[Federal Register: September 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 181)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53516-53521]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19se07-31]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: http://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 http://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 http://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