FR 2024-30430

The proposed rule by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) aims to adjust the Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan for the 2025 recreational fisheries in areas off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. These modifications involve changes to fishing seasons and subarea allocations, particularly focusing on shifting unused quotas from Northern California to south of Point Arena to extend fishing opportunities for anglers.

General Summary

This proposal comes under the overarching responsibility of the NMFS to manage fisheries in alignment with international and domestic regulations. The 2025 adjustments, as suggested, will include flexibility in fishing days and a systematic strategy to transfer quota as needed, aiming to optimize fishing opportunities and resource sustainability.

Significant Issues and Concerns

The proposal, presented formally in the Federal Register, is laden with technical and regulatory jargon that may pose challenges for laypersons and small businesses without specific expertise in legal or fisheries management. The document's complexity can make it difficult to decipher, potentially alienating stakeholders who lack the resources to fully understand the implications without guidance.

Furthermore, the criteria for determining "projected unused allocation" for inseason quota transfers are not clearly detailed, introducing potential ambiguity in implementation. There is also a concern that the document assumes minimal economic impacts on small entities without presenting empirical evidence or a detailed economic analysis to substantiate this claim. This oversight could lead stakeholders to question the thoroughness of the rule's preparatory assessments.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

For the general public, particularly recreational anglers, the proposed changes could create a more dynamic fishing season, offering more opportunities within the existing constraints of quota and subarea rules. By potentially re-allocating unused quotas, the NMFS is seeking to improve the recreational fishing experience and broader access, which may be received positively by the fishing community.

For state agencies and regional fisheries management bodies, these changes demand close coordination to monitor allocations, necessary inseason adjustments, and effective communication strategies to ensure anglers are informed about current regulations through hotlines and bulletins. However, some might view this as an additional bureaucratic complication.

On the economic front, small charter businesses in the fishing industry stand to benefit if these changes lead to longer fishing seasons or increased catch opportunities. Conversely, if the execution is not smooth or well-communicated, these businesses could suffer from disruptions or unforeseen regulatory shifts affecting their operations.

In Conclusion

The NMFS's proposal strives to balance conservation needs with recreational angling benefits, modifying management measures to potentially better serve both objectives. While the document outlines a structured approach to resource management, its complexity and the lack of clarity in some areas may call for additional simplification or explanatory support to ensure broad stakeholder engagement and understanding. Providing visual aids or simplified summaries could aid public comprehension greatly, fostering a more transparent and accessible regulatory process.

The Pacific Halibut Fisheries of the West Coast document details proposed changes to the catch sharing plan and fishery management measures for the year 2025. One of the primary financial references in the document highlights the classification of charter fishing operations. These operations are classified under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 487210, with a corresponding Small Business Association size standard of $14 million in annual receipts. This reference serves as a benchmark to determine which entities qualify as small businesses under federal statutes.

The document does not provide specific amounts regarding financial allocations or appropriations for the management of the Pacific halibut fisheries. Rather, it elaborates on regulatory measures and catch limits, which indirectly influence the economic aspects of the fisheries. For example, the management of fishing days and the proposed flexibility in transferring unused allocations between subareas could affect the economic outcomes for small businesses involved, particularly charter operations.

Financial References and Identified Issues

While the document provides a NAICS code and a financial benchmark, it lacks detailed economic analyses or empirical data to support the claim that proposed changes will not significantly impact small businesses. This absence is noteworthy given the document's assertion that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on these entities. Providing more empirical data or case studies on how previous rules have impacted businesses could offer clearer insights.

Another identified issue involves the ambiguity surrounding the inseason action provisions for allocation transfers. The document mentions transferring projected unused allocations from one subarea to another. Still, it does not detail how such projections are determined. Clarifying these financial projection criteria would enhance transparency and allow stakeholders to better evaluate potential economic impacts.

Finally, while the process for public comment is detailed, the influence of stakeholder input on financial decision-making and allocation impacts remains unclear. Stakeholders would benefit from a more detailed explanation of how their feedback can meaningfully influence final decisions, contributing to a more transparent and equitable process.

Overall, while the document specifies some financial benchmarks for business classification, its lack of detailed financial impact analysis and explanations of allocation transfer criteria represents areas for improvement. Providing more comprehensive economic evaluations and clear criteria for financial decisions would be beneficial to stakeholders, particularly those operating small businesses within this regulatory framework.