the
GOA FMP applicable to the sablefish IFQ fishery. The Council also
recommended implementing regulations applicable to the sablefish IFQ
fisheries. FMP amendments and regulations developed by the Council may
be implemented by NMFS only after approval by the Secretary. This final
rule also includes regulations developed by the Council under the
Halibut Act to authorize harvest of halibut IFQ caught incidentally in
longline pot gear used in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. Halibut
fishery regulations developed by the Council may be implemented by NMFS
only after approval of the Secretary in consultation with the United
States Coast Guard.
NMFS published a Notice of Availability for Amendment 101 in the
Federal Register on August 8, 2016 (81 FR 52394), with comments through
October 7, 2016. The Secretary approved Amendment 101 on November 4,
2016, after accounting for information, views, and comment from
interested persons, and determining that Amendment 101 is consistent
with the GOA FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendment 101 for the
sablefish IFQ fisheries and regulations to authorize harvest of halibut
IFQ caught in longline pot gear used in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery
on August 19, 2016 (81 FR 55408), with comments invited through
September 19, 2016. NMFS received 15 comment letters containing 29
unique substantive comments on the FMP amendment and proposed rule.
NMFS summarizes and responds to these comments in the Comments and
Responses section of this preamble.
A detailed review of the provisions of Amendment 101, the proposed
regulations to implement Amendment 101 and to authorize harvest of
halibut IFQ caught in longline pot gear used in the GOA sablefish IFQ
fishery, and the rationale for these regulations is provided in the
preamble to the proposed rule (81 FR 55408, August 19, 2016) and is
briefly summarized in this final rule preamble.
Amendment 101 and this final rule apply to the sablefish IFQ
fisheries in the GOA. The IFQ fisheries are prosecuted in accordance
with catch limits established by regulatory area. The regulatory areas
for the sablefish IFQ fishery in the GOA are the Southeast Outside
District of the GOA (SEO), West Yakutat District of the GOA (WY),
Central GOA (CGOA), and Western GOA (WGOA). The sablefish regulatory
areas are defined and shown in Figure 14 to part 679. This preamble
refers to these areas collectively as sablefish areas.
This final rule implements provisions that affect halibut IFQ
fisheries in the GOA. The halibut regulatory areas (halibut areas) are
defined by the IPHC, described in Section 6 of the annual management
measures (81 FR 14000, March 16, 2016), and shown in Figure 15 to part
679. The halibut areas in the GOA include Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, and part of
Area 4A. All of these areas except Area 4A are completely contained in
the GOA. The portion of Area 4A in waters south of the Aleutian
Islands, west of Area 3B and east of 170[deg] W. longitude, is included
in the WGOA sablefish area. This area includes the western part of the
WGOA sablefish area and a small strip along the eastern border (east of
170[deg] W. longitude) of the Aleutian Islands sablefish area in the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). This final rule
applies to the harvest of halibut IFQ when a vessel operator is using
longline pot gear to fish sablefish IFQ in all areas of the GOA. For
additional information on the sablefish and halibut areas in the GOA
see the proposed rule (81 FR 55408, August 19, 2016) and Figure 1 and
Figure 11 in the Analysis.
This final rule revises regulations to add longline pot gear as a
new authorized gear for catcher vessels and catcher/processors
participating in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. Prior to this final
rule, Sec. 679.2 authorized vessels in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery
to use only longline gear (e.g., hook-and-line gear). Longline pot gear
is pot gear with a stationary, buoyed, and anchored line with two or
more pots attached. Longline pot gear is often deployed as a series of
many pots attached together in a ``string'' of gear. For additional
information on longline gear and longline pot gear, see the definition
of Authorized Fishing Gear in Sec. 679.2. For information on the
history of gear use in the sablefish fishery in the GOA, see the
proposed rule (81 FR 55408, August 19, 2016) and Section 2.1.1 of the
Analysis.
Need for Amendment 101 and This Final Rule
Beginning in 2009, the Council and NMFS received reports from
sablefish IFQ fishermen that depredation was adversely impacting the
sablefish IFQ fleet in the GOA. The reports indicated that whales were
removing or damaging sablefish caught on hook-and-line gear
[[Page 95437]]
(depredation) before the gear was retrieved. Depredation has been
observed on sablefish longline surveys. Sperm whale depredation is most
common in the SEO, WY, and CGOA sablefish areas and killer whale
depredation is most common in the WGOA and BSAI. Section 3.4.1.1 of the
Analysis provides the most recent information on depredation in the
sablefish IFQ fishery, and Figure 17 in the Analysis shows a map of
observed depredation on sablefish longline surveys.
Participants in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery told the Council and
NMFS that authorizing longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ
fishery would reduce the adverse impacts of depredation for those
vessel operators who choose to switch from hook-and-line gear.
Depredation negatively impacts the sablefish IFQ fleet through reduced
catch rates and increased operating costs. Depredation also has
negative consequences for whales through increased risk of vessel
strike, gear entanglement, and altered foraging strategies. Longline
pot gear prevents depredation because whales cannot remove or damage
sablefish enclosed in a pot. The Council and NMFS determined that
interactions with whales throughout the GOA could affect the ability of
sablefish IFQ permit holders to harvest sablefish by reducing catch per
unit of effort and decreasing fishing costs. Section 1.2 of the
Analysis provides additional information on the Council's development
and recommendation of Amendment 101 and this final rule.
The following sections describe: (1) The sablefish IFQ fishery
provisions implemented with Amendment 101 and this final rule, (2) the
changes from proposed to final rule, and (3) NMFS' response to
comments.
GOA Sablefish IFQ Fishery Provisions Implemented With Amendment 101 and
This Final Rule
The objective of Amendment 101 and this final rule is to improve
efficiency in harvesting sablefish IFQ and reduce adverse economic
impacts on harvesters that occur from depredation. Amendment 101 and
this final rule will also mitigate impacts on sablefish IFQ harvesters
using hook-and-line gear by minimizing the potential for interactions
between hook-and-line gear and longline pot gear. Finally, Amendment
101 and this final rule will reduce whale and seabird interactions with
fishing gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.
This final rule implements regulations for the sablefish IFQ
fisheries in the GOA and regulations to authorize harvest of halibut
IFQ caught incidentally in longline pot gear used in the GOA sablefish
IFQ fishery.
This final rule revises regulations at 50 CFR parts 300 and 679 to
(1) authorize longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery, (2)
minimize the potential for gear conflicts and fishing grounds
preemption, and (3) require retention of halibut IFQ caught in longline
pot gear used in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. This final rule also
includes additional regulatory revisions to facilitate the
administration, monitoring, and enforcement of these provisions. This
section describes the changes to current regulations implemented by
this final rule.
Authorize Longline Pot Gear
This final rule revises Sec. Sec. 300.61, 679.2, 679.24, and
679.42 to authorize longline pot gear for use in the GOA sablefish IFQ
fishery. Additionally, this final rule revises the definition of
``Fixed gear'' under the definition of ``Authorized fishing gear'' at
Sec. 679.2(4)(i) to include longline pot gear as an authorized gear in
the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery and as an authorized gear for halibut IFQ
harvested in halibut areas in the GOA. Fixed gear is a general term
that describes the multiple gear types allowed to fish sablefish IFQ
and halibut IFQ under the IFQ Program and is referred to throughout 50
CFR part 679. This final rule adds Sec. 679.42(b)(1)(i) to further
clarify that trawl gear is not authorized for use in the sablefish and
halibut IFQ fisheries in the GOA and the BSAI. This final rule also
adds Sec. 679.42(b)(1)(ii) to clarify that pot-and-line gear is not
authorized for use in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. Pot-and-line gear
is pot gear with a stationary, buoyed line with a single pot attached.
This final rule revises the definition of ``Fishing'' at Sec.
300.61 to specify that the use of longline pot gear in any halibut area
in the GOA to harvest halibut IFQ will be subject to halibut
regulations at part 300. This final rule also revises the definition of
``IFQ halibut'' at Sec. 300.61 to specify that halibut IFQ may be
harvested with longline pot gear while commercial fishing in any
halibut area in the GOA. As described in the Require Retention of
Halibut IFQ Caught in Longline Pot Gear Used in the GOA Sablefish IFQ
Fishery section below, this final rule also adds Sec. 679.42(l)(6) to
require a vessel operator using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish
IFQ fishery to retain legal size (32 inches or greater) halibut caught
incidentally if any IFQ permit holder on board has sufficient halibut
IFQ pounds for the retained halibut for that halibut area.
This final rule revises Table 15 to part 679 to specify that
authorized gear for sablefish IFQ harvested from any GOA reporting area
includes longline pot gear in addition to all longline gear (i.e.,
hook-and-line, jig, troll, and handline). This final rule also revises
the table to specify that authorized gear for halibut harvest in the
GOA is fishing gear composed of lines with hooks attached and longline
pot gear.
Minimize Potential Gear Conflicts and Grounds Preemption
This final rule adds provisions at Sec. 679.42(l) to minimize the
potential for gear conflicts and grounds preemption and to create
general requirements for using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish
IFQ fishery.
This final rule establishes pot limits in each GOA sablefish area
at Sec. 679.42(l)(5) and requirements for vessel operators to request
pot tags from NMFS at Sec. 679.42(l)(3). Under this final rule, a
vessel operator must annually request pot tags from NMFS by submitting
a complete IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear: Vessel Registration and
Request for Pot Gear Tags form, which will be available on the NMFS
Alaska Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/. NMFS will
issue the number of requested tags up to the pot limit authorized at
Sec. 679.42(l)(5)(ii) in a sablefish area. The vessel owner requesting
pot tags must specify the vessel to which NMFS will assign the pot
tags. Pot tags must be assigned to only one vessel each year. A valid
pot tag that is assigned to the vessel must be attached to each pot on
board the vessel before the vessel departs port to fish in the GOA
sablefish IFQ fishery.
This final rule adds specific requirements for longline pot gear
deployment and retrieval in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. This final
rule implements Sec. 679.24(a)(3) to require a vessel operator to mark
each end of a set of longline pot gear with a cluster of four or more
marker buoys, including one hard buoy marked with the capital letters
``LP,'' a flag mounted on a pole, and a radar reflector. This
requirement is in addition to current requirements at Sec.
679.24(a)(1) and (2) for all hook-and-line, longline pot, and pot-and-
line marker buoys to be marked with the vessel's Federal Fisheries
Permit (FFP) number or Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
vessel registration number.
Under this final rule, a vessel operator may deploy longline pot
gear in the
[[Page 95438]]
GOA sablefish IFQ fishery only during the sablefish fishing period
specified in Sec. 679.23(g)(1). NMFS annually establishes the
sablefish fishing period to correspond with the halibut fishing period
established by the IPHC. Prior to this final rule, regulations at Sec.
679.23(g)(2) authorized an IFQ permit holder to retain sablefish
outside of the established fishing period if the permit holder had
unused IFQ for the specified sablefish area. This final rule revises
Sec. 679.23(g)(2) to specify that IFQ permit holders using longline
pot gear in the GOA are not authorized to retain sablefish outside of
the established fishing period even if the IFQ permit holder has unused
IFQ.
This final rule adds Sec. 679.42(l)(5)(iii) to establish gear
retrieval requirements for longline pot gear in each GOA sablefish
area. This final rule requires a vessel operator using longline pot
gear to redeploy longline pot gear within a certain amount of time
after being deployed, or to remove the gear from the fishing grounds
when making a sablefish landing.
This final rule allows multiple vessels to use the same longline
pot gear during one fishing season but prevents use of the same
longline pot gear simultaneously. To prevent use of the same longline
pot gear simultaneously, this final rule adds Sec. 679.42(l)(5)(iv) to
require a vessel operator to: (1) Remove longline pot gear assigned to
the vessel and deployed to fish sablefish IFQ from the fishing grounds,
(2) return the gear to port, and (3) remove the pot tags that are
assigned to that vessel from each pot before the gear may be used on
another vessel. The operator of the second vessel is required to attach
pot tags assigned to his or her vessel to each pot before deploying the
gear to fish for GOA sablefish IFQ. This final rule requires that only
one set of the appropriate vessel-specific pot tags may be attached to
the pots at any time.
Require Retention of Halibut IFQ Caught in Longline Pot Gear Used in
the GOA Sablefish IFQ Fishery
This final rule revises the definition of ``IFQ halibut'' in Sec.
679.2 to specify that halibut IFQ may be harvested with longline pot
gear while commercial fishing in any halibut area in the GOA.
Additionally, this rule adds Sec. 679.42(l)(6) to require a vessel
operator using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to
retain legal size halibut caught incidentally if any IFQ permit holder
on board has sufficient halibut IFQ pounds for the retained halibut for
that halibut area. Additionally, this final rule revises Sec.
679.7(a)(13) to specify the requirements for handling and release of
halibut that apply to vessels using longline pot gear in the GOA
sablefish IFQ fishery.
Recordkeeping and Reporting
This final rule adds Sec. 679.42(l)(7) to require a vessel
operator using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to
comply with logbook reporting requirements at Sec. 679.5(c) and vessel
monitoring system (VMS) requirements at Sec. 679.42(k).
The following table describes the revisions to Sec. 679.5.
Table 1--Description of Revisions to Sec. 679.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph in Sec. 679.5 Revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)(4)(i)......................... Require the operator of a vessel
less than 60 feet (18.3 m) length
overall (LOA) using longline pot
gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ
fishery to complete a logbook.
(c)(1)(vi)(B)..................... Clarify table footnote.
(c)(2)(iii)(A).................... Add missing word.
(c)(3)(i)(B)...................... Revise paragraphs (1) and (2) and
add paragraphs (3) through (5) to
specify logbook reporting
requirements for vessels in the GOA
and BSAI.
(c)(3)(ii)(A) and (B)............. Clarify tables describing current
logbook reporting requirements.
(c)(3)(iv)(A)(2) and (B)(2)....... Require the operator of a vessel
using longline pot gear to record
specific information in a Daily
Fishing Logbook or Daily Cumulative
Production Logbook each day the
vessel is active in the GOA
sablefish IFQ fishery.
(c)(3)(v)(G)...................... Require the operator of a
vessel using longline pot gear in
the GOA or the BSAI fishery to
record the length of a longline pot
set, the size of the pot, and
spacing of pots.
Clarify logbook reporting
requirements for gear information
for all vessels using longline and
pot gear.
(l)(1)(iii)....................... Add paragraphs (H) and (I) to
require the operator of a vessel
using longline pot gear in the GOA
sablefish IFQ fishery to record in
the Prior Notice of Landing the
gear type used, number of pots set,
number of pots lost, and number of
pots left on the fishing grounds
still fishing in addition to the
other information required under
current regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring and Enforcement
This final rule revises Sec. 679.7(a)(6) to prohibit deployment of
longline pot gear in the GOA outside of the sablefish fishing period.
Additionally, this final rule revises Sec. 679.7(a)(6)(i) to clarify
that vessels in the halibut IFQ fishery are subject to gear deployment
requirements specified by the IPHC in the annual management measures
pursuant to Sec. 300.62.
This final rule prohibits a vessel operator in the GOA from using
longline pot gear to harvest sablefish IFQ or halibut IFQ in the GOA
sablefish areas without having an operating VMS on board the vessel.
Additionally, this final rule revises Sec. 679.42(k)(2)(ii) to require
a vessel operator using longline pot gear to fish sablefish IFQ in the
GOA to contact NMFS to confirm that VMS transmissions are being
received from the vessel. The vessel operator is required to receive a
VMS confirmation number from NMFS before fishing in the sablefish IFQ
fishery.
Other Revisions
This final rule revises Sec. 679.20(a)(4) to replace an incorrect
reference to the sablefish total allowable catch (TAC) allocation to
hook-and-line gear with the correct reference to fixed gear, as defined
at Sec. 679.2, which includes hook-and-line and longline pot gear.
This final rule does not change the percent of the TAC allocated to the
sablefish IFQ fishery in the GOA. NMFS will continue to allocate 95
percent of the sablefish TAC in the Eastern GOA sablefish area, which
includes the SEO and WY, to vessels using fixed gear, and allocate 80
percent of the sablefish TACs in each of the CGOA and WGOA sablefish
areas to vessels using fixed gear.
This final rule revises Sec. 679.42(b)(2) to specify that an
operator of a vessel using hook-and-line gear to harvest sablefish IFQ,
halibut IFQ, or halibut Community Development Quota (CDQ) must comply
with seabird avoidance measures set forth in Sec. 679.24(e). This
final rule clarifies that vessel operators using longline pot gear in
the GOA sablefish
[[Page 95439]]
IFQ fishery are not required to comply with seabird avoidance measures
under this final rule.
This final rule revises Sec. 679.51(a), which contains
requirements for vessels in the partial coverage category of the North
Pacific Groundfish and Halibut Observer Program. This final rule
removes a specific reference to hook-and-line gear for vessels fishing
for halibut. This revision is needed because this final rule authorizes
the retention of halibut IFQ by vessels using longline pot gear in the
GOA. It is not necessary to specify authorized gear for halibut IFQ in
Sec. 679.51(a) because Sec. 679.50(a)(3) currently states that, for
purposes of subpart E, when the term halibut is used it refers to both
halibut IFQ and halibut CDQ, and the authorized gear for halibut is
specified in Sec. 679.2.
Changes From Proposed to Final Rule
NMFS made four changes to this final rule. The first change is in
response to comments received on the proposed rule. NMFS added Sec.
679.42(l)(5)(i)(C) to specify that the gear retrieval requirements in
Sec. 679.42 (l)(5)(iii) and (iv) apply to all longline pot gear that
is assigned to a vessel and deployed to fish sablefish IFQ and to all
other fishing equipment attached to longline pot gear that is deployed
in the water by the vessel to fish sablefish IFQ. This final rule also
specifies that ``all other fishing equipment attached to longline pot
gear'' includes, but is not limited to, equipment used to mark longline
pot gear as required in this final rule at Sec. 679.24(a)(3). This
change is described in more detail in the response to Comment 23 in the
Comments and Responses section below.
The second change clarifies the definition of Authorized Fishing
Gear at Sec. 679.2 (4)(iv) to specify that this final rule authorizes
a person using longline pot gear to retain halibut in the GOA if the
vessel operator is fishing for IFQ sablefish in accordance with the
provisions established at Sec. 679.42(l) for the use of longline pot
gear. These provisions establish area-specific pot limits and gear
retrieval requirements in addition to requirements for using pot tags
and marking longline pot gear on the fishing grounds. This change
clarifies that authorization of longline pot gear for halibut is
limited to longline pot gear used in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery in
accordance with Sec. 679.42(l) and does not apply to other groundfish
fisheries in the GOA.
The third change clarifies Sec. 679.42(l)(6)(i)(A) to specify that
a vessel operator using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ
fishery must retain legal size halibut if the halibut is caught in the
GOA sablefish IFQ fishery in accordance with the provisions established
at Sec. 679.42(l) for the use of longline pot gear and an IFQ permit
holder on board the vessel has unused halibut IFQ for the appropriate
regulatory area and vessel category. As described for the second change
to this final rule in the previous paragraph, this change clarifies
that the requirement to retain halibut caught in longline pot gear used
in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery in accordance with Sec. 679.42(l) is
limited to the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery and does not apply to other
groundfish fisheries in the GOA.
The fourth change replaces ``and'' with ``or'' in Sec.
679.7(f)(18)(i) in this final rule. This change clarifies that it is
prohibited for a vessel operator to deploy, conduct fishing with,
retrieve, or retain IFQ sablefish or IFQ halibut from longline pot gear
in the GOA either in excess of the pot limits specified in Sec.
679.42(l)(5)(ii) or without a pot tag attached to each pot in
accordance with Sec. 679.42(l)(4). The proposed rule incorrectly
specified that a vessel operator would be in violation of Sec.
679.7(f)(18) only if he or she deployed, conducted fishing with, or
retrieved longline pot gear in the GOA in excess of the pot limits
specified and without a pot tag attached to each pot. Changing ``and''
to ``or'' in Sec. 679.7(f)(18)(i) in this final rule is necessary to
implement the Council's and NMFS' intent that vessel operators are
required to comply with both the pot limit and pot tag requirements,
and that failure to comply with either of these requirements would be a
violation of the regulations.
Comments and Responses
NMFS received 15 comment letters containing 29 specific comments,
which are summarized and responded to below. The commenters consisted
of individuals, sablefish IFQ fishery participants and industry groups
representing fishermen using hook-and-line gear in the GOA, and an
environmental organization.
Comment 1: I do not support this action because sablefish is being
overharvested and this is having negative impacts on marine mammals.
NMFS should ban all fishing in this area and cut the sablefish quota to
zero.
Response: NMFS disagrees. Sablefish is not subject to overfishing,
is not overfished, and TACs are set in a precautionary manner. The
current harvest specifications process and authorities for in-season
management prevent overfishing and provide for the GOA sablefish IFQ
fishery to achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis. As described in
the proposed rule and Section 3.1.1.2 of the Analysis, under Amendment
101 and this final rule, harvest of sablefish IFQ will be authorized
only during the sablefish fishing period specified at Sec.
679.23(g)(1) and established by the Council and NMFS through the annual
harvest specifications (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016). Amendment 101 and
this final rule do not change conservation and management of the GOA
sablefish fishery.
Section 3.4 of the Analysis describes that the current GOA
groundfish fisheries, which includes the sablefish IFQ fishery, do not
have an adverse impact on marine mammals. The Council and NMFS
considered the impacts of Amendment 101 and this final rule on marine
mammals and determined that they do not have an effect on marine
mammals beyond those already expected from the GOA groundfish fisheries
(see the response to Comment 2).
Comment 2: NMFS should prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) for Amendment 101 because of its potential effect on humpback
whales and North Pacific right whales. The draft EA is inadequate
because it fails to analyze potential impacts of sablefish pot gear in
the GOA on marine mammals that are listed as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), specifically humpback whales (Megaptera
novaeangliae) and North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica).
Response: NMFS prepared a draft EA to determine whether the
environmental impact of the proposed action was significant. Section
3.4 of the draft EA discussed the impact of the proposed action on
marine mammals. In response to this comment, NMFS has revised this
section of the EA to provide additional information on North Pacific
right whales and humpback whales. Based on the analysis in the final
EA, NMFS continues to conclude that Amendment 101 and this final rule
will not have a significant impact on the human environment, including
humpback whales and North Pacific right whales. Therefore, NMFS is not
required to prepare an EIS under the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act.
Comment 3: There is evidence of pot fishing gear entangling
Atlantic right whales and humpback whales. NMFS should consider using
entanglement information from other fisheries outside of Alaska as a
proxy for potential impacts of the proposed action on North Pacific
right whales.
Response: Section 3.4 of the EA presents information on
observations of
[[Page 95440]]
marine mammal entanglements in Alaska. NMFS considered entanglement
information from similar fisheries using pot gear in the GOA and Bering
Sea as these fisheries are likely more analogous to the GOA sablefish
IFQ longline pot gear fishery than fisheries in other regions where
potential interactions between fisheries and marine mammal species may
differ from interactions in Alaska. Species distribution and abundance
information from the GOA provides more informative indications as to
the probability of fishery interactions with marine mammals than data
from other regions or oceans. While fishery interactions and
entanglements of right whales are known to occur in the North Atlantic,
no North Pacific right whale interactions are known to have occurred in
the North Pacific fisheries despite considerable fishing effort.
Therefore, NMFS disagrees that the North Atlantic data are a more
reasonable proxy than the best available data on fishery interactions
with North Pacific right whales in the North Pacific fisheries.
Comment 4: NMFS must consult under section 7 of the ESA and publish
a biological opinion including an incidental take statement for ESA-
listed species likely to interact with longline pot gear in the GOA
sablefish fishery. The commenter states that due to the absence of a
biological opinion on the effect of the proposed action on ESA-listed
species, the draft EA does not provide the public with a complete
documentation of the environmental impacts associated with this action.
The commenter states that NMFS should reopen the public comment period
if this consultation, or any other ongoing analysis that may affect
NMFS' decision-making process, adds critical new information to the
record.
Response: NMFS revised Section 3.4 of the EA to summarize
information on ESA section 7 consultations (consultations) that have
been conducted to assess the effects of the GOA groundfish fisheries on
ESA-listed species. Although the EA describes these consultations, the
results of these consultations have been publicly available on the NMFS
Alaska Region Web site at: www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. Amendment 101
and this final rule do not modify the GOA groundfish fisheries in a
manner that will cause effects on listed species or designated critical
habitat that have not been considered in previous consultations. Based
on the information in section 3.4.1.2 of the analysis, the overall
likelihood of entanglement of listed marine mammals in longline pot
gear is no greater than the likelihood of listed marine mammal
entanglement in the hook-and-line gear currently used in the sablefish
IFQ fishery.
The summary of information available in Section 3.4 of the EA does
not affect NMFS' decision-making process or add critical new
information to the record that would require NMFS to publish a new
proposed rule or extend the public comment period.
Comment 5: NMFS should analyze whether a negligible impact
determination (NID) is appropriate for the GOA sablefish IFQ longline
pot gear fishery under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) because
of its similarity to the sablefish pot fishery along the west coast of
the United States (California, Oregon, and Washington).
Response: NMFS publishes an annual List of Fisheries (LOF) in which
all commercial fisheries in the United States are categorized according
to the level of serious injury and mortality to marine mammals relative
to the health of each marine mammal stock. Category I fisheries are
considered to have the greatest impact on a marine mammal stock's
health, Category II fisheries have some impact on a marine mammal
stock's health, and Category III fisheries have the least impact. These
categories are used to make management decisions, as needed, to monitor
and adjust fisheries' impacts on marine mammal populations. Under MMPA
section 118, participants in Category I through III commercial
fisheries are granted an exemption from the MMPA prohibition on
incidental takes of marine mammal not listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA. NMFS will include the GOA sablefish IFQ
longline pot gear fishery in the 2018 LOF analysis to place this
fishery in the appropriate LOF category. In the meantime, once this
final rule becomes effective, the new GOA sablefish IFQ logline pot
gear fishery will be automatically considered a Category II fishery, as
directed by regulation (50 CFR 229.2).
Permits authorizing the incidental take of ESA-listed species in
U.S. commercial fisheries may be granted under MMPA section
101(a)(5)(E). One criterion required to issue such permits is a NID. A
NID is issued if NMFS determines that all commercial fisheries
identified in the annual LOF, collectively, have a negligible impact on
any ESA-listed marine mammal stock for which a take permit is proposed
to be issued. A negligible impact is defined (50 CFR 216.103) as an
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
NMFS issued a NID for fishery impacts on marine mammals in Alaska
on June 23, 2016, and NMFS issued permits under the authority of
section 101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA for the incidental taking of ESA-
listed species effective for a three-year period (June 23, 2016, 81 FR
40870). Because the new GOA sablefish IFQ longline pot gear fishery has
not yet commenced, information is not available to make a NID on the
impacts of this fishery on ESA-listed marine mammals in Alaska. The use
of the U.S. west coast sablefish pot fishery as a surrogate for the GOA
sablefish IFQ longline pot gear fishery in a NID, as suggested by the
comment, would be inappropriate due to differences in geography,
fishery operations, and marine mammal species distribution. Information
on marine mammal interactions with the new GOA sablefish IFQ longline
pot gear fishery will be incorporated and considered when NMFS begins
analysis during the review of the current NID applicable to Alaskan
fisheries.
Comment 6: The commenter urges NMFS to set aside areas in the GOA
where pot gear is prohibited in order to protect the North Pacific
right whale from entanglement. The commenter states that the North
Pacific right whale population is estimated to be very low, and that
any serious injury or mortality would have population level effects.
The commenter urged NMFS to close North Pacific right whale critical
habitat in the GOA to minimize the extent of fishing gear interactions.
Response: As summarized in Section 3.4 of the EA, NMFS has
concluded that this action is not likely to affect the North Pacific
right whale or its designated critical habitat in a manner or to an
extent not already considered in prior ESA section 7 consultations on
the GOA groundfish fisheries. In 2006, NMFS determined that the GOA
groundfish fisheries are not likely to adversely affect right whales.
NMFS reaffirmed this determination when critical habitat was designated
for the North Pacific right whale in 2008. There are no recorded
instances of North Pacific right whale entanglements with hook-and-line
gear or longline pot gear in the Alaska groundfish fishery. Section
3.4.1.2 of the EA analyzes the potential overlap of the sablefish
fishery with areas of known North Pacific right whale observations and
critical habitat. The analysis found that the sablefish fishery occurs
at depths much deeper than designated North Pacific right whale
critical habitat, so neither the hook-and-line gear nor the longline
pot
[[Page 95441]]
gear sablefish fishery is likely to adversely affect North Pacific
right whales or the designated critical habitat. Based on this
analysis, NMFS concludes that there is likely to be no overlap between
GOA sablefish longline pot gear and North Pacific right whale critical
habitat. The commenter's proposal to close North Pacific right whale
critical habitat to longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery
to protect North Pacific right whales from entanglement is not
supported by the available data.
Comment 7: The use of pot gear in the GOA sablefish fishery is
likely to entangle humpback whales based on comparisons to the
sablefish pot fisheries operating off the west coast of the U.S. and in
the BSAI. The EA must consider entanglement of humpback whales in the
analysis of cumulative impacts. The use of sablefish pot gear in the
GOA is likely to increase entanglements for the Hawaii, Mexico, and
western North Pacific humpback whale ESA-listed distinct population
segments and moderately reduce population size or growth rate.
Response: NMFS revised Section 3.4 of the EA to describe the
anticipated effects of longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ
fishery, including entanglement of marine mammals, in response to this
comment. The analysis shows there were no documented marine mammal
interactions in the Bering Sea IFQ sablefish longline pot fishery or
the BSAI Pacific cod longline pot fishery from 2008 through 2012. Based
on this best available data for longline pot gear in the BSAI sablefish
IFQ pot fishery and in other existing longline pot fisheries in the
GOA, NMFS determines that the longline pot gear that may be deployed
under the final rule in lieu of hook-and-line gear is not likely to
increase the risk of entanglements of humpback whales relative to
status quo. Based on the information in the analysis, NMFS determined
that the GOA groundfish fisheries are not likely to have population-
level effects on humpback whales.
Comment 8: The biological opinions prepared for the west coast
sablefish pot fishery include terms and conditions to mitigate
potential entanglement with whales that should be required by NMFS for
the GOA sablefish pot fishery. These terms and conditions include
electronic monitoring and logbook reporting requirements to report lost
gear, a database to track fishery effort, analysis on the magnitude of
lost pot gear and factors that may influence loss, and analysis of gear
deployment and overlap with large whale migrations of aggregations.
Response: Many of the monitoring requirements and analyses
referenced by the commenter in the biological opinions assessing the
west coast sablefish pot fishery are addressed through existing
regulations, or are required under this final rule. This final rule
also includes additional monitoring provisions.
This final rule requires the use of logbooks to record data on pot
gear deployment and loss at Sec. 679.5(c). Specifically, a vessel
operator using longline pot gear in the GOA must record the length of a
longline pot set, the size of the pot, the spacing of pots, number of
pots set, number of pots lost, and number of pots left on the fishing
grounds still fishing, in addition to the other information required
under current regulations. Additionally, this final rule at Sec.
679.42(k) requires a vessel operator to use a VMS while using longline
pot gear to fish for sablefish in the GOA. VMS monitors the location
and movement of commercial fishing vessels in Federal fisheries off
Alaska. Further, a vessel operator using longline pot gear in the GOA
is subject to observer coverage under the North Pacific Groundfish and
Halibut Observer Program.
NMFS has developed analytical tools and databases to analyze all
fishery data that NMFS collects, including the new data collected under
this final rule. NMFS is able to assess the amount of catch, effort,
and areas where longline pot gear is deployed in the GOA sablefish IFQ
fishery with existing analytic methods. NMFS will have the fishery data
necessary to compare longline pot gear deployment with available
information on areas of large whale migrations. The Council and NMFS
are currently analyzing the use of electronic monitoring for pot gear.
Under a separate analytical and regulatory process, the Council and
NMFS may consider the use of electronic monitoring for vessels using
longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.
Comment 9: Measures to protect Atlantic right whales from
entanglement by pot gear have been recommended by the Marine Mammal
Commission, and those should be considered by NMFS for the GOA
sablefish pot fishery. These measures include gear marking
requirements, and closing areas likely to be used by Atlantic right
whales. NMFS also should consider the applicability of mitigation
measures suggested in the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan to
the GOA sablefish pot fishery.
Response: This final rule implements additional gear marking
requirements for vessels using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish
IFQ fishery. Under this final rule at Sec. 679.24(a), each vessel
operator must attach a cluster of four or more marker buoys, a flag
mounted on a pole, and a radar reflector to each end of a longline pot
set. This final rule requires vessel operators to add the initials
``LP'' for ``Longline Pot'' to one hard buoy in the buoy cluster in
addition to the FFP number of the vessel deploying the gear, or the
ADF&G vessel registration number. This will distinguish buoys for hook-
and-line gear from buoys for longline pot gear. As stated in the
response to Comment 6, closing areas to the use of longline pot gear in
the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery is unnecessary. Section 3.4 of the EA
summarizes the history of ESA section 7 consultations conducted for GOA
groundfish fisheries. Based on these conclusions, additional management
measures such as those described by the Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Plan do not appear to be applicable or warranted. However, if
information becomes available that indicates whales are interacting
with this fishery, NMFS will take appropriate measures pursuant to the
MMPA and, for listed whales, the ESA.
Comment 10: NMFS should prohibit the use of hook-and-line gear in
the sablefish fishery in favor of longline pot gear. NMFS should not
allow fishermen to continue to use the gear just because they have made
economic investments in using that harvesting method. NMFS must achieve
maximum sustainable yield from the sablefish fishery with the greatest
harvesting efficiency and lowest impact to the environment, and hook-
and-line gear does not achieve this due to current levels of
depredation and interactions with whales and seabirds. Furthermore,
hook-and-line gear is inefficient from a fuel and manpower perspective
because it requires constantly retrieving the lines. Longline pot gear
allows pots to soak on the fishing grounds and provides for more
efficient catch of fish because smaller fish can swim out of the pot
and whales cannot get to the sablefish inside the pots. More efficient
harvest benefits the end consumer because they can purchase fish at
lower cost.
Response: Amendment 101 and this final rule are intended to balance
multiple objectives: Improve harvesting efficiency and reduce adverse
economic impacts from depredation to harvesters in the sablefish IFQ
fishery, mitigate impacts on sablefish IFQ fishermen using hook-and-
line gear by minimizing the potential for interactions between
[[Page 95442]]
hook-and-line gear and longline pot gear, and reduce sablefish IFQ
fishery whale and seabird interactions with fishing gear. Amendment 101
and this final rule balance these objectives consistent with the
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Amendment 101 and this final rule are consistent with National
Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires conservation and
management measures to prevent overfishing while achieving optimum
yield on a continuing basis (section 301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act). Optimum yield is based on maximum sustainable yield, reduced as
appropriate for social and economic factors for the relevant fishery
(81 FR 71858, October 18, 2016). The Council and NMFS achieve optimum
yield in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery by establishing annual catch
limits at sustainable levels and establishing management measures for
the fishery that meet a number of social and economic goals, including
maintaining a diverse fleet of fishing vessels and a broad distribution
of economic benefits to fishermen, processors, and communities that
participate in the fishery (see Sections 3.1 and 4.5 of the Analysis).
As described in the response to Comment 1, Amendment 101 and this final
rule do not change the current process for establishing annual catch
limits or the management measures that have been established to meet
specific social and economic goals for the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.
As described in the response to Comment 1, the proposed rule, and
Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the Analysis, the Council and NMFS have
determined that the current GOA sablefish IFQ fishery prosecuted with
hook-and-line gear does not adversely affect whales and seabirds.
Amendment 101 and this final rule do not change the management measures
established for the hook-and-line sablefish IFQ fishery in the GOA that
are intended to reduce fishery interactions with whales and seabirds.
The proposed rule and Section 2.1.1 of the Analysis describe that
sablefish can be caught efficiently with hook-and-line and pot gear. In
recommending Amendment 101 and this final rule, the Council and NMFS
recognized that hook-and-line gear will continue to be an effective
harvesting method for many vessels in the sablefish IFQ fishery.
Authorizing fishermen to use longline pot or hook-and-line gear in the
GOA sablefish IFQ fishery provides each vessel operator with the choice
to determine which type of gear is appropriate for their operation and
gives them the flexibility to determine the most cost effective method
for harvesting sablefish IFQ. The proposed rule and Section 4.9.2 of
the Analysis describe that the costs of converting to longline pot gear
can be substantial, and some vessels in the sablefish IFQ fishery will
not be able to convert because of vessel length or other factors.
Amendment 101 and this final rule balance the needs of sablefish IFQ
fishery participants by providing vessel operators with the opportunity
to use longline pot gear if it would benefit their harvesting operation
by reducing interactions with whales.
NMFS acknowledges that while the costs of harvesting operations
could impact the price that consumers pay for sablefish in the market,
fishing gear is just one cost component for a harvesting operation.
NMFS does not have information indicating the sablefish harvested with
longline pot gear will result in reduced consumer prices relative to
sablefish caught with hook-and-line gear.
Comment 11: NMFS received comments that provided general support
for Amendment 101, but noted specific concerns about the proposed rule.
One commenter supported the authorization of longline pot gear in the
GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to improve efficiency in harvesting
sablefish, reduce adverse economic impacts on harvesters that occur
from depredation, and reduce fishery interactions with whales. The
commenter stated that a large number of vessels in the sablefish IFQ
fleet will not be able to use the gear because the economic cost of
converting to pots is uncertain and potentially substantial. The
commenter stated that vessels that are 50 feet LOA or less generally
cannot use longline pot gear because they cannot safely carry, deploy,
and retrieve pots. The commenter expressed concern that the
introduction of longline pot gear could result in gear conflicts and
grounds preemption and disadvantage vessels that continue to use hook-
and-line gear by reducing the amount of available fishing grounds and
increasing the costs of harvesting sablefish IFQ for these vessels.
One commenter acknowledged that the use of longline pot gear likely
would reduce depredation, but opposed the reintroduction of longline
pot gear to the GOA sablefish fishing grounds, particularly in the SEO
and WY. The commenter stated that the potential negative impacts of
introducing longline pot gear on vessel operators that continue to use
hook-and-line gear would outweigh the benefits because the proposed
rule did not contain adequate measures to mitigate the negative impacts
of introducing longline pot gear to the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the general support for Amendment 101.
As described in the response to Comment 10, Amendment 101 and this
final rule are intended to balance multiple objectives: Improve
harvesting efficiency and reduce adverse economic impacts from
depredation to harvesters in the sablefish IFQ fishery, mitigate
impacts on sablefish IFQ fishermen using hook-and-line gear by
minimizing the potential for interactions between hook-and-line gear
and longline pot gear, and reduce sablefish IFQ fishery whale and
seabird interactions with fishing gear.
The proposed rule (81 FR 55408, August 19, 2016) and the Analysis
(see ADDRESSES) describe that the Council and NMFS considered the
impacts of this action on vessels that continue to use hook-and-line
gear. Although it is not possible to know how many sablefish fishermen
will choose to use longline pot gear instead of hook-and-line gear in
the GOA, the Council and NMFS considered information in the Analysis
and public testimony to determine that the likelihood of gear conflicts
and grounds preemption under Amendment 101 and this final rule is low.
Section 4.10 of the Analysis indicates that the Council recognized
that pot gear had previously been permitted in the GOA sablefish
fishery but was prohibited in 1985 by Amendment 14 to the GOA FMP (50
FR 43193, October 24, 1985). During deliberation on Amendment 101 and
this final rule, the Council noted that its decision to prohibit pot
gear in Amendment 14 was based on fishery data and scientific
information on depredation that is not reflective of the present
fishery. Reports and observations of depredation of hook-and-line gear
have increased since 1985 (see Section 3.4 of the Analysis), and the
fishery has been managed under the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program
since 1995. The existing management program for the fishery provides
substantially more flexibility on when and where to harvest sablefish
and allows for coordination and cooperation within the fleet. In
addition, all fishermen have an economic incentive to avoid gear
conflicts on the fishing grounds because these conflicts can result in
costs through lost gear and lost fishing time (see Section 4.10 of the
Analysis).
In spite of these factors mitigating the potential for gear
conflicts, the Council and NMFS received public testimony noting the
potential negative impacts of
[[Page 95443]]
authorizing longline pot gear on vessels that continue to use hook-and-
line gear. As a result, the Council recommended and NMFS included area-
specific management measures in this final rule to address these
concerns. These management measures are discussed in detail in the
proposed rule, and in Sections 4.9.3, 4.9.4, and 4.9.5 of the Analysis.
These area-specific management measures were developed with input from
the Sablefish Gear Committee that included participants in the
sablefish IFQ fishery. Input from the Sablefish Gear Committee, the
Council's advisory bodies, public testimony, and the Analysis were used
to develop the area-specific management measures implemented in this
final rule to meet the Council's objective to provide an opportunity
for fishermen to use longline pot gear while minimizing the potential
for negative impacts on vessels that use hook-and-line gear.
The proposed rule and Section 4.9.2 of the Analysis describe that
it is highly likely that a portion of the existing GOA sablefish IFQ
fleet will continue to use hook-and-line gear, due to cost constraints,
vessel size constraints, or both. NMFS agrees with the commenters that
the costs of reconfiguration likely will be prohibitive for many vessel
operators and this outcome is supported by the proposed rule and
Section 4.9.8.1 of the Analysis. The proposed rule and the Analysis
also describe the feasibility of converting to longline pot gear with
respect to vessel size. Section 4.9.8.1 of the Analysis notes that
based on information from other groundfish pot fisheries, vessels less
than 50 feet LOA may be less likely to use longline pot gear in the GOA
sablefish IFQ fishery than larger vessels. After considering this
information, the Council determined and NMFS agrees that the number of
vessels that convert to longline pot gear is likely to be small in
comparison to those that will continue using hook-and-line gear, which
will reduce the potential for gear conflicts and grounds preemption
under Amendment 101 and this final rule.
The proposed rule and Section 4.10 of the Analysis describe that in
recommending Amendment 101 and this final rule the Council expressed
its intent to monitor the use of longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish
IFQ fishery to determine if Amendment 101 and this final rule are
meeting its objectives. The Council requested that NMFS provide an
annual report on the use of longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ
fishery following implementation of this final rule. The Council also
indicated that it will conduct a review of the effects of authorizing
longline pot gear three years following implementation of this final
rule. The Council stated that the intent of the review is to evaluate
the impacts of this action on sablefish harvesting, depredation, and
vessels that continue to harvest sablefish with hook-and-line gear.
During deliberation on Amendment 101 and this final rule, the Council
specifically noted that its three-year review will evaluate whether the
use of longline pot gear has impacted fishing community participation
in the fishery or prices of sablefish quota share that might adversely
affect new entrants or small-scale operators looking to grow their
business. This review will provide the Council and NMFS the opportunity
to assess potential gear conflicts under this final rule. Nothing in
Amendment 101 or this final rule would preclude the Council and NMFS
from considering action to further reduce gear conflicts through a
subsequent action if the review indicates that such action is
necessary.
Comment 12: We think there is substantial risk for conflicts
between longline pot and hook-and-line gear under Amendment 101 and the
proposed rule. There is widespread evidence of past gear conflicts
based on previous Council actions to prohibit longline pot gear as
described in the proposed rule preamble. Although these conflicts
occurred before the IFQ Program was implemented, they also occurred
when the sablefish season was open throughout the spring and summer in
the early 1980s.
The foreign fishing fleets (active prior to the 1980s) lost or
abandoned a substantial amount of pot gear in the SEO many years ago
and despite continued efforts by the fishing fleet to remove it from
the fishing grounds, the lost and abandoned pot gear continues to
preempt grounds off Sitka. Longline gear set near these lost pots still
on occasion drift to tangle with the lost pots. Attempts to retrieve
gear tangled with these pots are dangerous, with tremendous strain on
the boat trying to haul the gear, and the end result is more lost gear
and lost fish.
Letters submitted to the Pacific Fishery Management Council provide
evidence of present gear conflicts, safety issues, and grounds
preemption driven by the entrance of three boats using longline pot
gear in what has historically been hook-and-line grounds. This issue is
clearly important because the Council's Sablefish Gear Committee spent
most of its time talking about gear conflicts and how to minimize
anticipated conflicts.
Response: The Council and NMFS carefully considered the impacts of
gear conflicts and grounds preemption when developing Amendment 101 and
this final rule, including input from the Council's Sablefish Gear
Committee, its advisory bodies, and public testimony. Section 2.1.1 of
the Analysis and the final rule to implement Amendment 14 to the GOA
FMP (50 FR 43193, October 24, 1985) describe the issues summarized in
the comment. As described in the response to Comment 11, the Council
and NMFS believe that management under the IFQ Program has
substantially changed the likelihood of gear conflicts, grounds
preemption, and safety issues overall in the sablefish IFQ fishery, and
particularly related to the introduction of longline pot gear.
The proposed rule and Section 5.1 of the Analysis describe that the
Council and NMFS carefully considered the impacts of Amendment 101 and
this final rule on the safety of human life at sea, consistent with
National Standard 10 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The impacts of
Amendment 101 and this final rule on safety are also considered in
Section 4 of the Analysis. While some participants in the hook-and-line
fleet raised safety concerns to the Council and NMFS related to
carrying longline pot gear on small vessels, the use of longline pot
gear will be voluntary, not mandatory, under this final rule. Section
2.4 of the Analysis describes that the Council and NMFS considered the
impacts of this action on safety in developing the requirements for
vessels to use longline pot gear instead of pot-and-line gear at Sec.
679.2 and the gear retrieval requirements at Sec. 679.42(l)(5)(iii).
The response to Comment 11 details the management measures included
in this final rule to minimize the potential for gear conflicts and
grounds preemption. This final rule limits the amount of longline pot
gear that may be deployed to limit potential gear conflicts on an area-
specific basis, and defines the maximum amount of time that longline
pot gear may be left on the fishing grounds in the WY, CGOA and WGOA.
This final rule requires vessels fishing in the SEO to remove their
longline pot gear from the fishing grounds when making a delivery. In
developing that recommendation for the SEO, the Council noted that SEO
sablefish fishing grounds are limited relative to other areas, and
allowing longline pot gear to be left on the grounds when a vessel
leaves the fishing grounds to make a delivery may create safety hazards
by increasing the likelihood of gear conflict relative to other areas
in the GOA.
In addition, the Council recommended and NMFS is
[[Page 95444]]
implementing gear marking requirements in this final rule at Sec.
679.24(a)(3) to make longline pot gear more visible on the fishing
grounds to further minimize the potential for gear conflicts and
grounds preemption, which promotes safety for all vessels.
The Council recommended and this final rule implements gear
deployment and retrieval requirements that balance the objectives of
Amendment 101 and this final rule.
Comment 13: We believe the Council and NMFS should not allow the
use of longline pot gear throughout the GOA throughout the entire year.
The Analysis repeatedly states that the impacts of allowing pots into
the sablefish fishery are poorly understood. We request that the
proposed rule be amended to prohibit the use of longline pot gear in
the SEO and WY during April and again between August 15 and September
15 to provide two months of the year in which hook-and-line fishermen
could harvest sablefish without the potential for gear conflicts or
grounds preemption.
Response: NMFS did not change this final rule in response to this
comment. This final rule authorizes longline pot gear at any time
during the GOA sablefish IFQ season authorized by Sec. 679.23(g). The
Council and NMFS considered and rejected a prohibition on the use of
longline pot gear in the SEO during specific months of the year as part
of this action. As described in Section 2.4 of the Analysis, it is
likely that the prohibition will have an undetermined impact on some
sablefish IFQ fishermen using longline pot or hook-and-line gear that
was not considered in the development of Amendment 101 or the proposed
rule. Therefore, NMFS did not change this final rule in response to
this comment.
Comment 14: We believe conservation arguments relative to whale
predation have been exaggerated and our significant experience with
sperm whale interactions with the sablefish fishery informs our
conclusions. We think that proponents of Amendment 101 have overstated
the negative impacts of depredation on the sablefish survey and on
catch accounting in the sablefish fishery. The sablefish stock is
neither overfished nor subject to overfishing. Studies on loss to sperm
whale depredation in the commercial hook-and-line fisheries in Alaska
is estimated at 2.2 percent of total groundfish catch based on visual
evidence of torn or partial fish, which is likely a low estimate, but
is still the best available information.
The Analysis identifies a number of unknown potential impacts on
the use of longline pot gear on both the sablefish survey (conflicts
between the survey and pots have occurred in the past) and potential
impacts on the sablefish stock of increased harvest with pots. The
Analysis notes that sablefish length and possibly age composition
information would be needed for harvests in pot gear before the stock
assessment authors could evaluate the potential effects of introducing
pot gear on the sablefish stock and stock assessment. These unknowns
argue for a cautious, phased-in and experimental approach to allowing
this new gear type.
Response: NMFS disagrees. The Council and NMFS considered the
information in Section 4.8.1 of the Analysis and public testimony to
determine that depredation is negatively impacting harvesting
efficiency for some vessel operators. The Council determined and NMFS
agrees that allowing vessel operators to voluntarily use longline pot
gear could address the negative impacts described in the Analysis and
in public testimony.
The Analysis describes that killer whale interactions are most
common in the BSAI and the WGOA, while sperm whale interactions are
most common in the CGOA, WY, and SEO. Section 3.4.1.1 of the Analysis
provides best available information on depredation in this fishery.
While depredation events are difficult to observe, fishery participants
have testified to the Council that depredation continues to be a major
cost to the sablefish IFQ fishery, and appears to be occurring more
frequently. Industry groups have tested gear modifications to limit the
impact of depredation on hook-and-line gear catch per unit effort, and
reported those efforts to the Sablefish Gear Committee and the Council.
Nevertheless, depredation continues to result in lost sablefish catch,
increased fishing time as vessel operators wait for whales to leave the
area before hauling gear, or increased time and fuel to relocate to
avoid whales. Section 4.7 of the Analysis includes a summary of efforts
to mitigate depredation in Alaska and elsewhere.
NMFS agrees with the commenter that the sablefish stock is not
overfished and is not subject to overfishing. The Council and NMFS
considered the impacts of Amendment 101 and this final rule on the
sablefish stock. The proposed rule and Section 3.1.1.2 of the Analysis
describe that Amendment 101 and this final rule are not expected to
have significant impacts on the sablefish stock. The Analysis describes
that although some benefit likely will occur because unaccounted
fishing mortality due to depredation will be reduced as sablefish IFQ
fishermen voluntarily switch from hook-and-line longline gear to
longline pot gear, the potential impact of reduced depredation may be
difficult to measure given overall trends in sablefish recruitment.
Section 3.1.1.2 of the Analysis notes that the sablefish stock
assessment authors considered the impacts of the introduction of
longline pot gear on the sablefish stock assessment. The stock
assessment authors considered whether the fish size selectivity of
longline pot gear would be different from hook-and-line gear using
information from the BSAI, where pot gear has been authorized in the
sablefish IFQ fishery since 2008 (73 FR 28733, May 19, 2008). Some
evidence exists to suggest a difference in the length frequency of
sablefish caught with pot gear compared to hook-and-line gear, with
hook-and-line gear producing slightly larger sablefish on average (see
Figure 6 in Section 3.1.1.2 of the Analysis). However, the Analysis
concludes that this difference in sizes was observed at the BSAI area-
wide level and the size differences likely can be attributed to
differences in sablefish sizes among sub-areas of the BSAI. The
Analysis also notes that longline pot and hook-and-line gear are set at
similar depths in the BSAI and the sex ratio of the catch is comparable
for both gears. After considering this information, the sablefish stock
assessment authors determined that the difference in lengths selected
by longline pot and hook-and-line gear is not significant enough to
affect population recruitment. Overall, existing evidence does not
suggest that the introduction of longline gear pot under Amendment 101
and this final rule will impact the annual sablefish stock assessment.
NMFS notes that this final rule does not change observer coverage
requirements for vessels fishing in the sablefish IFQ fisheries
(Sec. Sec. 679.50 through 679.55). Therefore, NMFS will collect
information on length and age composition for sablefish caught in
longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery, and this
information will be used in the annual assessment to determine that
status of the sablefish stock.
Comment 15: The proposed rule cites reduced catch per unit effort
as a result of depredation. We note that the catch per unit effort is
currently more than twice as high in the SEO as it is in the WGOA,
which indicates that depredation may not be negatively impacting catch
per unit effort in some areas, and authorizing longline pot gear may
not be necessary in those areas.
[[Page 95445]]
Response: NMFS agrees that it is not possible to determine if
Amendment 101 and this final rule will increase sablefish catch per
unit effort for those vessels that use longline pot gear relative to
vessels that use hook-and-line gear. Section 4.9.2 of the Analysis
describes that the relative benefit of using longline pot gear fishing
as opposed to hook-and-line gear is either unclear or is conditional on
factors that cannot be forecasted in the Analysis because longline pot
gear has been prohibited in the fishery for many years. Those external
factors include the local biomass distribution of sablefish in the
future, changes in future product markets, and the future behavior of
marine mammals, particularly depredating whales. Based on available
information, the Analysis does not definitively state whether fishing
with longline pot gear will generate a higher sablefish catch per unit
effort in the GOA. The Analysis also notes that catch per unit effort
is likely to differ across GOA management areas.
The Council received public testimony from sablefish fishermen in
all areas of the GOA indicating that depredation had reduced catch per
unit effort and increased costs for their fishing operations. The
Council determined and NMFS agrees that Amendment 101 and this final
rule will improve harvesting efficiency and reduce adverse economic
impacts from depredation to harvesters in all GOA sablefish areas (see
Section 4.10 of the Analysis).
Comment 16: The proposed rule states that groundfish bycatch and
the incidental catch of seabirds may be reduced by authorizing the use
of longline pot gear. The SEO sablefish hook-and-line fleet has
collaborated since 2009 to reduce rockfish bycatch, and we are
expanding bycatch avoidance to include other species. Bycatch in the
sablefish hook-and-line fishery is primarily grenadiers and sharks,
which are not target fisheries and are harvested in amounts well below
the biological limits established for these species. Longline pot gear
can also result in bycatch of some species, and NMFS should evaluate
the potential bycatch of octopus by vessels using longline pot gear in
the sablefish fishery.
Although pots are likely to reduce seabird takes, hook-and-line
fisheries in the GOA typically account for only 10 percent to 20
percent of overall incidental catch of seabirds in the BSAI and GOA
groundfish fisheries. The incidental catch of seabirds has been reduced
significantly by the use of streamer lines in the hook-and-line
fishery.
Response: NMFS agrees with the commenter that the sablefish IFQ
fleet has taken positive steps to reduce rockfish bycatch and
interactions with seabirds. As described in the response to Comment 14,
Amendment 101 and this final rule do not change the observer coverage
requirements for GOA sablefish IFQ fishery participants. NMFS collects
information on bycatch and seabird interactions through the North
Pacific Observer Program and will continue to do so for vessels
participating in the GOA sablefish fishery, including vessels in the
longline pot fishery, following implementation of this final rule.
Comment 17: We believe that Amendment 101 and the proposed rule are
inconsistent with National Standard 8 because they fail to provide for
the sustained participation of fishery dependent communities. The
Council and NMFS must preserve the historic hook-and-line gear, small
boat nature of the GOA sablefish fleet in general and in the SEO in
particular. Because relatively more IFQ is fished by small boats in the
SEO and WY relative to the CGOA and WGOA, it is clear that the
introduction of pots in these areas will reduce the fishing grounds
available to these small boats using hook-and-line gear and therefore
reduce the number of hook-and-line vessels that can participate in the
fishery. Eliminating small vessels from this historically important
fishery will negatively impact communities in the SEO and WY. The
geographic, social, and economic characteristics of the SEO sablefish
fishery demand different considerations for the SEO and WY, and we urge
NMFS to provide for the sustained participation of these fishery
dependent communities by rejecting Amendment 101 and the proposed rule.
Response: NMFS has determined that Amendment 101 and this final
rule are consistent with National Standard 8. As described in the
response to Comment 11, the Council developed this action based on
input from its Sablefish Gear Committee, its advisory bodies, public
testimony, and the Analysis. Amendment 101 and this final rule balance
the needs of sablefish fishermen who want to use longline pot gear and
those who will continue to use hook-and-line gear.
Section 5.1 of the Analysis describes that the Council's objectives
for this action implicitly recognize the importance of the sablefish
fishery to GOA fishing communities and their residents. Amendment 101
and this final rule could reduce depredation and interactions, reduce
bycatch of some species, reduce incidental catch of seabirds, and
improve the long-term management of the resource by providing another
harvesting option that likely will increase harvesting efficiency.
Amendment 101 and this final rule are structured in a manner that does
not inherently disadvantage fishery participants who choose not to
switch from hook-and-line to longline pot gear. This final rule
implements area-specific pot limits, gear redeployment and removal
requirements, gear marking, and recordkeeping reporting requirements
intended to minimize the potential for gear conflicts and grounds
preemption.
Section 4.9.8 of the Analysis describes the impacts of Amendment
101 and this final rule on individual harvesters and fishing
communities. The Analysis did not identify adverse impacts on
individual harvesters or fishing communities because it does not
anticipate a significant shift in the communities to which sablefish
products are delivered, or from which sablefish vessels depart. The
Analysis notes that Amendment 101 and this final rule will not alter
the IFQ Program management measures that are designed to maintain a
diverse fleet to benefit individual fishermen and communities that
participate in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. These measures include
area-specific quota share and IFQ, different quota share and IFQ
allocations for vessel size categories, quota share use caps, and
vessel IFQ caps.
Comment 18: The proposed rule and Analysis do not discuss how this
action may displace crew or change the current composition of the
fleet. The Council and NMFS have always placed a high priority on
maintaining the benefits of the IFQ fisheries for small fishing
communities. The current trend of quota share-holders hiring a master
to harvest their IFQ provides more revenues for quota share-holders,
but does not benefit other participants in the fishery such as hired
skippers and crew members because more of the fishery revenues are
going to quota share-holders. Amendment 101 will make this worse by
allowing the hired master practice to continue and delay new entry into
the fishery.
Response: This final rule does not change current regulations at
Sec. 679.42(c) that require the holder of sablefish catcher vessel
quota share to be on board the vessel when their sablefish IFQ is
harvested unless the quota share holder is eligible to hire a master or
lease the IFQ under limited exceptions to the owner on board
requirement.
[[Page 95446]]
Section 4.9.8.1 of the Analysis describes the potential for fleet
consolidation following implementation of Amendment 101 and this final
rule. The Analysis describes that if longline pot gear becomes the
dominant gear in the sablefish IFQ fishery, it is possible that
depredation would be concentrated on vessels that continue to use hook-
and-line gear. This increased concentration could increase costs for
these participants and, in the extreme, reduce profitability from
fishing with hook-and-line gear. If profitability is substantially
reduced, some operators that are unable to convert to longline pot gear
might choose to sell their sablefish quota share, which could lead to
consolidation in the fleet. However, as described in Section 4.9.2 of
the Analysis and in the response to Comment 11, it is unlikely that a
substantial number of vessel operators will switch to longline pot gear
for economic or operational reasons. This makes it unlikely that
Amendment 101 will cause fleet consolidation in the GOA sablefish IFQ
fishery.
Comment 19: Most small boats will not be able to convert to
longline pot gear. Any sperm whales present while gear is being hauled
will concentrate effort on those vessels that continue to use hook-and-
line gear, with no overall reduction in depredation. Since a reduction
in depredation is the primary goal of this action and the least likely
to be achieved in the SEO where the majority of the boats are small,
NMFS must balance this low chance of success against the high
likelihood of gear conflicts and grounds preemption associated with
allowing pots.
Response: Section 4.11 of the Analysis notes that fishery
participants who are not able to fish longline pot gear on their
vessels--due to either economic or operational constraints--would not
experience the benefits of reduced depredation from Amendment 101 and
this final rule. The Analysis notes it is possible that these fishery
participants could experience greater rates of depredation as the
sablefish hooked on hook-and-line gear becomes concentrated on fewer
vessels in a given area. Therefore, the Analysis describes that this
action could result in some distributional impacts in the fishery. The
Analysis notes that these potential impacts could affect smaller
vessels in the sablefish IFQ fleet, though some large vessels may also
find it difficult to convert to pot gear.
Section 4.9.8.1 of the Analysis describes that the Council received
public testimony expressing concern that increased concentration of
depredation onto remaining hook-and-line gear and fleet consolidation
were more likely in the SEO area due to the more constrained fishing
grounds. The Council and NMFS determined that these outcomes were
unlikely based on the estimated cost for converting a vessel to use
longline pot gear (see Section 4.9.2 of the Analysis). As described in
the response to Comment 11, the majority of fishermen in the SEO are
not likely to switch to longline pot gear and would continue to use
hook-and-line gear in the sablefish IFQ fishery.
As described in the response to Comment 11, it is not possible to
determine how many vessels will use longline pot gear, but the existing
economic and operations constraints of converting to longline pot gear
make it likely that a limited number of vessels will convert under this
action. Based on this information, the Council determined and NMFS
agrees that the impacts on vessels that continue to use hook-and-line
gear likely will be limited. Nevertheless, this final rule includes a
number of provisions to mitigate the potential negative impacts on
sablefish IFQ fishery participants that continue to use hook-and-line
gear.
Comment 20: Four commenters recommended revisions to the proposed
pot limits at Sec. 679.42(l)(5)(ii). The commenters indicated that
these revisions were necessary to minimize the potential negative
impacts on fishery participants that continue to use hook-and-line
gear. The commenters recommended that NMFS implement a limit of 120
pots in the CGOA and WGOA, instead of the proposed limit of 300 pots
for these areas. The commenters suggested that allowing a vessel to
deploy up to 300 pots was not equitable because it would disadvantage
vessels that use hook-and-line gear by allowing a vessel using longline
pot gear to have a larger ``footprint,'' or the amount of gear deployed
on the sablefish fishing grounds, than vessels using hook-and-line
gear.
Response: NMFS did not change this final rule in response to this
comment. In the development of Amendment 101 and this final rule, the
Council and NMFS considered a range of options for pot limits,
including the specific requirements recommended by the commenters (see
Sections 4.9.3 and 4.9.4 of the Analysis). The Council recommended, and
NMFS is implementing, the pot limits at Sec. 679.42(l)(5)(ii) and gear
retrieval requirements at Sec. 679.42(l)(5)(iii) after reviewing the
Analysis and receiving input from the Sablefish Gear Committee, the
Council's advisory bodies, and public testimony. The Council and NMFS
also considered that current regulations do not limit the amount of
hook-and-line gear that may be used by a vessel in the sablefish IFQ
fishery.
As described in the response to Comment 11, the Council and NMFS
reviewed this information and determined that the likelihood of gear
conflicts and grounds preemption is low under Amendment 101 and this
final rule. However, the Council and NMFS recognize that the likelihood
of gear conflicts and grounds preemption is not possible to determine
with certainty. Several stakeholders requested that the Council
recommend specific measures to address this uncertainty and further
minimize the likelihood of gear conflicts and grounds preemption. This
final rule implements the measures recommended by the Council.
The proposed rule and Section 4.9.3 of the Analysis describe that
the Council recommended area-specific pot limits to account for the
physical nature of the sablefish fishing grounds and the composition of
the IFQ sablefish fleet in each sablefish area. The Council also
considered public testimony on the number of pots that vessels in the
GOA could feasibly deploy in the sablefish IFQ fishery.
Section 4.9.3 of the Analysis shows that the Council considered
options for pot limits that ranged from 60 to 400 pots for each
sablefish area. Considering area-specific pot limits allowed the
Council to develop pot limits that are appropriate for the make-up of
the fleet and the physical nature of the fishing grounds in each
sablefish area. The Council determined that smaller pot limits are
appropriate in the SEO and WY because the fishing grounds are spatially
concentrated and the potential for grounds preemption may be greater.
The Council also determined that smaller pot limits are appropriate for
the SEO because the local fleet has a historically participating
component of small, short-range vessels lacking the capacity to deploy
and retrieve longline pots or pack a large hold of sablefish for an
extended period. The proposed rule and Section 4.9.8.1 of the Analysis
show that approximately 30 percent of sablefish IFQ fishermen in the
SEO use vessels 50 feet (15.2 m) or less LOA.
The Council determined and NMFS agrees that larger pot limits are
appropriate in the CGOA and WGOA because Section 4.5.4.3 of the
Analysis and public testimony indicated there are relatively more
options for productive fishing grounds in the CGOA and WGOA than in the
SEO and WY. In addition, Section 4.5.2 of the Analysis shows that the
average size of vessels
[[Page 95447]]
participating in the CGOA and WGOA is larger and these vessels can
deploy more pots than vessels used in the SEO and WY. The Council
received public testimony that a pot limit of 300 in the CGOA and WGOA
would allow vessel operators in these areas to deploy enough pots to
efficiently harvest sablefish IFQ while maintaining an overall limit on
the number of pots that can be deployed by one vessel.
In recommending pot limits for each GOA sablefish area, the Council
and NMFS balanced the objectives to minimize the potential for gear
conflicts and grounds preemption and improve harvesting efficiency of
sablefish IFQ by authorizing longline pot gear. Section 4.9.3 of the
Analysis describes that limiting the number of pots a vessel can use
reduces operational efficiency if the limit is lower than what a vessel
operator deems optimal for his or her vessel. A pot limit that is too
low might increase variable fishing costs such as fuel and time. If the
limit is too low, there may be little or no incentive for vessel owners
to purchase new longline pot gear and invest in vessel
reconfigurations. The Council and NMFS used the best available
information to determine that the pot limits implemented by this final
rule achieve the objectives of this action.
Comment 21: Five commenters recommended revisions to the proposed
gear retrieval requirements at Sec. 679.42(l)(5)(iii). The commenters
indicated that these revisions were necessary to minimize the potential
negative impacts on fishery participants that continue to use hook-and-
line gear. The commenters did not support the requirements at Sec.
679.42(l)(5)(iii)(C) and (D) for vessel operators using longline pot
gear to redeploy or remove their longline pot gear within five days
after deployment in the WY and within seven days after deployment in
the CGOA and WGOA. These commenters recommend that NMFS extend the
requirement for vessels in the SEO at Sec. 679.42(l)(5)(iii)(A) to
remove longline pot gear when leaving the fishing grounds to make a
landing in the WY, CGOA, and WGOA. The commenters were concerned that
allowing the gear to stay on the fishing grounds between landings in
the WY, CGOA, and WGOA would preempt fishing grounds for use by vessels
using hook-and-line gear and could result in lost gear due to inclement
weather. In addition, one commenter was concerned that the proposed
gear retrieval requirements for the WY, CGOA, and WGOA would allow
multiple vessel operators to share longline pot gear and preempt
fishing grounds for long periods.
Response: NMFS did not change this final rule in response to this
comment. The proposed rule and Section 4.10 of the Analysis describe
that the Council considered the Analysis and public testimony when
recommending the gear retrieval requirements for the WY, CGOA, and
WGOA. The Council and NMFS determined that the fishing grounds are less
constrained in the WY, CGOA, and WGOA relative to the SEO due to fewer
IFQ holders, larger fishing grounds, or both. Therefore, the Council
and NMFS determined that it was not necessary to require fishermen
using longline pot gear in these areas to remove their gear from the
fishing grounds when making a landing. The Council and NMFS based this
decision on testimony from operators in these areas indicating that
fishing vessels were much further from port in these areas relative to
the SEO and requiring a vessel to return to and retrieve its gear by a
certain day could, in some circumstances, force vessels to operate in
unsafe or unfavorable conditions. Aside from weather, limiting the
amount of time that gear may be deployed (soak time) could reduce a
vessel operator's ability to fish an optimal gear rotation if the
vessel's longline pot gear is spaced out over a large geographical
area, or if the vessel operator determines that a particularly long
soak time yields larger fish in that area. Based on this public
testimony and the pot soak times in the BSAI sablefish fishery
presented in Section 4.8.2 of the Analysis, the Council determined that
requiring vessel operators to tend their gear within a maximum period
would meet its objective to minimize the potential for longline pot
gear to be left unattended on the fishing grounds for an extended
period of time in these areas.
This final rule implements regulations at Sec. 679.42(l)(5)(iv)
applicable to vessel operators who want to share longline pot gear
during the fishing season to help reduce operating costs. To minimize
the potential for grounds preemption by multiple vessels using the same
longline pot gear, this final rule allows multiple vessels to use the
same longline pot gear during one fishing season but prohibits use of
the same longline pot gear simultaneously. In order for more than one
vessel to use the same longline pot gear, this final rule requires a
vessel operator to remove longline pot gear from the fishing grounds,
return the gear to port, and remove the pot tags assigned to the vessel
before pot tags assigned to another vessel are attached to the pots and
used on that vessel in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.
The Council and NMFS determined that vessel operators using
longline pot gear have an incentive to reduce the likelihood of gear
conflicts, or lost gear because fishing gear is expensive to purchase
and replace (see Section 4.8.2 of the Analysis). This final rule
establishes specific gear retrieval requirements to provide an
additional incentive for operators using longline pot gear to closely
monitor the amount of time their gear is left on the grounds and
further minimize potential for gear conflicts or grounds preemption.
The Council recommended and NMFS is implementing these provisions to
balance the objectives of this action to improve harvesting efficiency
and reduce depredation with the further objective to minimize potential
negative impacts on fishermen that continue to use hook-and-line gear.
Comment 22: The proposed requirement for vessel operators to leave
longline pot gear on the fishing grounds for no more than five days in
the WY and CGOA and seven days in the WGOA will be difficult to
enforce.
Response: The proposed rule and Sections 4.9.3.2, 4.9.4.1, 4.9.5.1,
and 4.9.6.1 of the Analysis describe enforcement considerations for
provisions of this final rule that are intended to minimize gear
conflicts and grounds preemption. The Council considered the methods
that would be used to enforce the restrictions on use of longline pot
gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery and advice from its Enforcement
Committee.
This final rule implements three additional recordkeeping and
reporting requirements to monitor and enforce provisions that are
intended to minimize gear conflicts and grounds preemption. First,
Sec. 679.5(c)(3)(B) requires all vessel operators using longline pot
gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to report specific information in
logbooks about fishing gear used and catch for all sablefish IFQ
fishing trips. Second, Sec. 679.42(k)(2) requires all vessel operators
using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to have an
operating VMS while fishing for sablefish IFQ. Third, this final rule
adds additional Prior Notice of Landing (PNOL) reporting requirements
at Sec. 679.5(l)(1)(iii) for vessel operators using longline pot gear
in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. These tools will provide NMFS with
information on vessel activity during the sablefish fishing season. The
Council and NMFS determined that these requirements will provide
sufficient monitoring and enforcement
[[Page 95448]]
information to meet the Council's objectives for this action.
Comment 23: NMFS should revise the final rule to clarify that
vessels using longline pot gear in the SEO must remove all longline
pots in addition to anchors, buoys, buoy line, flags, and any other
gear from the fishing grounds when they leave the grounds to make a
delivery. As proposed, the rule only requires vessels using longline
pot gear to remove pots from the grounds, allowing other components of
a pot longline string to remain in the water and preempt fishing
grounds.
Response: NMFS revised this final rule to address this comment.
This final rule adds Sec. 679.42(l)(5)(i)(C) to specify that the gear
retrieval and removal requirements in Sec. 679.42 (l)(5)(iii) and (iv)
apply to all longline pot gear that is assigned to a vessel and
deployed to fish IFQ sablefish and to all other fishing equipment
attached to longline pot gear that is deployed by the vessel to fish
IFQ sablefish in the GOA. This final rule also specifies that all other
fishing equipment attached to longline pot gear includes, but is not
limited to, equipment used to mark longline pot gear as required in
this final rule at Sec. 679.24(a)(3).
Although the Council and NMFS determined that the potential for
grounds preemption is low under this final rule (see response to
Comment 11), NMFS agrees with the commenter that the gear retrieval and
removal requirements in the proposed rule applied to ``longline pot''
gear. Section 679.2 defines longline pot as ``a stationary, buoyed, and
anchored line with two or more pots attached.'' This definition does
not include buoys, flags, or radar reflectors that must be used to mark
longline pot gear in this final rule (Sec. 679.24(a)(3)) or other
equipment that vessel operators may use to mark their gear. Although it
is unlikely that vessel operators will remove only pots and leave other
equipment to preempt fishing grounds as suggested by the commenter,
NMFS agrees that the intent of this final rule is to require vessel
operators using longline gear to retrieve or remove all fishing gear
from the fishing grounds to minimize the potential for gear conflicts
and grounds preemption. This revision to this final rule clarifies that
the gear retrieval and removal requirements apply to all pots and
associated equipment deployed by a vessel using longline pot gear in
all sablefish areas of the GOA.
Comment 24: Allowing longline pot gear to stay on the fishing
grounds between landings is not consistent with the intent of the owner
onboard requirement of the IFQ Program. Section 679.42(c) requires most
holders of sablefish catcher vessel IFQ to be on board the vessel on
which their IFQ is harvested and present during the landing.
Authorizing longline pot gear to stay on the fishing grounds while a
vessel makes a landing in the WY, CGOA, or WGOA would be inconsistent
with current operations of hook-and-line vessels and could allow vessel
operators to set gear while the IFQ permit holder is not on board the
vessel.
Under the proposed rule, a vessel operator in the WY, CGOA, or WGOA
could deploy pots on the fishing grounds, leave the fishing grounds to
pick up an IFQ permit holder in port, and then retrieve the pot gear
and collect the sablefish while the IFQ permit holder is on board the
vessel. Hook-and-line gear is not generally left on the fishing grounds
unattended, so the proposed rule would allow a longline pot gear vessel
to operate differently than a hook-and-line vessel.
Response: This final rule is consistent with the IFQ permit holder
on board requirements at Sec. 679.42(c). This final rule does not
change the requirement for an IFQ permit holder to be aboard the vessel
at all times during the fishing trip while his or her IFQ is harvested
and to be present during the landing. This final rule does not change
the definition of ``fishing trip'' at Sec. 679.2 for purposes of the
IFQ Program, which is the period beginning when a vessel operator
commences harvesting IFQ species and ending when the vessel operator
lands any species. Therefore, all IFQ permit holders subject to the
permit holder on board requirements must be on board the vessel during
the entire fishing trip whether the vessel is using longline pot or
hook-and-line gear.
Comment 25: Longline pot gear should not have a larger footprint
than hook-and-line gear. We recommend revising the rule to require that
a longline pot set be no more than 9 miles from end to end. This would
allow each vessel to have an average of three sets of longline gear
that would be from 2.5 to 3 miles in length and would limit the length
of a set of longline pot gear to correspond to the footprint of a hook-
and-line set.
Response: NMFS did not change this final rule in response to this
comment. The pot limits implemented by this final rule limit the amount
of longline pot gear that a fishing vessel can use in the GOA sablefish
IFQ fishery (see the response to Comment 20). The Council and NMFS
determined that additional limits on the amount of longline pot gear
that could be deployed are not necessary to meet the objectives of this
final rule.
Section 4.9.3 of the Analysis describes that the pot limits
specified in Sec. 679.42(l)(5)(ii) limit the amount of longline pot
gear that each vessel may deploy, which limits the footprint of that
vessel on the fishing grounds. The Analysis describes that the
Sablefish Gear Committee estimated that a vessel deploying from 180 to
300 longline pots would cover grounds similar to a hook-and-line set in
the sablefish fishery, or approximately 10 to 12 miles. The Analysis
also notes that current regulations do not limit the amount of hook-
and-line gear that a vessel fishing IFQ sablefish may deploy. Based on
information in the Analysis, the Council and NMFS determined that it is
possible that the footprint of longline pot gear used by some vessels
could be greater than the footprint of hook-and-line gear used by other
vessels under this final rule. The Analysis describes that the
Sablefish Gear Committee reviewed available information on the likely
length of longline pot gear sets on the fishing grounds and considered
whether gear specifications in addition to pot limits were necessary to
minimize the potential for gear conflicts and grounds preemption. The
Sablefish Gear Committee, Council, and NMFS considered the potential
impacts of additional gear specifications on operations and monitoring
and enforcement, and determined that additional gear specifications
were not necessary to meet the objectives of this action. In addition,
additional gear specifications could unnecessarily constrain individual
fishing operations and reduce harvesting efficiency.
Comment 26: We do not support the proposed gear marking
requirements because each vessel operator should be able to use the
gear marking equipment that best meets the specifications of their
operation. The proposed requirement to mark gear with buoys, a flag,
and radar detector on each end of a longline pot set creates a large
amount of surface area and makes it more likely that the wind or waves
could catch the marking equipment and move the gear from the deployed
location. This increases the likelihood of lost gear on the fishing
grounds. In some areas, vessels using hook-and-line gear do not mark
their gear with flagpoles or radar reflectors due to the known gear
loss that results from a combination of wind and tide. While we believe
that each vessel operator should have the discretion to determine what
gear marking equipment is appropriate for their vessel, it is important
that any vessel on the fishing grounds can differentiate between a
hook-and-line
[[Page 95449]]
and longline pot gear set. We recommend revising the rule to require
that the end of a longline pot set be marked with one yellow hard buoy
a minimum of 13 inches in diameter and marked with an ``LP'' and the
vessel name.
Response: NMFS did not change this final rule in response to this
comment. This final rule maintains current regulations at Sec.
679.24(a) that require all vessel operators using hook-and-line and pot
gear (including longline pot gear) to mark buoys carried on board or
used by the vessel to be marked with the vessel's Federal fisheries
permit number or ADF&G vessel registration number. This regulation also
specifies that the markings must be a specified size, shall be visible
above the water line, and shall be maintained so the markings are
clearly visible.
This final rule implements the following additional gear marking
requirements: Each vessel operator using longline pot gear in the GOA
sablefish IFQ fishery must attach a cluster of four or more marker
buoys, a flag mounted on a pole, and a radar reflector to each end of a
longline pot set.
The Council received recommendations from the Sablefish Gear
Committee, its advisory bodies, and public testimony to develop the
gear marking requirements implemented by this final rule. The Council
and NMFS considered a broad suite of gear marking options during the
development of Amendment 101 and this final rule. Section 4.9.5 of the
Analysis describes the options considered, and Section 4.10 describes
the anticipated impacts of the additional gear marking requirements
implemented by this final rule.
The Council received public testimony that the marking requirements
implemented by this final rule would enhance the visibility of the ends
of a longline pot gear set to other vessels that are on the fishing
grounds. As described in Section 4.9.5 of the Analysis, public
testimony indicated that the gear marking equipment required by this
final rule is commonly used by vessel operators that deploy pot gear in
fisheries in Alaska and requiring the use of this equipment would not
impose a substantial cost on vessel operators using longline pot gear
in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. Section 4.9.5 of the Analysis
describes public testimony indicating that using buoy clusters could be
a viable method to keep surface gear from being submerged during strong
tides and would minimize the potential for longline pot gear to move a
substantial distance from its deployed location. The testimony
indicated that buoy clusters add buoyancy to surface gear by putting
additional buoys on the main anchor line. The Analysis also describes
that requiring a vessel operator to use a flag mounted on a pole and a
radar reflector to mark each end of a longline pot gear set would
enhance the visibility of the location of the gear and minimize the
potential for gear conflicts. This was supported by public testimony
from vessel operators who indicated they planned to use longline pots
in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.
As described in the response to Comment 11, the Council intends to
review the use of longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery
three years after the implementation of this final rule. NMFS
anticipates that if the gear marking requirements in this final rule
impose substantial costs on vessel operators or could be revised to
better meet the Council's objectives, the Council will consider
potential changes to the gear marking requirements in the future.
Comment 27: Vessels using longline pot gear should be equipped with
a 25 watt, Class A Automatic Identification System (AIS) to enable
other boats to identify and communicate with the vessel about the
location of their deployed longline pot gear.
Response: Section 4.9.5 of the Analysis describes that the Council
and NMFS considered an option to require both ends of a longline pot
set in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to be marked with buoys,
flagpoles, and a transponder that is compatible with a location and
identification system such as AIS. Gear transponders could allow a
fishery participant to view the location of deployed gear in order to
avoid setting gear in the same area. Additional information on the AIS
technology, application, approximate cost, and relevant regulations are
described in Appendix 2 of the Analysis.
Section 4.9.4 of the Analysis describes the key challenges involved
in requiring the use of AIS as a buoy transponder. The challenges
include limited operational time due to limited battery capacity,
potentially inadequate seaworthiness, and the requirement for
regulatory approval by the United States Coast Guard and international
oversight bodies. The Analysis notes that implementing a longline pot
gear tracking system using technology such as AIS or a scannable pot
tag to locate longline pot gear on the fishing grounds is beyond the
scope of available NMFS resources in the Alaska Region. In addition,
anecdotal reports suggest that AIS or other scannable systems may not
be effective in all weather and sea conditions (e.g., signals can be
blocked or greatly attenuated in high seas). Section 4.9.4.1 of the
Analysis concludes that given that these factors and that the total
costs of fitting longline pot gear can be substantial, gear tracking
systems, including AIS, are not appropriate at this time.
The Analysis describes that the Council did not adopt the option to
require AIS transponders in this final rule due to the current
challenges related to using AIS transponders in the GOA sablefish IFQ
fishery and stakeholder willingness to pursue a voluntary program to
report longline pot gear locations (see the response to Comment 29).
The Council intends to review the use of longline pot gear three years
following implementation of this final rule. This review will provide
an opportunity for the Council and NMFS to evaluate whether additional
gear marking requirements may be necessary for longline pot gear in the
future.
Comment 28: The proposed rule incorrectly claims on page 55416 (81
FR 55408, August 19, 2016) that ``most vessel operators in the GOA
sablefish IFQ fishery are currently required to complete logbooks.''
This is incorrect because vessels less than 60 feet in length are
exempt from logbook reporting requirements and the median vessel length
in the sablefish IFQ fleet is less than 60 feet. The proposed rule
discriminates against vessels that choose to use pot gear because it
would require vessels less than 60 feet LOA to complete a logbook. The
proposed rule would require all vessels using longline pot gear in the
GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to complete a logbook. The rule should be
revised to require all vessels in the sablefish IFQ fishery to complete
a logbook for consistency with the requirements for the halibut IFQ
fishery. The same vessel operators that are declining to complete a
logbook for sablefish are completing logbooks for their halibut
fishing. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements cannot be inequitably
applied to one gear type over another. All users have an obligation to
supply information on their catch of this public resource to the stock
assessment scientists.
Response: NMFS did not change this final rule in response to this
comment. NMFS agrees with the commenter that the statement on page
55416 (81 FR 55408, August 19, 2016) of the proposed rule preamble is
incorrect. Notwithstanding that it is a misstatement, as explained
below, the misstatement does not require revisions to this final rule.
[[Page 95450]]
The statement on page 55416 of the proposed rule preamble should
have stated that most vessel operators in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery
currently complete logbooks. The commenter is correct that most vessels
in the sablefish IFQ fleet are less than 60 feet (18.3m) LOA, and these
vessels are not required to complete a logbook (Sec. 679.5(a)(4)(i)).
In 2015, 85 percent of the vessels participating in the BSAI and GOA
sablefish IFQ fishery were less than 60 feet LOA. While these vessels
are not required to complete a logbook for sablefish fishing, Section
4.9.3.2 of the Analysis notes that many vessel operators voluntarily
complete and submit logbooks. Logbook participation increased sharply
in 2004 in all areas primarily because the IPHC collects, edits, and
enters logbooks electronically. In 2015, 68 percent of the 252 vessels
less than 60 feet LOA in the sablefish IFQ fishery submitted logbooks.
The Council and NMFS determined that this final rule should include
a requirement for all vessels using longline pot gear in the GOA
sablefish IFQ fishery to complete a logbook. The proposed rule and
Section 4.9 of the Analysis describe that NMFS uses logbooks to collect
detailed information from vessel operators participating in the IFQ
fisheries. The proposed rule and Analysis also describe that NMFS will
use logbooks as one tool to monitor and enforce the management measures
in this final rule intended to minimize the potential for gear
conflicts and grounds preemption, such as the gear redeployment and
removal requirements.
This final rule adds a requirement at Sec. 679.5(c)(3)(i)(B) for
an operator of a vessel using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish
IFQ fishery to report in a Daily Fishing Logbook (for catcher vessels)
or Daily Cumulative Production Logbook (for catcher/processors) the
number of pots and location of longline pot sets deployed on a fishing
trip. This final rule removes the exemption from the logbook submission
requirements for the operator of a vessel less than 60 feet LOA using
longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. While this is a new
regulatory requirement for these vessels, Section 4.9.3.2 of the
Analysis explains that many operators of vessels less than 60 feet
(18.3 m) in the sablefish IFQ fishery voluntarily complete and submit
logbooks. Therefore, the Council and NMFS anticipate this additional
reporting requirement will not negatively impact operators of vessels
less than 60 feet (18.3 m) that choose to use longline pot gear.
Comment 29: We suggest that the coordinates of lost pots reported
to NMFS are posted and available for the public to access. This will
allow vessel operators using hook-and-line gear to avoid setting gear
on lost pots and losing gear in those areas.
Response: Section 4.9.4.1 of the Analysis describes that the
Council and NMFS considered and rejected a requirement for vessel
operators to report the coordinates of lost longline pot gear to NMFS
in an electronic form for release to the public. The Council and NMFS
did not adopt this option for two reasons. First, the coordinates of
lost longline pot gear pots are confidential under section 402(b) of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and potentially other laws, as well. Second,
NMFS cannot enforce a requirement to report the loss of longline pot
gear because it is not possible to verify that fishing gear is lost.
Section 4.9.4 of the Analysis describes a proposal for a voluntary
pot gear reporting program for vessels that use longline pot gear in
the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. GOA sablefish IFQ fishery participants
who advocated before the Council for the ability to use longline pot
gear presented the proposal to assure the Council of their ability and
willingness to report the location of longline pot gear on the fishing
grounds, in as close to real-time as is practicable, and without
placing additional cost burdens on the hook-and-line fleet. These
proponents presented a voluntary measure in the form of a written
agreement that would set out expectations of, and best practices by,
those who opt to use longline pot gear.
While the Council did not recommend the formalization of a
voluntary pot gear reporting program in its recommendation of Amendment
101 and this final rule, Section 4.10 of the Analysis describes that
the Council encouraged fishery participants to work cooperatively to
develop electronic reporting protocols for reporting the location of
pots being fished and/or pots left on the fishing grounds, as well as
any other methods that may enhance the GOA sablefish IFQ longline pot
fishery. The Council determined and NMFS agrees that the expressed
willingness of fishermen who intend to use longline pot gear to work
beyond the gear specifications and gear retrieval requirements
specified in this final rule, combined with the Council's commitment to
review the use of longline pot gear three years after implementation of
this final rule, will minimize the potential for gear conflicts and
grounds preemption.
This final rule requires vessel operators using longline pot gear
to report the number of lost pots to NMFS in the vessel's PNOL
submitted prior to landing. In addition, if a vessel operator loses
pots and intends to replace those pots to harvest IFQ sablefish, they
must request replacement pot tags from NMFS consistent with the
requirements at Sec. 679.42(l)(3)(iii). The vessel owner will be
required to provide NMFS with the pot tag numbers that were lost and
describe the circumstances under which the pot tags were lost.
Classification
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that this rule
is necessary for the conservation and management of the GOA sablefish
IFQ fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
the Halibut Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Small Entity Compliance Guide
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for
which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility
analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small
entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such
publications as ``small entity compliance guides.'' The agency shall
explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a
rule or group of rules. The preamble to the proposed rule (81 FR 55408,
August 19, 2016) and the preamble to this final rule serve as the small
entity compliance guide for this action.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an
agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) after
being required by that section or any other law to publish a general
notice of proposed rulemaking and when an agency promulgates a final
rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code. The following
paragraphs constitute the FRFA for this action.
This FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) (see ADDRESSES) and the summary of the IRFA in the proposed rule
(81 FR 55408, August 19, 2016), a summary of the significant issues
raised by the public comments, NMFS' responses to those comments, and a
summary of the analyses completed to support the action. The FRFA
describes the impacts on small entities, which are defined in
[[Page 95451]]
the IRFA for this action and not repeated here. Analytical requirements
for the FRFA are described in the RFA, section 604(a)(1) through (6).
The FRFA must contain:
1. A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
2. A statement of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the
agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the
proposed rule as a result of such comments;
3. The response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in
response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change
made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the
comments;
4. A description and an estimate of the number of small entities to
which the rule will apply, or an explanation of why no such estimate is
available;
5. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record; and
6. A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the
impact on small entities was rejected.
The ``universe'' of entities to be considered in a FRFA generally
includes only those small entities that can reasonably be expected to
be directly regulated by the action. If the effects of the rule fall
primarily on a distinct segment of the industry, or portion thereof
(e.g., user group, gear type, geographic area), that segment will be
considered the universe for purposes of this analysis.
In preparing a FRFA, an agency may provide either a quantifiable or
numerical description of the effects of a rule (and alternatives to the
rule), or more general descriptive statements, if quantification is not
practicable or reliable.
Need for and Objectives of This Final Rule
A statement of the need for and objectives of this rule is
contained earlier in the preamble and is not repeated here. This FRFA
incorporates the IRFA (see ADDRESSES) and the summary of the IRFA in
the proposed rule (81 FR 55408, August 19, 2016), a summary of the
significant issues raised by the public comments, NMFS' responses to
those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the
action.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised During Public Comment
NMFS published the proposed rule to implement Amendment 101 on
August 19, 2016 (81 FR 55408), with comments invited through September
19, 2016. An IRFA was prepared and summarized in the Classification
section of the preamble to the proposed rule. No comments were received
that raised significant issues in response to the IRFA specifically;
therefore, no changes were made to this rule as a result of comments on
the IRFA. NMFS received several comments on the potential impacts of
this final rule on the operators of sablefish vessels that cannot
convert to longline pot gear due to economic or operational
constraints. Several comments expressed concerns about the impacts of
this action on small fishing operations that will continue to use hook-
and-line gear to fish for sablefish in specific areas of the GOA. NMFS
summarized and responded to these comments in the section above titled
``Comments and Responses.'' The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA
did not file any comments on the proposed rule.
Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Rule
NMFS estimates that there are a total of 310 small catcher vessels
and 1 small catcher/processor that participate in the GOA sablefish IFQ
fishery using hook-and-line gear. These entities will be directly
regulated by this rule because they will be subject to the requirements
for using longline pot gear if they choose to use longline pot gear in
the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. Thus, NMFS estimates that 311 small
entities are directly regulated by this rule.
Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts
on Small Entities
Several aspects of this rule directly regulate small entities.
Small entities will be required to comply with the requirements for
using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery, which include
using only longline pot gear, pot limits, and gear retrieval and gear
marking requirements. Authorizing longline pot gear in this rule
provides an opportunity for small entities to choose whether to use
longline pot gear to increase harvesting efficiencies and reduce
operating costs in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.
Based on public testimony to the Council and NMFS, and Section 4.9
of the Analysis, the requirements for using pot gear are not expected
to adversely impact small entities because each entity can choose to
use longline pot gear or continue to use hook-and-line gear. In
addition, the requirements for using longline pot gear are not expected
to unduly restrict sablefish harvesting operations. The Council and
NMFS considered requirements that would impose larger costs on directly
regulated small entities. These alternatives included requiring all
vessels to remove gear from the fishing grounds each time the vessel
made a landing and requiring more sophisticated and costly satellite-
based gear marking systems. The Council and NMFS determined that these
additional requirements were not necessary to meet the objectives of
this action. These additional requirements could adversely impact small
entities by reducing sablefish harvesting efficiency and increasing
sablefish harvesting costs, contrary to the intent of this rule. This
rule implements pot limits and gear retrieval and gear marking
requirements that meet the objectives of this action while minimizing
adverse impacts on fishery participants.
Small entities will be required to comply with additional
recordkeeping and reporting requirements under this rule if they choose
to use longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. Section 4.9
of the Analysis notes that directly regulated small entities using
longline pot gear will be required to request pot tags from NMFS,
maintain and submit logbooks to NMFS, have an operating VMS on board
the vessel, and report additional information in a PNOL. The Analysis
notes that these additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements
are not expected to adversely impact directly regulated small entities
because the costs of complying with these requirements is de minimis to
total gross fishing revenue. In addition, NMFS anticipates that many of
the vessels that choose to use longline pot gear under this rule
currently comply with the logbook and VMS reporting requirements when
participating in the sablefish IFQ fishery and in other fisheries. The
Council and NMFS considered alternatives to implement additional
requirements to
[[Page 95452]]
report locations of deployed and lost gear in an electronic database to
reduce the likelihood that sablefish IFQ fishery participants would
deploy fishing gear in these locations. The Analysis describes that the
information reported in the electronic database would be confidential
under section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and could not be
provided to participants in the sablefish IFQ fishery to meet the
intended purpose. The Council and NMFS determined that these additional
requirements were not necessary to meet the objectives of this action.
This rule meets the objectives of this action while minimizing the
reporting burden for fishery participants.
Thus, there are no significant alternatives to this rule that
accomplish the objectives to authorize longline pot gear in the GOA
sablefish IFQ fishery and minimize adverse economic impacts on small
entities.
Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements
The recordkeeping, reporting, and other compliance requirements
will be increased slightly under this rule. This rule contains new
requirements for vessels participating in the longline pot fishery for
sablefish IFQ in the GOA.
Prior to this final rule, NMFS required catcher vessel operators,
catcher/processor operators, buying station operators, tender vessels,
mothership operators, shoreside processor managers, and stationary
floating processor managers to record and report all FMP species in
logbooks, forms, eLandings, and eLogbooks. This rule revises
regulations to require all vessels using longline pot gear in the GOA
sablefish IFQ fishery to report information on fishery participation in
logbooks, forms, and eLandings.
NMFS currently requires vessels in the BSAI to have an operating
VMS on board the vessel while participating in the sablefish IFQ
fishery. This rule revises regulations to extend this requirement to
vessels using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.
NMFS currently requires all vessels in the sablefish and halibut
IFQ fisheries to submit a PNOL to NMFS. This rule revises regulations
to require vessels using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ
fishery to report the number of pots deployed, the number of pots lost,
and the number of pots left deployed on the fishing grounds in the
PNOL, in addition to other required information.
Collection-of-Information Requirements
This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The collections are listed
below by OMB control number.
OMB Control Number 0648-0213
Public reporting burden is estimated to average 35 minutes per
individual response for Catcher Vessel Longline and Pot Gear Daily
Fishing Logbook; and 50 minutes for Catcher/processor Longline and Pot
Gear Daily Cumulative Production Logbook.
OMB Control Number 0648-0272
Public reporting burden is estimated to average 15 minutes per
individual response for Prior Notice of Landing.
OMB Control Number 0648-0353
Public reporting burden is estimated to average 15 minutes per
individual response to mark longline pot gear; 15 minutes for IFQ
Sablefish Longline Pot Gear: Vessel Registration and Request for Pot
Gear Tags; and 15 minutes for IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear: Request
for Replacement of Longline Pot Gear Tags.
OMB Control Number 0648-0445
Public reporting burden is estimated to average 2 hours per
individual response for VMS operation; and 12 minutes for VMS check-in
report.
OMB Control Number 0648-0711
The cost recovery program is mentioned in this rule. The cost to
implement and manage the sablefish IFQ longline pot gear fishery,
including the cost of the pot tags, will be included in the annual
calculation of NMFS' recoverable costs. These costs will be part of the
total management and enforcement costs used in the calculation of the
annual fee percentage. For example, when the pot gear tags are ordered,
the payment of those tags is charged 100 percent to the IFQ Program for
cost recovery purposes. This rule will not change the process that
harvesters use to pay cost recovery fees.
The public reporting burden includes the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect
of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden,
to NMFS (see ADDRESSES), and by email to [email protected],
or fax to 202-395-5806.
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. All currently approved NOAA
collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.
List of Subjects
15 CFR Part 902
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
50 CFR Part 300
Administrative practice and procedure, Antarctica, Canada, Exports,
Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine resources,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Russian Federation,
Transportation, Treaties, Wildlife.
50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 19, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part
902 and 50 CFR parts 300 and 679 as follows:
Title 15--Commerce and Foreign Trade
PART 902--NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 902.1, in the table in paragraph (b), under the entry ``50
CFR'':
0
a. Remove entry for ``679.24(a)'';
0
b. Revise entry for ``679.42(a) through (j)''; and
0
c. Add entries in alphanumeric order for ``679.24'', ``679.42(b),
(k)(2), and (l)''.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
[[Page 95453]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current OMB
control number
CFR part or section where the information collection (all numbers
requirement is located begin with
0648-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
50 CFR:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
679.24................................................ -0353
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
679.42(a), and (c) through (j)........................ -0272 and -
0665
679.42(b), (k)(2), and (l)............................ -0353
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 50--Wildlife and Fisheries
PART 300--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS
Subpart E--Pacific Halibut Fisheries
0
3. The authority citation for part 300, subpart E, continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773-773k.
0
4. In Sec. 300.61, revise the definitions of ``Fishing'' and ``IFQ
halibut'' to read as follows:
Sec. 300.61 Definitions.
* * * * *
Fishing means the taking, harvesting, or catching of fish, or any
activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the taking,
harvesting, or catching of fish, including:
(1) The deployment of any amount or component part of setline gear
anywhere in the maritime area; or
(2) The deployment of longline pot gear as defined in Sec. 679.2
of this title, or component part of that gear in Commission regulatory
areas 2C, 3A, 3B, and that portion of Area 4A in the Gulf of Alaska
west of Area 3B and east of 170[deg]00' W. long.
* * * * *
IFQ halibut means any halibut that is harvested with setline gear
as defined in this section or fixed gear as defined in Sec. 679.2 of
this title while commercial fishing in any IFQ regulatory area defined
in Sec. 679.2 of this title.
* * * * *
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
0
5. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.;
Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.
0
6. In Sec. 679.2:
0
a. In the definition of ``Authorized fishing gear,'' revise paragraphs
(4)(i) and (iii), and add paragraph (4)(iv); and
0
b. Revise the definition of ``IFQ halibut.''
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 679.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Authorized fishing gear * * *
(4) * * *
(i) For sablefish harvested from any GOA reporting area, all
longline gear, longline pot gear, and, for purposes of determining
initial IFQ allocation, all pot gear used to make a legal landing.
* * * * *
(iii) For halibut harvested from any IFQ regulatory area, all
fishing gear composed of lines with hooks attached, including one or
more stationary, buoyed, and anchored lines with hooks attached.
(iv) For halibut harvested from any GOA reporting area, all
longline pot gear, if the vessel operator is fishing for IFQ sablefish
in accordance with Sec. 679.42(l).
* * * * *
IFQ halibut means any halibut that is harvested with setline gear
as defined in Sec. 300.61 of this title or fixed gear as defined in
this section while commercial fishing in any IFQ regulatory area
defined in this section.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 679.5:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a)(4)(i);
0
b. Revise note to the table at paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B), and revise
paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(A), (c)(3)(i)(B), (c)(3)(ii)(A)(1) and (B)(1),
(c)(3)(iv)(A)(2), (c)(3)(iv)(B)(2), (c)(3)(v)(G); and (l)(1)(iii)(F)
and (G); and
0
c. Add paragraphs (l)(1)(iii)(H) and (I).
The additions and revisions read as follows.
Sec. 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Catcher vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA. Except for
vessels using longline pot gear as described in paragraph
(c)(3)(i)(B)(1) of this section and the vessel activity report
described at paragraph (k) of this section, the owner or operator of a
catcher vessel less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA is not required to comply
with the R&R requirements of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) * * *
(B) * * *
* * * * *
Note: CP = catcher/processor; CV = catcher vessel; pot =
longline pot or pot-and-line; lgl = longline; trw = trawl; MS =
mothership.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) If a catcher vessel, record vessel name, ADF&G vessel
registration number, FFP number or Federal crab vessel permit number,
operator printed name, operator signature, and page number.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, and IFQ sablefish fisheries. (1) The
operator of a catcher vessel less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA, using
longline pot gear to harvest IFQ sablefish or IFQ halibut in the GOA
must maintain a longline and pot gear DFL according to paragraph
(c)(3)(iv)(A)(2) of this section.
(2) Except as described in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, the
operator of a catcher vessel 60 ft (18.3 m) or greater LOA in the GOA
must maintain a longline and pot gear DFL according to paragraph
(c)(3)(iv)(A)(2) of this section, when using longline gear or longline
pot gear to harvest IFQ sablefish and when using gear composed of lines
with hooks attached, setline gear (IPHC), or longline pot gear to
harvest IFQ halibut.
(3) Except as described in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, the
operator of a catcher vessel 60 ft (18.3 m) or greater LOA in the BSAI
must maintain a longline and pot gear DFL according to paragraph
(c)(3)(iv)(A)(2) of this section, when using hook-and-line gear or pot
gear to harvest IFQ sablefish, and when using gear composed of lines
with hooks attached or setline gear (IPHC) to harvest IFQ halibut or
CDQ halibut.
(4) Except as described in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section,
the operator of a catcher/processor in the GOA must use a combination
of a catcher/processor longline and pot gear DCPL and eLandings
according to paragraph (c)(3)(iv)(B)(2) of this section, when using
longline gear or longline pot gear to harvest IFQ sablefish and when
using gear composed of lines with hooks attached, setline gear (IPHC),
or longline pot gear to harvest IFQ halibut.
[[Page 95454]]
(5) Except as described in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section,
the operator of a catcher/processor in the BSAI must use a combination
of a catcher/processor longline and pot gear DCPL and eLandings
according to (c)(3)(iv)(B)(2) of this section, when using hook-and-line
gear or pot gear to harvest IFQ sablefish, and when using gear composed
of lines with hooks attached or setline gear (IPHC) to harvest IFQ
halibut or CDQ halibut.
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
Reporting Time Limits, Catcher Vessel Longline or Pot Gear
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required information Time limit for recording
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) FFP number and/or Federal crab vessel Within 2 hours after
permit number (if applicable), IFQ permit completion of gear
numbers (halibut, sablefish, and crab), CDQ retrieval.
group number, halibut CDQ permit number, set
number, date and time gear set, date and
time gear hauled, beginning and end
positions of set, number of skates or pots
set, and estimated total hail weight for
each set.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) * * *
Reporting Time Limits, Catcher/Processor Longline or Pot Gear
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submit via
Required information Record in DCPL eLandings Time limit for reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) FFP number and/or Federal crab vessel X .............. Within 2 hours after completion
permit number (if applicable), IFQ permit of gear retrieval.
numbers (halibut, sablefish, and crab), CDQ
group number, halibut CDQ permit number, set
number, date and time gear set, date and
time gear hauled, beginning and end
positions of set, number of skates or pots
set, and estimated total hail weight for
each set.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(iv) * * *
(A) * * *
(2) If a catcher vessel identified in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A)(1) or
(c)(3)(i)(B)(1) through (3) of this section is active, the operator
must record in the longline and pot gear DFL, for one or more days on
each logsheet, the information listed in paragraphs (c)(3)(v), (vi),
(viii), and (x) of this section.
* * * * *
(B) * * *
(2) If a catcher/processor identified in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A)(2)
or (c)(3)(i)(B)(4) through (5) of this section is active, the operator
must record in the catcher/processor longline and pot gear DCPL the
information listed in paragraphs (c)(3)(v) and (vi) of this section and
must record in eLandings the information listed in paragraphs
(c)(3)(v), (vii), and (ix) of this section.
* * * * *
(v) * * *
(G) Gear type. Use a separate logsheet for each gear type. Place a
check mark in the box for the gear type used to harvest the fish or
crab. Record the information from the following table for the
appropriate gear type on the logsheet. If the gear type is the same on
subsequent logsheets, place a check mark in the box instead of re-
entering the gear type information on the next logsheet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If gear type is . . . Then . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Other gear............... If gear is other than those listed within
this table, indicate ``Other'' and
describe.
(2) Pot gear (includes pot- (i) If using longline pot gear in the
and-line and longline pot). GOA, enter the length of longline pot
set to the nearest foot, the size of pot
in inches (width by length by height or
diameter), and spacing of pots to the
nearest foot.
(ii) If using longline pot gear in the
GOA, enter the number of pots deployed
in each set (see paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(F)
of this section) and the number of pots
lost when the set is retrieved
(optional, but may be required by IPHC
regulations, see Sec. Sec. 300.60
through 300.65 of this title).
(iii) If using pot gear, enter the number
of pots deployed in each set (see
paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(F) of this section)
and the number of pots lost when the set
is retrieved (optional, but may be
required by IPHC regulations, see Sec.
Sec. 300.60 through 300.65 of this
title).
(3) Hook-and-line gear....... Indicate: (i) Whether gear is fixed hook
(conventional or tub), autoline, or snap
(optional, but may be required by IPHC
regulations, see Sec. Sec. 300.60
through 300.65 of this title).
(ii) Number of hooks per skate (optional,
but may be required by IPHC regulations,
see Sec. Sec. 300.60 through 300.65
of this title), length of skate to the
nearest foot (optional, but may be
required by IPHC regulations, see Sec.
Sec. 300.60 through 300.65 of this
title), size of hooks, and hook spacing
in feet.
(iii) Enter the number of skates set and
number of skates lost (optional, but may
be required by IPHC regulations, see
Sec. Sec. 300.60 through 300.65 of
this title).
(iv) Seabird avoidance gear code(s) (see
Sec. 679.24(e) and Table 19 to this
part).
[[Page 95455]]
(v) Enter the number of mammals sighted
while hauling gear next to the mammal
name: Sperm, orca, and other (optional,
but may be required by IPHC regulations,
see Sec. Sec. 300.60 through 300.65
of this title).
(vi) Enter the number of sablefish,
halibut, other fish, or hooks damaged
found while hauling gear (optional, but
may be required by IPHC regulations, see
Sec. Sec. 300.60 through 300.65 of
this title).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(F) IFQ regulatory area(s) in which the IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut,
or IFQ sablefish were harvested;
(G) IFQ permit number(s) that will be used to land the IFQ halibut,
CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish;
(H) Gear type used to harvest the IFQ sablefish or IFQ halibut (see
Table 15 to this part); and
(I) If using longline pot gear in the GOA, report the number of
pots set, the number of pots lost, and the number of pots left deployed
on the fishing grounds.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec. 679.7:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a)(6) introductory text, paragraph (a)(6)(i),
paragraph (a)(13) introductory text, paragraph (a)(13)(ii) introductory
text, and paragraph (a)(13)(iv); and
0
b. Add paragraphs (f)(17) through (25).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 679.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(6) Gear. Deploy any trawl, longline, longline pot, pot-and-line,
or jig gear in an area when directed fishing for, or retention of, all
groundfish by operators of vessels using that gear type is prohibited
in that area, except that this paragraph (a)(6) shall not prohibit:
(i) Deployment of fixed gear, as defined in Sec. 679.2 under
``Authorized fishing gear,'' by an operator of a vessel fishing for IFQ
halibut during the fishing period prescribed in the annual management
measures published in the Federal Register pursuant to Sec. 300.62 of
this title.
* * * * *
(13) Halibut. With respect to halibut caught with fixed gear, as
defined in Sec. 679.2 under the definition of ``Authorized fishing
gear,'' deployed from a vessel fishing for groundfish, except for
vessels fishing for halibut as prescribed in the annual management
measures published in the Federal Register pursuant to Sec. 300.62 of
this title:
* * * * *
(ii) Release halibut caught with longline gear by any method other
than--
* * * * *
(iv) Allow halibut caught with longline gear to contact the vessel,
if such contact causes, or is capable of causing, the halibut to be
stripped from the hook.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(17) Deploy, conduct fishing with, or retrieve longline pot gear in
the GOA before the start or after the end of the IFQ sablefish fishing
period specified in Sec. 679.23(g)(1).
(18) Deploy, conduct fishing with, retrieve, or retain IFQ
sablefish or IFQ halibut from longline pot gear in the GOA:
(i) In excess of the pot limits specified in Sec.
679.42(l)(5)(ii); or
(ii) Without a pot tag attached to each pot in accordance with
Sec. 679.42(l)(4).
(19) Deploy, conduct fishing with, or retain IFQ sablefish or IFQ
halibut in the GOA from a pot with an attached pot tag that has a
serial number assigned to another vessel or has been reported lost,
stolen, or mutilated to NMFS in a request for a replacement pot tag as
described in Sec. 679.42(l)(3)(iii).
(20) Deploy longline pot gear to fish IFQ sablefish in the GOA
without marking the gear in accordance with Sec. 679.24(a).
(21) Fail to retrieve and remove from the fishing grounds all
deployed longline pot gear that is assigned to, and used by, a catcher
vessel to fish IFQ sablefish in the Southeast Outside District of the
GOA when the vessel makes an IFQ landing.
(22) Fail to redeploy or remove from the fishing grounds all
deployed longline pot gear that is assigned to, and used by, a catcher/
processor within five days of deploying the gear to fish IFQ sablefish
in the Southeast Outside District of the GOA.
(23) Fail to redeploy or remove from the fishing grounds all
deployed longline pot gear that is assigned to, and used by, a catcher
vessel or a catcher/processor within five days of deploying the gear to
fish IFQ sablefish in the West Yakutat District of the GOA and the
Central GOA regulatory area.
(24) Fail to redeploy or remove from the fishing grounds all
deployed longline pot gear that is assigned to, and used by, a catcher
vessel or a catcher/processor within seven days of deploying the gear
to fish IFQ sablefish in the Western GOA regulatory area.
(25) Operate a catcher vessel or a catcher/processor using longline
pot gear to fish IFQ sablefish or IFQ halibut in the GOA and fail to
use functioning VMS equipment as required in Sec. 679.42(k)(2).
* * * * *
0
9. In Sec. 679.20, revise paragraphs (a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(ii) heading,
and (a)(4)(ii)(A) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.20 General limitations.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Eastern GOA regulatory area--(A) Fixed gear. Vessels in the
Eastern GOA regulatory area using fixed gear will be allocated 95
percent of the sablefish TAC.
(B) Trawl gear. Vessels in the Eastern GOA regulatory area using
trawl gear will be allocated 5 percent of the sablefish TAC for bycatch
in other trawl fisheries.
(ii) Central and Western GOA regulatory areas--(A) Fixed gear.
Vessels in the Central and Western GOA regulatory areas using fixed
gear will be allocated 80 percent of the sablefish TAC in each of the
Central and Western GOA regulatory areas.
* * * * *
0
10. In Sec. 679.23, revise paragraph (g)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.23 Seasons.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) Except for catches of sablefish with longline pot gear in the
GOA, catches of sablefish by fixed gear during other periods may be
retained up to the amounts provided for by the directed fishing
standards specified at Sec. 679.20 when made by an individual aboard
the vessel who has a valid IFQ permit and unused IFQ in the account on
which the permit was issued.
* * * * *
0
11. In Sec. 679.24:
[[Page 95456]]
0
a. Add paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(1)(iii); and
0
b. Revise paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A) and (B); and (c)(3).
The additions and revisions read as follows.
Sec. 679.24 Gear limitations.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) Each end of a set of longline pot gear deployed to fish IFQ
sablefish in the GOA must have attached a cluster of four or more
marker buoys including one hard buoy ball marked with the capital
letters ``LP'' in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a
flag mounted on a pole, and radar reflector floating on the sea
surface.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) While directed fishing for IFQ sablefish in the GOA.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) No person may use any gear other than hook-and-line, longline
pot, and trawl gear when fishing for sablefish in the Eastern GOA
regulatory area.
(B) No person may use any gear other than hook-and-line gear and
longline pot gear to engage in directed fishing for IFQ sablefish.
* * * * *
(3) Central and Western GOA regulatory areas; sablefish as
prohibited species. Operators of vessels using gear types other than
hook-and-line, longline pot, and trawl gear in the Central and Western
GOA regulatory areas must treat any catch of sablefish in these areas
as a prohibited species as provided by Sec. 679.21(a).
* * * * *
0
12. In Sec. 679.42:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (2), and paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2);
and
0
b. Add paragraph (l).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 679.42 Limitations on use of QS and IFQ.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) IFQ Fisheries. Authorized fishing gear to harvest IFQ halibut
and IFQ sablefish is defined in Sec. 679.2.
(i) IFQ halibut. IFQ halibut must not be harvested with trawl gear
in any IFQ regulatory area, or with pot gear in any IFQ regulatory area
in the BSAI.
(ii) IFQ sablefish. IFQ sablefish must not be harvested with trawl
gear in any IFQ regulatory area, or with pot-and-line gear in the GOA.
A vessel operator using longline pot gear in the GOA to fish for IFQ
sablefish must comply with the GOA sablefish longline pot gear
requirements in paragraph (l) of this section.
(2) Seabird avoidance gear and methods. The operator of a vessel
using hook-and-line gear authorized at Sec. 679.2 while fishing for
IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish must comply with
requirements for seabird avoidance gear and methods set forth at Sec.
679.24(e).
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(1) Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands. (i) General. Any vessel
operator who fishes for IFQ sablefish in the Bering Sea or Aleutian
Islands must possess a transmitting VMS transmitter while fishing for
IFQ sablefish.
(ii) VMS requirements. (A) The operator of the vessel must comply
with VMS requirements at Sec. 679.28(f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(5); and
(B) The operator of the vessel must contact NMFS at 800-304-4846
(option 1) between 0600 and 0000 A.l.t. and receive a VMS confirmation
number at least 72 hours prior to fishing for IFQ sablefish in the
Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands.
(2) Gulf of Alaska. (i) General. A vessel operator using longline
pot gear to fish for IFQ sablefish in the Gulf of Alaska must possess a
transmitting VMS transmitter while fishing for sablefish.
(ii) VMS requirements. (A) The operator of the vessel must comply
with VMS requirements at Sec. 679.28(f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(5); and
(B) The operator of the vessel must contact NMFS at 800-304-4846
(option 1) between 0600 and 0000 A.l.t. and receive a VMS confirmation
number at least 72 hours prior to using longline pot gear to fish for
IFQ sablefish in the Gulf of Alaska.
(l) GOA sablefish longline pot gear requirements. Additional
regulations that implement specific requirements for any vessel
operator who fishes for IFQ sablefish in the GOA using longline pot
gear are set out under: Sec. 300.61 Definitions, Sec. 679.2
Definitions, Sec. 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R), Sec. 679.7
Prohibitions, Sec. 679.20 General limitations, Sec. 679.23 Seasons,
Sec. 679.24 Gear limitations, and Sec. 679.51 Observer requirements
for vessels and plants.
(1) Applicability. Any vessel operator who fishes for IFQ sablefish
with longline pot gear in the GOA must comply with the requirements of
this paragraph (l). The IFQ regulatory areas in the GOA include the
Southeast Outside District of the GOA, the West Yakutat District of the
GOA, the Central GOA regulatory area, and the Western GOA regulatory
area.
(2) General. To use longline pot gear to fish for IFQ sablefish in
the GOA, a vessel operator must:
(i) Request and be issued pot tags from NMFS as specified in
paragraph (l)(3);
(ii) Use pot tags as specified in paragraph (l)(4);
(iii) Deploy and retrieve longline pot gear as specified in
paragraph (l)(5);
(iv) Retain IFQ halibut caught in longline pot gear if sufficient
halibut IFQ is held by persons on board the vessel as specified in
paragraph (l)(6); and
(v) Comply with other requirements as specified in paragraph
(l)(7).
(3) Pot tags. (i) Request for pot tags. (A) The owner of a vessel
that uses longline pot gear to fish for IFQ sablefish in the GOA must
use pot tags issued by NMFS. A vessel owner may only receive pot tags
from NMFS for each vessel that uses longline pot gear to fish for IFQ
sablefish in the GOA by submitting a complete IFQ Sablefish Longline
Pot Gear Vessel Registration and Request for Pot Gear Tags form
according to form instructions. The form is located on the NMFS Alaska
Region Web site at alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
(B) The vessel owner must specify the number of requested pot tags
for each vessel for each IFQ regulatory area in the GOA (up to the
maximum number of pots specified in paragraph (l)(5)(ii) of this
section) on the IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear Vessel Registration and
Request for Pot Gear Tags form.
(ii) Issuance of pot tags. (A) Upon submission of a completed IFQ
Sablefish Longline Pot Gear Vessel Registration and Request for Pot
Gear Tags form, NMFS will assign each pot tag to the vessel specified
on the form.
(B) Each pot tag will be a unique color that is specific to the IFQ
regulatory area in the GOA in which it must be deployed and imprinted
with a unique serial number.
(C) NMFS will send the pot tags to the vessel owner at the address
provided on the IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear Vessel Registration and
Request for Pot Gear Tags form.
(iii) Request for pot tag replacement. (A) The vessel owner may
submit a request to NMFS to replace pot tags that are lost, stolen, or
mutilated.
(B) The vessel owner to whom the lost, stolen, or mutilated pot tag
was issued must submit a complete IFQ Sablefish Request for Replacement
of Longline Pot Gear Tags form according to form instructions. The form
is located on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
(C) A complete form must be signed by the vessel owner and is a
sworn
[[Page 95457]]
affidavit to NMFS indicating the reason for the request for a
replacement pot tag or pot tags and the number of replacement pot tags
requested by IFQ regulatory area.
(D) NMFS will review a request to replace a pot tag or tags and
will issue the appropriate number of replacement pot tags. The total
number of pot tags issued to a vessel owner for an IFQ regulatory area
in the GOA cannot exceed the maximum number of pots authorized for use
by a vessel in that IFQ regulatory area specified in paragraph
(l)(5)(ii) of this section. The total number of pot tags issued to a
vessel owner for an IFQ regulatory area in the GOA equals the sum of
the number of pot tags issued for that IFQ regulatory area that have
not been replaced plus the number of replacement pot tags issued for
that IFQ regulatory area.
(iv) Annual vessel registration and pot tag assignment. (A) The
owner of a vessel that uses longline pot gear to fish for IFQ sablefish
in the GOA must annually register the vessel with NMFS and specify the
pot tags that NMFS will assign to the vessel. Pot tags must be assigned
to only one vessel each year.
(B) To register a vessel and assign pot tags, the vessel owner must
annually submit a complete IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear Vessel
Registration and Request for Pot Gear Tags form to NMFS.
(1) The vessel owner must specify the vessel to be registered on
the IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear Vessel Registration and Request for
Pot Gear Tags form. The specified vessel must have a valid ADF&G vessel
registration number.
(2) The vessel owner must specify on the IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot
Gear Vessel Registration and Request for Pot Gear Tags form either that
the vessel owner is requesting that NMFS assign pot tags to a vessel to
which the pot tags were previously assigned or that the vessel owner is
requesting new pot tags from NMFS.
(4) Using pot tags. (i) Each pot used to fish for IFQ sablefish in
the GOA must be identified with a valid pot tag. A valid pot tag is:
(A) Issued by NMFS according to paragraph (l)(3) of this section;
(B) The color specific to the regulatory area in which it will be
used; and
(C) Inscribed with a legible unique serial number.
(ii) A valid pot tag must be attached to each pot on board the
vessel to which the pot tags are assigned before the vessel departs
port to fish.
(iii) A valid pot tag must be attached to a pot bridge or cross
member such that the entire pot tag is visible and not obstructed.
(5) Restrictions on GOA longline pot gear deployment and
retrieval--(i) General.
(A) A vessel operator must mark longline pot gear used to fish IFQ
sablefish in the GOA as specified in Sec. 679.24(a).
(B) A vessel operator must deploy and retrieve longline pot gear to
fish IFQ sablefish in the GOA only during the sablefish fishing period
specified in Sec. 679.23(g)(1).
(C) The gear retrieval and removal requirements in paragraphs
(l)(5)(iii) and (iv) of this section apply to all longline pot gear
that is assigned to the vessel and deployed to fish IFQ sablefish and
to all other fishing equipment attached to longline pot gear that is
deployed in the water by the vessel to fish IFQ sablefish. All other
fishing equipment attached to longline pot gear includes, but is not
limited to, equipment used to mark longline pot gear as required in
Sec. 679.24(a)(3).
(ii) Pot limits. A vessel operator is limited to deploying a
maximum number of pots to fish IFQ sablefish in each IFQ regulatory
area in the GOA.
(A) In the Southeast Outside District of the GOA, a vessel operator
is limited to deploying a maximum of 120 pots.
(B) In the West Yakutat District of the GOA, a vessel operator is
limited to deploying a maximum of 120 pots.
(C) In the Central GOA regulatory area, a vessel operator is
limited to deploying a maximum of 300 pots.
(D) In the Western GOA regulatory area, a vessel operator is
limited to deploying a maximum of 300 pots.
(iii) Gear retrieval. (A) In the Southeast Outside District of the
GOA, a catcher vessel operator must retrieve and remove from the
fishing grounds all longline pot gear that is assigned to the vessel
and deployed to fish IFQ sablefish when the vessel makes an IFQ
landing.
(B) In the Southeast Outside District of the GOA, a catcher/
processor must redeploy or remove from the fishing grounds all longline
pot gear that is assigned to the vessel and deployed to fish IFQ
sablefish within five days of deploying the gear.
(C) In the West Yakutat District of the GOA and the Central GOA
regulatory area, a vessel operator must redeploy or remove from the
fishing grounds all longline pot gear that is assigned to the vessel
and deployed to fish IFQ sablefish within five days of deploying the
gear.
(D) In the Western GOA regulatory area, a vessel operator must
redeploy or remove from the fishing grounds all longline pot gear that
is assigned to the vessel and deployed to fish IFQ sablefish within
seven days of deploying the gear.
(iv) Longline pot gear used on multiple vessels. Longline pot gear
assigned to one vessel and deployed to fish IFQ sablefish in the GOA
must be removed from the fishing grounds, returned to port, and must
have only one set of the appropriate vessel-specific pot tags before
being deployed by another vessel to fish IFQ sablefish in the GOA.
(6) Retention of halibut. (i) A vessel operator who fishes for IFQ
sablefish using longline pot gear must retain IFQ halibut if:
(A) The IFQ halibut is caught in any GOA reporting area in
accordance with paragraph (l) of this section; and
(B) An IFQ permit holder on board the vessel has unused halibut IFQ
for the IFQ regulatory area fished and IFQ vessel category.
(ii) [Reserved]
(7) Other requirements. A vessel operator who fishes for IFQ
sablefish using longline pot gear in the GOA must:
(i) Complete a longline and pot gear Daily Fishing Logbook (DFL) or
Daily Cumulative Production Logbook (DCPL) as specified in Sec.
679.5(c); and
(ii) Comply with Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) requirements
specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this section.
0
13. In Sec. 679.51, revise paragraphs (a)(1)(i) introductory text and
(a)(1)(i)(B) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.51 Observer requirements for vessels and plants.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Vessel classes in partial coverage category. Unless otherwise
specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the following catcher
vessels and catcher/processors are in the partial observer coverage
category when fishing for halibut or when directed fishing for
groundfish in a federally managed or parallel groundfish fishery, as
defined at Sec. 679.2:
* * * * *
(B) A catcher vessel when fishing for halibut while carrying a
person named on a permit issued under Sec. 679.4(d)(1)(i), (d)(2)(i),
or (e)(2), or for IFQ sablefish, as defined at Sec. 679.2, while
carrying a person named on a permit issued under Sec. 679.4(d)(1)(i)
or (d)(2)(i); or
* * * * *
14. In Table 15 to part 679, revise entries for ``Pot'',
``Authorized gear for
[[Page 95458]]
sablefish harvested from any GOA reporting area'', and ``Authorized
gear for halibut harvested from any IFQ regulatory area'', and add
entry for ``Authorized gear for halibut harvested from any IFQ
regulatory area in the BSAI'' to read as follows:
Table 15 to Part 679--Gear Codes, Descriptions, and Use
[X indicates where this code is used]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use alphabetic code to complete the following: Use numeric code to complete the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of gear Electronic
Alpha gear code NMFS logbooks check-in/ Numeric gear IERS eLandings ADF&G COAR
check-out code
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS AND ADF&G GEAR CODES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Pot (includes longline pot and POT.................... X X 91 X X
pot-and-line).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIXED GEAR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized gear for sablefish All longline gear (hook-and-line, jig, troll, and handline) and longline pot gear. For purposes of
harvested from any GOA reporting determining initial IFQ allocation, all pot gear used to make a legal landing.
area.
* * * * * * *
Authorized gear for halibut All fishing gear composed of lines with hooks attached, including one or more stationary, buoyed, and
harvested from any IFQ anchored lines with hooks attached and longline pot gear.
regulatory area in the GOA.
Authorized gear for halibut All fishing gear composed of lines with hooks attached, including one or more stationary, buoyed, and
harvested from any IFQ anchored lines with hooks attached.
regulatory area in the BSAI.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2016-31057 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P