Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Gulf of Alaska, Seabird Avoidance Measures Revisions, 53516-53521 [E7-18489]

Download as PDF 53516 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule present a disproportionate risk to children. 1. What Is Executive Order 13175? Executive Order 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal implications’’ is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.’’ H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage 2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule? This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS 1. What Is Executive Order 13045? Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically significant’’ as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. 2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule? This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:41 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 211001 3. Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211? This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Dated: September 4, 2007. Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. E7–18154 Filed 9–18–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 070705262–7266–01] RIN 0648–AV38 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Gulf of Alaska, Seabird Avoidance Measures Revisions National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. AGENCY: SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule that would revise the seabird avoidance measures for the Alaska hook-and-line groundfish and halibut fisheries. The proposed rule would strengthen gear standards for small vessels and eliminate certain seabird avoidance requirements that are not needed or not effective. This action is necessary to revise seabird avoidance measures based on the latest scientific information and to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and associated costs. DATES: Written comments must be received by October 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by: • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. • Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK. • Fax: 907–586–7557. • E-mail: 0648–AV38– SeabirdPR@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following document identifier: ‘‘Seabird Avoidance PR.’’ Email comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes. • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments. E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM 19SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/ Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for this action may be obtained from the addresses stated above or from the Alaska Region NMFS website at https://www.fakr.noaa.gov. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Alaska Region NMFS and by e-mail to DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202–395–7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Brown, 907–586–7228 or email at melanie.brown@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Alaska are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMPs). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600. Management of the Pacific halibut fisheries in and off Alaska is governed by an international agreement between Canada and the United States. This agreement, entitled the ‘‘Convention Between the United States of America and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea Convention,’’ was signed at Ottawa, Canada, on March 2, 1953, and was amended by the ‘‘Protocol Amending the Convention,’’ signed at Washington, D.C., March 29, 1979. The Convention is implemented in the United States by the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery in Alaska is managed under an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program, as is the fixed gear sablefish fishery. The IFQ Program is a limited access management system. This program is codified at 50 CFR part 679. mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS Background The purpose of the proposed action is to revise the seabird avoidance measures based on the best available information regarding seabird occurrence and efficient application of the avoidance measures. Seabird avoidance measures reduce the VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:41 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 211001 incidental mortality of seabirds in the hook-and-line fisheries off Alaska. Since 1997, NMFS has implemented and revised seabird avoidance measures to mitigate interactions between the Federal hook-and-line fisheries and seabirds (62 FR 23176, April 29, 1997; 63 FR 11161, March 6, 1998; and 69 FR 1930, January 13, 2004). Based largely on Washington Sea Grant (WSG) research on seabird avoidance by larger vessels, the seabird avoidance measures include requiring streamer lines on hook-and-line vessels greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) in length overall (LOA)(§ 679.24(e)(4)). These measures mitigate potential adverse effects of hook-and-line fisheries on Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed seabirds and other seabird species. However, the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee identified the need for additional study of methods for reducing incidental take of seabirds on small vessels (greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA), especially those fishing the inside waters of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). The Council and NMFS have promoted research to improve the efficiency and success of the seabird avoidance measures and to ensure that no unnecessary burdens on fishermen are imposed. Recent research by the WSG and the Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program (ASGMAP) has indicated ways of further refining seabird avoidance measures to improve the efficacy of seabird avoidance gear. The WSG and ASGMAP recently completed several research projects including (1) the performance of seabird avoidance gear on small vessels using hook-and-line gear (greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA); (2) the frequency of observations of seabirds in inside waters of Southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound, and Cook Inlet; and 3) the efficacy of various types of seabird avoidance gear on small vessels. These research projects indicate that seabird avoidance measures may not be needed in Prince William Sound (NMFS Area 649), State of Alaska (State) waters of Cook Inlet, and Eastern GOA Regulatory Area Southeast Inside District (NMFS Area 659) because of the scarcity of seabirds of concern in these areas, particularly albatross and other Procellariiform seabirds. These studies further indicate that smaller vessels fishing in the EEZ should comply with specified standards for seabird avoidance, given both the improved efficacy of measures employing certain standards and the potential overlap of fishing locations with foraging seabirds. PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 53517 Based on the latest WSG and ASGMAP research, the Council recommended revisions to the seabird avoidance measures. These revisions would eliminate seabird avoidance measures in areas where most seabird species are not likely to occur; and therefore, are not likely to result in reduced seabird mortality. In addition, the revisions would increase seabird avoidance measures for vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA fishing in the EEZ. Seabird avoidance measures would be increased for these vessels by requiring gear standards. These vessels may encounter seabirds in the EEZ, and the standards are necessary to reduce potential seabird mortality. Seabird avoidance measures would be eliminated in all of Prince William Sound (NMFS Area 649), all State waters of Cook Inlet, and in most waters of the Eastern GOA Regulatory Area Southeast Inside District (NMFS Area 659). Pelagic seabirds (particularly the ESA-listed short-tailed albatross and other seabird species of concern) are rarely observed in these waters; and therefore, are not likely to interact with hook-and-line fisheries. Three areas adjacent to the EEZ in NMFS Area 659 have had observations of pelagic seabird species and would continue to have seabird avoidance requirements. These areas are further described below. Eliminating certain unnecessary seabird avoidance measures is intended to remove associated economic burdens on affected vessels. Increased measures for certain small vessels in the EEZ would require specific deployment procedures intended to improve the effectiveness of avoidance devices in reducing seabird bycatch. These revisions are an example of adaptive management using the best available information to focus regulatory requirements where they are needed and to ensure requirements are effective and efficient. Research results and the environmental and economic considerations of the proposed action are in the EA/RIR/IRFA for this action (see ADDRESSES). Regulatory Amendments In February 2007, the Council unanimously recommended revisions to the seabird avoidance measures. These measures would continue to apply to operators of vessels fishing for (1) Pacific halibut in the IFQ and Community Development Quota (CDQ) management programs in waters from 0 to 200 nm; (2) IFQ sablefish in waters from 0 nm to 200 nm, except waters of Prince William Sound and areas in which sablefish fishing is managed E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM 19SEP1 53518 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS under a State limited entry program (Clarence Strait, Chatham Strait); and (3) groundfish with hook-and-line gear in the EEZ. The Council recommended that NMFS request that the State of Alaska Board of Fisheries consider modifying the current State regulations on seabird avoidance for groundfish vessels operating in State waters to match the Federal requirements. This would ensure consistent requirements to avoid seabirds for groundfish vessels operating in State and Federal waters of Alaska. The proposed rule would revise § 679.24(e) to eliminate redundant paragraphs, match subparagraph citations to the new section structure, and make the text more concise. Gear Requirements The proposed rule would revise § 679.24(e)(4)(i) and Table 20 to 50 CFR part 679 to require seabird avoidance gear standards for hook-and-line vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA fishing in the EEZ as follows: 1. Vessels with masts, poles, or rigging using snap-on hook-and-line gear are required to use standards when deploying one streamer line. The streamer line must be at least 147.6 ft (45 m) in length and must be deployed before the first hook is set in such a way that streamers are in the air for 65.6 ft (20 m) aft of the stern and within 6.6 ft (2 m) horizontally of the point where the main groundline enters the water. 2. Vessels with masts, poles, or rigging using conventional hook-andline gear (vessels not using snap-on gear) are required to use standards when deploying one streamer line. The streamer line must be a minimum of 300 ft (91.4 m) in length and must be in the air for a minimum of 131.2 ft (40 m) aft of the stern. 3. Vessels without masts, poles, or rigging and not capable of adding poles or davits to accommodate a streamer line (including bowpickers) must tow a buoy bag line. The best available scientific information indicates that vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA are capable of meeting the proposed standards, and that these standards are effective at reducing potential seabird incidental takes. The proposed rule also would revise § 679.24(e)(4)(i) and Table 20 to 50 CFR part 679 to eliminate seabird avoidance gear requirements for all hook-and-line vessels fishing in Prince William Sound (NMFS Area 649), the State waters of Cook Inlet, and Southeast Alaska VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:41 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 211001 (NMFS Area 659) with certain area exceptions in the inside waters of Southeast Alaska. Three exception areas exist: 1. Lower Chatham Strait south of a straight line between Point Harris (latitude 56°17.25 N.) and Port Armstrong, 2. Dixon Entrance defined as the State groundfish statistical areas 325431 and 325401, and 3. Cross Sound west of a straight line from Point Wimbledon extending south through the Inian Islands to Point Lavinia (longitude 136°21.17 E.). Maps of these exception areas are in the EA/RIR/IRFA for this action (see ADDRESSES) and are available from the NMFS Alaska Region website at https:// www.fakr.noaa.gov. To prevent potential seabird mortality in the exception areas, hook-and-line vessels would be subject to the same seabird avoidance gear requirements and standards in these exception areas as when fishing in the EEZ. The best available scientific information regarding seabird observations in the State waters of Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and Southeast Alaska indicate that ESA-listed seabirds and other seabird species of concern are not likely to occur in these waters, except for the areas listed above in NMFS Area 659. Therefore, the proposed rule would eliminate seabird avoidance measures where seabird mortality is not likely to occur and ensure that they are used in waters where ESA-listed seabirds and seabird species of concern are likely to occur. Seabird Avoidance Plan The proposed rule would remove § 679.24(e)(3) and the Seabird Avoidance Plan (SAP) requirement for all vessels. The Council recommended eliminating the SAP requirement based on recommendations from the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and the NMFS Alaska Region Protected Resources Division. A number of vessels omitted technical SAP violations but were in compliance with the seabird avoidance substantive gear requirements. Because the requirement for a SAP does not seem to impact the use of seabird avoidance gear, removing this requirement should have no effect on seabird mortality. Other Seabird Avoidance Device The proposed rule would remove the requirement to use one ‘‘other device’’ (weighted groundline, buoy bag, streamer line, or strategic offal discharge) as described in § 679.24(e)(4)(ii), (e)(4)(iii), (e)(6), and Table 20 to 50 CFR part 679. NOAA PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Office of Law Enforcement reports that the ‘‘other device’’ requirement is difficult to enforce, and reduced seabird mortality from the proposed gear standards for small vessels likely would offset any protection lost by removing this requirement. Weather Exception The proposed rule would revise § 679.24(e)(5) to allow discretion for vessels more than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA to use seabird avoidance devices when winds exceed 30 knots (near gale or Beaufort 7 conditions). The Council raised concerns that the use of seabird avoidance gear on these small vessels in winds exceeding 30 knots may be unsafe because most or all small vessel crew members need to be engaged fully in vessel operations during inclement weather, rather than deploying and retrieving seabird avoidance gear. Information in the EA/RIR/IRFA indicates that seabird foraging activity on hook-and-line gear is likely to decrease with increased wind speeds. Also, streamer lines and buoy bags pose a greater risk of fouling on the fishing gear during high winds. The weather exception would address potential small vessel safety issues related to deploying seabird avoidance gear during high winds and would ensure devices are used when seabirds are more likely to be interacting with hook-and-line gear. Classification Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMPs, 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. An IRFA was prepared as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The vessels that are directly regulated by the proposed action fish for groundfish or halibut with hook-andline gear in the waters off Alaska. The seabird avoidance measures presently in E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM 19SEP1 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules place, and the alternatives and options considered, apply directly to the operator of a vessel deploying hook-andline gear in the waters off Alaska. These regulations apply to the operation of a vessel and not directly to the holder of an IFQ for halibut or sablefish unless the holder is also the owner/operator of a vessel. Multiple IFQs may be used on a single vessel. Thus, the IRFA analysis of large and small entities is conducted at the vessel level and not the IFQ level. This analysis is complicated by the fact that the halibut fishery is managed somewhat separately than the Federal groundfish fisheries. Thus, data from multiple sources and years have been used to estimate the numbers of large and small entities. In 2004, approximately 1,523 vessels participated in the Pacific halibut fishery off Alaska, and 674 vessels participated in the Federal hook-andline groundfish fisheries off Alaska. Logbook research indicates that 506 of the hook-and-line vessels that caught halibut also harvested groundfish in the waters off Alaska that year. Because of overlap between these two fishery groups, the total count of unique vessels is 1,691. The IRFA uses actual revenue reported by fishing entities for the year 2005 as compiled and supplied in a comprehensive database by the Alaska Fish Information Network (AKFIN). Vessels were considered small, according to the Small Business Administration criteria, if they had estimated 2004 gross revenues less than or equal to $4 million, and were not known to be affiliated with other firms whose combined receipts exceeded $4 million. The analysis revealed that 141 eligible vessels had total gross revenue from all directed fishing sources that was greater than $4 million in 2005. This implies that, ignoring affiliations, 1,550 vessels could be considered small entities. A review of American Fisheries Act (AFA) permit data revealed that none of the vessels with gross revenue less than $4 million in 2004 are AFApermitted vessels. Because AFA affiliations are relatively stable across years, very few of these vessels are large because of AFA affiliations. The IRFA indicated that this proposed action is not likely to impose significant costs on directly regulated small entities. The action reduces the regulatory burden on some vessels by eliminating all seabird avoidance requirements for vessels operating in State waters of Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet and most of Southeast Alaska. In addition, vessels operating in the EEZ and State waters may benefit by elimination of the need for an other VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:41 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 211001 seabird avoidance device. Vessel operational cost of production data are not presently collected, making it impossible to quantify the net effect on operational costs that might occur under each alternative and option. However, the alternatives and options to the status quo are expected to impose only a slight additional burden, if any. The increased requirement to meet the gear standards for smaller vessels is likely to result in minimal additional costs because these vessels are already using gear manufactured to meet the standards and vessel crew are experienced with using the gear. Any additional costs in training and labor to ensure gear deployment meets the standards would be offset by the reduced costs from no longer being required to deploy the ‘‘other device.’’ Since the initial adoption of seabird avoidance regulations, research has been conducted to more precisely identify the geographical distribution and range of seabirds of concern, and on the efficacy of required seabird avoidance devices. Recent research has addressed whether small vessels can properly deploy seabird avoidance devices, given a small vessel’s inherent physical limitations, and whether those devices are effective and necessary. The proposed action, which is partly intended to reduce the economic, operational, and reporting burden placed on small entities operating in these fisheries, is a direct result of this research. An IRFA must describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of the proposed action, consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Including status quo, this proposed action has three alternatives and three options. Alternative 2 reduces the regulatory burden on small entities by eliminating seabird avoidance measures in the inside waters of Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and Southeast Alaska. Alternative 3 reduces the seabird avoidance measures in the same locations except for three areas of the Southeast Alaska inside waters where seabirds of concern have been observed. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 increase the regulatory burden on small entities by requiring vessels more than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA to meet gear standards while operating in the EEZ and certain State waters. Options 1 and 2 to Alternatives 2 and 3 reduce the regulatory burden and improve safety by removing the Seabird Avoidance Plan requirement PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 53519 and providing discretion for using seabird avoidance gear in high winds, respectively. Option 3 would reduce burden by reducing seabird avoidance gear requirements to only a buoy bag line for hook-and-line vessels more than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 32 ft (16.8 m) LOA operating in the EEZ waters of International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) Area 4E. The suboption to Option 3 would further reduce the regulatory burden in IPHC Area 4E by eliminating the seabird avoidance measures for vessels between 26 ft (7.9 m) and 32 ft (16.8 m) LOA. One of the objectives of the action was to use new information to better protect seabirds of concern while reducing the burden on fishermen. The status quo does not meet the objectives of the action because it does not reflect new information on the range and geographic distribution of seabirds of concern nor does it reflect new research on the efficacy of seabird avoidance devices. The status quo alternative was rejected in part because it imposed a heavier burden on fishing operations. Alternative 2 was rejected because it did not provide for seabird avoidance measures in those State waters of Southeast Alaska with observed ESAlisted seabirds and other seabird species of concern and, thus, did not meet the objectives of the action. Option 3 and its suboption also were rejected because sufficient information was not available to support reducing or eliminating seabird avoidance measures for IPHC Area 4E; and therefore, did not meet the objectives of the action. The Council recommended Alternative 3 with options 1 and 2 because it would meet the objective to use the latest scientific information available regarding seabird occurrence and effective gear standards for small vessels and to reduce regulatory burden, where possible. The proposed action alleviates the small entity compliance burden by eliminating seabird avoidance measures in certain State waters where seabirds of concern are absent or very rarely present and where many small entities operate. The action also adopts performance standards, rather than design standards in the EEZ and in State waters. The use of performance standards allows flexibility in the type of avoidance gear used while ensuring an acceptable level of avoidance is achieved. The action also bases requirements on vessel capability (e.g., superstructure configuration, vessel length). Basing the requirements on vessel capability ensures that vessel owners are able to meet the seabird avoidance gear requirements without making costly changes to the vessel structure. Further, E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM 19SEP1 53520 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules the action would eliminate preparation of a seabird avoidance plan, which eases the compliance and reporting requirements for all affected entities, including the large number of small entities that are potentially directly regulated by the proposed action. No Federal rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action. This proposed rule would remove a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Number 0648– 474. Public reporting burden for the Seabird Avoidance Plan is estimated to average 8 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection-of-information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395–7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to 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. An informal consultation under the Endangered Species Act was concluded for this proposed action on August 8, 2007. As a result of the informal consultation, NMFS determined that fishing activities under this rule are not likely to adversely affect endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat. By requiring gear performance standards for vessels more than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA, this proposed action should result in reduced potential for incidental takes of ESA-listed seabirds. Other provisions of this proposed rule would have no effect on ESA-listed species. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Dated: September 13, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 as follows: VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:41 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 211001 PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. 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.; and Pub. L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 110. 2. Section 679.24 is amended by: a. Removing paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(6). b. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(5) as paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4), respectively. c. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(7) and (e)(8) as paragraphs (e)(5) and (e)(6), respectively. d. Revising paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(iii), and newly redesignated paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(5). e. Adding paragraph (e)(4)(v). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 679.24 Gear limitations. * * * * * (e) * * * (1) Applicability. The operator of a vessel that is longer than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA fishing with hook-and-line gear must comply with the seabird avoidance requirements as specified in paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section while fishing for: (i) IFQ halibut or CDQ halibut, (ii) IFQ sablefish, and (iii) Groundfish in the EEZ off Alaska. (2) * * * (i) Gear onboard. Have onboard the vessel the seabird avoidance gear as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section; * * * * * (iii) Gear use. Use seabird avoidance gear as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section that meets standards as specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, while hook-and-line gear is being deployed. * * * * * (3) (See also Table 20 this part.) The operator of a vessel identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section must comply with the following requirements while fishing with hook-and-line gear for groundfish, IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish in Federal waters (EEZ) and for IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish in the State of Alaska waters, excluding NMFS Reporting Area 649 (Prince William Sound), State waters of Cook Inlet, and NMFS Reporting Area 659 (Eastern GOA Regulatory Area, Southeast Inside District), but including waters in the areas south of a straight line at 56°17.25 N. lat. between Point Harris and Port Armstrong in Chatham Strait, State PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 statistical areas 325431 and 325401, and west of a straight line at 136°21.17 E. long. from Point Wimbledon extending south through the Inian Islands to Point Lavinia: (i) Using other than snap gear, (A) A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA without masts, poles, or rigging. (B) A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with masts, poles, or rigging. (C) A minimum of a paired streamer line of a standard as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA. (ii) Using snap gear, (A) A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA without masts, poles, or rigging. (B) A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with masts, poles, or rigging. (C) A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA. (4) * * * (v) Weather Safety Standard. The use of seabird avoidance devices required by paragraph (e)(3) of this section is discretionary for vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA in conditions of wind speeds exceeding 30 knots (near gale or Beaufort 7 conditions). (5) Other methods. The following measures or methods must be accompanied by the applicable seabird avoidance gear requirements as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section: (i) Night-setting, (ii) Line shooter, or (iii) Lining tube. * * * * * 3. In 50 CFR part 679, Table 20 is revised to read as follows: E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM 19SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules TABLE 20 TO PART 679—SEABIRD AVOIDANCE GEAR REQUIREMENTS FOR VESSELS, BASED ON AREA, GEAR, AND VESSEL TYPE 53521 Then you must use this seabird avoidance gear in conjunction with requirements at § 679.24(e)... >26 ft to 55 ft LOA and without masts, poles, or rigging minimum of one buoy bag line >26 ft to 55 ft LOA and with masts, poles, or rigging minimum of a single streamer line of a standard specified at § 679.24(e)(4)(ii) >55 ft LOA (See § 679.24(e) for complete seabird avoidance program requirements; see § 679.24(e)(1) for applicable fisheries) (See § 679.24(e) for complete seabird avoidance program requirements; see § 679.24(e)(1) for applicable fisheries) If you operate a vessel deploying hook-and-line gear and use snap gear in waters specified at § 679.24(e)(3), and your vessel is... Then you must use this seabird avoidance gear in conjunction with requirements at § 679.24(e)... minimum of one buoy bag line >26 ft to 55 ft and with masts, poles, or rigging minimum of a single streamer line of a standard specified at § 679.24(e)(4)(iv) >55 ft LOA If you operate a vessel deploying hook-and-line gear, other than snap gear, in waters specified at § 679.24(e)(3), and your vessel is... TABLE 20 TO PART 679—SEABIRD AVOIDANCE GEAR REQUIREMENTS FOR VESSELS, BASED ON AREA, GEAR, AND VESSEL TYPE—Continued >26 ft to 55 ft LOA and without masts, poles, or rigging (See § 679.24(e) for complete seabird avoidance program requirements; see § 679.24(e)(1) for applicable fisheries) TABLE 20 TO PART 679—SEABIRD AVOIDANCE GEAR REQUIREMENTS FOR VESSELS, BASED ON AREA, GEAR, AND VESSEL TYPE—Continued minimum of a single streamer line of a standard specified at § 679.24(e)(4)(iv) If you operate a vessel < 32 ft in the State waters of IPHC Area 4E, or operate a vessel in NMFS Reporting Area 649 (Prince William Sound), State waters of Cook Inlet, and NMFS Reporting Area 659 (Eastern GOA Regulatory Area, Southeast Inside District), but not including waters in the areas south of a straight line at latitude 56 deg. 17.25 N between Point Harris and Port Armstrong in Chatham Strait, State statistical areas 325431 and 325401, and west of a straight line at longitude 136 deg. 21.17 E from Point Wimbledon extending south through the Inian Islands to Point Lavinia... minimum of paired streamer lines of a standard specified at § 679.24(e)(4)(iii) Then you are exempt from seabird avoidance regulations. [FR Doc. E7–18489 Filed 9–18–07; 8:45 am] mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS BILLING CODE 3510–22–S VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:41 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM 19SEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 19, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53516-53521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-18489]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 070705262-7266-01]
RIN 0648-AV38


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish 
Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and 
Gulf of Alaska, Seabird Avoidance Measures Revisions

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule that would revise the seabird 
avoidance measures for the Alaska hook-and-line groundfish and halibut 
fisheries. The proposed rule would strengthen gear standards for small 
vessels and eliminate certain seabird avoidance requirements that are 
not needed or not effective. This action is necessary to revise seabird 
avoidance measures based on the latest scientific information and to 
reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and associated costs.

DATES: Written comments must be received by October 19, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional 
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, 
Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by:
     Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
     Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
     Fax: 907-586-7557.
     E-mail: 0648-AV38-SeabirdPR@noaa.gov. Include in the 
subject line the following document identifier: ``Seabird Avoidance 
PR.'' E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 
megabytes.
     Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for 
submitting comments.

[[Page 53517]]

    Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for this action 
may be obtained from the addresses stated above or from the Alaska 
Region NMFS website at https://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to Alaska Region NMFS and by e-mail to 
David--Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Brown, 907-586-7228 or email 
at melanie.brown@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fisheries in the exclusive 
economic zone (EEZ) off Alaska are managed under the Fishery Management 
Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management 
Area and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 
Alaska (FMPs). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) 
prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801, 
et seq. Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. 
General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 
600.
    Management of the Pacific halibut fisheries in and off Alaska is 
governed by an international agreement between Canada and the United 
States. This agreement, entitled the ``Convention Between the United 
States of America and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut 
Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea Convention,'' was 
signed at Ottawa, Canada, on March 2, 1953, and was amended by the 
``Protocol Amending the Convention,'' signed at Washington, D.C., March 
29, 1979. The Convention is implemented in the United States by the 
Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The directed 
commercial Pacific halibut fishery in Alaska is managed under an 
individual fishing quota (IFQ) program, as is the fixed gear sablefish 
fishery. The IFQ Program is a limited access management system. This 
program is codified at 50 CFR part 679.

Background

    The purpose of the proposed action is to revise the seabird 
avoidance measures based on the best available information regarding 
seabird occurrence and efficient application of the avoidance measures. 
Seabird avoidance measures reduce the incidental mortality of seabirds 
in the hook-and-line fisheries off Alaska. Since 1997, NMFS has 
implemented and revised seabird avoidance measures to mitigate 
interactions between the Federal hook-and-line fisheries and seabirds 
(62 FR 23176, April 29, 1997; 63 FR 11161, March 6, 1998; and 69 FR 
1930, January 13, 2004).
    Based largely on Washington Sea Grant (WSG) research on seabird 
avoidance by larger vessels, the seabird avoidance measures include 
requiring streamer lines on hook-and-line vessels greater than 55 ft 
(16.8 m) in length overall (LOA)(Sec.  679.24(e)(4)). These measures 
mitigate potential adverse effects of hook-and-line fisheries on 
Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed seabirds and other seabird species. 
However, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee identified 
the need for additional study of methods for reducing incidental take 
of seabirds on small vessels (greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than 
or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA), especially those fishing the inside 
waters of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). The Council and NMFS have promoted 
research to improve the efficiency and success of the seabird avoidance 
measures and to ensure that no unnecessary burdens on fishermen are 
imposed.
    Recent research by the WSG and the Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory 
Program (ASGMAP) has indicated ways of further refining seabird 
avoidance measures to improve the efficacy of seabird avoidance gear. 
The WSG and ASGMAP recently completed several research projects 
including (1) the performance of seabird avoidance gear on small 
vessels using hook-and-line gear (greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less 
than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA); (2) the frequency of observations 
of seabirds in inside waters of Southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound, 
and Cook Inlet; and 3) the efficacy of various types of seabird 
avoidance gear on small vessels. These research projects indicate that 
seabird avoidance measures may not be needed in Prince William Sound 
(NMFS Area 649), State of Alaska (State) waters of Cook Inlet, and 
Eastern GOA Regulatory Area Southeast Inside District (NMFS Area 659) 
because of the scarcity of seabirds of concern in these areas, 
particularly albatross and other Procellariiform seabirds. These 
studies further indicate that smaller vessels fishing in the EEZ should 
comply with specified standards for seabird avoidance, given both the 
improved efficacy of measures employing certain standards and the 
potential overlap of fishing locations with foraging seabirds.
    Based on the latest WSG and ASGMAP research, the Council 
recommended revisions to the seabird avoidance measures. These 
revisions would eliminate seabird avoidance measures in areas where 
most seabird species are not likely to occur; and therefore, are not 
likely to result in reduced seabird mortality. In addition, the 
revisions would increase seabird avoidance measures for vessels greater 
than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA fishing 
in the EEZ. Seabird avoidance measures would be increased for these 
vessels by requiring gear standards. These vessels may encounter 
seabirds in the EEZ, and the standards are necessary to reduce 
potential seabird mortality.
    Seabird avoidance measures would be eliminated in all of Prince 
William Sound (NMFS Area 649), all State waters of Cook Inlet, and in 
most waters of the Eastern GOA Regulatory Area Southeast Inside 
District (NMFS Area 659). Pelagic seabirds (particularly the ESA-listed 
short-tailed albatross and other seabird species of concern) are rarely 
observed in these waters; and therefore, are not likely to interact 
with hook-and-line fisheries. Three areas adjacent to the EEZ in NMFS 
Area 659 have had observations of pelagic seabird species and would 
continue to have seabird avoidance requirements. These areas are 
further described below.
    Eliminating certain unnecessary seabird avoidance measures is 
intended to remove associated economic burdens on affected vessels. 
Increased measures for certain small vessels in the EEZ would require 
specific deployment procedures intended to improve the effectiveness of 
avoidance devices in reducing seabird bycatch. These revisions are an 
example of adaptive management using the best available information to 
focus regulatory requirements where they are needed and to ensure 
requirements are effective and efficient. Research results and the 
environmental and economic considerations of the proposed action are in 
the EA/RIR/IRFA for this action (see ADDRESSES).

Regulatory Amendments

    In February 2007, the Council unanimously recommended revisions to 
the seabird avoidance measures. These measures would continue to apply 
to operators of vessels fishing for (1) Pacific halibut in the IFQ and 
Community Development Quota (CDQ) management programs in waters from 0 
to 200 nm; (2) IFQ sablefish in waters from 0 nm to 200 nm, except 
waters of Prince William Sound and areas in which sablefish fishing is 
managed

[[Page 53518]]

under a State limited entry program (Clarence Strait, Chatham Strait); 
and (3) groundfish with hook-and-line gear in the EEZ.
    The Council recommended that NMFS request that the State of Alaska 
Board of Fisheries consider modifying the current State regulations on 
seabird avoidance for groundfish vessels operating in State waters to 
match the Federal requirements. This would ensure consistent 
requirements to avoid seabirds for groundfish vessels operating in 
State and Federal waters of Alaska.
    The proposed rule would revise Sec.  679.24(e) to eliminate 
redundant paragraphs, match subparagraph citations to the new section 
structure, and make the text more concise.

Gear Requirements

    The proposed rule would revise Sec.  679.24(e)(4)(i) and Table 20 
to 50 CFR part 679 to require seabird avoidance gear standards for 
hook-and-line vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than or equal 
to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA fishing in the EEZ as follows:
    1. Vessels with masts, poles, or rigging using snap-on hook-and-
line gear are required to use standards when deploying one streamer 
line. The streamer line must be at least 147.6 ft (45 m) in length and 
must be deployed before the first hook is set in such a way that 
streamers are in the air for 65.6 ft (20 m) aft of the stern and within 
6.6 ft (2 m) horizontally of the point where the main groundline enters 
the water.
    2. Vessels with masts, poles, or rigging using conventional hook-
and-line gear (vessels not using snap-on gear) are required to use 
standards when deploying one streamer line. The streamer line must be a 
minimum of 300 ft (91.4 m) in length and must be in the air for a 
minimum of 131.2 ft (40 m) aft of the stern.
    3. Vessels without masts, poles, or rigging and not capable of 
adding poles or davits to accommodate a streamer line (including 
bowpickers) must tow a buoy bag line.
    The best available scientific information indicates that vessels 
greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA 
are capable of meeting the proposed standards, and that these standards 
are effective at reducing potential seabird incidental takes.
    The proposed rule also would revise Sec.  679.24(e)(4)(i) and Table 
20 to 50 CFR part 679 to eliminate seabird avoidance gear requirements 
for all hook-and-line vessels fishing in Prince William Sound (NMFS 
Area 649), the State waters of Cook Inlet, and Southeast Alaska (NMFS 
Area 659) with certain area exceptions in the inside waters of 
Southeast Alaska. Three exception areas exist:
    1. Lower Chatham Strait south of a straight line between Point 
Harris (latitude 56[deg]17.25 N.) and Port Armstrong,
    2. Dixon Entrance defined as the State groundfish statistical areas 
325431 and 325401, and
    3. Cross Sound west of a straight line from Point Wimbledon 
extending south through the Inian Islands to Point Lavinia (longitude 
136[deg]21.17 E.).
    Maps of these exception areas are in the EA/RIR/IRFA for this 
action (see ADDRESSES) and are available from the NMFS Alaska Region 
website at https://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
    To prevent potential seabird mortality in the exception areas, 
hook-and-line vessels would be subject to the same seabird avoidance 
gear requirements and standards in these exception areas as when 
fishing in the EEZ. The best available scientific information regarding 
seabird observations in the State waters of Prince William Sound, Cook 
Inlet, and Southeast Alaska indicate that ESA-listed seabirds and other 
seabird species of concern are not likely to occur in these waters, 
except for the areas listed above in NMFS Area 659. Therefore, the 
proposed rule would eliminate seabird avoidance measures where seabird 
mortality is not likely to occur and ensure that they are used in 
waters where ESA-listed seabirds and seabird species of concern are 
likely to occur.

Seabird Avoidance Plan

    The proposed rule would remove Sec.  679.24(e)(3) and the Seabird 
Avoidance Plan (SAP) requirement for all vessels. The Council 
recommended eliminating the SAP requirement based on recommendations 
from the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and the NMFS Alaska Region 
Protected Resources Division. A number of vessels omitted technical SAP 
violations but were in compliance with the seabird avoidance 
substantive gear requirements. Because the requirement for a SAP does 
not seem to impact the use of seabird avoidance gear, removing this 
requirement should have no effect on seabird mortality.

Other Seabird Avoidance Device

    The proposed rule would remove the requirement to use one ``other 
device'' (weighted groundline, buoy bag, streamer line, or strategic 
offal discharge) as described in Sec.  679.24(e)(4)(ii), (e)(4)(iii), 
(e)(6), and Table 20 to 50 CFR part 679. NOAA Office of Law Enforcement 
reports that the ``other device'' requirement is difficult to enforce, 
and reduced seabird mortality from the proposed gear standards for 
small vessels likely would offset any protection lost by removing this 
requirement.

Weather Exception

    The proposed rule would revise Sec.  679.24(e)(5) to allow 
discretion for vessels more than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 
55 ft (16.8 m) LOA to use seabird avoidance devices when winds exceed 
30 knots (near gale or Beaufort 7 conditions). The Council raised 
concerns that the use of seabird avoidance gear on these small vessels 
in winds exceeding 30 knots may be unsafe because most or all small 
vessel crew members need to be engaged fully in vessel operations 
during inclement weather, rather than deploying and retrieving seabird 
avoidance gear. Information in the EA/RIR/IRFA indicates that seabird 
foraging activity on hook-and-line gear is likely to decrease with 
increased wind speeds. Also, streamer lines and buoy bags pose a 
greater risk of fouling on the fishing gear during high winds. The 
weather exception would address potential small vessel safety issues 
related to deploying seabird avoidance gear during high winds and would 
ensure devices are used when seabirds are more likely to be interacting 
with hook-and-line gear.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is 
consistent with the FMPs, 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.
    An IRFA was prepared as required by section 603 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this 
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description 
of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this 
action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble 
and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis 
follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES).
    The vessels that are directly regulated by the proposed action fish 
for groundfish or halibut with hook-and-line gear in the waters off 
Alaska. The seabird avoidance measures presently in

[[Page 53519]]

place, and the alternatives and options considered, apply directly to 
the operator of a vessel deploying hook-and-line gear in the waters off 
Alaska. These regulations apply to the operation of a vessel and not 
directly to the holder of an IFQ for halibut or sablefish unless the 
holder is also the owner/operator of a vessel. Multiple IFQs may be 
used on a single vessel. Thus, the IRFA analysis of large and small 
entities is conducted at the vessel level and not the IFQ level. This 
analysis is complicated by the fact that the halibut fishery is managed 
somewhat separately than the Federal groundfish fisheries. Thus, data 
from multiple sources and years have been used to estimate the numbers 
of large and small entities.
    In 2004, approximately 1,523 vessels participated in the Pacific 
halibut fishery off Alaska, and 674 vessels participated in the Federal 
hook-and-line groundfish fisheries off Alaska. Logbook research 
indicates that 506 of the hook-and-line vessels that caught halibut 
also harvested groundfish in the waters off Alaska that year. Because 
of overlap between these two fishery groups, the total count of unique 
vessels is 1,691.
    The IRFA uses actual revenue reported by fishing entities for the 
year 2005 as compiled and supplied in a comprehensive database by the 
Alaska Fish Information Network (AKFIN). Vessels were considered small, 
according to the Small Business Administration criteria, if they had 
estimated 2004 gross revenues less than or equal to $4 million, and 
were not known to be affiliated with other firms whose combined 
receipts exceeded $4 million. The analysis revealed that 141 eligible 
vessels had total gross revenue from all directed fishing sources that 
was greater than $4 million in 2005. This implies that, ignoring 
affiliations, 1,550 vessels could be considered small entities. A 
review of American Fisheries Act (AFA) permit data revealed that none 
of the vessels with gross revenue less than $4 million in 2004 are AFA-
permitted vessels. Because AFA affiliations are relatively stable 
across years, very few of these vessels are large because of AFA 
affiliations.
    The IRFA indicated that this proposed action is not likely to 
impose significant costs on directly regulated small entities. The 
action reduces the regulatory burden on some vessels by eliminating all 
seabird avoidance requirements for vessels operating in State waters of 
Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet and most of Southeast Alaska. In 
addition, vessels operating in the EEZ and State waters may benefit by 
elimination of the need for an other seabird avoidance device. Vessel 
operational cost of production data are not presently collected, making 
it impossible to quantify the net effect on operational costs that 
might occur under each alternative and option. However, the 
alternatives and options to the status quo are expected to impose only 
a slight additional burden, if any. The increased requirement to meet 
the gear standards for smaller vessels is likely to result in minimal 
additional costs because these vessels are already using gear 
manufactured to meet the standards and vessel crew are experienced with 
using the gear. Any additional costs in training and labor to ensure 
gear deployment meets the standards would be offset by the reduced 
costs from no longer being required to deploy the ``other device.''
    Since the initial adoption of seabird avoidance regulations, 
research has been conducted to more precisely identify the geographical 
distribution and range of seabirds of concern, and on the efficacy of 
required seabird avoidance devices. Recent research has addressed 
whether small vessels can properly deploy seabird avoidance devices, 
given a small vessel's inherent physical limitations, and whether those 
devices are effective and necessary. The proposed action, which is 
partly intended to reduce the economic, operational, and reporting 
burden placed on small entities operating in these fisheries, is a 
direct result of this research.
    An IRFA must describe any significant alternatives to the proposed 
rule that accomplish the stated objectives of the proposed action, 
consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize any 
significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. 
Including status quo, this proposed action has three alternatives and 
three options. Alternative 2 reduces the regulatory burden on small 
entities by eliminating seabird avoidance measures in the inside waters 
of Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and Southeast Alaska. Alternative 
3 reduces the seabird avoidance measures in the same locations except 
for three areas of the Southeast Alaska inside waters where seabirds of 
concern have been observed. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 increase the 
regulatory burden on small entities by requiring vessels more than 26 
ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA to meet gear 
standards while operating in the EEZ and certain State waters. Options 
1 and 2 to Alternatives 2 and 3 reduce the regulatory burden and 
improve safety by removing the Seabird Avoidance Plan requirement and 
providing discretion for using seabird avoidance gear in high winds, 
respectively. Option 3 would reduce burden by reducing seabird 
avoidance gear requirements to only a buoy bag line for hook-and-line 
vessels more than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less than or equal to 32 ft (16.8 m) 
LOA operating in the EEZ waters of International Pacific Halibut 
Commission (IPHC) Area 4E. The suboption to Option 3 would further 
reduce the regulatory burden in IPHC Area 4E by eliminating the seabird 
avoidance measures for vessels between 26 ft (7.9 m) and 32 ft (16.8 m) 
LOA.
    One of the objectives of the action was to use new information to 
better protect seabirds of concern while reducing the burden on 
fishermen. The status quo does not meet the objectives of the action 
because it does not reflect new information on the range and geographic 
distribution of seabirds of concern nor does it reflect new research on 
the efficacy of seabird avoidance devices. The status quo alternative 
was rejected in part because it imposed a heavier burden on fishing 
operations. Alternative 2 was rejected because it did not provide for 
seabird avoidance measures in those State waters of Southeast Alaska 
with observed ESA-listed seabirds and other seabird species of concern 
and, thus, did not meet the objectives of the action. Option 3 and its 
suboption also were rejected because sufficient information was not 
available to support reducing or eliminating seabird avoidance measures 
for IPHC Area 4E; and therefore, did not meet the objectives of the 
action. The Council recommended Alternative 3 with options 1 and 2 
because it would meet the objective to use the latest scientific 
information available regarding seabird occurrence and effective gear 
standards for small vessels and to reduce regulatory burden, where 
possible.
    The proposed action alleviates the small entity compliance burden 
by eliminating seabird avoidance measures in certain State waters where 
seabirds of concern are absent or very rarely present and where many 
small entities operate. The action also adopts performance standards, 
rather than design standards in the EEZ and in State waters. The use of 
performance standards allows flexibility in the type of avoidance gear 
used while ensuring an acceptable level of avoidance is achieved. The 
action also bases requirements on vessel capability (e.g., 
superstructure configuration, vessel length). Basing the requirements 
on vessel capability ensures that vessel owners are able to meet the 
seabird avoidance gear requirements without making costly changes to 
the vessel structure. Further,

[[Page 53520]]

the action would eliminate preparation of a seabird avoidance plan, 
which eases the compliance and reporting requirements for all affected 
entities, including the large number of small entities that are 
potentially directly regulated by the proposed action.
    No Federal rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed 
action.
    This proposed rule would remove a collection-of-information 
requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has 
been approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control 
Number 0648-474. Public reporting burden for the Seabird Avoidance Plan 
is estimated to average 8 hours per response, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection-of-information. Send comments regarding this burden 
estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by e-
mail to David--Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to 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.
    An informal consultation under the Endangered Species Act was 
concluded for this proposed action on August 8, 2007. As a result of 
the informal consultation, NMFS determined that fishing activities 
under this rule are not likely to adversely affect endangered or 
threatened species or their critical habitat. By requiring gear 
performance standards for vessels more than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than 
or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA, this proposed action should result in 
reduced potential for incidental takes of ESA-listed seabirds. Other 
provisions of this proposed rule would have no effect on ESA-listed 
species.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: September 13, 2007.
Samuel D. Rauch III
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR 
part 679 as follows:

PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

    1. 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.; 
and Pub. L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 110.
    2. Section 679.24 is amended by:
    a. Removing paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(6).
    b. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(5) as paragraphs (e)(3) 
and (e)(4), respectively.
    c. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(7) and (e)(8) as paragraphs (e)(5) 
and (e)(6), respectively.
    d. Revising paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(iii), and newly 
redesignated paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(5).
    e. Adding paragraph (e)(4)(v).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  679.24  Gear limitations.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Applicability. The operator of a vessel that is longer than 26 
ft (7.9 m) LOA fishing with hook-and-line gear must comply with the 
seabird avoidance requirements as specified in paragraphs (e)(2) and 
(e)(3) of this section while fishing for:
    (i) IFQ halibut or CDQ halibut,
    (ii) IFQ sablefish, and
    (iii) Groundfish in the EEZ off Alaska.
    (2) * * *
    (i) Gear onboard. Have onboard the vessel the seabird avoidance 
gear as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section;
* * * * *
    (iii) Gear use. Use seabird avoidance gear as specified in 
paragraph (e)(3) of this section that meets standards as specified in 
paragraph (e)(4) of this section, while hook-and-line gear is being 
deployed.
* * * * *
    (3) (See also Table 20 this part.) The operator of a vessel 
identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section must comply with the 
following requirements while fishing with hook-and-line gear for 
groundfish, IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish in Federal 
waters (EEZ) and for IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish in the 
State of Alaska waters, excluding NMFS Reporting Area 649 (Prince 
William Sound), State waters of Cook Inlet, and NMFS Reporting Area 659 
(Eastern GOA Regulatory Area, Southeast Inside District), but including 
waters in the areas south of a straight line at 56[deg]17.25 N. lat. 
between Point Harris and Port Armstrong in Chatham Strait, State 
statistical areas 325431 and 325401, and west of a straight line at 
136[deg]21.17 E. long. from Point Wimbledon extending south through the 
Inian Islands to Point Lavinia:
    (i) Using other than snap gear,
    (A) A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph 
(e)(4)(i) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft 
(7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA without masts, 
poles, or rigging.
    (B) A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph 
(e)(4)(ii) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft 
(7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with masts, 
poles, or rigging.
    (C) A minimum of a paired streamer line of a standard as specified 
in paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section must be used by vessels 
greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
    (ii) Using snap gear,
    (A) A minimum of 1 buoy bag line as specified in paragraph 
(e)(4)(i) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft 
(7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA without masts, 
poles, or rigging.
    (B) A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph 
(e)(4)(iv) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 26 ft 
(7.9 m) LOA and less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA with masts, 
poles, or rigging.
    (C) A minimum of a single streamer line as specified in paragraph 
(e)(4)(iv) of this section must be used by vessels greater than 55 ft 
(16.8 m) LOA.
    (4) * * *
    (v) Weather Safety Standard. The use of seabird avoidance devices 
required by paragraph (e)(3) of this section is discretionary for 
vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than or equal to 55 ft 
(16.8 m) LOA in conditions of wind speeds exceeding 30 knots (near gale 
or Beaufort 7 conditions).
    (5) Other methods. The following measures or methods must be 
accompanied by the applicable seabird avoidance gear requirements as 
specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section:
    (i) Night-setting,
    (ii) Line shooter, or
    (iii) Lining tube.
* * * * *
    3. In 50 CFR part 679, Table 20 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 53521]]



 Table 20 to Part 679--Seabird Avoidance Gear Requirements for Vessels,
                  based on Area, Gear, and Vessel Type
      (See Sec.   679.24(e) for complete seabird avoidance program
     requirements; see Sec.   679.24(e)(1) for applicable fisheries)
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a vessel deploying hook-and-line   Then you must use this
 gear, other than snap gear, in waters specified   seabird avoidance
 at Sec.   679.24(e)(3), and your vessel is...     gear in conjunction
                                                   with requirements at
                                                   Sec.   679.24(e)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>26 ft to 55 ft LOA and without masts, poles, or  minimum of one buoy
 rigging                                           bag line
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>26 ft to 55 ft LOA and with masts, poles, or     minimum of a single
 rigging                                           streamer line of a
                                                   standard specified at
                                                   Sec.
                                                   679.24(e)(4)(ii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>55 ft LOA                                        minimum of paired
                                                   streamer lines of a
                                                   standard specified at
                                                   Sec.
                                                   679.24(e)(4)(iii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a vessel deploying hook-and-line   Then you must use this
 gear and use snap gear in waters specified at     seabird avoidance
 Sec.   679.24(e)(3), and your vessel is...        gear in conjunction
                                                   with requirements at
                                                   Sec.   679.24(e)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>26 ft to 55 ft LOA and without masts, poles, or  minimum of one buoy
 rigging                                           bag line
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>26 ft to 55 ft and with masts, poles, or         minimum of a single
 rigging                                           streamer line of a
                                                   standard specified at
                                                   Sec.
                                                   679.24(e)(4)(iv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>55 ft LOA                                        minimum of a single
                                                   streamer line of a
                                                   standard specified at
                                                   Sec.
                                                   679.24(e)(4)(iv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a vessel < 32 ft in the State      Then you are exempt
 waters of IPHC Area 4E, or operate a vessel in    from seabird
 NMFS Reporting Area 649 (Prince William Sound),   avoidance
 State waters of Cook Inlet, and NMFS Reporting    regulations.
 Area 659 (Eastern GOA Regulatory Area,
 Southeast Inside District), but not including
 waters in the areas south of a straight line at
 latitude 56 deg. 17.25 N between Point Harris
 and Port Armstrong in Chatham Strait, State
 statistical areas 325431 and 325401, and west
 of a straight line at longitude 136 deg. 21.17
 E from Point Wimbledon extending south through
 the Inian Islands to Point Lavinia...
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-18489 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.