Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules Classification Pursuant to section 304b1A of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS
Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Salmon FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS
see ADDRESSES. The Council recommended and NMFS proposes Amendment 14 and these regulations based on those measures that maximize net benefits to the Nation. Specific aspects of the economic analysis are discussed below in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis This Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis IRFA was prepared for this proposed rule, as required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act RFA 5 U.S.C. 603, to describe the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.
The IRFA describes the action; the reasons why this proposed rule is proposed; the objectives and legal basis for this proposed rule; the number and description of directly regulated small entities to which this proposed rule would apply; the recordkeeping, reporting, and other compliance requirements of this proposed rule; and the relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. The IRFA also describes significant alternatives to this proposed rule that would accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and any other applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The description of the action, its purpose, and the legal basis are explained in the preamble and are not repeated here.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing see 50 CFR 200.2.
A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing NAICS code 11411
is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation including its affiliates, and has combined annual receipts not in excess
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:40 Jun 03, 2021

Jkt 253001

of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Proposed Rule This action would directly regulate holders of State of Alaska S03H
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission Limited Entry salmon permits S03H permits. In 2021, 567
S03H permits were held by 502
individuals, all of which are considered small entities based on the $11 million threshold. Additional detail is included in Sections 4.5.3 and 4.9 in the Analysis prepared for this proposed rule see ADDRESSES.
Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small Entities The Council considered, but did not select three other alternatives. The alternatives, and their impacts to small entities, are described below.
Alternative 1 would take no action and would maintain existing management measures and conditions in the fishery within recently observed ranges, resulting in no change to impacts on small entities. This is not a viable alternative because it would be inconsistent with the Ninth Circuits ruling that the Cook Inlet EEZ must be included within the Salmon FMP
Alternative 2 would delegate management to the State. If fully implemented, Alternative 2 would maintain many existing conditions within the fishery. Fishery participants would have the added burdens of obtaining a Federal Fisheries Permit, maintaining a Federal fishing logbook, and monitoring their fishing position with respect to EEZ and State waters as described in Sections 2.4.8 and 4.7.2.2
of the Analysis. However, the State is unwilling to accept a delegation of management authority. Therefore, Alternative 2 is not a viable alternative.
Alternative 3 would result in a Cook Inlet EEZ drift gillnet salmon fishery managed directly by NMFS and the Council. Alternative 3 would increase direct costs and burden to S03H permit holders and fishery stakeholders due to requirements including a Federal Fisheries Permit, VMS, logbooks, and accurate GPS positioning equipment as described in Sections 2.5.7 and 4.7.2.2
of the Analysis. Alternative 3 would also require that a total allowable catch TAC be set before each fishing season.
The TAC would be set conservatively relative to the status quo in order to reduce the risk of overfishing without the benefit of inseason harvest data.
Commercial salmon harvest in the EEZ

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

29985

would be prohibited if the Council and NMFS do not project a harvestable surplus, with an appropriate buffer for the increased management uncertainty.
Further, as described in Section 2.5.3 of the Analysis, gaps in data could also require closing the EEZ to commercial fishing in any given year. Finally, Alternative 3 would increase uncertainty each year for fishery participants in developing a fishing plan because NMFS would determine whether the Cook Inlet EEZ could be open to commercial fishing on an annual basis and shortly before the start of the fishing season.
As discussed, Alternative 3 would impose substantial direct regulatory costs on participants while at the same time is not expected to result in consistent commercial salmon fishing opportunities in the Cook Inlet EEZ.
Alternative 4 would close the Cook Inlet EEZ but not impose any additional direct regulatory costs on participants and would allow directly regulated entities to possibly recoup lost EEZ
harvest inside State waters. As a result, Alternative 4 minimizes impacts to small entities.
Based upon the best available scientific data, and in consideration of the Councils objectives of this action, it appears that there are no significant alternatives to the proposed rule that have the potential to accomplish the stated objectives of the MagnusonStevens Act and any other applicable statutes and that have the potential to minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. After public process, the Council concluded that Alternative 4, the proposed Amendment 14, would best accomplish the stated objectives articulated in the preamble for this proposed rule, and in applicable statutes, and would minimize to the extent practicable adverse economic impacts on the universe of directly regulated small entities.
Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules NMFS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict between this proposed rule and existing Federal rules.
Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

E:FRFM04JNP1.SGM

04JNP1