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