Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program for Pacific Halibut and Sablefish; Revisions to Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Proposed rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 72 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (Amendment 72) and Amendment 64 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (Amendment 64) (collectively, Amendments 72/64). This action would revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program for fixed gear Pacific halibut and sablefish fisheries and the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program for the Pacific halibut fishery. This action is necessary to improve IFQ fishing operations, while complying with IFQ Program requirements; to improve NMFS' ability to efficiently administer the program; and to improve the clarity and consistency of IFQ Program regulations. This action is intended to meet the conservation and management requirements of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act) with respect to halibut and of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., (Magnuson-Stevens Act) with respect to sablefish and to further the goals and objectives of the groundfish Fishery Management Plans (FMPs).

DATES:

Comments must be received at the following address no later than February 24, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

Comments should be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Lori Gravel-Durall) or delivered to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 401, Juneau, AK. Comments may be sent via facsimile to 907-586-7465. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet. Copies of Amendment 72/64 of the FMPs and the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action may also be obtained from the same address, or by calling the Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907-586-7228. Send comments on collection-of-information requirements to NMFS, Alaska Region, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attn: NOAA Desk Officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patsy A. Bearden, 907-586-7228 or patsy.bearden@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Need for Action

NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off Alaska according to fishery management plans prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The FMPs are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that also pertain to these fisheries appear in subpart H to 50 CFR part 600.

Regulations codified at 50 CFR part 679 implement the IFQ Program, a limited access system for management of the Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) and sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) fixed gear fisheries in and off Alaska.

The IFQ Program, a limited access management system for the fixed gear Pacific halibut and sablefish fisheries off Alaska, was approved by NMFS in January 1993 and fully implemented beginning in March 1995. The IFQ Program for the sablefish fishery is implemented by the FMPs and Federal regulations under 50 CFR part 679 under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The IFQ Program for the halibut fishery is implemented by Federal regulations promulgated under the authority of the Halibut Act. Further information on the rationale for and implementation of the IFQ Program is contained in the preamble to the final rule published in the Federal Register, November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375). Regulations implementing the IFQ Program have been revised numerous times since 1993 to refine program operations.

This action would amend the regulatory text establishing Recordkeeping and Reporting (R&R) requirements for the groundfish fishery as well as the IFQ program requirements. Removal of the IFQ Shipment Report and of the IFQ Vessel Clearance would affect other IFQ procedures and forms—the IFQ Landing Report, IFQ Prior Notice of Landing (PNOL), and IFQ Departure Report—as well as definitions, groundfish R&R procedures and forms, the Product Transfer Report (PTR) and Vessel Activity Report (VAR). Revisions are made to the regulatory text to accommodate the procedural changes.

The need, justification, and economic impacts for the actions in this proposed rule, as well as impacts of the alternatives considered, were analyzed in the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).

The revisions to the regulations at 50 CFR part 679 are presented below in the order they appear in the regulations.

Section 679.2 Definitions

This action would revise the definitions: “Authorized officer,” “Clearing officer,” “IFQ landing,” and “IFQ Registered Buyer.” “Authorized officer,” would be revised to cross-reference the definition of “Authorized officer” at 50 CFR 600.10.

Section 679.4(d) IFQ Permits

In response to the removal of “Vessel Clearance” and “Shipment Report” and to the revision of “Departure Report,” this action would reorganize the regulatory text in the IFQ permits section. Detailed changes to § 679.4(d) are presented below:

Revisions to the regulatory text are presented below, showing the location of the text, the current text, and the proposed text.

Section 679.5(a)(15) IFQ/groundfish Transfer Document Comparison

In response to the removal of the IFQ Vessel Clearance and the IFQ Shipment Report, the regulatory text in § 679.5(a)(15), the revised procedures for the Product Transfer Report, and the in-text table that compares the transfer documents are reorganized and revised.

The introductory paragraph (a)(15) of this section would be revised to include an explanation of the “X” symbols in the body of the table.

The in-text table would be restructured to provide for the removal of the IFQ Vessel Clearance and the IFQ Shipment Report. The columns across the top of the table are revised by removing the columns entitled: “IFQ Vessel Clearance” and “IFQ Shipment Report,” and adding columns entitled: “IFQ Landing Report Receipt.” Cross-referencing paragraph numbers previously located within table columns are relocated to rows in the table for easier reading. New headings are added to indicate activity, e.g., submitting a report to NMFS, issuing a receipt to the public, and possessing a receipt. A new column heading “SUBMITTAL” would be added to group together those forms that require submittal to NMFS over the subheadings “VAR,” “PTR,” “IFQ Trans-shipment Authorization,” and “IFQ Departure Report.” Another new column heading “ISSUE” would be placed over the subheading “IFQ Dockside Sales Receipt.” A third heading “POSSESS” would be placed over the subheading “IFQ Landing Report Receipt.” The rows of the table are revised as follows:

Section 679.5(g) Product Transfer Report (PTR)

Currently, the groundfish PTR is used to document movement of groundfish product from a shoreside facility or from a processor vessel, while the IFQ Shipment Report is used to document IFQ fish transfer from an IFQ Registered Buyer. This action would combine the groundfish PTR and the IFQ Shipment Report into one form, a revised PTR, that would be used to document transfer of non-IFQ groundfish, donated prohibited species, all halibut and all sablefish. Although a copy of the Shipment Report currently is required to accompany the IFQ shipment, the proposed action would remove this requirement when using a PTR.

The detailed changes to the regulations describing the PTR are presented below:

The in-text table (new paragraph (g)(5)(iv)) of this section would be revised by separating the information into more distinct categories by dividing the columns to read “Receiver,” “Date & time of product transfer,” “Location of product transfer,” and “Mode of transportation and intended route.” Existing information would be reformatted to fit within these columns.

Section 679.5(k) Vessel Activity Report (VAR)

The VAR documents whether a vessel has onboard any fish or fish products, regardless of species. The VAR is submitted to NMFS before the vessel crosses the seaward boundary of the EEZ off Alaska or crosses the U.S.-Canada international boundary between Alaska and British Columbia. This action would revise the procedure for interaction of the VAR with IFQ reports due to the removal of the IFQ Vessel Clearance and the IFQ Shipment Report.

Detailed changes in § 679.5(k)(1) are presented below:

Revisions to the regulatory text are presented below, showing the location of the text, the current text, and the proposed text.

Section 679.5(l)(1) IFQ Prior Notice of Landing (PNOL)

The intent of the PNOL is to provide International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) monitoring personnel and OLE personnel advance notice of vessel IFQ landings. Under current regulations, the operator of any vessel intending to make a landing of IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish must submit a PNOL to OLE 6 hours before making the landing.

This action would revise the PNOL procedure by changing the prior notification from 6 hours to 3 hours. This change would provide adequate monitoring and enforcement opportunities. The 3-hour time limit would result in improved economic efficiency in the fishery, allowing an overall exvessel price for IFQ fish to improve for a vessel operator due to additional time to seek out more competitive marketing opportunities. IFQ card holders and Registered Buyers would have more flexibility during their business negotiations. In general, this action would relieve burdens on small entities, which include Registered Buyers. It may contribute to increased competition in the delivery market for IFQ halibut and sablefish. It could benefit consumers and even cause Registered Buyers to expand into more markets (i.e., fresh fish). The estimated number of directly regulated small entities would include approximately 3,485 holders of halibut QS, 872 holders of sablefish QS, approximately 290 hired masters, and all six of the CDQ groups hold CDQ halibut.

In addition, vessels would be required to report “location of landings” rather than “Registered Buyer.” This change would provide IPHC and OLE personnel with the exact location of the landing, which is needed to plan monitoring activities, while not requiring a vessel to commit to a specific processor.

Detailed changes to the PNOL regulatory text are presented below:

Revisions to the regulatory text are presented below, showing the location of the text, the current text, and the proposed text.

Section 679.5(l)(2) IFQ Landing Report

Reporting of IFQ harvests is accomplished through electronic submittal of an IFQ Landing Report, which may be submitted by an IFQ cardholder at an automated transaction terminal, through the Internet, and with approval by FAX. A Registered Buyer submits the Landing Report within 6 hours after all fish are landed and prior to shipment or departure of the delivery vessel from the landing site. This action would revise the regulatory text and the procedure for submittal of the IFQ Landing Report for clarity and simplicity. Similar topics are combined under one heading. In some cases, long paragraphs are divided into two paragraphs. Cross references are added to ensure ease of reading. Some telephone numbers are revised. Detailed changes to the regulatory text describing the IFQ Landing Report are presented below:

Revisions to the regulatory text are presented below, showing the location of the text, the current text, and the proposed text.

Section 679.5(l)(3)

IFQ Shipment Report. This action would remove the requirement for submittal of an IFQ Shipment Report. Currently, an IFQ Shipment Report is used by OLE to monitor and inspect shipments of IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, and IFQ sablefish to verify proper accounting for fish landings. The Shipment Report documents the first receiver of the IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut or IFQ sablefish. Each Registered Buyer, other than those conducting dockside sales, must complete and submit a written Shipment Report or a bill of lading containing the same information as a Shipment Report for each shipment or transfer of CDQ halibut, IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish.

Currently, a groundfish PTR is used by OLE to monitor and inspect shipments of groundfish to verify proper accounting for all non-IFQ groundfish landings by documenting the first receiver of the groundfish. Each mothership, catcher/ processor, shoreside processor, or stationary floating processor must complete a written PTR for each shipment or transfer of groundfish.

This action would combine these two forms into one. Under this action, Registered Buyers would submit a PTR for transfer or shipments of all halibut and all sablefish. Groundfish processors would submit a PTR for transfer or shipments of non-IFQ groundfish. If a participant is both a groundfish processor and a Registered Buyer, he or she would submit a PTR for transfer or shipments of non-IFQ groundfish, all halibut and all sablefish. This proposed change would maintain existing data-collection, monitoring, and enforcement capabilities, while reducing the paperwork submittal and storage by the fishing industry.

The specific proposed change to the IFQ Shipment Report regulatory text is presented below: all of § 679.5(l)(3) would be removed, except that some paragraphs are indicated elsewhere as redesignated for inclusion in other sections.

IFQ Dockside Sales Receipt. Regulations pertaining to the IFQ dockside sales receipt would be moved from § 679.5(l)(3)(iv) and placed at § 679.5(l)(5). Regulatory text would be revised by removing “shipment report” and adding in its place “PTR”. The Registered Buyer must issue a dockside sales receipt in lieu of a PTR. No changes in the procedure of issuing a dockside sales receipt would occur as a result of this rule. A person holding a valid IFQ permit, CDQ halibut permit, IFQ card, and Registered Buyer permit may conduct a dockside sale of IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish to a person who has not been issued a Registered Buyer permit. The purpose of reporting the amount of IFQ fish involved in a dockside sale is to provide OLE with the ability to monitor and inspect the shipment of IFQ fish to determine whether there was proper accounting for all IFQ fish landed.

Section 679.5(l)(4)

IFQ Transshipment Authorization. Regulations pertaining to the IFQ transshipment authorization would be moved from § 679.5(l)(4) and placed at § 679.5(l)(3). No changes in the procedure of transshipment authorization would occur as a result of this rule. Currently, if a person intends to transship processed IFQ halibut, IFQ sablefish, or CDQ halibut between vessels, authorization from a OLE clearing officer to do so must be obtained for each instance of transshipment. The request must be made at least 24 hr before the transshipment is intended to commence.

IFQ Departure Report. Regulations pertaining to the IFQ departure report would be moved from § 679.5(l)(5)(xi) and placed at § 679.5(l)(4). Some of the information originally requested as part of a Vessel Clearance would be added to the IFQ Departure Report. Instead of obtaining an IFQ Vessel Clearance at a principal port prior to departing the waters of the EEZ adjacent to the jurisdictional waters of the State of Alaska, the territorial sea of the State of Alaska, or the internal waters of the State of Alaska, a vessel operator would call OLE by telephone and provide the answers to OLE questions listed on the Departure Report. Detailed changes to the IFQ Departure Report regulatory text are presented below:

Revisions to the regulatory text are presented below, showing the location of the text, the current text, and the proposed text.

Section 679.5(l)(5)

IFQ Vessel Clearance. OLE reports that 65 Vessel Clearances were processed in 2001. This indicates that a relatively small number of all vessels making IFQ landings would be directly regulated by this provision. The Vessel Clearance requirement would be replaced with a verbal “Departure Report” submitted by telephone prior to leaving the jurisdiction of the Council. This would mean vessels would not have to meet an OLE officer dockside at a Primary Port. A Departure Report would be required for vessels delivering their IFQ fish outside Alaska.

All of paragraph (l)(5) of this section would be removed, except that some paragraphs are indicated elsewhere as redesignated for inclusion in other sections. This action would also amend the FMPs so that the intent of the FMPs incorporates the practical limitations of OLE to meet the requirements of the FMPs. OLE personnel are not currently able to effectively determine catch quantity at the Vessel Clearance port and are unable to seal a vessel's hold without compromising vessel safety.

Landing Verification and Record Retention. In this section, all of the regulatory text regarding landing verification and record retention would be placed under (l)(5).

Section 679.5(l)(6)

Sampling. All of the regulatory text regarding sampling would be placed under (l)(6). Detailed changes are given below:

Section 679.7 Prohibitions

This action would amend § 679.7(f)(6) to include the IFQ card requirement for a hired master. In addition, § 679.7(f)(12) would be revised to change the submittal time limit for the PNOL from 6 hours to 3 hours prior notice. Detailed changes are presented below:

Revisions to the regulatory text are presented below, showing the location of the text, the current text, and the proposed text.

Section 679.32 Groundfish and Halibut CDQ Catch Monitoring

This action would revise the reference in paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of this section to include paragraph (g) of this section for the PTR and paragraph (l) of this section for IFQ R&R. This would be necessary because participants in the CDQ halibut fishery are required to follow the IFQ regulations for R&R given in paragraph (l) of this section and requirements to file the PTR in paragraph (g) of this section.

Revisions to the regulatory text are presented below, showing the location of the text, the current text, and the proposed text.

Section 679.42 Limitations on Use of QS and IFQ

This action would correct the regulatory text of § 679.42 by removing incorrect reference to § 679.42(k), by separating the text into numbered subparagraphs, and by correcting the metric “equivalent” to 5,000 lb. The amounts described by pounds and metric tons are not equal, and this regulation is stating an exact amount in both pounds and metric tons. Other detailed changes for § 679.42 are presented below:

Revisions to the regulatory text are presented below, showing the location of the text, the current text, and the proposed text.

Section 679.43 Determinations and Appeals

In addition to the changes in R&R for groundfish and the IFQ Program, paragraph 679.43(c) would be revised to correct the address for the Office of Administrative Appeals.

Revisions to the regulatory text are presented below, showing the location of the text, the current text, and the proposed text.

Tables

Tables 14a, b, and c to 50 CFR part 679 are revised by removing the coordinates and indications for IFQ primary ports of landing and by indicating “other” for each State and Canada. The port of Vancouver, Canada, and code number 803 are added to Table 14b.

Classification

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal regulations.

This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been approved by OMB. These requirements are listed by OMB control number.

OMB No. 0648-0272. These requirements and their associated burden estimates per response are: 18 minutes for Landing Report and 12 minutes for Transshipment Authorization.

This proposed rule also contains revised requirements that have been submitted to OMB for approval. These requirements are listed by OMB control number.

OMB No. 0648-0213. This requirement and its associated burden estimate per response is: 14 minutes for Vessel Activity Report.

OMB No. 0648-0272. These revised requirements and their associated burden estimates per response are: 12 minutes for IFQ Prior Notice of Landing; 6 minutes for IFQ Departure Report; 6 minutes for IFQ Dockside sales receipt; 18 minutes for Shipment Report are removed; and 12 minutes for Vessel Clearance are removed.

OMB No. 0648-0213. This revised requirement and its associated burden estimate per response is: 20 minutes for Product Transfer Report.

Response times include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS, Alaska Region (see ADDRESSES), and to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer).

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.

In general, these actions would improve the efficiency of data collection required under existing IFQ regulations and stem from a joint collaboration of the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), Alaska Region, and members of the affected industry. Together, they agreed to changes to the R&R requirements for the IFQ program. These changes were further reviewed by the United States Coast Guard, the Council, and the International Pacific Halibut Commission. An IFQ Implementation Team has recommended adoption of these measures to the Council.

These actions would result in removing the IFQ Shipment Report and IFQ Vessel Clearance. As a consequence of their removal, other forms such as the IFQ Landing Report, IFQ Prior Notice of Landing, IFQ Departure Report, the Product Transfer Report and Vessel Activity Report are proposed to be changed. Definitions for “authorized officer”, “clearing officer” and “IFQ landing” would be revised. Overall, these changes will result in improved economic efficiency for the affected fisheries by allowing the vessel operators additional time to find competitive prices at the processors. Furthermore, the action would relieve burdens on small entities, as concluded in the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), by simplifying, combining and clarifying reporting forms and requirements.

NMFS determined that this proposed rule warrants a Categorical Exclusion from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for an EA. The changes proposed in this action are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Halibut Act with respect to halibut, the Magnuson-Stevens Act with respect to sablefish, and the groundfish FMPs.

These proposed actions—FMP amendments and amendment to regulations promulgated under the Groundfish FMP and Halibut Act—have been evaluated to determine the appropriateness of a Categorical Exclusion for preparation of a NEPA analysis. According to agency NEPA guidance found at NAO 216-6, Section 5.05b, to qualify for a categorical exclusion from NEPA analysis, this agency needs to determine if (1) a prior NEPA analysis for the same action demonstrated that the action will not have significant impacts on the quality of the human environment; or (2) the proposed action is likely to result in significant impacts as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27. Further, according to section 6.02 of NAO 216-6, an action is disqualified from Categorical Exclusions for several reasons, including: (1) The action may be reasonably expected to jeopardize the sustainability of any target or non-target species that may be affected by the action; (2) the action may reasonably be expected to cause substantial damage to the ocean and coastal habitats and/or essential fish habitats defined under the MSA and identified in the FMPs; (3) the action may be reasonably expected to have a substantial adverse impact on public health or safety; (4) the action may be reasonably expected to adversely affect endangered or threatened species, marine mammals, or critical habitat of these species; (5) the action may be reasonably expected to result in cumulative effects that could have a substantial effect on the target species or non-target species; (6) the action may be expected to have a substantial impact on biodiversity and ecosystem function within the affected area; (7) if significant social or economic impacts are interrelated with significant natural or physical environmental effects than an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should discuss all the effects on the human environment; and (8) the degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.

For the following reasons, and in consideration of guidance under NAO 216-6, the prior NEPA analyses—the SEIS for Groundfish of the GOA and the SEIS for the Halibut IFQ program—provide sufficient analysis of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the recordkeeping and reporting component to the IFQ fisheries affected here. Further, none of the considerations under section 6.02 exist here given: (1) The nature of the action and its goals, that is that the action is a refinement of recordkeeping and reporting and seeks to reduce the time required for complying with such; and (2) that the action will reduce the window of time required for vessels to alert the agency that they will be offloading catch at processors.

As determined in the accompanying RIR and IRFA analyses, conservation and management goals will be unaffected by the actions. The actions will not affect public health and safety and are not controversial. Because the actions do not alter fishing but rather landings and reporting, the actions will not affect the target or non-target species that are caught pursuant to the IFQ programs affected here. The actions do not establish any precedent or decision in principle about future proposals or result in cumulatively significant impacts nor have any adverse impacts on endangered or threatened species or their habitats.

In conclusion, these actions would improve the efficiency of data collection required under existing IFQ regulations and would implement those recommendations received from industry, enforcement and management. Based on the foregoing conclusions, these revisions to recordkeeping and reporting for the IFQ fisheries would not substantively alter environmental impacts already analyzed within existing environmental documents.

NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.

The legislative authority for these actions is the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Public Law (Pub. L.) 94-265, 16 U.S.C. 1801 (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (NPHA) Public Law 97-176, 16 U.S.C. 773 c (c).

Action 1

Under current regulations, operators of vessels making halibut or sablefish IFQ landings must notify the NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement six hours before the landing and must include the name of the Registered Buyer to whom they are delivering the IFQ fish. These regulations have been found to put IFQ fishermen at a disadvantage in their negotiations with Registered Buyers, to make it more difficult for Registered Buyers to market fresh product, and to reduce the ability of IFQ fishermen to respond to changing business conditions. The preferred alternative for this action would address these problems by reducing the notification time from six hours to three, and by eliminating the requirement that persons landing IFQ fish include the name of the Registered Buyer in the notification. Persons landing IFQ fish only would have to include the location of the landing in the notification.

The maximum number of directly regulated small entities would be approximately 3,485 holders of halibut QS, and 872 holders of sablefish QS. In addition, all six of the CDQ groups hold CDQ halibut QS and would be directly regulated. A total of 270 individual fishermen landed CDQ halibut in 2001 and may be directly regulated by this regulatory change. NMFS/RAM issued 694 permits for Registered Buyers in 2001, and, of these, 215 reported landings. Registered Buyers also would be directly regulated by this change.

In general, this proposed rule would relieve burdens on small entities, especially vessel owners of IFQ's. Proposed changes may contribute to increased competition in the delivery market for IFQ halibut and sablefish and thus may have some adverse impact on less economically efficient Registered Buyers. There are no data available on whether or not this impact will occur, or on how serious it may be.

This action does not impose new record keeping requirements or duplicate, overlap or conflict with other Federal rules. NMFS considered an alternative to totally eliminate the prior notice of landing requirement. This might have relieved more of the burden on small entities (although it might still have adversely impacted less efficient Registered Buyers). However, this alternative would have adversely affected data-collection, monitoring, and enforcement operations. NMFS also considered an alternative to randomly apply the prior notice requirements to vessels. Under this system, some vessels would be relieved of a prior notice burden, but all vessels would have been subjected to additional “hail-out” reporting burdens when they put to sea. Port-sampling might be adversely impacted, with biases introduced into sampling methods that might affect the quality of data used in stock assessments. Therefore, neither of these alternatives was chosen as the preferred alternative.

Action 2

At the present time, vessels may only begin to land IFQ catch between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. (the “offload window”). Industry has expressed an interest in extending the offload window later in the evening. However, industry has also indicated that if the preferred alternative in Action 1 were taken, the flexibility provided would make it unnecessary to extend the window. The preferred alternative, therefore, is continuation of the status quo.

The maximum number of affected small entities would be the approximately 3,485 persons (individuals, corporations, and other entities) who held halibut QS; 872 persons held sablefish QS. In addition, all six of the CDQ groups that hold CDQ halibut would be affected. A total of 270 individuals landed CDQ halibut in 2001 and may be affected by this regulation. NMFS/RAM issued 694 permits for Registered Buyers in 2001, and, of these, 215 reported landings. Registered Buyers also would be affected by this change in regulation.

This action does not appear to have an adverse impact on small entities. This action does not impose new record keeping requirements or duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.

Action 3

The preferred alternative for this action eliminates the requirement for vessels to pull into port to obtain a vessel clearance prior to leaving the EEZ off Alaska. IFQ permit holders state that the requirement is onerous and costly when they have to divert to come dockside for a clearance. They also say there are not enough port options for obtaining clearance in a timely fashion. The objective of this action is to reduce the burden on fishermen by substituting a verbal “departure report” for the currently-required vessel clearance. A verbal report would not diminish the ability to monitor and enforce catch reporting/quota requirements on vessels leaving the jurisdiction of the Council since other reporting mechanisms are available in the port of delivery to monitor those vessels.

As proposed, this preferred alternative for Action 3 would directly regulate the 1,451 unique vessels which made IFQ halibut landings, and 433 unique vessels which made sablefish landings in 2001. OLE reports that 65 vessel clearances were processed in 2001. This indicates that a relatively small number of all vessels making IFQ landings would be directly regulated by this provision, because to obtain the highest quality product, vessels generally offload halibut as soon as possible at a port of Alaska.

NMFS has not identified any adverse impacts to small entities from this action. It does not impose new record keeping requirements or duplicate, overlap or conflict with other federal rules. NMFS is not aware of any alternatives in addition to the alternatives considered that would accomplish the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable statutes and that would minimize the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

Action 4

Regulations currently require that Registered Buyers of IFQ sablefish and halibut and CDQ sablefish report landings on a shipment report. Processors are required to report groundfish landings on a separate product transfer report (PTR). Those processors that are also Registered Buyers must submit a PTR for groundfish and a shipment report for IFQ halibut and sablefish and for CDQ halibut. The IFQ fishing industry has expressed concern that this report is duplicative. The purpose of this action is to improve the transfer procedure paperwork and to eliminate some occurrence of duplication. For example under current regulations, an offload of IFQ halibut or sablefish generally also includes incidental groundfish harvest. A PTR is created for the incidental groundfish; a shipment report is created for the IFQ halibut or sablefish. In other words, two pieces of paper document one offload. With the proposed combination of the IFQ shipment report and the groundfish product transfer report, both the IFQ fish and the incidental groundfish would be reported on one document.

As proposed, the preferred alternative for action 4 would directly regulate Registered Buyers, all of whom are assumed to be “small business,” based upon RFA criteria. NMFS/RAM issued 694 permits for Registered Buyers in 2001, and, of these, 215 reported landings. Therefore, some multiple of 215 shipment reports and an estimated two-thirds of these, or 144 PTRs, were submitted by Registered Buyers in 2001. The proposed change would eliminate the 144 PTRs.

This action would impose no adverse impacts on small entities, and it does not appear to impose new record keeping requirements or duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.

A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

• Alaska
• Fisheries
• Recordkeeping and reporting requirements

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.

2. In § 679.2, revise in alphabetical order the definitions for “Authorized officer,” “Clearing officer,” “IFQ landing,” “IFQ Permit Holder,” “IFQ Registered Buyer,” and “Transfer” to read as follows: