Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-03-05 · National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule; closures

37,815 words·~172 min read·/register/2007/03/05/07-987

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No.070213032-7032-01; I.D. 112206B] Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of Alaska; 2007 and 2008 Final Harvest Specifications for Groundfish AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule; closures. SUMMARY: NMFS announces 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications, reserves and apportionments thereof, Pacific halibut prohibited species catch
(PSC)limits, and associated management measures for the groundfish fishery of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to establish harvest limits and associated management measures for groundfish during the 2007 and 2008 fishing years and to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). The intended effect of this action is to conserve and manage the groundfish resources in the GOA in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). DATES: The 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications and associated management measures are effective at 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 5, 2007, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Record of Decision (ROD), and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA)prepared for this action are available from the Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, or from the Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . Copies of the final 2006 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation
(SAFE)report for the groundfish resources of the GOA, dated November 2006, are available from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99510 2252 (907 271 2809), or from its website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Pearson, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, 907-481-1780, or e-mail at *tom.pearson@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the GOA under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP under the authority of the MSA, 16 U.S.C. 1801, *et seq.* Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600, 679, and 680. The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS, after consultation with the Council, to specify and apportion the total allowable catch
(TAC)for each target species and for the “other species” category, the sum of which must be within the optimum yield
(OY)range of 116,000 to 800,000 metric tons (mt). The final specifications set forth in Tables 1 through 22 of this document satisfy this requirement. For 2007, the sum of the TAC amounts is 269,912 mt. For 2008, the sum of the TAC amounts is 286,173 mt. Section 679.20(c)(1) further requires NMFS to publish and solicit public comment on proposed annual TACs, halibut PSC amounts, and seasonal allowances of pollock and inshore/offshore Pacific cod. The proposed GOA groundfish specifications and Pacific halibut PSC allowances for 2007 and 2008 were published in the **Federal Register** on December 15, 2006 (71 FR 75437). Comments were invited and accepted through January 16, 2007. NMFS received 2 letters of comment on the proposed specifications. These letters of comment are summarized in the Response to Comments section of this action. In December 2006, NMFS consulted with the Council regarding the 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications. After considering public comments received, as well as biological and economic data that were available at the Council's December 2006 meeting, NMFS is implementing the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications, as recommended by the Council. Acceptable Biological Catch
(ABC)and TAC Specifications In December 2006, the Council, its Advisory Panel (AP), and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), reviewed current biological and harvest information about the condition of groundfish stocks in the GOA. This information was compiled by the Council's GOA Plan Team and was presented in the final 2006 SAFE report for the GOA groundfish fisheries, dated November 2006 (see ADDRESSES ). The SAFE report contains a review of the latest scientific analyses and estimates of each species= biomass and other biological parameters, as well as summaries of the available information on the GOA ecosystem and the economic condition of the groundfish fisheries off Alaska. From these data and analyses, the Plan Team estimates an ABC for each species or species category. The final ABC levels are based on the best available biological and socioeconomic information, including projected biomass trends, information on assumed distribution of stock biomass, and revised methods used to calculate stock biomass. The FMP specifies the formulas, or tiers, to be used to compute ABCs and overfishing levels (OFLs). The formulas applicable to a particular stock or stock complex are determined by the level of reliable information available to fisheries scientists. This information is categorized into a successive series of six tiers with tier one representing the highest level of information and tier six the lowest level of information. The final TAC recommendations were based on the ABCs as adjusted for other biological and socioeconomic considerations, including maintaining the total TAC within the required OY range of 116,000 to 800,000 mt. The Council adopted the AP's TAC recommendations. The Council recommended TACs for 2007 and 2008 equal to ABCs for pollock, deep-water flatfish, rex sole, sablefish, Pacific ocean perch, shortraker rockfish, rougheye rockfish, northern rockfish, pelagic shelf rockfish, thornyhead rockfish, demersal shelf rockfish, big skate, longnose skate, and other skates. The Council recommended TACs less than the ABCs for Pacific cod, flathead sole, shallow-water flatfish, arrowtooth flounder, other rockfish, and Atka mackerel. None of the Council's recommended TACs for 2007 and 2008 exceeds the final ABC for any species or species category. The 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications approved by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) are unchanged from those recommended by the Council and are consistent with the preferred harvest strategy alternative in the EIS. The 2007 and 2008 TACs are less than the maximum permissible ABCs recommended by the Council's plan teams and SSC NMFS finds that the recommended ABCs and TACs are consistent with the biological condition of the groundfish stocks as described in the 2006 SAFE report and approved by the Council. The apportionment of TAC amounts among gear types, processing sectors, and seasons is discussed below. NMFS finds that the Council's recommendations for OFL, ABC, and TAC amounts are consistent with the biological condition of groundfish stocks as adjusted for other biological and socioeconomic considerations, including maintaining the total TAC within the OY range. NMFS reviewed the Council's recommended TAC specifications and apportionments and approves these specifications under § 679.20(c)(3)(ii). Tables 1 and 2 list the final 2007 and 2008 OFLs, ABCs, TACs, and area apportionments of groundfish in the GOA. The sum of 2007 ABCs is 490,327 mt, which is lower than the 2006 ABC total of 500,625 mt (71 FR 10870, March 3, 2006), while the sum of 2008 ABCs of 511,838 mt is higher than the 2006 total. Specification and Apportionment of TAC Amounts As in 2006, the SSC and Council recommended the method of apportioning the sablefish ABC among management areas in 2007 and 2008 include commercial fishery and survey data. NMFS stock assessment scientists believe the use of unbiased commercial fishery data reflecting catch-per-unit effort provides a desirable input for stock distribution assessments. The use of commercial fishery data is evaluated annually to ensure unbiased information is included in stock distribution models. The Council's recommendation for sablefish area apportionments also takes into account the prohibition on the use of trawl gear in the Southeast Outside
(SEO)District of the Eastern Regulatory Area and makes available 5 percent of the combined Eastern Regulatory Area ABCs to trawl gear for use as incidental catch in other directed groundfish fisheries in the West Yakutat
(WYK)District (§ 679.20(a)(4)(i)). Since the inception of a State of Alaska (State) managed pollock fishery in Prince William Sound (PWS), the GOA Plan Team has recommended the guideline harvest level
(GHL)for the pollock fishery in PWS be deducted from the ABC for the western stock of pollock in the GOA in the Western/Central/West Yakutat (W/C/WYK) Area. For the 2007 and 2008 pollock fisheries in PWS the State's GHL is 1,650 mt. The apportionment of annual pollock TAC among the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA reflects the seasonal biomass distribution and is discussed in greater detail below. The annual pollock TAC in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA is apportioned among Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630, as well as equally among each of the following four seasons: the A season (January 20 through March 10), the B season (March 10 through May 31), the C season (August 25 through October 1), and the D season (October 1 through November 1) (§§ 693.23(d)(2)(i) through
(iv)and 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)). The SSC, AP, and Council adopted the Plan Team's OFL and ABC recommendations for all groundfish species categories. The SSC, AP, and Council recommended apportionment of the ABC for Pacific cod in the GOA among regulatory areas based on the three most recent NMFS summer trawl surveys. The 2007 and 2008 Pacific cod TACs are affected by the State's fishery for Pacific cod in State waters in the Central and Western Regulatory Areas, as well as in PWS. The SSC, AP, and Council recommended that the sum of all State and Federal water Pacific cod removals not exceed the ABC. Accordingly, the Council recommended reduction of the 2007 and 2008 Pacific cod TACs from the ABCs in the Central and Western Regulatory Areas to account for State GHLs. Therefore, the 2007 Pacific cod TACs are less than the ABCs by the following amounts:
(1)Eastern GOA, 413 mt;
(2)Central GOA, 9,468 mt; and
(3)Western GOA, 6,714 mt. Similarly, the 2008 Pacific cod TACs are less than the ABCs as follows:
(1)Eastern GOA, 428 mt;
(2)Central GOA, 9,817 mt; and
(3)Western GOA, 6,961 mt. These amounts reflect the sum of the State's 2007 and 2008 GHLs in these areas, which are 10 percent, 25 percent, and 25 percent of the Eastern, Central, and Western GOA ABCs, respectively. The percentages of ABC used to calculate the GHLs for the State managed Pacific cod fisheries are unchanged from 2006. NMFS also is establishing seasonal apportionments of the annual Pacific cod TAC in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas. Sixty percent of the annual TAC is apportioned to the A season for hook-and-line, pot, and jig gear from January 1 through June 10, and for trawl gear from January 20 through June 10. Forty percent of the annual TAC is apportioned to the B season for hook-and-line, pot, and jig gear from September 1 through December 31, and for trawl gear from September 1 through November 1 (§§ 679.23(d)(3) and 679.20(a)(11)). As in 2006, NMFS establishes for 2007 and 2008 an A season directed fishing allowance
(DFA)for the Pacific cod fisheries in the GOA based on the management area TACs minus the recent average A season incidental catch of Pacific cod in each management area before June 10 (§ 679.20(d)(1)). The DFA and incidental catch before June 10 will be managed such that total harvest in the A season will be no more than 60 percent of the annual TAC. Incidental catch taken after June 10 will continue to accrue against the B season TAC. This action meets the intent of the Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures by achieving temporal dispersion of the Pacific cod removals and by reducing the likelihood of harvest exceeding 60 percent of the annual TAC in the A season (January 1 through June 10). The seasonal apportionments of the annual Pacific cod TAC are discussed in greater detail below. The FMP specifies that the amount for the “other species” category be set at an amount less than or equal to 5 percent of the combined TAC amounts for target species. The final 2007 and 2008 annual GOA-wide TACs of 4,500 mt are less than 5 percent of the combined TAC amounts for target species. The sums of the TACs for all GOA groundfish is 269,912 mt for 2007 and 286,173 mt for 2008, which are within the OY range specified by the FMP. The sums of the 2007 and 2008 TACs are lower than the 2006 TAC sum of 291,950 mt. Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Pilot Program Congress granted NMFS specific statutory authority to manage Central GOA rockfish fisheries in Section 802 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-199). The Council adopted a proposed Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Pilot Program (Rockfish Program) to meet the requirements of Section 802 on June 6, 2005. The elements of the Rockfish Program are discussed in detail in the proposed rule to Amendment 68 to the FMP (71 FR 33040, June 7, 2006) and in the final rule to implement the Rockfish Program (71 FR 67210, November 20, 2006). The final rule became effective December 20, 2006. The Rockfish Program is authorized for five years, from January 1, 2007, until December 31, 2011. A brief overview of major provisions of the Rockfish Program which have implications for the 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications follows. The Rockfish Program allocates exclusive harvesting and processing privileges for primary rockfish species and for associated species harvested incidentally to those rockfish in the Central GOA, an area from 147° W. longitude to 159° W. longitude. The primary rockfish species are northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish. Secondary species are those species incidentally harvested during the harvest of the primary rockfish species fisheries and include Pacific cod, rougheye rockfish, shortraker rockfish, sablefish, and thornyhead rockfish. The Rockfish Program also allocates a portion of the total GOA halibut mortality limit annually specified under § 679.21 to participants based on historic halibut mortality rates in the primary rockfish species fisheries. The amounts of primary rockfish species, secondary species, and halibut mortality to be allocated to the Rockfish Program will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the Program. These amounts will be posted on the Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* when they become available early in 2007. The Rockfish Program also establishes catch limits, commonly called “sideboards,” to limit the ability of participants eligible for the Rockfish Program to harvest fish in fisheries other than the Central GOA rockfish fisheries. Sideboards limit the total amount of catch in other groundfish fisheries that can be taken by eligible harvesters to historic levels, including harvests made in the State's parallel groundfish fisheries. Parallel fisheries are authorized by the State in its waters concurrent with the Federal fishery. Parallel fisheries catch is deducted from the Federal TACs. Sideboards limit catch in specific rockfish fisheries and the amount of halibut bycatch that can be used in certain flatfish fisheries. Tables 18 and 19 list the 2007 and 2008 final groundfish sideboard limitations. Table 20 lists the 2007 and 2008 final halibut mortality limitations. Changes From the Proposed 2007 and 2008 Harvest Specifications in the GOA In October 2006, the Council's recommendations for the proposed 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications (71 FR 75437, December 15, 2006) were based largely upon information contained in the final 2005 SAFE report for the GOA groundfish fisheries, dated November 2005. The Council recommended that OFLs and ABCs for stocks in tiers 1 through 3 be based on biomass projections as set forth in the 2005 SAFE report and estimates of groundfish harvests through the 2006 and 2007 fishing years. For stocks in tiers 4 through 6, for which biomass projections could not be made, the Council recommended the same OFL and ABC levels for 2006 until the final 2006 SAFE report could be completed. The 2006 SAFE report, dated November 2006, which was not available when the Council made its recommendations in October 2006, contains the best and most recent scientific information on the condition of the groundfish stocks. This report was considered in December 2006 by the Council when it made recommendations for the final 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications. Based on the final 2006 SAFE report, the sum of the 2007 final TACs for the GOA (269,912 mt) is 5,544 mt greater than the sum of the proposed TACs (264,367 mt). The largest 2007 increases occurred for Pacific cod, from 44,705 mt to 52,264 mt (17 percent increase); rex sole, from 8,700 mt to 9,100 mt (5 percent increase); sablefish, from 13,700 mt to 14,310 mt (4 percent increase); and for pelagic shelf rockfish, from 5,461 mt to 5,542 mt (1 percent increase). The largest decreases occurred for pollock, from 70,507 mt to 68,307 mt (3 percent decrease); and for northern rockfish, from 5,900 mt to 4,938 mt (16 percent decrease). Other increases or decreases in 2007 and 2008 are within these ranges. Compared to the proposed 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications, the Council's final 2007 and 2008 TAC recommendations increase fishing opportunities for species for which the Council had sufficient information to raise TAC levels. These include, Pacific cod, rex sole, sablefish, and pelagic shelf rockfish. Conversely, the Council reduced TAC levels to provide greater protection for several species including pollock, deep water flatfish, Pacific ocean perch, and northern rockfish. The changes recommended by the Council for the 2007 and 2008 fishing years were based on the best scientific information available, consistent with National Standard 2 of the MSA, and within a reasonable range of variation from the proposed TAC recommendations so that the affected public was fairly apprized and could have made meaningful comments based on the proposed specifications. Tables 1 and 2 list the 2007 and 2008 final OFL, ABC, and TAC amounts of the GOA groundfish. Table 1 - Final 2007 ABCs, TACs, and OFLs of Groundfish for the Western/Central/West Yakutat (W/C/WYK), Western (W), Central (C), Eastern
(E)Regulatory Areas, and in the West Yakutat (WYK), Southeast Outside (SEO), and Gulfwide
(GW)Districts of the Gulf of Alaska (values are rounded to the nearest metric ton) Species Area 1 ABC TAC OFL Pollock 2 Shumagin
(610)25,012 25,012 n/a Chirikof
(620)20,890 20,980 n/a Kodiak
(630)14,850 14,850 n/a WYK
(640)1,398 1,398 n/a Subtotal W/C/WYK 62,150 62,150 87,220 SEO
(650)6,157 6,157 8,209 Total 68,307 68,307 95,429 Pacific cod 3 W 26,855 20,141 n/a C 37,873 28,405 n/a E 4,131 3,718 n/a Total 68,859 52,264 97,600 Flatfish 4 (deep-water) W 420 420 n/a C 4,163 4,163 n/a WYK 2,677 2,677 n/a SEO 1,447 1,447 n/a Total 8,707 8,707 10,431 Rex sole W 1,147 1,147 n/a C 5,446 5,446 n/a WYK 1,037 1,037 n/a SEO 1,470 1,470 n/a Total 9,100 9,100 11,900 Flathead sole W 10,908 2,000 n/a C 26,054 5,000 n/a WYK 2,091 2,091 n/a SEO 57 57 n/a Total 39,110 9,148 48,658 Flatfish 5 (shallow-water) W 24,720 4,500 n/a C 24,258 13,000 n/a WYK 628 628 n/a SEO 1,844 1,844 n/a Total 51,450 19,972 62,418 Arrowtooth flounder W 20,852 8,000 n/a C 139,582 30,000 n/a WYK 16,507 2,500 n/a SEO 7,067 2,500 n/a Total 184,008 43,000 214,828 Sablefish 6 W 2,470 2,470 n/a C 6,190 6,190 n/a WYK 2,280 2,280 n/a SEO 3,370 3,370 n/a Subtotal E(WYK and SEO) 5,650 5,650 n/a Total 14,310 14,310 16,906 Pacific ocean perch 7 W 4,244 4,244 4,976 C 7,612 7,612 8,922 WYK 1,140 1,140 n/a SEO 1,640 1,640 n/a Subtotal E(WYK and SEO) 2,780 2,780 3,260 Total 14,636 14,635 17,158 Shortraker rockfish 8 W 153 153 n/a C 353 353 n/a E 337 337 n/a Total 843 843 1,124 Rougheye rockfish 9 W 136 136 n/a C 611 611 n/a E 241 241 n/a Total 988 988 1,148 Other rockfish 10,11 W 577 577 n/a C 386 386 n/a WYK 319 319 n/a SEO 2,872 200 n/a Total 4,154 1,482 5,394 Northern rockfish 11,12 W 1,439 1,439 n/a C 3,499 3,499 n/a E 0 0 n/a Total 4,938 4,938 5,890 Pelagic shelf rockfish 13 W 1,466 1,466 n/a C 3,325 3,325 n/a WYK 307 307 n/a SEO 444 444 n/a Total 5,542 5,542 6,458 Thornyhead rockfish W 513 513 n/a C 989 989 n/a E 707 707 n/a Total 2,209 2,209 2,945 Big skates 14 W 695 695 n/a C 2,250 2,250 n/a E 599 599 n/a 3,544 3,544 4,726 Longnose skates 15 W 65 65 n/a C 1,969 1,969 n/a E 861 861 n/a 2,895 2,895 3,860 Other skates 16 GW 1,617 1,617 2,156 Demersal shelf rockfish 17 SEO 410 410 650 Atka mackerel GW 4,700 1,500 6,200 Other species 18 GW n/a 4,500 n/a TOTAL 19 490,327 269,912 615,879 1 . Regulatory areas and districts are defined at § 679.2. 2 . Pollock is apportioned in the Western/Central Regulatory Areas among three statistical areas. During the A season, the apportionment is based on an adjusted estimate of the relative distribution of pollock biomass of approximately 30 percent, 48 percent, and 22 percent in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630, respectively. During the B season, the apportionment is based on the relative distribution of pollock biomass at 30 percent, 59 percent, and 11 percent in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630, respectively. During the C and D seasons, the apportionment is based on the relative distribution of pollock biomass at 53 percent, 15 percent, and 32 percent in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630, respectively. Tables 5 and 6 list the seasonal apportionments. In the West Yakutat and Southeast Outside Districts of the Eastern Regulatory Area, pollock is not divided into seasonal allowances. 3 . The annual Pacific cod TAC is apportioned 60% to an A season and 40% to a B season in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA. Pacific cod is allocated 90% for processing by the inshore component and 10% for processing by the offshore component. Tables 7 and 8 list the 2007 and 2008 proposed seasonal apportionments and component allocations of TAC. 4 . ″Deep-water flatfish″ means Dover sole, Greenland turbot, and deepsea sole. 5 . ″Shallow-water flatfish″ means flatfish not including ″deep-water flatfish,″ flathead or arrowtooth flounder. 6 . Sablefish is allocated to trawl and hook-and-line gears for 2007 and to trawl gear in 2008. Tables 3 and 4 list these amounts. 7 . ″Pacific ocean perch″ means Sebastes alutus. 8 . ″Shortraker rockfish″ means Sebastes borealis. 9 . ″Rougheye rockfish″ means Sebastes aleutianus. 10 . ″Other rockfish″ in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas and in the West Yakutat District means slope rockfish and demersal shelf rockfish. The category ″other rockfish″ in the SEO District means slope rockfish. 11 . ″Slope rockfish″ means Sebastes aurora (aurora), S. melanostomus (blackgill), S. paucispinis (bocaccio), S. goodei (chilipepper), S. crameri (darkblotch), S. elongatus (greenstriped), S. variegatus (harlequin), S. wilsoni (pygmy), S. babcocki (redbanded), S. proriger (redstripe), S. zacentrus (sharpchin), S. jordani (shortbelly), S. brevispinis (silvergrey), S. diploproa (splitnose), S. saxicola (stripetail), S. miniatus (vermilion), and S. reedi (yellowmouth). In the Eastern GOA only, slope rockfish also includes northern rockfish, S. polyspinous. 12 . ″Northern rockfish″ means Sebastes polyspinis. 13 . ″Pelagic shelf rockfish″ means Sebastes ciliatus (dark), S. variabilis (dusky), S. entomelas (widow), and S. flavidus (yellowtail). 14 . Big skate means Raja binoculata. 15 . Longnose skate means Raja rhina. 16 . Other skates means Bathyraja spp. 17 . ″Demersal shelf rockfish″ means Sebastes pinniger (canary), S. nebulosus (china), S. caurinus (copper), S. maliger (quillback), S. helvomaculatus (rosethorn), S. nigrocinctus (tiger), and S. ruberrimus (yelloweye). 18 . ″Other species″ means sculpins, sharks, squid, and octopus. There is no OFL or ABC for ″other species.″ The FMP specifies that the amount for the ″other species″ category be set at an amount less than or equal to 5% of the combined TAC amounts for target species. 19 . The total ABC and OFL is the sum of the ABCs and OFLs for assessed target species. Table 2 - Final 2008 ABCs, TACs, and OFLs of Groundfish for the Western/Central/West Yakutat (W/C/WYK), Western (W), Central (C), Eastern
(E)Regulatory Areas, and in the West Yakutat (WYK), Southeast Outside (SEO), and Gulfwide
(GW)Districts of the Gulf of Alaska (values are rounded to the nearest metric ton) (values are rounded to the nearest metric ton) Species Area 1 ABC TAC OFL Pollock 2 Shumagin
(610)30,308 30,308 n/a Chirikof
(620)25,313 25,313 n/a Kodiak
(630)17,995 17,995 n/a WYK
(640)1,694 1,694 n/a Subtotal W/C/WYK 75,310 75,310 105,490 SEO
(650)6,157 6,157 8,209 Total 81,467 81,467 113,699 Pacific cod 3 W 27,846 20,885 n/a C 39,270 29,453 n/a E 4,284 3,856 n/a Total 71,400 54,194 86,000 Flatfish 4 (deep-water) W 430 430 n/a C 4,296 4,296 n/a WYK 2,763 2,763 n/a SEO 1,494 1,494 n/a Total 8,983 8,983 11,412 Rex sole W 1,122 1,122 n/a C 5,327 5,327 n/a WYK 1,014 1,014 n/a SEO 1,437 1,437 n/a Total 8,900 8,900 11,600 Flathead sole W 11,464 2,000 n/a C 27,382 5,000 n/a WYK 2,198 2,198 n/a SEO 60 60 n/a Total 41,104 9,258 51,146 Flatfish 5 (shallow-water) W 24,720 4,500 n/a C 24,258 13,000 n/a WYK 628 628 n/a SEO 1,844 1,844 n/a Total 51,450 19,972 62,418 Arrowtooth flounder W 21,164 8,000 n/a C 141,673 30,000 n/a WYK 16,754 2,500 n/a SEO 7,172 2,500 n/a Total 186,763 43,000 218,020 Sablefish 6 W 2,458 2,458 n/a C 6,159 6,159 n/a WYK 2,269 2,269 n/a SEO 3,353 3,353 n/a Subtotal E(WYK and SEO) 5,622 5,622 n/a Total 14,239 14,239 15,803 Pacific ocean perch 7 W 4,291 4,291 5,030 C 7,694 7,694 9,019 WYK 1,153 1,153 n/a SEO 1,659 1,659 n/a Subtotal E(WYK and SEO) 2,812 2,812 3,296 Total 14,797 14,797 17,345 Shortraker rockfish 8 W 153 153 n/a C 353 353 n/a E 337 337 n/a Total 843 843 1,124 Rougheye rockfish 9 W 137 137 n/a C 614 614 n/a E 242 242 n/a Total 993 993 1,197 Other rockfish 10,11 W 577 577 n/a C 386 386 n/a WYK 319 319 n/a SEO 2,872 200 n/a Total 4,154 1,482 5,394 Northern rockfish 11,12 W 1,383 1,383 n/a C 3,365 3,365 n/a E 0 0 n/a Total 4,748 4,748 5,660 Pelagic shelf rockfish 13 W 1,752 1,752 n/a C 3,973 3,973 n/a WYK 366 366 n/a SEO 531 531 n/a Total 6,622 6,622 8,186 Thornyhead rockfish W 513 513 n/a C 989 989 n/a E 707 707 n/a Total 2,209 2,209 2,945 Big skates 14 W 695 695 n/a C 2,250 2,250 n/a E 599 599 n/a Total 3,544 3,544 4,726 Longnose skates 15 W 65 65 n/a C 1,969 1,969 n/a E 861 861 n/a Total 2,895 2,895 3,860 Other skates 16 GW 1,617 1,617 2,156 Demersal shelf rockfish 17 SEO 410 410 650 Atka mackerel GW 4,700 1,500 6,200 Other species 18 GW n/a 4,500 n/a TOTAL 19 511,838 286,173 629,541 1 . Regulatory areas and districts are defined at § 679.2. 2 . Pollock is apportioned in the Western/Central Regulatory Areas among three statistical areas. During the A season, the apportionment is based on an adjusted estimate of the relative distribution of pollock biomass of approximately 30 percent, 48 percent, and 22 percent in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630, respectively. During the B season, the apportionment is based on the relative distribution of pollock biomass at 30 percent, 59 percent, and 11 percent in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630, respectively. During the C and D seasons, the apportionment is based on the relative distribution of pollock biomass at 53 percent, 15 percent, and 32 percent in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630, respectively. Tables 5 and 6 list the seasonal apportionments. In the West Yakutat and Southeast Outside Districts of the Eastern Regulatory Area, pollock is not divided into seasonal allowances. 3 . The annual Pacific cod TAC is apportioned 60% to an A season and 40% to a B season in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA. Pacific cod is allocated 90% for processing by the inshore component and 10% for processing by the offshore component. Tables 7 and 8 list the 2007 and 2008 proposed seasonal apportionments and component allocations of TAC. 4 . ″Deep-water flatfish″ means Dover sole, Greenland turbot, and deepsea sole. 5 . ″Shallow-water flatfish″ means flatfish not including ″deep-water flatfish,″ flathead or arrowtooth flounder. 6 . Sablefish is allocated to trawl and hook-and-line gears for 2007 and to trawl gear in 2008. Tables 3 and 4 list these amounts. 7 . ″Pacific ocean perch″ means Sebastes alutus. 8 . ″Shortraker rockfish″ means Sebastes borealis. 9 . ″Rougheye rockfish″ means Sebastes aleutianus. 10 . ″Other rockfish″ in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas and in the West Yakutat District means slope rockfish and demersal shelf rockfish. The category ″other rockfish″ in the SEO District means slope rockfish. 11 . ″Slope rockfish″ means Sebastes aurora (aurora), S. melanostomus (blackgill), S. paucispinis (bocaccio), S. goodei (chilipepper), S. crameri (darkblotch), S. elongatus (greenstriped), S. variegatus (harlequin), S. wilsoni (pygmy), S. babcocki (redbanded), S. proriger (redstripe), S. zacentrus (sharpchin), S. jordani (shortbelly), S. brevispinis (silvergrey), S. diploproa (splitnose), S. saxicola (stripetail), S. miniatus (vermilion), and S. reedi (yellowmouth). In the Eastern GOA only, slope rockfish also includes northern rockfish, S. polyspinous. 12 . ″Northern rockfish″ means Sebastes polyspinis. 13 . ″Pelagic shelf rockfish″ means Sebastes ciliatus (dark), S. variabilis (dusky), S. entomelas (widow), and S. flavidus (yellowtail). 14 . Big skate means Raja binoculata. 15 . Longnose skate means Raja rhina. 16 . Other skates means Bathyraja spp. 17 . ″Demersal shelf rockfish″ means Sebastes pinniger (canary), S. nebulosus (china), S. caurinus (copper), S. maliger (quillback), S. helvomaculatus (rosethorn), S. nigrocinctus (tiger), and S. ruberrimus (yelloweye). 18 . ″Other species″ means sculpins, sharks, squid, and octopus. There is no OFL or ABC for ″other species.″ The FMP specifies that the amount for the ″other species″ category be set at an amount less than or equal to 5% of the combined TAC amounts for target species. 19 . The total ABC and OFL is the sum of the ABCs and OFLs for assessed target species. Apportionment of Reserves Section 679.20(b)(2) requires 20 percent of each TAC for pollock, Pacific cod, flatfish, and the “other species” category be set aside in reserves for possible apportionment at a later date. In 2006, NMFS reapportioned all of the reserves in the final harvest specifications. For 2007 and 2008, NMFS proposed reapportionment of all the reserves in the proposed 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications published in the **Federal Register** on December 15, 2006 (71 FR 75437). NMFS received no public comments on the proposed reapportionments. For the final 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications, NMFS apportioned as proposed all of the reserves for pollock, Pacific cod, flatfish, and “other species.” Specifications of TAC shown in Tables 1 and 2 reflect apportionment of reserve amounts for these species and species groups. Allocations of the Sablefish TAC Amounts to Vessels Using Hook-and-Line and Trawl Gear Sections 679.20(a)(4)(i) and
(ii)require allocations of sablefish TACs for each of the regulatory areas and districts to hook-and-line and trawl gear. In the Western and Central Regulatory Areas, 80 percent of each TAC is allocated to hook-and-line gear, and 20 percent of each TAC is allocated to trawl gear. In the Eastern Regulatory Area, 95 percent of the TAC is allocated to hook-and-line gear, and 5 percent is allocated to trawl gear. The trawl gear allocation in the Eastern Regulatory Area may only be used to support incidental catch of sablefish in directed fisheries for other target species (§ 679.20(a)(1)). In recognition of the trawl ban in the SEO District of the Eastern Regulatory Area, the Council recommended and NMFS concurs with the allocation of 5 percent of the combined Eastern Regulatory Area sablefish TAC to trawl gear in the WYK District and the remainder to vessels using hook-and-line gear. As a result, NMFS allocates 100 percent of the sablefish TAC in the SEO District to vessels using hook-and-line gear. The Council recommended that hook-and-line sablefish TAC be established annually to ensure that the Individual Fishery Quota
(IFQ)fishery is conducted concurrent with the halibut IFQ fishery and is based on the most recent survey information. This recommendation results in an allocation of 283 mt to trawl gear and 1,997 mt to hook-and-line gear in the WYK District and 3,370 mt to hook-and-line gear in the SEO District in 2007, and 281 mt to trawl gear in the WYK District in 2008. Table 3 lists the allocations of the 2007 sablefish TACs between hook-and-line and trawl gear. Table 4 lists the allocations of the 2008 sablefish TACs to trawl gear. Table 3 - Final 2007 Sablefish TAC Specifications in the Gulf of Alaska and Allocations to Hook-and-Line and Trawl Gear (values are rounded to the nearest metric ton) Area/district TAC Hook-and-line allocation Trawl allocation Western 2,470 1,976 494 Central 6,190 4,952 1,238 West Yakutat 2,280 1,997 283 Southeast Outside 3,370 3,370 0 Total 14,310 12,295 2,015 Table 4 - Final 2008 Sablefish TAC Specifications in the Gulf of Alaska and Allocation to Trawl Gear (values are rounded to the nearest metric ton) Area/district TAC Hook-and-line allocation Trawl allocation Western 2,458 n/a 492 Central 6,159 n/a 1,232 West Yakutat 2,269 n/a 281 Southeast Outside 3,353 n/a 0 Total 14,239 n/a 2,005 1 The Council recommended that specifications for the hook-and-line gear sablefish IFQ fisheries be limited to 1 year. Apportionments of Pollock TAC Among Seasons and Regulatory Areas, and Allocations for Processing by Inshore and Offshore Components In the GOA, pollock is apportioned by season and area, and is further allocated for processing by inshore and offshore components. Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the annual pollock TAC specified for the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA is apportioned into four equal seasonal allowances of 25 percent. As established by § 679.23(d)(2)(i) through (iv), the A, B, C, and D season allowances are available from January 20 to March 10, March 10 to May 31, August 25 to October 1, and October 1 to November 1, respectively. Pollock TACs in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA are apportioned among Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630. In the A and B seasons, the apportionments are in proportion to the distribution of pollock biomass based on the four most recent NMFS winter surveys. In the C and D seasons, the apportionments are in proportion to the distribution of pollock biomass based on the four most recent NMFS summer surveys. For 2007 and 2008, the Council recommends averaging the winter and summer distribution of pollock in the Central Regulatory Area for the A season. The average is intended to reflect the distribution of pollock and the performance of the fishery in the area during the A season for the 2007 and 2008 fishing years. Within any fishing year, the underage or overage of a seasonal allowance may be added to, or subtracted from, subsequent seasonal allowances in a manner to be determined by the Regional Administrator. The rollover amount of unharvested pollock is limited to 20 percent of the seasonal apportionment for the statistical area. Any unharvested pollock above the 20 percent limit could be further distributed to the other statistical areas, in proportion to the estimated biomass in the subsequent season in those statistical areas (§ 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B)). The WYK and SEO District pollock TACs of 1,398 mt and 6,157 mt in 2007 and 1,694 mt and 6,157 mt in 2008, respectively, are not allocated by season. Section 679.20(a)(6)(i) requires the allocation of 100 percent of the pollock TAC in all regulatory areas and all seasonal allowances to vessels catching pollock for processing by the inshore component after subtracting amounts projected by the Regional Administrator to be caught by, or delivered to, the offshore component incidental to directed fishing for other groundfish species. The amount of pollock available for harvest by vessels harvesting pollock for processing by the offshore component is that amount actually taken as incidental catch during directed fishing for groundfish species other than pollock, up to the maximum retainable amounts allowed by § 679.20(e) and (f). At this time, these incidental catch amounts are unknown and will be determined during the fishing year. The 2007 and 2008 seasonal biomass distribution of pollock in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas, area apportionments, and seasonal apportionments for the A, B, C, and D seasons are summarized in Tables 5 and 6, except that amounts of pollock for processing by the inshore and offshore components are not shown. Table 5 - Final 2007 Distribution of Pollock in the Central and Western Regulatory Areas of the Gulf of Alaska; Seasonal Biomass Distribution, Area Apportionments; and Seasonal Allowances of Annual TAC (values are rounded to the nearest metric ton) Area Apportionments Resulting From Seasonal Distribution of Biomass Season Shumagin (Area 610) Chirikof (Area 620) Kodiak (Area 630) Total A 4,511 (29.70%) 7,357 (48.44%) 3,320 (21.86%) 15,188 (100%) B 4,511 (29.70%) 8,924 (58.76%) 1,753 (11.54%) 15,188 (100%) C 7,995 (52.64%) 2,304 (15.17%) 4,889 (32.19%) 15,188 (100%) D 7,995 (52.64%) 2,304 (15.17%) 4,889 (32.19%) 15,188 (100%) Annual Total 25,012 20,890 14,850 60,752 Table 6 - Final 2008 Distribution of Pollock in the Central and Western Regulatory Areas of the Gulf of Alaska; Seasonal Biomass Distribution, Area Apportionments; and Seasonal Allowances of Annual TAC (values are rounded to the nearest metric ton) Area Apportionments Resulting From Seasonal Distribution of Biomass Season Shumagin (Area 610) Chirikof (Area 620) Kodiak (Area 630) Total A 5,466 (29.70%) 8,915 (48.44%) 4,023 (21.86%) 18,404 (100%) B 5,466 (29.70%) 10,814 (58.76%) 2,124 (11.54%) 18,404 (100%) C 9,688 (52.64%) 2,792 (15.17%) 5,924 (32.19%) 18,404 (100%) D 9,688 (52.64%) 2,792 (15.17%) 5,924 (32.19%) 18,404 (100%) Annual Total 30,308 25,313 17,995 73,616 Seasonal Apportionments of Pacific Cod TAC and Allocations for Processing of Pacific Cod TAC Between Inshore and Offshore Components Pacific cod fishing is divided into two seasons in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA. For hook-and-line, pot, and jig gear, the A season is January 1 through June 10, and the B season is September 1 through December 31. For trawl gear, the A season is January 20 through June 10, and the B season is September 1 through November 1 (§ 679.23(d)(3)). After subtracting incidental catch from the A season, 60 percent of the annual TAC will be available as a DFA during the A season for the inshore and offshore components. The remaining 40 percent of the annual TAC will be available for harvest during the B season. The seasonal allocations will be apportioned between the inshore and offshore components, as provided in § 679.20(a)(6)(ii). Under § 679.20(a)(11)(ii), any overage or underage of the Pacific cod allowance from the A season may be subtracted from or added to the subsequent B season allowance. Section 679.20(a)(6)(ii) requires allocation of the TAC apportionments of Pacific cod in all regulatory areas to vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the inshore and offshore components. Ninety percent of the Pacific cod TAC in each regulatory area is allocated to vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the inshore component. The remaining 10 percent of the TAC is allocated to vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the offshore component. Tables 7 and 8 list the seasonal apportionments and allocations of the 2007 and 2008 Pacific cod TACs. Table 7 - Final 2007 Seasonal Apportionments and Allocation of Pacific Cod TAC Amounts in the Gulf of Alaska; Allocations for Processing by the Inshore and Offshore Components (values are rounded to the nearest metric ton) Season Regulatory area TAC Component allocation Inshore (90%) Offshore (10%) Western 20,141 18,127 2,014 A season (60%) 12,085 10,876 1,208 B season (40%) 8,056 7,251 806 Central 28,405 25,565 2,840 A season (60%) 17,043 15,339 1,704 B season (40%) 11,362 10,226 1,136 Eastern 3,718 3,346 372 Total 52,264 47,038 5,226 Table 8 - Final 2008 Seasonal Apportionments and Allocation of Pacific Cod TAC Amounts in the Gulf of Alaska; Allocations for Processing by the Inshore and Offshore Components (values are rounded to the nearest metric ton) Season Regulatory area TAC Component allocation Inshore (90%) Offshore (10%) Western 20,885 18,796 2,089 A season (60%) 12,531 11,278 1,253 B season (40%) 8,354 7,519 835 Central 29,453 26,508 2,945 A season (60%) 17,672 15,905 1,767 B season (40%) 11,781 10,603 1,178 Eastern 3,856 3,470 386 Total 54,194 48,775 5,419 Demersal Shelf Rockfish
(DSR)In a commercial fisheries news release dated December 18, 2006, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) announced the closure of directed fishing for DSR in the SEO District in 2007. The ADF&G estimates that the incidental catch mortality in the commercial halibut fishery will require the entire commercial TAC; therefore, a directed fishery in the SEO District cannot be prosecuted (5 AAC 28.160). NMFS reminds all fishermen that full retention of all DSR by federally permitted catcher vessels using hook-and-line or jig gear fishing for groundfish and Pacific halibut in the SEO District of the GOA is required (§ 679.20(j)). Apportionments to the Central GOA Rockfish Pilot Program Section 679.81(a)(2) requires the allocation of the primary rockfish species after deducting incidental catch needs in other directed groundfish fisheries in the Central Regulatory Area. Five percent (2.5 percent to trawl gear and 2.5 percent to fixed gear) of the final TACs for Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish in the Central Regulatory Area are allocated to the entry level rockfish fishery and the remaining 95 percent to those vessels eligible to participate in the Rockfish Program as described in the proposed and final rules for the Rockfish Program (71 FR 33040, June 7, 2006, and 71 FR 67210, November 20, 2006, respectively). NMFS is setting aside in 2007 and 2008 incidental catch amounts of 330 mt of Pacific ocean perch, 120 mt of northern rockfish, and 100 mt of pelagic shelf rockfish for other directed fisheries in the Central Regulatory Area. These amounts are based on the 2003 through 2006 average incidental catch in the Central Regulatory Area by these other groundfish fisheries. Halibut PSC Limits Section 679.21(d) establishes the annual halibut PSC limit apportionments to trawl, hook-and-line and pot gear. In December 2006, the Council recommended that NMFS maintain the 2006 halibut PSC limits of 2,000 mt for the trawl fisheries and 300 mt for the hook-and-line fisheries. Ten mt of the hook-and-line limit is further allocated to the DSR fishery in the SEO District. The DSR fishery is defined at § 679.21(d)(4)(iii)(A). This fishery has been apportioned 10 mt in recognition of its small scale harvests. Most vessels in the DSR fishery are less than 60 ft (18.3 m) length overall
(LOA)and are exempt from observer coverage. Therefore, observer data are not available to verify actual bycatch amounts. NMFS assumes the halibut bycatch in the DSR fishery is low because of the short soak times for the gear and duration of the DSR fishery. Also, the DSR fishery occurs in the winter when less overlap occurs in the distribution of DSR and halibut. Section 679.21(d)(4)(i) authorizes the exemption of specified non-trawl fisheries from the halibut PSC limit. NMFS, after consultation with the Council, exempts pot gear, jig gear, and the sablefish IFQ hook-and-line gear fishery from the non-trawl halibut limit for 2007 and 2008. The Council recommended these exemptions because
(1)the pot gear fisheries have low annual halibut bycatch mortality (averaging 18 mt annually from 2001 through 2006 and 21 mt in 2006 alone);
(2)the halibut and sablefish IFQ fisheries have low halibut bycatch mortality because the IFQ program requires retention of legal-sized halibut by vessels using hook-and-line gear if a halibut IFQ permit holder is aboard and is holding unused halibut IFQ; and
(3)halibut mortality for the jig gear fisheries is assumed to be negligible. Halibut mortality is assumed to be negligible in the jig gear fisheries given the small amount of groundfish harvested by jig gear (averaging 323 mt annually from 2001 through 2006 and 128 mt in 2006 alone), the selective nature of jig gear, and the likelihood that halibut caught with jig gear have high survival rates when released. Section 679.21(d)(5) provides NMFS authority to seasonally apportion the halibut PSC limits after consultation with the Council. The FMP and regulations require the Council and NMFS consider the following information in seasonally apportioning halibut PSC limits:
(1)seasonal distribution of halibut,
(2)seasonal distribution of target groundfish species relative to halibut distribution,
(3)expected halibut bycatch needs on a seasonal basis relative to changes in halibut biomass and expected catch of target groundfish species,
(4)expected bycatch rates on a seasonal basis,
(5)expected changes in directed groundfish fishing seasons,
(6)expected actual start of fishing effort, and
(7)economic effects of establishing seasonal halibut allocations on segments of the target groundfish industry. The final 2006 and 2007 groundfish harvest specifications (71 FR 10870, March 3, 2006) summarized the Council and NMFS' findings with respect to each of these FMP considerations. The Council and NMFS' findings for 2007 and 2008 are unchanged from 2006. The opening dates and halibut PSC limitations for vessels using trawl gear participating in the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area are described in the final rule to implement the Rockfish Program (71 FR 67210, November 20, 2006). NMFS concurs with the Council's recommendations described here and listed in Table 9. Section 679.21, paragraphs (d)(5)(iii) and
(iv)specify that any underages or overages in a seasonal apportionment of a PSC limit will be deducted from or added to the next respective seasonal apportionment within the 2007 and 2008 fishing years. The information to establish the halibut PSC limits was obtained from the 2006 SAFE report, NMFS, ADF&G, the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), and public testimony. Table 9 - Final 2007 and 2008 Pacific Halibut PSC Limits, Allowances, and Apportionments (values are in metric tons) Trawl gear Dates Amount Hook-and-line gear 1 Other than DSR Dates Amount DSR Dates Amount January 20-April 1 550 (27.5%) January 1-June 10 250 (86%) January 1-December 31 10 (100%) April 1-July 1 400 (20%) June 10-September 1 5 (2%) July 1-September 1 600 (30%) September 1-December 31 35 (12%) September 1-October 1 150 (7.5%) n/a n/a October 1-December 31 300 (15%) n/a n/a Total 2,000 (100%) n/a 290 (100%) 10 (100%) 1 The Pacific halibut PSC limit for hook-and-line gear is allocated to the demersal shelf rockfish
(DSR)fishery and fisheries other than DSR. The hook-and-line sablefish fishery is exempt from halibut PSC limits. Section 679.21(d)(3)(ii) authorizes further apportionment of the trawl halibut PSC limit to trawl fishery categories. The annual apportionments are based on each category's proportional share of the anticipated halibut bycatch mortality during the fishing year and optimization of the total amount of groundfish harvest under the halibut PSC limit. The fishery categories for the trawl halibut PSC limits are
(1)a deep-water species complex, comprised of sablefish, rockfish, deep-water flatfish, rex sole and arrowtooth flounder; and
(2)a shallow-water species complex, comprised of pollock, Pacific cod, shallow-water flatfish, flathead sole, Atka mackerel, skates, and “other species” (§ 679.21(d)(3)(iii)). Table 10 lists the final 2006 and 2007 apportionments for these two fishery complexes. Table 10 - Final 2006 and 2007 Apportionment of Pacific Halibut PSC Trawl Limits Between the Trawl Gear Deep-Water Species Complex and the Shallow-Water Species Complex (values are in metric tons) Season Shallow-water Deep-water Total January 20-April 1 450 100 550 April 1-July 1 100 300 400 July 1-September 1 200 400 600 September 1-October 1 150 Any remainder 150 Subtotal January 20-October 1 900 800 1,700 October 1-December 31 1 n/a n/a 300 Total n/a n/a 2,000 1 No apportionment between shallow-water and deep-water trawl fishery categories during the fifth season (October 1 through December 31). Estimated Halibut Bycatch in Prior Years The best available information on estimated halibut bycatch is data collected by observers during 2006. The calculated halibut bycatch mortality by trawl, hook and line, and pot gear through December 31, 2006, is 2,002 mt, 290 mt, and 21 mt, respectively, for a total halibut mortality of 2,313 mt. Halibut bycatch restrictions seasonally constrained trawl gear fisheries during the 2006 fishing year. Trawling during the second season closed for the deep-water species category April 27 (71 FR 25781, May 2, 2006) and during the fourth season September 5 (71 FR 52754, September 7, 2006). Trawling during the first season closed for the shallow-water species category from February 23 to February 27 (71 FR 9977, February 28, 2006, and 71 FR 10625, March 2, 2006) and during the second season on June 10 (71 FR 34021, June 13, 2006). To prevent exceeding the fourth season halibut PSC limit for the shallow-water species category, directed fishing using trawl gear was limited to four 12-hour open periods on September 1 (71 FR 51784, August 31, 2006), September 6 (71 FR 53339, September 11, 2006), September 20 (71 FR 55134, September 21, 2006), and September 25 (71 FR 56898, September 28, 2006). Trawling for all groundfish targets (with the exception of pollock by vessels using pelagic trawl gear) was closed for the fifth season on October 8 (71 FR 60078, October 12, 2006). Fishing for groundfish using hook-and-line gear remained open in 2006 as the halibut PSC limit was not reached. The amount of groundfish that trawl gear might have harvested if halibut PSC limits had not restricted the 2006 season is unknown. Expected Changes in Groundfish Stocks and Catch The final 2007 and 2008 ABCs for Pacific cod, deep-water flatfish, flathead sole, arrowtooth flounder, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish are higher than those established for 2006. However, the final 2007 and 2008 ABCs for pollock, sablefish, rex sole, and northern rockfish are lower than those established for 2006. For the remaining target species, the Council recommended that ABC levels remain unchanged from 2006. More information on these changes is included in the final SAFE report (November 2006) and in the Council, SSC, and AP minutes from the December 2006 meeting available from the Council (see ADDRESSES ). In the GOA, the total final TAC amounts are 269,912 mt for 2007, and 286,173 mt for 2008, a decrease of about 8 percent in 2007 and 2 percent in 2008 from the 2006 TAC total of 291,950 mt. Table 11 compares the final TACs for 2006 to the final TACs for 2007 and 2008. Table 11 - Comparison of Final 2006 and Final 2007 and 2008 Total Allowable Catch in the Gulf of Alaska (values are rounded to the nearest metric ton) Species 2006 2007 2008 Pollock 86,807 68,307 81,467 Pacific cod 52,264 52,264 54,194 Sablefish 14,840 14,310 14,239 Rex sole 9,200 9,100 8,900 “Other species” 13,856 4,500 4,500 Deep-water flatfish 8,665 8,707 8,983 Flathead sole 9,077 9,148 9,258 Arrowtooth flounder 38,000 43,000 43,000 Pacific ocean perch 14,261 14,636 14,797 Northern rockfish 5,091 4,938 4,748 Pelagic shelf rockfish 5,436 5,542 6,622 Current Estimates of Halibut Biomass and Stock Condition The most recent halibut stock assessment was conducted by the IPHC in December 2006 for the 2007 commercial fishery. The 2006 assessment contains substantial changes from the previous year. Information accruing from ongoing passive integrated transponder
(PIT)tag recoveries, as well as inconsistencies in the traditional closed-area stock assessments for some areas has prompted the IPHC to examine stock assessment frameworks. It had been assumed that once the halibut reached legal commercial size there was little movement between regulatory areas. PIT tag recoveries indicate greater movement between regulatory areas than previously thought. The IPHC then developed a coast wide assessment based on a single stock. The assessment adopted a coast wide harvest rate of 20 percent of the exploitable biomass overall but higher for some areas with net immigration. The IPHC staff have recommended a harvest rate of 25 percent in Area 2C, 20 percent in Areas 3A, 3B, and 4A, and 15 percent in Areas 4 B, C, D, and E. The current exploitable halibut biomass in Alaska for 2007 was estimated to be 169,000 mt, down from 189,543 mt in 2006. The female spawning biomass remains far above the minimum which occurred in the 1970s. The exploitable biomass of the Pacific halibut stock peaked at 326,520 mt in 1988. According to the IPHC, the long-term average reproductive biomass for the Pacific halibut resource was estimated at 118,000 mt. Long-term average yield was estimated at 26,980 mt, round weight. The species is fully utilized. Recent average catches (1994-2004) in the commercial halibut fisheries in Alaska have averaged 34,241 mt, round weight. Catch in waters off Alaska is 27 percent higher than long-term potential yield for the entire halibut stock, reflecting the good condition of the Pacific halibut resource. In December 2006, the IPHC recommended Alaska commercial catch limits totaling 33,560 mt, round weight, in 2007, a slight increase from 33,421 mt in 2006. Through December 31, 2006, commercial hook-and-line harvests of halibut off Alaska totaled 31,581 mt, round weight. Additional information on the Pacific halibut stock assessment may be found in the IPHC's 2006 Pacific halibut stock assessment (December 2006), available on the IPHC website at *http://www.iphc.washington.edu* . The IPHC will consider the 2006 Pacific halibut assessment for 2007 at its January 2007 annual meeting when it sets the 2007 commercial halibut fishery quotas. Other Factors The proposed 2006 and 2007 harvest specifications (71 FR 75437, December 15, 2006) discuss potential impacts of expected fishing for groundfish on halibut stocks, as well as methods available for, and costs of, reducing halibut bycatch in the groundfish fisheries. Halibut Discard Mortality Rates The Council recommends and NMFS concurs that the halibut discard mortality rates
(DMRs)recommended by the staff of the IPHC for the 2007 and 2008 GOA groundfish fisheries be used to monitor the 2007 and 2008 GOA halibut bycatch mortality limits. The IPHC recommended use of long-term average DMRs for the 2007 and 2008 groundfish fisheries. The IPHC will analyze observer data annually and recommend changes to the DMRs where a DMR shows large variation from the mean. Most of the IPHC's assumed DMRs were based on an average of mortality rates determined from NMFS observer data collected between 1996 and 2005. Long-term average DMRs were not available for some fisheries, so rates from the most recent years were used. For the “other species” and skate fisheries, where insufficient mortality data are available, the mortality rate of halibut caught in the Pacific cod fishery for that gear type was recommended as a default rate. The GOA DMRs for 2007 and 2008 are revised from those used in 2006. The DMRs for hook-and-line targeted fisheries range from 10 to 14 percent. The DMRs for trawl target fisheries range from 53 to 76 percent. The DMRs for pot target fisheries are 16 percent. The final DMRs for 2007 and 2008 are listed in Table 12. A copy of the document justifying these DMRs is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES ) and is discussed in Appendix A of the final 2006 SAFE report, dated November 2006. Table 12 - Final 2007 and 2008 Halibut Discard Mortality Rates for Vessels Fishing in the Gulf of Alaska (values are percent of halibut bycatch assumed to be dead) Gear Target Mortality Rate (%) Hook-and-line Other species 14 Skates 14 Pacific cod 14 Rockfish 10 Trawl Arrowtooth flounder 69 Atka mackerel 60 Deep-water flatfish 53 Flathead sole 61 Non-pelagic pollock 59 Other species 63 Skates 63 Pacific cod 63 Pelagic pollock 76 Rex sole 63 Rockfish 67 Sablefish 65 Shallow-water flatfish 71 Pot Other species 16 Skates 16 Pacific cod 16 Non-exempt American Fisheries Act
(AFA)Catcher Vessel Groundfish Harvest and PSC Sideboard Limitations Section 679.64 established groundfish harvesting and processing sideboard limitations on AFA catcher/processors and catcher vessels in the GOA. These sideboard limits are necessary to protect the interests of fishermen and processors who have not directly benefitted from the AFA from fishermen and processors who have received exclusive harvesting and processing privileges under the AFA. Listed AFA catcher/processors are prohibited from harvesting any species of fish in the GOA (§ 679.7(k)(1)(ii)). The listed AFA catcher/processors are also prohibited from processing any pollock in the GOA and any groundfish harvested in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA (§ 679.7(k)(1)(iv)). AFA catcher vessels less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA whose annual Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands pollock landings totaled less than 5,100 mt and that made 40 or more GOA groundfish landings from 1995 through 1997 are exempt from sideboard limits (§ 679.64(b)(2)(ii)). Sideboard limits for non-exempt AFA catcher vessels in the GOA are based on their traditional harvest levels of TAC in groundfish fisheries covered by the GOA FMP. Section 679.64(b)(3)(iii) establishes the groundfish sideboard limitations in the GOA based on the retained catch of non-exempt AFA catcher vessels of each sideboard species from 1995 through 1997 divided by the TAC for that species over the same period. These amounts are listed in Table 13 for 2007 and in Table 14 for 2008. All catch of sideboard species made by non-exempt AFA catcher vessels, whether as targeted catch or incidental catch, will be deducted from the sideboard limits in Tables 13 and 14. Table 13 - Final 2007 GOA Non-Exempt American Fisheries Act Catcher Vessel
(CV)Groundfish Harvest Sideboard Limitations (values are in metric tons) Species Apportionments and allocations by area/season/processor/gear Ratio of 1995-1997 non-exempt AFA CV catch to 1995-1997 TAC 2007 TAC 2007 non-exempt AFA catcher vessel sideboard Pollock A Season (W/C areas only) January 20 - February 25 Shumagin
(610)0.6112 4,511 2,757 Chirikof
(620)0.1427 7,357 1,050 Kodiak
(630)0.2438 3,320 809 B Season (W/C areas only) March 10 - May 31 Shumagin
(610)0.6112 4,511 2,757 Chirikof
(620)0.1427 8,924 1,273 Kodiak
(630)0.2438 1,753 427 C Season (W/C areas only) August 25 - September 15 Shumagin
(610)0.6112 7,995 4,887 Chirikof
(620)0.1427 2,304 329 Kodiak
(630)0.2438 4,889 1,192 D Season (W/C areas only) October 1 - November 1 Shumagin
(610)0.6112 7,995 4,887 Chirikof
(620)0.1427 2,304 329 Kodiak
(630)0.2438 4,889 1,192 Annual WYK
(640)0.3499 1,398 489 SEO
(650)0.3499 6,157 2,154 Pacific cod A Season 1 January 1 - June 10 W inshore 0.1423 10,876 1,548 W offshore 0.1026 1,208 124 C inshore 0.0722 15,339 1,107 C offshore 0.0721 1,704 123 B Season 2 September 1 - December 31 W inshore 0.1423 7,251 1,032 W offshore 0.1026 806 83 C inshore 0.0722 10,226 738 C offshore 0.0721 1,136 82 Annual E inshore 0.0079 3,346 26 E offshore 0.0078 372 3 Flatfish W 0 420 0 deep-water C 0.0670 4,163 279 E 0.0171 4,124 71 Rex sole W 0.0010 1,147 1 C 0.0402 5,466 219 E 0.0153 2,507 38 Flathead sole W 0.0036 2,000 7 C 0.0261 5,000 131 E 0.0048 2,148 10 Flathead shallow-water W 0.0156 4,500 70 C 0.0598 13,000 777 E 0.0126 2,472 31 Arrowtooth flounder W 0.0021 8,000 17 C 0.0309 30,000 927 E 0.0020 5,000 10 Sablefish W trawl gear 0 494 0 C trawl gear 0.0720 1,238 89 E trawl gear 0.0488 283 14 Pacific ocean perch W 0.0623 4,244 264 C 0.0866 7,612 659 E 0.0466 2,780 130 Shortraker rockfish W 0 153 0 C 0.0237 353 8 E 0.0124 337 4 Rougheye rockfish W 0 136 0 C 0.0237 611 14 E 0.0124 241 3 Other rockfish W 0.0034 557 2 C 0.2065 386 80 E 0 519 0 Northern rockfish W 0.0003 1,439 0 C 0.0336 3,499 128 Pelagic shelf rockfish W 0.0001 1,466 0 C 0 3,325 0 E 0.0067 751 5 Thornyhead rockfish W 0.0308 513 16 C 0.0308 989 30 E 0.0308 707 22 Big skates W 0.0090 695 6 C 0.0090 2,250 20 E 0.0090 599 5 Longnose skates W 0.0090 65 1 C 0.0090 1,969 18 E 0.0090 861 8 Other skates GW 0.0090 1,617 15 DSR SEO 0,0020 410 1 Atka mackerel Gulfwide 0.0309 1,500 46 Other species Gulfwide 0.0090 4,500 41 1 The Pacific cod A season for trawl gear does not open until January 20. 2 The Pacific cod B season for trawl gear closes November 1. Table 14 - Final 2008 GOA Non-Exempt American Fisheries Act Catcher Vessel
(CV)Groundfish Harvest Sideboard Limitations (values are in metric tons) Species Apportionments and allocations by area/season/processor/gear Ratio of 1995-1997 non-exempt AFA CV catch to 1995-1997 TAC 2008 TAC 2008 non-exempt AFA CV sideboard limit Pollock A Season (W/C areas only) January 20 - February 25 Shumagin
(610)0.6112 5,466 3,341 Chirikof
(620)0.1427 8,915 1,272 Kodiak
(630)0.2438 4,023 981 B Season (W/C areas only) March 10 - May 31 Shumagin
(610)0.6112 5,466 3,341 Chirikof
(620)0.1427 10,814 1,543 Kodiak
(630)0.2438 2,124 518 C Season (W/C areas only) August 25 - September 15 Shumagin
(610)0.6112 9,688 5,921 Chirikof
(620)0.1427 2,304 329 Kodiak
(630)0.2438 5,924 1,444 D Season (W/C areas only) October 1 - November 1 Shumagin
(610)0.6112 9,688 5,921 Chirikof
(620)0.1427 2,304 329 Kodiak
(630)0.2438 5,924 1,444 Annual WYK
(640)0.3499 1,694 593 SEO
(650)0.3499 6,157 2,154 Pacific cod A Season 1 January 1 - June 10 W inshore 0.1423 11,278 1,605 W offshore 0.1026 1,253 129 C inshore 0.0722 15,905 1,148 C offshore 0.0721 1,767 127 B Season 2 September 1 - December 31 W inshore 0.1423 7,519 1,070 W offshore 0.1026 835 86 C inshore 0.0722 10,603 766 C offshore 0.0721 1,178 85 Annual E inshore 0.0079 3,470 27 E offshore 0.0078 386 3 Flatfish W 0 430 0 deep-water C 0.0670 4,296 288 E 0.0171 4,257 73 Rex sole W 0.0010 1,122 1 C 0.0402 5,327 214 E 0.0153 2,451 38 Flathead sole W 0.0036 2,000 7 C 0.0261 5,000 131 E 0.0048 2,258 11 Flathead shallow-water W 0.0156 4,500 70 C 0.0598 13,000 777 E 0.0126 2,472 31 Arrowtooth flounder W 0.0021 8,000 17 C 0.0309 30,000 927 E 0.0020 5,000 10 Sablefish W trawl gear 0 492 0 C trawl gear 0.0720 1,232 89 E trawl gear 0.0488 281 14 Pacific ocean perch W 0.0623 4,291 267 C 0.0866 7,694 666 E 0.0466 2,812 131 Rougheye rockfish W 0 153 0 C 0.0237 353 8 E 0.0124 337 4 Shortraker rockfish W 0 137 0 C 0.0237 614 15 E 0.0124 242 3 Other rockfish W 0.0034 577 2 C 0.2065 386 80 E 0 519 0 Northern rockfish W 0.0003 1,383 0 C 0.0336 3,365 123 Pelagic shelf rockfish W 0.0001 1,752 0 C 0 3,973 0 E 0.0067 897 6 Thornyhead rockfish W 0.0308 513 16 C 0.0308 989 30 E 0.0308 707 22 Big skates W 0.0090 695 6 C 0.0090 2,250 20 E 0.0090 599 5 Longnose skates W 0.0090 65 1 C 0.0090 1,969 18 E 0.0090 861 8 Other skates GW 0.0090 1,617 15 DSR SEO 0,0020 410 1 Atka mackerel Gulfwide 0.0309 1,500 46 Other species Gulfwide 0.0090 4,500 41 1 The Pacific cod A season for trawl gear does not open until January 20. 2 The Pacific cod B season for trawl gear closes November 1. The PSC sideboard limits for non-exempt AFA catcher vessels in the GOA are based on the aggregate retained groundfish catch by non-exempt AFA catcher vessels in each PSC target category from 1995 through 1997 divided by the retained catch of all vessels in that fishery from 1995 through 1997 (§ 679.64(b)(4)). Table 15 lists these amounts. Table 15 - Final 2007 and 2008 Non-Exempt American Fisheries Act Catcher Vessel Prohibited Species Catch
(PSC)Limits for the GOA PSC species Season Target fishery Ratio of 1995-1997 non-exempt AFA CV retained catch to total retained catch 2007 and 2008 PSC limit
(mt)2007 and 2008 non-exempt AFA CV PSC limit
(mt)Halibut Trawl 1st seasonal allowance shallow-water 0.34 450 153 January 20 - April 1 deep-water 0.07 100 7 Trawl 2nd seasonal allowance shallow-water 0.34 100 34 April 1- July 1 deep-water 0.07 300 21 Trawl 3rd seasonal allowance shallow-water 0.34 200 68 July 1 - September 1 deep-water 0.07 400 28 Trawl 4th seasonal allowance shallow-water 0.34 150 51 September 1 - October 1 deep-water 0.07 0 0 Trawl 5th seasonal allowance all targets 0.205 300 61 October 1 - December 31 Non-AFA Crab Vessel Groundfish Harvest Limitations Section 680.22 establishes groundfish catch limits for vessels with a history of participation in the Bering Sea snow crab fishery from using the increased flexibility provided by the Crab Rationalization Program to expand their level of participation in the GOA groundfish fisheries. These sideboard limits restrict these vessels' catch to their collective historical landings in each GOA groundfish fishery (except the fixed-gear sablefish fishery). Sideboard limits also will apply to catch made using a License Limitation Program
(LLP)license derived from the history of a restricted vessel, even if that LLP is used on another vessel. Sideboard limits for non-AFA crab vessels in the GOA are based on their traditional harvest levels of TAC in groundfish fisheries covered by the GOA FMP. Section 680.22
(d)and
(e)base the groundfish sideboard limitations in the GOA on the retained catch by non-AFA crab vessels of each sideboard species from 1996 through 2000 divided by the total retained harvest of that species over the same period. These amounts are listed in Table 16 for 2007 and in Table 17 for 2008. All targeted or incidental catch of sideboard species made by non-AFA crab vessels will be deducted from the sideboard limits in Tables 16 and 17. Vessels exempt from Pacific cod sideboards are those that landed less than 45,359 kg of Bering Sea snow crab and more than 500 mt of groundfish (in round weight equivalents) from the GOA between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2000, and any vessel named on an LLP that was generated in whole or in part by the fishing history of a vessel meeting the criteria in § 680.22(a)(3). Table 16 - Final 2007 GOA Non-American Fisheries Act Crab Vessel Groundfish Harvest Sideboard Limitations (Values are rounded to nearest metric ton) Species Apportionments and allocations by area/season/processor/gear Ratio of 1996-2000 non-AFA crab vessel catch to 1996-2000 total harvest Proposed 2007 TAC 2007 non-AFA crab vessel sideboard limit Pollock A Season (W/C areas only) January 20 - March 10 Shumagin
(610)0.0098 4,511 44 Chirikof
(620)0.0031 7,357 23 Kodiak
(630)0.0002 3,320 1 B Season (W/C areas only) March 10 - May 31 Shumagin
(610)0.0098 4,511 44 Chirikof
(620)0.0031 8,924 28 Kodiak
(630)0.0002 1,753 0 C Season (W/C areas only) August 25 - October 1 Shumagin
(610)0.0098 7,995 78 Chirikof
(620)0.0031 2,304 7 Kodiak
(630)0.0002 4,889 1 D Season (W/C areas only) October 1 - November 1 Shumagin
(610)0.0098 7,995 78 Chirikof
(620)0.0031 2,304 7 Kodiak
(630)0.0002 4,889 1 Annual WYK
(640)0 1,398 0 SEO
(650)0 6,157 0 Pacific cod A Season 1 January 1 - June 10 W inshore 0.0902 10,876 981 W offshore 0.2046 1,208 247 C inshore 0.0383 15,339 587 C offshore 0.2074 1,704 353 B Season 2 September 1 - December 31 W inshore 0.0902 7,251 654 W offshore 0.2046 806 165 C inshore 0.0383 10,226 392 C offshore 0.2074 1,136 236 Annual E inshore 0.0110 3,346 37 E offshore 0 372 0 Flatfish W 0.0035 420 1 deep-water C 0 4,163 0 E 0 4,124 0 Rex sole W 0 1,147 0 C 0 5,446 0 E 0 2,507 0 Flathead sole W 0.0002 2,000 0 C 0.0004 5,000 2 E 0 2,148 0 Flathead shallow-water W 0.0059 4,500 27 C 0.0001 13,000 1 E 0 2,472 0 Arrowtooth flounder W 0.0004 8,000 3 C 0.0001 30,000 3 E 0 5,000 0 Sablefish W trawl gear 0 494 0 C trawl gear 0 1,238 0 E trawl gear 0 283 0 Pacific ocean perch W 0 4,244 0 C 0 7,612 0 E 0 2,780 0 Shortraker rockfish W 0.0013 153 0 C 0.0012 353 0 E 0.0009 337 0 Rougheye rockfish W 0.0067 136 1 C 0.0047 611 3 E 0.0008 241 0 Other rockfish W 0.0035 577 2 C 0.0033 386 1 E 0 519 0 Northern rockfish W 0.0005 1,439 1 C 0 3,499 0 Pelagic shelf rockfish W 0.0017 1,466 2 C 0 3,325 0 E 0 751 0 Thornyhead rockfish W 0.0047 513 2 C 0.0066 989 7 E 0.0045 707 3 Big skate W 0.0392 695 27 C 0.0159 2,250 36 E 0 599 0 Longnose skate W 0.0392 65 3 C 0.0159 1,969 31 E 0 861 0 Other skates GW 0.0176 1,617 28 DSR SEO 0 410 0 Atka mackerel Gulfwide 0 1,500 0 Other species Gulfwide 0.0176 4,500 79 1 The Pacific cod A season for trawl gear does not open until January 20. 2 The Pacific cod B season for trawl gear closes November 1. Table 17- Final 2008 GOA Non-American Fisheries Act Crab Vessel Groundfish Harvest Sideboard Limitations (values are rounded to nearest metric ton) Species Apportionments and allocations by area/season/processor/gear Ratio of 1996-2000 non-AFA crab vessel catch to 1996-2000 total harvest 2008 TAC 2008 non-AFA crab vessel sideboard limit Pollock A Season (W/C areas only) January 20 - March 10 Shumagin
(610)0.0098 5,466 54 Chirikof
(620)0.0031 8,915 28 Kodiak
(630)0.0002 4,023 1 B Season (W/C areas only) March 10 - May 31 Shumagin
(610)0.0098 5,466 54 Chirikof
(620)0.0031 10,814 34 Kodiak
(630)0.0002 2,124 0 C Season (W/C areas only) August 25 - October 1 Shumagin
(610)0.0098 9,688 95 Chirikof
(620)0.0031 2,304 7 Kodiak
(630)0.0002 5,924 1 D Season (W/C areas only) October 1 - November 1 Shumagin
(610)0.0098 9,688 95 Chirikof
(620)0.0031 2,304 7 Kodiak
(630)0.0002 5,924 1 Annual WYK
(640)0 1,694 0 SEO
(650)0 6,157 0 Pacific cod A Season 1 January 1 - June 10 W inshore 0.0902 11,278 1,017 W offshore 0.2046 1,253 256 C inshore 0.0383 15,905 609 C offshore 0.2074 1,767 366 B Season 2 September 1 - December 31 W inshore 0.0902 7,519 678 W offshore 0.2046 835 171 C inshore 0.0383 10,603 406 C offshore 0.2074 1,178 244 Annual E inshore 0.0110 3,470 38 E offshore 0 386 0 Flatfish W 0.0035 430 2 deep-water C 0 4,296 0 E 0 4,257 0 Rex sole W 0 1,122 0 C 0 5,327 0 E 0 2,551 0 Flathead sole W 0.0002 2,000 0 C 0.0004 5,000 2 E 0 2,258 0 Flathead shallow-water W 0.0059 4,500 27 C 0.0001 13,000 1 E 0 2,472 0 Arrowtooth flounder W 0.0004 8,000 3 C 0.0001 30,000 3 E 0 5,000 0 Sablefish W trawl gear 0 492 0 C trawl gear 0 1,232 0 E trawl gear 0 281 0 Pacific ocean perch W 0 4,291 0 C 0 7,694 0 E 0 2,812 0 Shortraker rockfish W 0.0013 153 0 C 0.0012 353 0 E 0.0009 337 0 Rougheye rockfish W 0.0067 137 1 C 0.0047 614 3 E 0.0008 242 0 Other rockfish W 0.0035 577 2 C 0.0033 386 1 E 0 519 0 Northern rockfish W 0.0005 1,383 1 C 0 3,365 0 Pelagic shelf rockfish W 0.0017 1,752 3 C 0 3,973 0 E 0 897 0 Thornyhead rockfish W 0.0047 513 2 C 0.0066 989 7 E 0.0045 707 3 Big skate W 0.0392 695 27 C 0.0159 2,250 36 E 0 599 0 Longnose skates W 0.0392 65 3 C 0.0159 1,969 31 E 0 861 0 Other skates GW 0.0176 1,617 28 Demersal shelf rockfish SEO 0 410 0 Atka mackerel Gulfwide 0 1,500 0 Other species Gulfwide 0.0176 4,500 79 1 The Pacific cod A season for trawl gear does not open until January 20. 2 The Pacific cod B season for trawl gear closes November 1. Rockfish Program Groundfish Sideboard Limitations and Halibut Mortality Limitations Section 679.82(d)(7) establishes sideboards to limit the ability of participants eligible for the Rockfish Program to catch fish in fisheries other than the Central GOA rockfish fisheries. The Rockfish Program provides certain economic advantages to harvesters. Harvesters could use this economic advantage to increase their participation in other fisheries, adversely affecting the participants in other fisheries. These final sideboards limit the total amount of catch in other groundfish fisheries that could be taken by eligible harvesters and limit the amount of halibut mortality to historic levels. The sideboard measures are in effect only during the month of July. Historically, the Central GOA trawl rockfish fisheries opened in July. The sideboards are designed to restrict fishing during the historical season for the fishery, but allow eligible rockfish harvesters to participate in fisheries before or after the historical rockfish season. The two categories of sideboard limits are catch amount constraints and closures of specific directed fisheries during July. The sideboard provisions are discussed in detail in the Rockfish Program proposed rule (71 FR 33040, June 7, 2006) and final rule (71 FR 67210, November 20, 2006). Tables 18 and 19 list the final 2007 and 2008 harvest limits for rockfish in the WYK District and the Western Regulatory Area. Table 20 lists the final 2007 and 2008 halibut mortality limits for the Western and Central Regulatory Areas and the WYK District. Table 18 - Final 2007 Rockfish Program Harvest Limits by Sector for West Yakutat District and Western Regulatory Area by the Catcher/Processor (C/P) and Catcher Vessel
(CV)Sectors (values are rounded to nearest metric ton) Management Area Fishery C/P sector (% of TAC) CV sector (% of TAC) 2007 TAC 2007 C/P limit 2007 CV limit West Yakutat District Pelagic shelf rockfish 72.4 1.7 307 222 5 Pacific ocean perch 76.0 2.9 1,140 866 33 Western Regulatory Area Pelagic shelf rockfish 63.3 0.0 1,466 928 0 Pacific ocean perch 61.1 0.0 4,244 2,593 0 Northern rockfish 78.9 0.0 1,439 1,135 0 Table 19 - Final 2008 Rockfish Program Harvest Limits by Sector for West Yakutat District and Western Regulatory Area by the Catcher/Processor (C/P) and Catcher Vessel
(CV)Sectors (values are rounded to nearest metric ton) Management Area Fishery C/P sector (% of TAC) CV sector (% of TAC) 2008 TAC 2008 C/P limit 2008 CV limit West Yakutat District Pelagic shelf rockfish 72.4 1.7 366 265 5 Pacific ocean perch 76.0 2.9 1,153 876 25 Western GOA Pelagic shelf rockfish 63.3 0.0 1,752 1,109 0 Pacific ocean perch 61.1 0.0 4,291 2,622 0 Northern rockfish 78.9 0.0 1,383 1,091 0 Table 20 - Final 2007 and 2008 Rockfish Program Halibut Mortality Limits for the Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel Sectors (values are rounded to nearest metric ton) Sector Shallow-water complex halibut PSC sideboard ratio Deep-water complex halibut PSC sideboard ratio Annual halibut mortality limit
(mt)Annual shallow-water complex halibut PSC sideboard limit
(mt)Annual deep-water complex halibut PSC sideboard limit
(mt)Catcher/processor 3.99 0.54 2,000 80 11 Catcher vessel 1.08 6.32 2,000 22 126 Directed Fishing Closures Pursuant to § 679.20(d)(1)(i), if the Regional Administrator determines
(1)that any allocation or apportionment of a target species or “other species” category allocated or apportioned to a fishery will be reached or,
(2)with respect to pollock and Pacific cod, an allocation or apportionment to an inshore or offshore component allocation will be reached, the Regional Administrator may establish a DFA for that species or species group. If the Regional Administrator establishes a DFA and that allowance is or will be reached before the end of the fishing year, NMFS will prohibit directed fishing for that species or species group in the specified GOA regulatory area or district (§ 679.20(d)(1)(iii)). The Regional Administrator has determined that the following TAC amounts in Table 21 are necessary as incidental catch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries for the 2007 and 2008 fishing years. Table 21 - Directed Fishing Closures in the GOA 2007 and 2008 (Amounts needed for incidental catch in other directed fisheries are in metric tons) Target Regulatory Area Gear/Component Amount Atka mackerel entire GOA all 1,500 Thornyhead rockfish entire GOA all 2,209 Shortraker rockfish entire GOA all 843 Rougheye rockfish entire GOA all 988
(2007)993
(2008)Other rockfish entire GOA all 1,482 Sablefish entire GOA trawl 2,015
(2007)2,004
(2008)Big skates entire GOA all 3,544 Longnose skates entire GOA all 2,895 Other skates entire GOA all 1,617 Pollock entire GOA all/offshore unknown 1 1 Pollock is closed to directed fishing in the GOA by the offshore component under § 679.20(a)(6)(i). Consequently, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator establishes the DFA for the species or species groups listed in Table 21 as zero. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for those species, regulatory areas, gear types, and components listed in Table 21. These closures will remain in effect through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2008. Section 679.64(b)(5) provides for management of AFA catcher vessel groundfish harvest limits and PSC bycatch limits using directed fishing closures and PSC closures according to procedures set out at §§ 679.20(d)(1)(iv), 679.21(d)(8), and 679.21(e)(3)(v). The Regional Administrator has determined that, in addition to the closures listed above, many of the non-exempt AFA catcher vessel sideboard limits listed in Tables 13 and 14 are necessary as incidental catch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries for the 2007 and 2008 fishing years. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iv), the Regional Administrator sets the DFAs for the species and species groups in Table 22 at zero. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing by non-exempt AFA catcher vessels in the GOA for the species and specified areas set out in Table 22. These closures will remain in effect through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2008. Table 22 - 2007 and 2008 Non-Exempt AFA Catcher Vessel Sideboard Directed Fishing Closures in the GOA (Amounts needed for incidental catch in other directed fisheries are in metric tons) Species Regulatory Area/District Gear Amount Pacific cod Eastern all 26 (inshore 2007) 27 (inshore 2008) 3 (offshore 2007) 3 (offshore 2008) Deep-water flatfish Western all 0 Rex sole Western all 1 Flathead sole Eastern and Western all 10 and 7
(2007)11 and 7
(2008)Shallow-water flatfish Eastern all 31 Arrowtooth flounder Eastern and Western all 10 and 17 Northern rockfish Western all 0 Pelagic shelf rockfish entire GOA all 0(W), 0(C), 5(E) in 2007 0(W), 0(C), 6(E) in 2008 Demersal shelf rockfish SEO District all 1 Section 680.22 provides for the management of non-AFA crab vessel groundfish harvest limits using directed fishing closures in accordance with § 680.22(e)(2) and (3). The Regional Administrator has determined that the non-AFA crab vessel sideboards listed in Tables 16 and 17 are insufficient to support a directed fishery and set the sideboard DFA at zero, with the exception of pollock in the Western Regulatory Area and Pacific cod in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas. Therefore in accordance with § 680.22(e)(3), NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing by non-AFA crab vessels in the GOA for all species and species groups listed in Tables 16 and 17, with the exception of pollock in the Western Regulatory Area and Pacific cod in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas. Section 679.82 provides for the management of Rockfish Program sideboard limits using directed fishing closures in accordance with § 679.82(d)(7)(i) and (ii). The Regional Administrator has determined that the catcher vessel sideboards listed in Tables 18 and 19 are insufficient to support a directed fishery and set the sideboard DFA at zero. Therefore, NMFS is closing directed fishing for pelagic shelf rockfish and Pacific ocean perch in the WYK District and the Western Regulatory Area and northern rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area by catcher vessels participating in the Central GOA Rockfish Program during the month of July in 2007 and 2008. These closures will remain in effect through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2008. Under authority of the final 2006 specifications (71 FR 10870, March 3, 2006), pollock fishing opened on January 20, 2006, for amounts specified in that notice. NMFS has since closed Statistical Area 610 to directed fishing for pollock effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., January 22, 2007 (72 FR 2462, January 19, 2007) until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., February 5, 2007 (72 FR 6177, February 09, 2007), and 1200 hrs, A.l.t., February 7, 2007, until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., February 8, 2007 (72 FR 6694, February 13, 2007), and 1200 hrs, A.l.t., February 10, 2007, until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 10, 2007. NMFS closed Statistical Area 630 to directed fishing for pollock effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., January 22, 2007 (72 FR 2793, January 23, 2007) until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., February 6, 2007 (72 FR 5346, February 6, 2007), and 1200 hrs, A.l.t., February 8, 2007, until 1200 hrs, A.l.t, February 12, 2007 (72 FR 7353, February 15, 2007), and 1200 hrs, A.l.t., February 14, 2007, until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., February 20, 2007 (72 FR 8132, February 23, 2007) and 1200 hrs, A.l.t., February 22, 2007, until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 10, 2007. NMFS prohibited directed fishing for the A season allowance of the 2007 Pacific cod sideboard limits apportioned to non AFA crab vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the inshore component in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA, effective 12 noon, A.l.t., January 24, 2007 until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., September 1, 2007 (72 FR 3748, January 26, 2007). NMFS prohibited directed fishing for the A season allowance of the 2007 Pacific cod sideboard limits apportioned to non AFA crab vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the inshore component in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA, effective 12 noon, A.l.t., February 16, 2007 until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., September 1, 2007 (72 FR 7750, February 20, 2007). NMFS prohibited directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the offshore component of the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA, effective 12 noon, A.l.t., February 14, 2007 until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., September 1, 2007 (72 FR 7749, February 20, 2007). NMFS prohibited directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by the offshore component of the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA, effective 12 noon, A.l.t., February 14, 2007 until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., September 1, 2007 (72 FR 7750, February 20, 2007). NMFS rescinds the closure in the Chiniak Gully Research Area of the GOA to all commercial trawl fishing and testing of trawl gear from August 1 to September 20, 2007 (72 FR 7751, February 20, 2007). While these closures are in effect, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and
(f)apply at any time during a fishing trip. These closures to directed fishing are in addition to closures and prohibitions found in regulations at 50 CFR part 679. NMFS may implement other closures during the 2007 and 2008 fishing years as necessary for effective conservation and management. Response to Comments NMFS received 2 letters of comment (16 comments) in response to proposed the 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications. These comments are summarized and responded to below. *Comment 1:* The proposed harvest specifications and accompanying Alaska Groundfish Harvest Specifications Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)do not represent a substantial implementation of the Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Final Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (PSEIS) policy statement, but rather a transparent attempt to indemnify the agency against the inadequacies of the status quo harvest strategy. The proposed harvest specifications lack the perspective of the ecosystem-based policy framework outlined in the PSEIS because there are no explicit procedures in the TAC-setting process to address the impacts of single-species fishing strategies on dependent and related species and their habitats in an ecosystem context. Therefore, the policy framework outlined in the PSEIS has not been implemented in the regulations governing the operation of the groundfish fisheries. Under the proposed harvest specifications, ecosystem concerns would remain at best ancillary to the process of allocating fish and maximizing short-term economic benefits. *Response:* The preferred harvest strategy alternative described in the EIS is derived from the policy adopted as the preferred alternative in the PSEIS (see ADDRESSES ) and is one of the actions necessary to implement that policy statement. Ecosystem concerns are integral to the EIS analysis. The purpose of the EIS is to describe the potential environmental impacts of the alternative harvest strategies, including an analysis of the potential impacts of these alternatives on ecosystem components and the ecosystem as a whole. In addition to the EIS analysis, all available scientific information on the ecosystem is analyzed and presented to decision-makers and the public on an annual basis during the harvest specifications process. The annual SAFE reports, which provide the scientific information to support the harvest specifications for each species, include ecosystem considerations sections that describe the role of each target species in the ecosystem. The SAFE report also contains a separate “Ecosystems Considerations” chapter. Groundfish fisheries management, including the harvest specification process, takes account of ecosystem requirements related to predation, competition, and habitat to provide protection for ecosystem components. Under the harvest strategy, the determination of annual harvest specifications incorporates ecosystem considerations, in the face of uncertainty in the quantitative links between species. The most significant ecosystem considerations are
(1)the upper end of the OY range in the GOA, which imposes a constraint on total biomass removal, and
(2)OFLs that prevent overfishing of each stock. A species' OFL is a harvest limit rather than a target and ABCs are set below OFLs. The tier system sets maximum ABCs and managers can set actual ABCs lower for ecosystem considerations. TACs never exceed ABCs and are frequently set at lower levels. TACs can also be adjusted downward for ecosystem considerations. Additionally, managers have established harvest control rules for pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel that prohibit directed fishing at low biomass levels, to account for Steller sea lion prey needs. TACs and actual catches, especially in the GOA, are often lower than ABCs to protect other species, especially halibut, that may be taken as bycatch. Managers frequently restrict directed fishing for many species before TACs are reached to comply with PSC limits. Inseason management closes directed fisheries when TACs are reached, and restricts fishing in other fisheries taking the species as bycatch when OFLs are approached. As noted below in the response to Comment 2, the groundfish management framework includes many measures, in addition to the harvest strategy, to mitigate the ecosystem impacts of the groundfish fisheries. *Comment 2:* Existing management measures may be construed as consistent with an ecosystem-based approach, but they do not address major ecosystem impacts of the fisheries as promulgated in the annual catch specifications. *Response:* Existing management measures address major ecosystem impacts of the fisheries, and the Council and NMFS are engaged in an ongoing effort to improve the ways this is done. The existing regulatory framework imposes many constraints on fishing activity, including time, area, and gear restrictions, in order to mitigate or control ecosystem impacts created by fishing activity. Regulations impose maximum retainable amount
(MRA)limits on the volume of bycatch a vessel may deliver or have onboard. Prohibited species catch
(PSC)regulations impose limits on harvests of crab, salmon, herring, and halibut, and restrict fishing activity once those limits are reached. Important restrictions have been imposed on key fisheries to limit competition for Steller sea lion prey and to protect Steller sea lion critical habitat. The Council and NMFS have adopted numerous measures to limit bycatch and control the discards of low value fish by-products. Seabirds attracted to longlines are protected by mandatory gear requirements, such as streamers, meant to reduce incidental takes. NMFS and the Council are continuing to develop ecosystem management measures for the groundfish fisheries. The Council has created a committee to inform them of ecosystem developments and to assist in formulating positions with respect to ecosystem-based management. The Council has taken the lead in the establishment of the interagency Alaska Marine Ecosystem Forum to improve inter-agency coordination and communication on marine ecosystem issues. The SSC has begun to hold annual ecosystem scientific meetings at the February Council meetings. In addition to exploring how to develop ecosystem management efforts, the Council and NMFS continue to take account of ecosystem impacts of fishing activity as available information allows. For example, the Council is currently consulting under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)for Steller sea lions, sperm and humpback whales. Ecosystem protection is supported by an extensive research program by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center
(AFSC)into ecosystem components and integrated ecosystem functioning. Exempted fishing permits
(EFPs)are issued to research halibut excluder devices. Additionally, the EIS considers other actions taken to manage the fisheries, including reasonable future fisheries management actions, as these are relevant to the environmental consequences of the harvest strategy alternatives. The Council and NMFS have processes consistent with National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)to evaluate each action to regulate other aspects of the fisheries. The overall fishery management policy within which the harvest strategies fall has been evaluated in the PSEIS. Moreover, NMFS and the Council evaluated each management measure at the time it was adopted in the relevant NEPA document. Considering different management measures in separate actions allows for more careful analysis of alternatives and the implications of each, and is often less confusing to the public. The Council and NMFS are actively evaluating a wide range of new management measures through these processes and will continue to do so. *Comment 3:* Levels of exploitation on single stocks are set with no explicit consideration of the impacts of dependent, competing species in the food web or other impacts on associated species that flow from the exploitation of a relative few commercially desirable species. The single species F 40% policy ignores effects on the ecosystem and simply assumes that individual target species can be fished to the maximum sustainable yield
(MSY)without significant consequences to other species in the food web. *Response:* The harvest strategy incorporates a key principle of ecosystem-based fisheries management by preserving individual stocks and preventing overfishing of those stocks. This is important for protecting ecosystem components that depend on these individual stocks. The effects of the groundfish fisheries and fishing rates are analyzed in the EIS and the annual SAFE reports. The tier system in the FMP and the harvest specifications process lead to TACs associated with fishing rates that are less than F MSY . F OFL is never greater than F MSY , or an appropriate F MSY proxy. Average multi-year fishery harvest rates fall below FMSY because the tier system treats F OFL as a limit rather than a target. The fishing rates associated with maximum permissible ABC, actual ABC, and the TAC, all fall below the F OFL , providing a margin between the actual F and the F MSY . Moreover, as discussed in response to Comment 2, other management measures often constrain actual catches and fishing rates below the TACs or the fishing rates associated with the TACs. With current levels of information, we cannot precisely specify the margin or threshold between F OFL and actual harvest rate that provides the appropriate level of protection for various ecosystem properties. The AFSC continues to develop and improve scientific information in the Ecosystems Considerations section of the SAFE report. New information added in 2006 included the relationship between predation/production and fishing/production, a metric proposed to evaluate the management implications of potential exploitation of forage species, and a metric proposed to evaluate the “footprint” of individual fisheries. The AFSC also continues to develop and improve several multispecies and ecosystem models to predict the possible effects of fishing and/or climate on ecosystem processes. Ecosystem modeling is extremely complex, and the incorporation of ecosystem considerations into the harvest specifications process is an evolving process. The AFSC is advancing this process through the development of multispecies fish stock assessment models that include predation, ecosystem mass-balance and simulation models, and single-species stock assessment models that include predation. The AFSC briefed the Groundfish Plan Teams on the results of these analyses to help them in their deliberations in the harvest specifications process. *Comment 4:* Selective removals of species and large differences in catch rates for managed stocks may be responsible for significant and lasting changes in the structure of groundfish assemblages and food webs in the North Pacific, as seen in other ecosystems. Selective extraction of a relatively few high-value species may provide a competitive opportunity for “under-utilized” species such as arrowtooth flounder, which appear to have increased dramatically since the 1970s. NMFS consistently attributes regional stock declines and broader system changes to the weather (“regime shifts”), a transparent stratagem that serves to justify the status quo and absolve the agency of responsibility for fishery-related systemic changes. *Response:* NMFS analyzes and considers the interactions among fish species in its evaluations of the impacts of groundfish fishing. The nature of competitive interactions among species is an area of ongoing research by the AFSC. These issues are discussed in the ecosystem sections of individual species SAFE reports and by the Plan Teams as they formulate their ABC recommendations. Species interactions are complex and imperfectly understood in the North Pacific. The AFSC is collaborating to develop a detailed, age-structured, multispecies statistical model to study this complex interaction of pollock and arrowtooth flounder. This “cultivation/depensation” model is expected to be completed in the near future. In December 2006, a Groundfish Plan Team leader briefed the Council and its SSC and AP on the complex interactions between pollock and arrowtooth flounder and on the potential application of this model whereby a species such as pollock “cultivates” its young by preying on species that would eat its young. Regime shifts remain an important consideration. Regime shifts are well documented; these changes in climate are believed to have affected relative abundance of species in the past, and are expected to do so in the future. *Comment 5:* NMFS fails to analyze the cumulative and synergistic effects of selective exploitation, benthic habitat modification, and serial depletion of targeted stocks in the North Pacific. The “Ecosystem Considerations” chapter in the annual SAFE reports does not consider the effects of large-scale fisheries off Alaska on long-term restructuring of food web dynamics and on composition of species assemblages. An evaluation of this phenomenon, and consideration of alternatives to address it, is also missing from the EIS and the harvest specification process. Additionally, the proposed harvest specifications do not mitigate the effects of selective exploitation and disproportionate exploitation rates. *Response:* NMFS takes a conservative approach to management in response to uncertainties. Conservative elements in the harvest strategies and groundfish fisheries management are listed in the responses to Comments 1, 2, 12, and 13. The EIS analyzed alternative harvest strategies that met the scope of this action, as determined by the statement of purpose and need. The EIS analyzes the effects of the alternative harvest strategies on target stocks and habitat in a comprehensive way that looks at both the individual species impacts and the overall ecosystem function impacts. NMFS agrees that uncertainty exists in assessing the ecosystem effects of alternative harvest strategies. One of the functions of an EIS is to identify these uncertainties. The EIS and the Ecosystem Considerations chapter of the SAFE reports examine trends in the trophic level of catch and species diversity. As noted in the response to Comment 4, competitive interactions between fisheries are an active area of AFSC research, and are discussed, as appropriate, in the ecosystem discussions in the species-specific sections of the SAFE reports. *Comment 6:* Neither the EIS nor its alternatives address the issues of setting exploitation levels on single stocks with no explicit consideration of the impacts of dependent, competing species in the food web or other impacts on associated species that flow from the exploitation of a relative few commercially desirable species. *Response:* The EIS directly examines the impacts of the alternative harvest strategies on non-target species, including food web interactions. The EIS examines the impacts of groundfish fishing on forage fish availability in Chapter 6, and the trophic level of catches in Chapter 11. The EIS includes detailed analyses of the impacts on prey and habitat for key species and species groupings of marine mammals and seabirds in Chapters 8 and 9. *Comment 7:* The uncertainties of ecosystem mechanics underscore the need for a much more precautionary approach to fisheries management in the context of food web and habitat conservation, and illustrate why the agency's determinations of non-significance for fishery impacts on prey availability and spatial/temporal concentration of fisheries are arbitrary and capricious. NMFS cannot demonstrate that the current and proposed levels of fishing permitted in protected species' habitats are “safe” or “insignificant.” Rather, NMFS assumes that the impact is insignificant in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is on the environment to show harm. This is opposite of precautionary and the opposite of an ecosystem-based approach. *Response:* NMFS did not make a determination of non-significance in the EIS. The EIS fully discloses known impacts, areas of uncertainty, and presents the information in comparative form to aid in decision-making. NMFS agrees that uncertainty exists in assessing the ecosystem effects of alternative harvest strategies. Identifying these uncertainties is one of the functions of an EIS. The EIS identifies potential adverse impacts of the alternatives on the ecosystem and the uncertainty of those impacts. NMFS is actively taking steps to reduce uncertainty and better understand the environment through ongoing scientific research. Many elements built into the harvest specifications process, and into the groundfish fisheries management regime, described in the responses to Comments 1, 2, 12, and 13, contribute to conservative management. *Comment 8:* Major habitat impacts of fishing on the Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH)of FMP-managed species and foraging habitats of ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)-protected species are not addressed in the EIS or mitigated in the proposed harvest specifications. *Response:* NMFS has examined in the EIS the impacts of fishing on EFH of FMP-managed species, and on the foraging habitats of ESA- and MMPA-protected species. Chapter 8 examines the impacts of alternative groundfish harvest strategies on ESA- and MMPA-listed marine mammals. Chapter 9 provides a similar examination for ESA-listed seabirds. Chapter 10 examines the impacts of the harvest strategies on EFH and incorporates by reference the analysis in the Essential Fish Habitat Environmental Impact Statement (EFH EIS, see ADDRESSES ) that examines the impact of fishing on benthic habitat. Habitat impacts of fishing on the EFH of FMP-managed species and foraging habitats of ESA- and MMPA-protected species are mitigated by the extensive habitat protection measures enacted in the GOA. These are described in the response to Comment 11. *Comment 9:* The EIS fails to evaluate the impacts of pelagic trawl gear on habitat and the impact of the spatial concentration of pollock and Pacific cod catches on stock size, in a meaningful fashion, and fails to consider an alternative to address these impacts. There is little scientific evidence that fishing on spawning stocks of Alaskan groundfish has had adverse impacts on recruitment success. The status quo practice of targeting groundfish on spawning grounds, when the fish are most vulnerable to fishing gear, is a habitat impact of particular significance that must be addressed. The dismal abundance trends of several regional pollock stocks and large uncertainties in stock structure among many groundfish populations cry out for explicit protection of spawning grounds. *Response:* The impacts of pelagic trawling on habitat are evaluated in the EFH EIS. Chapter 10 of the EIS provides an EFH Assessment that incorporates by reference the EFH EIS analysis of the impacts of the groundfish fisheries on EFH. Fisheries management measures, other than harvest strategies, are outside the scope of the action analyzed in the EIS. Pollock and Pacific cod catches are apportioned seasonally under existing measures adopted to protect Steller sea lions. Further seasonal apportionments of catch would require regulatory changes that were outside the scope of this action, as defined by the purpose and need. *Comment 10:* The MSA's EFH provisions should require the adoption of marine reserves to protect vulnerable reproductive habitats that are targeted by the fisheries. *Response:* This is not a comment on the content of the groundfish harvest specifications or on the accompanying EIS, and deals with issues that are beyond the scope of both. *Comment 11:* NMFS' assertions that the status quo EFH measures provide adequate protection or that the spatial/temporal concentration of the fisheries has insignificant impacts on EFH are not supported by evidence. The EIS fails to evaluate this information and consider alternatives that would address these impacts on fish habitat, and the proposed harvest specifications provide no adequate mitigation measures to address these impacts. NMFS cannot demonstrate that the current and proposed levels of fishing permitted in managed species' habitats are insignificant or compliant with the spirit and letter of the MSA's EFH provisions. Rather, NMFS assumes that the impact is insignificant in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is on the environment and the managed species to show harm. This is opposite of a precautionary approach to EFH conservation. *Response:* In this EIS NMFS fully discloses known impacts, identifies uncertainties, and presents information in comparative form to aid in decision-making. Detailed information on fishing on EFH contained in the 2005 EFH EIS was incorporated by reference in this EIS. As discussed in Chapter 2 of the EIS, fisheries management measures, other than harvest strategies, are outside the scope of this action, as defined by the statement of purpose and need. The discussion of habitat impacts in the EIS incorporated by reference the science and analysis in the EFH EIS. The analyses in Section 4.3 and Appendix B of the EFH EIS indicated that groundfish fishing has long-term effects on benthic habitat features off Alaska and acknowledged that considerable scientific uncertainty remains regarding the consequences of such habitat changes for the sustained productivity of managed species. Nevertheless, the EFH EIS concluded that the effects on EFH are minimal because the analysis found no indication that continued fishing activities at the current rate and intensity would alter the capacity of EFH to support healthy populations of managed species over the long term. Therefore, the EFH EIS determined that new protection measures for the fisheries to reduce the adverse effects on EFH were not required. Nevertheless, the Council recommended a suite of new conservative measures to reduce potential adverse effects to EFH and Habitat Areas of Particular Concerns from the effects of fishing activities. These actions continue the Council's policy of implementing conservative conservation measures for the Alaska fisheries, as described in the management policies and objectives added to the groundfish FMPs from the PSEIS policy statement. NMFS implemented the Council's recommendations in 2006 (71 FR 36694; June 28, 2006). The Council and NMFS have taken a conservative approach to habitat protection by enacting substantial restrictions on fishing that minimize potential adverse effects on EFH. Measures to protect Steller sea lions have fully or partially closed about 58,000 square nautical miles to fishing in the AI subarea and GOA. More recently, the Council and NMFS adopted a suite of new measures to reduce the effects of fishing on EFH in the AI subarea and GOA, protecting nearly 300,000 square nautical miles of habitat. Ten areas known as the GOA Slope Habitat Conservation Areas along the continental slope are closed to bottom trawling to protect hard bottom habitat that may be important to rockfish. Five GOA Coral Habitat Protection Areas in southeast Alaska are closed to all bottom contact fishing and anchoring to protect dense thickets of red tree corals. Another fifteen areas offshore, called the Alaska Seamount Habitat Protection Areas, are closed to all bottom contact fishing and anchoring to protect seamounts. The Council and NMFS have taken many other measures to protect habitat. These include wide range of protection measures, including the Kodiak king crab protections zones, the Cook Inlet trawl closure area, scallop dredge closure areas, and the Southeast Alaska trawl closure. These actions reflect a conservative management strategy. *Comment 12:* The lack of spatial-temporal management of groundfish stocks has potentially profound adverse consequences for ESA-listed Steller sea lions and MMPA-listed northern fur seals. The apportionment of ABCs according to broad management subareas does not address the impacts of fishing at local scales relevant to foraging sea lions, fur seals, and other species. NMFS fails to address localized effects adequately in any alternative considered in the EIS or the proposed harvest specifications. NMFS cannot demonstrate that the current and proposed levels of fishing permitted in protected marine mammal species' habitats are insignificant. Existing uncertainties underscore the need for a highly precautionary approach to habitat conservation, and illustrate why the agency's claims that spatial/temporal concentration of the fisheries under the status quo have insignificant impacts on marine mammal foraging habitats and prey are not supported by evidence. As in other instances, the burden of proof is on the environment to show harm. This is opposite of a precautionary approach. *Response:* NMFS did not make a determination of non-significance in the EIS. The EIS fully discloses known impacts, areas of uncertainty, and presents the information in comparative form to aid in decision-making. The EIS describes localized impacts of fishing activity on marine mammals. Chapter 8 in the EIS evaluates the impacts of this action on marine mammals, with particular attention to impacts on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals. The chapter describes what is known about the spatial and temporal overlap between groundfish fishing activity and marine mammal foraging habitat. The EIS summarizes the available information on the impacts of fishing activity on marine mammals and their habitat. While information on the spatial and temporal impact of groundfish fishing on other species is relatively limited, the EIS provides a review of the information available and indicates where information is lacking. Endangered Steller sea lions have been protected by a suite of measures. Groundfish fisheries conducted in accordance with the Steller sea lion protection measures adopted in 2002 have been determined not to jeopardize Steller sea lions or adversely modify their critical habitat. The protection measures involve seasonal apportionments of annual TACs, limits on the proportion of catch within habitat important for Steller sea lion foraging, limits on fishing activity within areas adjacent to haulouts and rookeries, and closure of directed fishing when biomass falls to low levels. The protection measures and the conclusions of no jeopardy or adverse modification of habitat were arrived at after careful evaluation in 2001. Since that time, NMFS has continued to investigate the determinants of Steller sea lion declines. These measures are currently being reevaluated in a new biological opinion and revised recovery plan. *Comment 13:* The proposed harvest specifications and the accompanying EIS fail in substantive ways to comply with the intent of the MSA, NEPA, the ESA, and the MMPA. *Response:* Prior to approval, the Secretary ensures that this action and all actions it takes are in compliance with the MSA, NEPA, the ESA, and the MMPA. *Comment 14:* Given the current uncertainties and lack of scientific information, it is essential to adopt a highly precautionary approach to exploitation of these ecosystems, in order to avoid the wholesale system reorganization and impoverishment that has been linked to fishing in other marine ecosystems. *Response:* The Council recommended and NMFS approves the use of a cautionary approach. *Comment 15:* There is no “balance” between the interests of fisheries and other public interests in the North Pacific region: the scales are tilted entirely to the advantage of the industrial fisheries whose interests are placed above all other public interests. The tradeoffs between often contrary FMP objectives are made by a decision-making body that is not representative of the broader public interest and that is biased heavily in favor of commercial utilization of the public resource for its own benefit. This state of affairs cries out for basic reforms of the kind outlined by the Pew Oceans Commission
(2003)and the U.S. Oceans Policy Commission
(2004)so that other public interests and societal goals are fairly represented, in order to achieve a real “balance between competing uses” of the ocean commons. *Response:* This is not a comment on the content of the groundfish harvest specifications or on the accompanying EIS, and deals with issues that are beyond the scope of both. *Comment 16:* All quotas should be cut in half this year and cut by 10 percent each year thereafter until we stop starving the marine life that depends on eating this fish too. *Response:* The decisions on the amount of harvest are based on the best available science and socioeconomic considerations. NMFS finds that the ABCs and TACs are consistent with the biological condition of the groundfish stocks as described in the 2006 SAFE report and approved by the Council. Small Entity Compliance Guide The following information is a plain language guide to assist small entities in complying with this final rule as required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule's primary management measures announce 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications and prohibited species bycatch allowances for the groundfish fishery of the GOA. This action is necessary to establish harvest limits and associated management measures for groundfish during the 2007 and 2008 fishing years and to accomplish the goals and objectives of the FMP. This action affects all fishermen who participate in the GOA fishery. The specific amounts of OFL, ABC, TAC, and PSC are provided in tabular form to assist the reader. NMFS will announce closures of directed fishing in the **Federal Register** and in information bulletins released by the Alaska Region. Affected fishermen should keep themselves informed of such closures. Classification NMFS, determined that the FMP is necessary for the conservation and management of the GOA groundfish fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws. NMFS prepared a Draft EIS for this action and made it available to the public for comment (71 FR 53093, September 8, 2006). NMFS prepared the Final EIS and made it available to the public on January 12, 2007 (72 FR 1512). On February 13, 2007, NMFS issued the Record of Decision
(ROD)for the Final EIS. Copies of the Final EIS and ROD for this action are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA)was prepared to evaluate the impacts on small entities of alternative harvest strategies for the groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ)off of Alaska. This FRFA meets the statutory requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601-612). A summary of the FRFA follows. The action under consideration is adoption of a harvest strategy to govern the harvest of groundfish in the GOA Management Area. The preferred alternative is the status quo harvest strategy in which TACs fall within the range of ABCs recommended through the Council's harvest specification process and TACs recommended by the Council. This action is taken in accordance with the FMP and recommendations by the Council pursuant to the MSA. The need for and objectives of this rule are described in the preamble and not repeated here. Significant issues raised by public comment are addressed in the preamble and not repeated here. The proposed harvest specifications were published in the **Federal Register** on December 15, 2006 (71 FR 75437). An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA)was prepared and was described in the classifications sections of that preamble. The public comment period ended on January 16, 2006. No comments were received regarding the economic impacts of this action. The directly regulated small entities include approximately 747 small catcher vessels and less than 20 small catcher/processors. The entities directly regulated by this action are those that harvest groundfish in the EEZ of the GOA, and in parallel fisheries within State of Alaska waters. These include entities operating catcher vessels and catcher-processor vessels within the action area, and entities receiving direct allocations of groundfish. Catcher vessels and catcher processors were considered to be small entities if they had annual gross receipts, from all of their economic activities, and including the revenue of their affiliated operations, less than or equal to $4 million per year. Data from 2005 was used because it was the most recent available. Estimates of first wholesale gross revenues for the GOA were used as indices of the potential impacts of the alternative harvest strategies on small entities. An index of revenues were projected to decline under the preferred alternative due to declines in ABCs for key species in the GOA. The index of revenues declined by less than four percent between 2006 and 2007 and by less than one percent between 2006 and 2008. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) was compared to four other alternatives. These included Alternative 1, which would set TACs so as to generate fishing rates equal to the maximum permissible ABC (if the full TAC were harvested), unless the sum of TACs would exceed the regional OY, in which case harvests would be limited to the OY. Alternative 3 would set TACs to produce fishing rates equal to the most recent five year average of fishing rates. Alternative 4 would set TACs to equal the lower bound of the regional OY range. Alternative 5 would set TACs equal to zero. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 were all associated with smaller levels for important fishery TACs than Alternative 2. Estimated total first wholesale gross revenues were used as an index of potential adverse impacts to small entities. As a consequence of the lower TAC levels, Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 all had smaller values of these first wholesale revenue indices than Alternative 2. Thus, Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 had greater adverse impacts on small entities. Alternative 1 appeared to generate higher values of the gross revenue index for fishing operations in the GOA than Alternative 2. A large part of the larger Alternative 1 GOA revenue appears to be due to the assumption that the full Alternative 1 TAC would be harvested. Much of the larger revenue is due to increases in flatfish TACs that were much larger for Alternative 1 than for Alternative 2. In recent years, halibut bycatch constraints in these fisheries have kept actual flatfish catches from reaching the Alternative 1 levels. Therefore, a large part of the revenues associated with Alternative 1 are unlikely to occur. Also, Alternative 2 TACs are constrained by the ABCs the Plan Team and SSC recommend to the Council on the basis of a full consideration of biological issues. These ABCs are often less than Alternative 1 maximum permissible ABCs. Therefore higher TACs under Alternative 1 may not be consistent with prudent biological management of the resource. For these reasons, Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative. This action does not modify recordkeeping or reporting requirements, or duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules. This action is authorized under § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Adverse impacts on marine mammals resulting from fishing activities conducted under this rule are discussed in the EIS (see ADDRESSES ). Under 5 U.S. C. 553(d)(3), an agency can waive the 30 day delay in effectiveness of a rule for good cause. These final harvest specifications were developed as quickly as possible, given Plan Team review in November 2006, Council consideration and recommendations in December 2006, and NOAA Fisheries review and development in January-February 2007. For all fisheries not currently closed because the TACs established under the 2006 and 2007 final harvest specifications (71 FR 10870, March 3, 2006) were reached, the likely possibility exists for their closures prior to the expiration of a 30 day delayed effectiveness period because their TACs could be reached. Certain fisheries, such as those for pollock and Pacific cod intensive fast paced fisheries. Other fisheries, such as those for flatfish, rockfish and “other species,” are critical as directed fisheries and as incidental catch in other fisheries. U.S. fishing vessels have demonstrated the capacity to catch the TAC allocations in all these fisheries. Any delay in allocating the final TAC in these fisheries would cause disruption to the industry and potential economic harm through unnecessary discards. Determining which fisheries may close is impossible because these fisheries are affected by several factors that cannot be predicted in advance, including fishing effort, weather, movement of fishery stocks, and market price. Furthermore, the closure of one fishery has a cascading effect on other fisheries by freeing up fishing vessels, allowing them to move from closed fisheries to open ones, increasing the fishing capacity in those open fisheries and causing them to close at an accelerated pace. If the final harvest specifications are not effective by March 10, 2007, which is the start of the Pacific halibut season as specified by the IPHC, the hook-and-line sablefish fishery will not begin concurrently with the Pacific halibut season. This would cause a conservation issue as sablefish that is caught with Pacific halibut would have to be discarded, as both hook-and-line sablefish and Pacific halibut are managed under the same IFQ program. Immediate effectiveness of the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications will allow the sablefish fishery to begin concurrently with the Pacific halibut season, thus preventing needless discards. Also, the immediate effectiveness of this action is required to provide consistent management and conservation of fishery resources based on the best available scientific information, and to give the fishing industry the earliest possible opportunity to plan its fishing operations. These final harvest specifications were developed as quickly as possible, given Plan Team review in November 2006, Council consideration and recommendations in December 2006, and NOAA fisheries review and development in January and February 2007. Furthermore, the current allocation for GOA Pacific cod under the authority of the 2006 and 2007 final harvest specifications (71 FR 10870, March 3, 2006) is lower (37,545 mt) than the allocation under the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications (52,264 mt), which is based on the best scientific information available. Unless this delay is waived and the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications become effective upon publication, the A season Pacific cod fisheries will close earlier than necessary. The GOA Pacific cod fishery is the second largest fishery in the GOA after pollock and all gear types are used to fish in the Pacific cod fisheries. Closures of the Pacific cod fisheries are restrictions on the industry that can be relieved by making the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications effective on publication. Premature closures disrupt fisheries and increase the potential for regulatory discards. The 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications establish increased Pacific cod TACs to provide continued directed fishing for this species that would otherwise be prohibited under the 2006 and 2007 harvest specifications. Accordingly, NMFS finds that there is good cause to waive the 30 day delayed effectiveness period under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 *et seq.* ; 1540(f); 1801 *et seq.* ; 1851 note; and 3631 *et seq.* Dated: February 22, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-3775 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 42 Monday, March 5, 2007 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 [Docket No. PRM-50-81] Mr. Eric Epstein; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. SUMMARY: The NRC is denying a petition for rulemaking
(PRM)submitted by Mr. Eric Epstein on October 19, 2005. The petition, docketed as PRM-50-81, requests that NRC codify criteria in the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)1 1986 Guidance Memorandum
(GM)EV-2, “Protective Actions for School Children,” into NRC's emergency planning regulations. The petitioner believes that this action is necessary to provide preplanned emergency evacuation capabilities for children in Pennsylvania. The NRC is denying PRM-50-81 because it does not provide significant new information that was not previously considered in denying an earlier petition, PRM-50-79, submitted by Mr. Lawrence T. Christian, which requested that the Commission amend its emergency planning regulations to ensure that all day care centers and nursery schools in the vicinity of nuclear power facilities are properly protected in the event of a radiological emergency. 1 Now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). ADDRESSES: Publicly available documents related to this petition, including the petition for rulemaking and the NRC's letter of denial to the petitioner may be viewed electronically on public computers in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 01 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are also available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR reference staff at
(800)387-4209,
(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Banic, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-2771, e-mail *mjb@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On March 27, 2006, the NRC docketed a petition for rulemaking submitted under 10 CFR 2.802 by Mr. Eric Epstein on October 19, 2005. The petitioner requested that NRC amend its regulations to codify criteria in the FEMA 1986 GM EV-2 into NRC's emergency planning regulations (10 CFR part 50). The petitioner believes that this action is necessary to provide preplanned emergency evacuation capabilities for children in Pennsylvania. In support of his petition, Mr. Epstein cited excerpts from an enclosure to his petition, an unsigned, undated document that he represents as a differing professional opinion
(DPO)submitted by a member of the NRC staff. 2 This DPO focused on the adequacy of preplanned evacuation resources and preplanned relocation centers for day care centers and nursery schools within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“Commonwealth”) and on whether the Commonwealth and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/FEMA have failed to comply with DHS/FEMA guidance. 2 The Commission acknowledges that such a DPO was submitted. This DPO was processed in accordance with NRC procedures included in Management Directive 10.159, “The NRC Differing Professional Opinions Program.” On June 14, 2006, the Director, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR), issued a decision that concluded that DHS has arrived at a defensible finding of reasonable assurance that children at day care facilities and nursery schools would be evacuated in the event of a radiological emergency at a power plant in the Commonwealth. The NSIR Director also concluded that the DHS finding is consistent with the relevant regulations and guidance documents as well as legal implementation of Federal, State, and local requirements. A summary of the DPO decision is available on the NRC public Web site *http://www.nrc.gov.* Summary of Original Petition PRM-50-79 and Basis for Denial On September 4, 2002, NRC received a petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr. Lawrence T. Christian and 3,000 co-signers. The petition was docketed on September 23, 2002, and assigned Docket No. PRM-50-79. The petition requested that NRC amend its regulations regarding offsite State and local government emergency plans for nuclear power plants to ensure that all day care centers and nursery schools in the vicinity of nuclear power facilities are properly protected during a radiological emergency. The Commission denied the petition in a document published in the **Federal Register** on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75085). The petition was denied on the basis that current NRC requirements and NRC and DHS guidance reasonably assure adequate protection of all members of the public, including children attending day care centers and nursery schools, in the event of a nuclear power plant incident. NRC stated in its denial that many of the specific requests of petition PRM-50-79 either are already covered by regulations or guidance documents (including GM EV-2) or are inappropriate for inclusion in NRC regulations owing to their very prescriptive nature. The Commission also determined that the petition and information obtained during the review of the petition, raised questions about local implementation of relevant requirements and guidelines. Accordingly, the Commission directed the NRC staff to undertake several actions to further assess these implementation questions and to provide appropriate recommendations for improvement (staff requirements memorandum
(SRM)dated October 26, 2005, available in the Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) No. ML052990321). In response to this direction, the NRC staff met with DHS and the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency to obtain information relevant to local implementation. Pennsylvania officials described a comprehensive program, mandated by Pennsylvania law, for licensed day care facilities that substantially enhances the existing emergency preparedness posture that was previously found by DHS to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures will be taken for the public, including children in day care facilities. The NRC staff provided the Commission the results of this assessment and other related initiatives in a Commission paper dated May 4, 2006 (SECY-06-0101; ML060760586). The staff found no sufficient basis to question the adequacy of DHS findings regarding reasonable assurance. The staff believes the DHS findings are consistent with the planning standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the existing memorandum of understanding between NRC and DHS. The staff also included a recommendation to republish the December 19, 2005, **Federal Register** Notice with revisions to correct factual errors and clarify NRC's regulatory positions and bases in the petition denial. This recommendation afforded the Commission an opportunity to reconsider its earlier denial of the petition. The Commission found no basis for changing its earlier denial, and in an SRM dated June 21, 2006 (ML061720324), the Commission directed the staff to publish the amended **Federal Register** Notice. The amended notice was published on August 7, 2006 (71 FR 44593). Reasons for Denial The Commission is denying the petition for the following reasons. The petition does not provide significant new information or arguments that were not previously considered by the Commission in denying PRM-50-79. As stated above, the petition relies upon a DPO, which focused on the adequacy of preplanned evacuation resources and preplanned relocation centers for day care centers and nursery schools within the Commonwealth, and on whether the Commonwealth and DHS/FEMA complied with DHS/FEMA guidance. The proposed remedy of the petitioner is for the NRC to grant the petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-79), commence a rulemaking to incorporate the criteria in GM EV-2 into the NRC's emergency planning regulations, and to implement the 120-day clock provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) while the rulemaking is in progress. However, the nature of the issues raised in the DPO would not provide a basis for the petitioner's remedy. The DPO raised issues about local implementation of the requirements and guidance, and DHS/FEMA evaluation of local implementation, neither of which could be resolved by the petitioner's proposal that the GM EV-2 criteria be incorporated into NRC regulations. 3 GM EV-2 is a guidance document developed by FEMA and utilized by the DHS, which has primary responsibility for assessing the adequacy of offsite emergency preparedness 4 . NRC bases its own findings in part on a review of DHS's findings and determinations as to whether State and local emergency plans are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented. 3 The Commission has, in the October 26, 2005 SRM on SECY-05-0045, directed the staff to develop guidance and expectations for the NRC review of FEMA's assessment and findings of offsite emergency preparedness. This activity should address the petitioner's and the DPO's issues with respect to the adequacy of FEMA/DHS evaluation of local implementation of offsite emergency preparedness. 4 The Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, Public Law 109-347, provides that the DHS radiological emergency preparedness program will be transferred back to FEMA as of April 1, 2007. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of February 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-3822 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 [Docket No. SSA-2006-0096] RIN 0960-AG40 Methods for Conducting Personal Conferences When Waiver of Recovery of a Title II or Title XVI Overpayment Cannot Be Approved AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Proposed rules. SUMMARY: We propose to revise our title II regulations and add title XVI regulations on personal conferences when waiver of recovery of an overpayment cannot be approved. These proposed rules would allow for the conferences to be conducted face-to-face, by telephone, or by video teleconference in these circumstances. DATES: To be sure that we consider your comments, we must receive them by May 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may give us your comments: by Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov;* by e-mail to *regulations@ssa.gov;* by telefax to
(410)966-2830; or by letter to the Commissioner of Social Security, P.O. Box 17703, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-7703. You may also deliver them to the Office of Regulations, Social Security Administration, 107 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on regular business days. Comments are posted on the Federal eRulemaking Portal. You may also inspect the comments on regular business days by making arrangements with the contact person shown in this preamble. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Strauss, Social Insurance Specialist, Office of Income Security Programs, Social Security Administration, 252 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
(410)965-7944 or TTY
(410)966-5609, for information about this notice. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at *http://www.socialsecurity.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Version The electronic file of this document is available on the date of publication in the **Federal Register** at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* Background Our existing regulations at § 404.506 state that we will waive recovery of an overpayment if the individual was without fault in causing the overpayment and if recovery would defeat the purpose of the Social Security Act or be against equity and good conscience. Section 404.506 further states that, if we cannot approve waiver after reviewing the information the individual has given to support his or her contention that the recovery of the overpayment should be waived, we will offer the individual a personal conference. The personal conference policy was established so that the decisionmaker would have the opportunity to assess an individual's contention through personal, versus written, contact. Our existing regulations at § 416.550 state that we will waive recovery of an overpayment if the individual was without fault in causing the overpayment and if recovery would either defeat the purpose of title XVI, or be against equity and good conscience, or impede the efficient administration of title XVI. There is currently no title XVI regulation regarding personal conferences. Section 404.506(e)(1) states that the individual is given the opportunity to “appear personally” at the personal conference. Current regulations do not further specify the method in which this appearance may be made. Our longstanding policy contained in Social Security Ruling
(SSR)94-4p which implemented the decisions in *Buffington, et. al.* v. *Schweiker* and *Califano* v. *Yamasaki,* provides that a face-to-face pre-recoupment hearing will be conducted prior to the denial of waiver of recovery of an overpayment. However, a face-to-face appearance at the field office is not always convenient for the beneficiary. Often, if an individual is not able to come to the face-to-face conference, field office personnel will go to the person to hold the conference. Offering additional appearance options for the conference would improve service to the beneficiaries and reduce costly home visits by field personnel. In order to fulfill our stewardship responsibilities to the Social Security trust fund, we must employ methods that will simplify our personal conference procedures and use our resources most efficiently. We should be using all available technology when we conduct personal conferences. Therefore, we propose to revise the regulations to allow for personal conferences to be conducted face-to-face at a place we designate (usually in the field office), by telephone, or by video teleconference. We will give the choice to the individual; the individual will still be provided the opportunity to appear face-to-face by choosing to come to us for the personal conference, or may choose to participate by telephone or video teleconference. If the individual elects to conduct the personal conference by video teleconference, the individual will designate the location for his or her end of the video teleconference. We will designate the location for our end of the video teleconference, if video teleconferencing is feasible, e.g., the field office has reasonable access to video teleconferencing. Because we are offering claimants two new and convenient ways to participate in a personal conference—in addition to the face-to-face conferences at our field offices we currently offer—we believe the need for our personnel to make costly home visits will significantly decrease. Therefore, we will consider conducting face-to-face conferences at locations other than SSA field offices only on a case-by-case basis, and only in those limited circumstances where:
(a)A claimant has exhausted all other means of obtaining a personal conference, and
(b)conducting a personal conference by any other means would be so inadequate, owing to a claimant's physical or mental condition, as to infringe upon the person's right to a hearing. An example of such a circumstance would be a claimant who is bedridden and deaf, and therefore, will have considerable difficulty traveling to a field office and participating in a conference by phone. These proposed rules will not affect the individual's right to review the claims file, have a representative present for the proceedings, cross-examine witnesses, or submit documentary evidence. Those provisions will not change. For example, claimants who choose to conduct the personal conference via telephone or video teleconference will be given an opportunity to submit documentary evidence by mail or fax prior to the scheduled conference. If necessary, the conference could be rescheduled to allow claimants time to do this. In conducting the personal conference face-to-face at a place we designate, or by telephone, or by video teleconference, we will be fulfilling our stewardship responsibilities while offering an additional convenience to the individual and continuing to protect the individual's right to present his or her contention that he or she meets the requirements for waiver of recovery of an overpayment. The decisionmaker will still be able to properly assess the person's contentions regarding fault under these new procedures. We already successfully conduct some hearings by telephone and by video teleconference. For example, the administrative review of an initial determination for Medicare Part D subsidies is conducted either by a telephone hearing or a case review. See § 418.3625. Additionally, some administrative hearings to review claims under title II (including administrative law judge review of denial of waiver based on a personal conference), and other claims under title XVI are now conducted via video teleconferencing. See §§ 404.936 and 416.1436. Our experience in these contexts has demonstrated that these procedures adequately protect a claimant's due process rights. Explanation of Proposed Changes We propose to change the regulations in 20 CFR parts 404 and 416 to reflect the methods for conducting personal conferences when waiver of recovery of an overpayment cannot be approved as follows: • We propose to change the regulations at § 404.506 to reflect the various methods we can use to conduct the personal conference. These methods are: face-to-face in a location we designate (usually in the field office), via telephone, or via video teleconference. • Currently, part 416 has no reference to personal conferences when waiver of recovery of the overpayment cannot be approved. We are proposing to add a new section that is similar to the regulations at § 404.506. New § 416.557 would include the various methods we can use to conduct the personal conference and describe the individual's rights and responsibilities regarding the personal conference. Since SSR 94-4p only provides for a pre-recoupment hearing that is conducted face-to-face before waiver of recovery of an overpayment can be denied, the proposed changes in §§ 404.506 and 416.557 would expand that policy. Therefore, if we proceed to publish final rules, we will also publish a notice rescinding SSR 94-4p concurrently with the effective date of the final rules. Clarity of These Proposed Rules Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on these proposed rules, we invite your comments on how to make these proposed rules easier to understand. For example: • Have we organized the material to suit your needs? • Are the requirements in the rules clearly stated? • Do the rules contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rules easier to understand? • Would more (but shorter) sections be better? • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? • What else could we do to make the rules easier to understand? Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866 We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and determined that these proposed rules meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258. Thus, they were reviewed by OMB. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that these proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect only individuals. Thus, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required. Paperwork Reduction Act We are proposing to revise our rules on conducting personal conferences when waiver of recovery of a title II or title XVI overpayment cannot be approved. These proposed revisions would allow for the conferences to be conducted face-to-face, by telephone, or by video teleconference. Currently, we only conduct these conferences face-to-face. Although these proposed rules only contain information collection burdens in §§ 416.557(c)(3) and 416.557(d)(8), we are also including the associated information collection burdens for §§ 404.506(e)(3) and 404.506(f)(8) since those sections deal with personal conferences. As outlined in the table below, in §§ 404.506(e)(3), 404.506(f)(8), 416.557(c)(3) and 416.557(d)(8), respondents may provide additional evidence for consideration at the personal conference. The collection of evidence is a public paperwork burden that requires clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Respondents to these collections are individual and the individual's representative that request a waiver conference of their overpayment and submit additional evidence. Title/section & collection description Annual number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) Personal Conference 404.506(e)(3) Submittal of additional documents for consideration at personal conferences 150,000 1 30 75,000 Personal Conference 404.506(f)(8) Submittal of additional mitigating financial information and verifications for consideration at personal conferences 75,000 1 30 37,500 Personal Conference 416.557(c)(3) Submittal of additional documents for consideration at personal conferences 100,000 1 30 50,000 Personal Conference 416.557(d)(8) Submittal of additional mitigating financial information and verifications for consideration at personal conferences 50,000 1 30 25,000 Total 375,000 187,500 An Information Collection Request has been submitted to OMB for clearance. We are soliciting comments on the burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility and clarity; and on ways to minimize the burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should be sent to OMB by fax or by e-mail to: Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax Number: 202-395-6974, E-mail address: *OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.* Comments on the paperwork burdens associated with this rule can be received for up to 60 days after publication of this notice and will be most useful if received within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the deadline for the public to comment to SSA on the proposed regulations. These information collection requirements will not become effective until approved by OMB. When OMB has approved these information collection requirements, SSA will publish a notice in the **Federal Register** . To receive a copy of the OMB clearance package, your staff may call the SSA Reports Clearance Officer on 410-965-0454. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security-Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security-Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security-Survivors Insurance; and 96.006, Supplemental Security Income) List of Subjects 20 CFR Part 404 Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security. 20 CFR Part 416 Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability benefits, Public assistance programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Supplemental security income (SSI). Dated: November 27, 2006. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security. For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend subpart F of part 404 and subpart E of part 416 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950— ) Subpart F—[Amended] 1. The authority citation for subpart F of part 404 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 204, 205(a), 702(a)(5), and 1147 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 404, 405(a), 902(a)(5), and 1320b-17); 31 U.S.C. 3720A. 2. Section 404.506 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 404.506 When waiver may be applied and how to process the request.
(c)* * * We will offer to the individual the option of conducting the personal conference face-to-face at a place we designate, by telephone, or by video teleconference. The notice will advise the individual of the date and time of the personal conference. PART 416-SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED Subpart E—[Amended] 1. The authority citation for subpart E of part 416 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1147, 1601, 1602, 1611(c) and (e), and 1631(a)-(d) and
(g)of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1320b-17, 1381, 1381a, 1382(c) and (e), and 1383(a)-(d) and (g)); 31 U.S.C. 3720A. 2. Section 416.557 is added to read as follows: § 416.557 Personal conference.
(a)If waiver cannot be approved (i.e., the requirements in § 416.550
(a)and
(b)are not met), the individual is notified in writing and given the dates, times and place of the file review and personal conference; the procedure for reviewing the claims file prior to the personal conference; the procedure for seeking a change in the scheduled dates, times and/or place; and all other information necessary to fully inform the individual about the personal conference. The file review is always scheduled at least 5 days before the personal conference. We will offer to the individual the option of conducting the personal conference face-to-face at a place we designate, by telephone, or by video teleconference. The notice will advise the individual of the date and time of the personal conference.
(b)At the file review, the individual and the individual's representative have the right to review the claims file and applicable law and regulations with the decisionmaker or another of our representatives who is prepared to answer questions. We will provide copies of material related to the overpayment and/or waiver from the claims file or pertinent sections of the law or regulations that are requested by the individual or the individual's representative.
(c)At the personal conference, the individual is given the opportunity to:
(1)Appear personally, testify, cross-examine any witnesses, and make arguments;
(2)Be represented by an attorney or other representative (see § 416.1500), although the individual must be present at the conference; and
(3)Submit documents for consideration by the decisionmaker.
(d)At the personal conference, the decisionmaker:
(1)Tells the individual that the decisionmaker was not previously involved in the issue under review, that the waiver decision is solely the decisionmaker's, and that the waiver decision is based only on the evidence or information presented or reviewed at the conference;
(2)Ascertains the role and identity of everyone present;
(3)Indicates whether or not the individual reviewed the claims file;
(4)Explains the provisions of law and regulations applicable to the issue;
(5)Briefly summarizes the evidence already in file which will be considered;
(6)Ascertains from the individual whether the information presented is correct and whether he/she fully understands it;
(7)Allows the individual and the individual's representative, if any, to present the individual's case;
(8)Secures updated financial information and verification, if necessary;
(9)Allows each witness to present information and allows the individual and the individual's representative to question each witness;
(10)Ascertains whether there is any further evidence to be presented;
(11)Reminds the individual of any evidence promised by the individual which has not been presented;
(12)Lets the individual and the individual's representative, if any, present any proposed summary or closing statement;
(13)Explains that a decision will be made and the individual will be notified in writing; and
(14)Explains repayment options and further appeal rights in the event the decision is adverse to the individual.
(e)SSA issues a written decision to the individual (and his or her representative, if any) specifying the finding of fact and conclusions in support of the decision to approve or deny waiver and advising of the individual's right to appeal the decision. If waiver is denied, adjustment or recovery of the overpayment begins even if the individual appeals.
(f)If it appears that the waiver cannot be approved, and the individual declines a personal conference or fails to appear for a second scheduled personal conference, a decision regarding the waiver will be made based on the written evidence of record. Reconsideration is then the next step in the appeals process. [FR Doc. E7-3782 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [REG-100841-97] RIN 1545-AU97 Agreements for Payment of Tax Liabilities in Installments AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document withdraws the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the **Federal Register** on December 31, 1997 (62 FR 68241) and contains proposed regulations relating to the payment of tax liabilities in installments. The proposed regulations reflect changes to the law made by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, and the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. DATES: Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by June 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-100841-97), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-100841-97), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically directly to the IRS Internet site at *http://www.irs.gov/regs* or via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* (indicate IRS and REG-100841-97). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the regulations, G. William Beard,
(202)622-3620; concerning submissions of comments or requests for a hearing, Kelly Banks,
(202)622-7180 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 31, 1997, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-100841-97; 62 FR 68241) reflecting changes made to section 6159 of the Internal Revenue Code
(Code)by section 202 of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, Pub. L. 104-168 (110 Stat. 1452, 1457) was published in the **Federal Register** . That proposed rule was not acted upon prior to the enactment of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 1998), Pub. L. 105-206, section 3462 (112 Stat. 685, 764), which made further amendments to section 6159. Section 843 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA), Pub. L. 108-357 (118 Stat. 1418, 1600), also made changes to section 6159. This document amends the prior notice of proposed rulemaking. It contains proposed amendments to the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) under section 6159 reflecting the amendment of the Code by RRA 1998, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, and the AJCA. Installment Agreements Under Section 6159 Consistent with its mission of applying the tax laws with integrity and fairness to all, the IRS generally expects that all taxpayers will pay the total amount due, regardless of amount, at the time the Code requires that the tax be paid. See Policy Statement P-5-2, Collecting Principles (Approved February 17, 2000), reprinted at IRM 1.2.1.5.2. When attempting to resolve a tax delinquency, the IRS will work with taxpayers to achieve full payment of all tax, penalties, and interest. Where payment in full cannot immediately be achieved, the IRS may allow taxpayers to pay over time through installment agreements. Explanation of Provisions The proposed regulations allow the IRS to enter into agreements for the full or partial payment of any unpaid tax in installments. The regulations provide rules for the submission of proposed installment agreements, the processing, acceptance, and rejection of such agreements by the IRS, the termination or modification of existing agreements, and the appeal of rejections, modifications, and terminations to the IRS Office of Appeals (Appeals). The majority of these provisions are unchanged from what was contained in the prior regulations or reflect longstanding IRS administrative practice. The rules regarding when a proposed installment agreement becomes pending, restrictions on collection activity while an agreement is pending or in effect, and the suspension of the statute of limitations for collection are nearly identical to the provisions in existing § 301.6331-4. The only change was a clarification that the IRS will not be precluded from filing suit or a proof of claim in bankruptcy for the full amount of the liabilities owed, regardless of whether the installment agreement provides for full or partial payment of the liabilities at issue. Taxpayers may request administrative review of IRS decisions to modify or terminate installment agreements pursuant to section 6159(e), added to the Code by section 202 of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II. Taxpayers may appeal rejections of proposed installment agreements under section 7122(d), added to the Code by section 3462 of RRA 1998. The proposed regulations allow taxpayers to appeal a termination, modification, or rejection of an installment agreement to Appeals provided they request the appeal in the manner specified by the IRS. The previous notice of proposed rulemaking contained a more detailed procedure for seeking review of decisions to terminate or modify agreements. That proposed regulation has not been adopted. These regulations contain a less detailed procedure because procedures for appealing differ depending on the IRS operating division handling the case, the size of the tax liability, or the type of tax at issue. For example, some taxpayers may be able to request an appeal by telephone while others will be required to submit a formal written request. See Publication 1660, Collection Appeal Rights. The proposed regulations incorporate the provisions of section 6159(c), added to the Code by section 3467 of RRA 1998. That section requires the IRS to accept a proposed installment agreement for income taxes under certain circumstances. The regulations also incorporate section 3506 of RRA 1998, which requires the IRS to send each taxpayer with an installment agreement an annual statement showing the balance due at the beginning of the year, the payments made during the year, and the remaining balance due at the end of the year. Section 843 of the AJCA amended section 6159(a) to allow the IRS to enter into installment agreements that provide for partial (as well as full) payment of a tax liability. The proposed regulations incorporate this change. Because a partial payment installment agreement could be confused with a compromise of the liability, the proposed regulations clarify that an installment agreement does not reduce the amount of taxes, interest, or penalties owed. *See* H. Rep. No. 108-755, 108th Cong., 2d Sess., 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1341 (October 7, 2004). The proposed regulations also clarify that the IRS may enter into an installment agreement that, by its terms, ends upon the expiration of the period of limitations on collection in section 6502 and § 301.6502-1, or at some prior date. A partial payment installment agreement that ends prior to the expiration of the collection period of limitations would allow the IRS to collect the balance of the tax liability against any property belonging to the taxpayer or request the Department of Justice to institute a judicial action to reduce the liability to judgment or take other actions to enforce the federal tax lien. The proposed regulations do not limit the authority of the IRS to enter into partial payment installment agreements that run to the end of the collection period. Section 843 of the AJCA amended section 6159(c) to exclude partial payment installment agreements from the scope of installment agreements that must be accepted by the IRS. The proposed regulations provide that installment agreements guaranteed under section 6159(c) must provide for the full payment of the liabilities. Section 843 of the AJCA added new section 6159(d), requiring the IRS to review partial payment installment agreements every two years. (Former subsections
(d)and
(e)were redesignated
(e)and (f).) The primary purpose of the review is to determine whether the financial condition of the taxpayer has significantly changed so as to warrant an increase in the value of the payments being made. *See* H. Rep. No. 108-755, 108th Cong., 2d Sess., 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1341 (October 7, 2004). The proposed regulations reflect this requirement. The proposed regulations clarify the application of payments made pursuant to installment agreements. Consistent with Revenue Procedure 2002-26 (2002-1 C.B. 746), all payments will be applied in the best interests of the Government, unless the installment agreement provides otherwise. Current regulations provide rules for when the IRS may terminate an agreement but do not expressly provide that a taxpayer and the IRS may agree to end an agreement. The proposed regulations clarify that an installment agreement may be terminated by agreement between the taxpayer and the IRS, or may be superceded by a new agreement. Proposed Effective Date These regulations are proposed to be effective upon publication in the **Federal Register** of the final regulations. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations and, because these regulations do not impose a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply to these regulations. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS generally requests any comments on the clarity of the proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested in writing by a person that timely submits written or electronic comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the **Federal Register** . Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is G. William Beard, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), Collection, Bankruptcy & Summonses Division. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301 Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Withdrawal of Proposed Regulations Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-100841-97) that was published in the **Federal Register** on December 31, 1997 (62 FR 68241) is withdrawn. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 301.6159-0 is added to read as follows: § 301.6159-0 Table of contents. This section lists the major captions that appear in the regulations under § 301.6159-1. § 301.6159-1 Agreements for the payment of tax liabilities in installments.
(a)Authority.
(b)Procedures for submission and consideration of proposed installment agreements.
(c)Acceptance, form, and terms of installment agreements.
(d)Rejection of a proposed installment agreement.
(e)Modification or termination of installment agreements by the Internal Revenue Service.
(f)Effect of installment agreement or pending installment agreement on collection activity.
(g)Suspension of the statute of limitations on collection.
(h)Annual statement.
(i)Biannual review of partial payment installment agreements.
(j)Cross reference.
(k)Effective date. **Par. 3.** Section 301.6159-1 is revised to read as follows: § 301.6159-1 Agreements for payment of tax liabilities in installments.
(a)*Authority.* The Commissioner may enter into a written agreement with a taxpayer that allows the taxpayer to make scheduled periodic payments of any tax liability if the Commissioner determines that such agreement will facilitate full or partial collection of the tax liability.
(b)*Procedures for submission and consideration of proposed installment agreements* —(1) *In general.* A proposed installment agreement must be submitted according to the procedures, and in the form and manner, prescribed by the Commissioner.
(2)*When a proposed installment agreement becomes pending.* A proposed installment agreement becomes pending when it is accepted for processing. The Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)may not accept a proposed installment agreement for processing following reference of a case involving the liability that is the subject of the proposed installment agreement to the Department of Justice for prosecution or defense. The proposed installment agreement remains pending until the IRS accepts the proposal, the IRS notifies the taxpayer that the proposal has been rejected, or the proposal is withdrawn by the taxpayer. If a proposed installment agreement that has been accepted for processing does not contain sufficient information to permit the IRS to evaluate whether the proposal should be accepted, the IRS will request the taxpayer to provide the needed additional information. If the taxpayer does not submit the additional information that the IRS has requested within a reasonable time period after such a request, the IRS may reject the proposed installment agreement.
(3)*Revised proposals of installment agreements submitted following rejection.* If, following the rejection of a proposed installment agreement, the IRS determines that the taxpayer made a good faith revision of the proposal and submitted the revision within 30 days of the date of rejection, the provisions of this section shall apply to that revised proposal. If, however, the IRS determines that a revision was not made in good faith, the provisions of this section do not apply to the revision and the appeal period in paragraph (d)(3) of this section continues to run from the date of the original rejection.
(c)*Acceptance, form, and terms of installment agreements* —(1) *Acceptance of an installment agreement* —(i) *In general.* A proposed installment agreement has not been accepted until the IRS notifies the taxpayer or the taxpayer's representative of the acceptance. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, the Commissioner has the discretion to accept or reject any proposed installment agreement.
(ii)*Acceptance does not reduce liabilities.* The acceptance of an installment agreement by the IRS does not reduce the amount of taxes, interest, or penalties owed. (However, penalties may continue to accrue at a reduced rate pursuant to section 6651(h).)
(iii)*Guaranteed installment agreements.* In the case of a liability of an individual for income tax, the Commissioner shall accept a proposed installment agreement if, as of the date the individual proposes the installment agreement—
(A)The aggregate amount of the liability (not including interest, penalties, additions to tax, and additional amounts) does not exceed $10,000;
(B)The taxpayer (and, if the liability relates to a joint return, the taxpayer's spouse) has not, during any of the preceding five taxable years— ( *1* ) Failed to file any income tax return; ( *2* ) Failed to pay any required income tax; or ( *3* ) Entered into an installment agreement for the payment of any income tax;
(C)The Commissioner determines that the taxpayer is financially unable to pay the liability in full when due (and the taxpayer submits any information the Commissioner requires to make that determination);
(D)The installment agreement requires full payment of the liability within three years; and
(E)The taxpayer agrees to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code for the period the agreement is in effect.
(2)*Form of installment agreements.* An installment agreement must be in writing. A written installment agreement may take the form of a document signed by the taxpayer and the Commissioner or a written confirmation of an agreement entered into by the taxpayer and the Commissioner that is mailed or personally delivered to the taxpayer.
(3)*Terms of installment agreements.*
(i)Except as otherwise provided in this section, an installment agreement is effective from the date the IRS notifies the taxpayer or the taxpayer's representative of its acceptance until the date the agreement ends by its terms or until it is superceded by a new installment agreement.
(ii)By its terms, an installment agreement may end upon the expiration of the period of limitations on collection in section 6502 and § 301.6502-1, or at some prior date.
(iii)As a condition to entering into an installment agreement with a taxpayer, the Commissioner may require that—
(A)The taxpayer agree to a reasonable extension of the period of limitations on collection; and
(B)The agreement contain terms that protect the interests of the Government.
(iv)Except as otherwise provided in an installment agreement, all payments made under the installment agreement will be applied in the best interests of the Government.
(v)While an installment agreement is in effect, the Commissioner may request, and the taxpayer must provide, a financial condition update at any time.
(vi)At any time after entering into an installment agreement, the Commissioner and the taxpayer may agree to modify or terminate an installment agreement or may agree to a new installment agreement that supercedes the existing agreement.
(d)*Rejection of a proposed installment agreement* —(1) *When a proposed installment agreement becomes rejected.* A proposed installment agreement has not been rejected until the IRS notifies the taxpayer or the taxpayer's representative of the rejection, the reason(s) for rejection, and the right to an appeal.
(2)*Independent administrative review.* The IRS may not notify a taxpayer or taxpayer's representative of the rejection of an installment agreement until an independent administrative review of the proposed rejection is completed.
(3)*Appeal of rejection of a proposed installment agreement.* The taxpayer may administratively appeal a rejection of a proposed installment agreement to the IRS Office of Appeals (Appeals) if, within the 30-day period commencing the day after the taxpayer is notified of the rejection, the taxpayer requests an appeal in the manner provided by the Commissioner.
(e)*Modification or termination of installment agreements by the Internal Revenue Service* —(1) *Inadequate information or jeopardy.* The Commissioner may terminate an installment agreement if the Commissioner determines that—
(i)Information which was provided to the IRS by the taxpayer or the taxpayer's representative in connection with the granting of the installment agreement was inaccurate or incomplete in any material respect; or
(ii)Collection of any liability to which the installment agreement applies is in jeopardy.
(2)*Change in financial condition, failure to timely pay an installment or another Federal tax liability, or failure to provide requested financial information.* The Commissioner may modify or terminate an installment agreement if—
(i)The Commissioner determines that the financial condition of a taxpayer that is party to the agreement has significantly changed; or
(ii)A taxpayer that is party to the installment agreement fails to—
(A)Timely pay an installment in accordance with the terms of the installment agreement;
(B)Pay any other Federal tax liability when the liability becomes due; or
(C)Provide a financial condition update requested by the Commissioner.
(3)*Notice.* Unless the Commissioner determines that collection of the tax is in jeopardy, the Commissioner will notify the taxpayer in writing at least 30 days prior to modifying or terminating an installment agreement pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) or
(2)of this section. The notice provided pursuant to this section must briefly describe the reason for the intended modification or termination. Upon receiving notice, the taxpayer may provide information showing that the reason for the proposed modification or termination is incorrect.
(4)*Appeal of modification or termination of an installment agreement.* The taxpayer may administratively appeal the modification or termination of an installment agreement to Appeals if, following issuance of the notice required by paragraph (e)(3) of this section and prior to the expiration of the 30-day period commencing the day after the modification or termination is to take effect, the taxpayer requests an appeal in the manner provided by the Commissioner.
(f)*Effect of installment agreement or pending installment agreement on collection activity* —(1) *In general.* No levy may be made to collect a tax liability that is the subject of an installment agreement during the period that a proposed installment agreement is pending with the IRS, for 30 days immediately following the rejection of a proposed installment agreement, during the period that an installment agreement is in effect, and for 30 days immediately following the termination of an installment agreement. If, prior to the expiration of the 30-day period following the rejection or termination of an installment agreement, the taxpayer appeals the rejection or termination decision, no levy may be made while the rejection or termination is being considered by Appeals. This section will not prohibit levy to collect the liability of any person other than the person or persons named in the installment agreement.
(2)*Exceptions.* Paragraph (f)(1) of this section shall not prohibit levy if the taxpayer files a written notice with the IRS that waives the restriction on levy imposed by this section, the IRS determines that the proposed installment agreement was submitted solely to delay collection, or the IRS determines that collection of the tax to which the installment agreement or proposed installment agreement relates is in jeopardy.
(3)*Other actions by the IRS while levy is prohibited* —(i) *In general.* The IRS may take actions other than levy to protect the interests of the Government with regard to the liability identified in an installment agreement or proposed installment agreement. Those actions include, for example—
(A)Crediting an overpayment against the liability pursuant to section 6402;
(B)Filing or refiling notices of Federal tax lien; and
(C)Taking action to collect from any person who is not named in the installment agreement or proposed installment agreement but who is liable for the tax to which the installment agreement relates.
(ii)*Proceedings in court.* Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (f)(3)(ii), the IRS will not refer a case to the Department of Justice for the commencement of a proceeding in court, against a person named in an installment agreement or proposed installment agreement, if levy to collect the liability is prohibited by paragraph (f)(1) of this section. Without regard to whether a person is named in an installment agreement or proposed installment agreement, however, the IRS may authorize the Department of Justice to file a counterclaim or third-party complaint in a refund action or to join that person in any other proceeding in which liability for the tax that is the subject of the installment agreement or proposed installment agreement may be established or disputed, including a suit against the United States under 28 U.S.C. 2410. In addition, the United States may file a claim in any bankruptcy proceeding or insolvency action brought by or against such person. If a person named in an installment agreement is joined in a proceeding, the United States obtains a judgment against that person, and the case is referred back to the IRS for collection, collection will continue to occur pursuant to the terms of the installment agreement. Notwithstanding the installment agreement, any claim or suit permitted will be for the full amount of the liabilities owed.
(g)*Suspension of the statute of limitations on collection.* The statute of limitations under section 6502 for collection of any liability shall be suspended during the period that a proposed installment agreement relating to that liability is pending with the IRS, for 30 days immediately following the rejection of a proposed installment agreement, and for 30 days immediately following the termination of an installment agreement. If, within the 30 days following the rejection or termination of an installment agreement, the taxpayer files an appeal with Appeals, the statute of limitations for collection shall be suspended while the rejection or termination is being considered by Appeals. The statute of limitations for collection shall continue to run if an exception under paragraph (f)(2) of this section applies and levy is not prohibited with respect to the taxpayer.
(h)*Annual statement.* The Commissioner shall provide each taxpayer who is party to an installment agreement under this section with an annual statement setting forth the initial balance owed at the beginning of the year, the payments made during the year, and the remaining balance as of the end of the year.
(i)*Biannual review of partial payment installment agreements.* The Commissioner shall perform a review of the taxpayer's financial condition in the case of a partial payment installment agreement at least once every two years. The purpose of this review is to determine whether the taxpayer's financial condition has significantly changed so as to warrant an increase in the value of the payments being made or termination of the agreement.
(j)*Cross reference.* Pursuant to section 6601(b)(1), the last day prescribed for payment is determined without regard to any installment agreement, including for purposes of computing penalties and interest provided by the Internal Revenue Code. For special rules regarding the computation of the failure to pay penalty while certain installment agreements are in effect, see section 6651(h) and § 301.6651-1(a)(4).
(k)*Effective date.* This section is applicable on the date final regulations are published in the **Federal Register** . **Par. 4.** Section 301.6331-4 is revised to read as follows: § 301.6331-4 Restrictions on levy while installment agreements are pending or in effect. *Cross-reference.* For provisions relating to the making of levies while an installment agreement is pending or in effect, see § 301.6159-1. Mark E. Matthews, Deputy Commissioner of Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-3730 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1910 [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0021] RIN 1218-AC16 Announcement of Stakeholder Meetings on Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor. ACTION: Announcement of stakeholder meetings. SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)invites interested parties to participate in informal stakeholder meetings on Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. These meetings are a continuation of OSHA's information collection efforts on ionizing radiation. DATES: *Stakeholder meetings:* The stakeholder meeting dates are: 1. 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., March 16, 2007, Washington, DC. 2. 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., March 26, 2007, Orlando, FL. *Notice of intention to attend a stakeholder meeting:* You must submit a notice of intention to attend the Washington, DC, or Orlando, FL, stakeholder meeting by March 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: *Stakeholder meetings:* The stakeholder meeting locations are: 1. Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. 2. For the location of the Orlando, FL, stakeholder meeting, contact Liset Navas at
(202)693-1950. *Notices of intention to attend a stakeholder meeting:* You may submit your notice of intention to attend a stakeholder meeting by any of the following methods: *Electronic:* OSHA encourages you to submit your notice of intention to attend to *navas.liset@dol.gov.* *Facsimile:* You may fax your notice of intention to attend to
(202)693-1678. *Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, messenger and courier service:* Submit your notice of intention to attend to Liset Navas, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-1950. The Department of Labor's and OSHA's normal hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t. *Instructions:* For further information on the stakeholder meetings and submitting notices of intention to attend one of the meetings, see the “Public Participation” heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of notices of intention to attend. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express mail, messenger or courier service, please contact Liset Navas at
(202)693-1950. Electronic copies of this **Federal Register** notice are available at *http://www.regulations.gov.* This document, non-attributed notes from the stakeholder meetings, as well as news releases and other relevant information, will also be available at OSHA's Web page at *http://www.osha.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Seymour, Director, OSHA, Office of Physical Hazards, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-1950. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The use of ionizing radiation has increased significantly in recent years. Today, ionizing radiation is used in a wide variety of workplaces and operations, including security operations, hospitals and medical offices, dental offices, manufacturing worksites, research facilities, forestry and other agricultural worksites, and wastewater treatment plants. In 2005, OSHA initiated information collection efforts to obtain data, information, and comment on the increased workplace use of ionizing radiation and other related issues. These efforts started with the publication of a Request for Information
(RFI)on May 3, 2005 (70 FR 22828). OSHA received 51 comments in response to the RFI. To supplement this information, OSHA is inviting interested parties to attend informal stakeholder meetings on the Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. OSHA will use the data and materials obtained through these information collections efforts to determine, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, whether regulatory action is necessary to protect employees from ionizing radiation exposure. OSHA's existing standard on Ionizing Radiation (29 CFR 1910.1096) was adopted in 1971 pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 655). The standard has remained largely unchanged since that time. OSHA's Ionizing Radiation standard applies to all workplaces except agricultural operations and those workplaces exempted from OSHA jurisdiction under section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 653). Section 4(b)(1) states: Nothing in this Act shall apply to working conditions of employees with respect to which other Federal agencies, and State agencies acting under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021), exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety and health. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)has statutory authority for licensing and regulating nuclear facilities and materials as mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended)(42 U.S.C. 2011 *et seq.* ), the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (as amended), the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, and other applicable statutes. Specifically, the NRC has the authority to regulate source, byproduct and certain special nuclear materials (e.g., nuclear reactor fuel). This authority covers radiation hazards in NRC-licensed nuclear facilities produced by radioactive materials and plant conditions that affect the safety of radioactive materials and thus present an increased radiation hazard to workers. In 1988, OSHA and NRC signed a memorandum of understanding
(MOU)delineating the general areas of responsibility of each agency (CPL 2.86, December 22, 1989). The MOU specifies that at NRC-licensed facilities OSHA has authority to regulate occupational ionizing radiation sources not regulated by NRC (CPL 2.86). Examples of non-NRC regulated radiation sources include X-ray equipment, accelerators, electron microscopes, betatrons, and some naturally occurring radiation sources (CPL 2.86). (See the Ionizing Radiation RFI (70 FR 22828) for additional information on sources of ionizing radiation exposure, workplace uses of ionizing radiation, and health effects of ionizing radiation exposure.) Most recently, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized NRC to regulate material made radioactive by accelerators by adding “accelerator-produced material” to the definition of “byproduct material” that NRC is authorized to license and regulate. The Energy Policy Act directed NRC to issue licensing and compliance oversight regulations to carry out the legislation. Until NRC issues and begins enforcing those regulations, OSHA retains authority over both accelerators and the materials they produce. Stakeholder Meetings OSHA intends to hold four stakeholder meetings on Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation, two of which the Agency is announcing in this notice. OSHA will publish a **Federal Register** notice announcing the other two stakeholder meetings when meeting arrangements are finalized. The first stakeholder meeting, to be held in Washington, DC, will cover the uses of ionizing radiation in the healing arts, including medicine, dentistry, chiropractor services and veterinary medicine. The second stakeholder meeting, to be held in Orlando, FL, in conjunction with the Annual Research Symposium of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing, will cover nondestructive testing. The other two stakeholder meetings will cover non-medical use of accelerators and the use of ionizing radiation in security operations. OSHA encourages interested parties to attend only the stakeholder meeting that deals with their industry, occupation, or operation. The stakeholder meetings will be an opportunity for informal discussion and the exchange of data, ideas, and points of view. To make the stakeholder meetings as productive as possible, OSHA requests that interested parties attending stakeholder meetings be prepared to discuss the following issues relating to occupational exposure to ionizing radiation in their respective industries, occupations, or operations: • Uses of ionizing radiation; • Available exposure data; • Controls utilized to minimize exposure; and • Training. In addition, OSHA will use the stakeholder meetings to discuss comments and materials received in response to the RFI. Each stakeholder meeting will begin with OSHA's presentation on Agency responsibilities related to occupational exposure to ionizing radiation followed by stakeholder questions. OSHA will devote the remainder of each meeting to informal discussions on the topics above and related issues. In particular, OSHA is interested in hearing firsthand from employers and employees and in reviewing exposure data. Meeting participants are not expected to prepare and present formal testimony. Public Participation—Submission of Notices of Intention To Attend and Access to Docket You may submit notices of intention to attend one of the stakeholder meetings
(1)electronically,
(2)by facsimile, or
(3)by hard copy. All notices must identify the Agency name and docket number for this notice (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0021). Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of notices of intention to attend. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express mail, messenger or courier service, please contact Liset Navas at
(202)693-1950. Notices of intention to attend a stakeholder meeting must include the following information: • Name and contact information; • Affiliation (e.g., organization, association), if any; • The stakeholder meeting you plan to attend; • Whether you wish to be an active participant or observer; and • Whether you need any special accommodations in order to attend or participate in a stakeholder meeting. For access to comments and materials received in response to the RFI, go to OSHA Docket No. H-016 on OSHA's Web page at *http://www.osha.gov.* Contact the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. H-016, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is
(877)889-5627) for information about materials in the RFI docket that are not available through OSHA's Web page and for assistance in using the Web page to locate docket submissions. Electronic copies of this **Federal Register** notice are available at *http://www.regulations.gov.* This document, as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page at *http://www.osha.gov.* Authority This notice was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health. It is issued under Sections 4 and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 657), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008). Signed at Washington, DC on this 27th day of February, 2007. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor. [FR Doc. E7-3689 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094; FRL-8283-3] RIN 2060-AM 75 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: General Provisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of public comment period. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that the comment period on the proposed amendments to the General Provisions of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants published on January 3, 2007, is being extended until May 4, 2007. DATES: *Comments.* The comment period has been extended from March 5, 2007. Comments must now be received on or before May 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *a-and-r-docket@epa.gov,* Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094. • *Facsimile:*
(202)566-1741, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094. • *Mail:* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room: 3334, Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC, 20460, Attention E-Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094. • *Hand Delivery:* Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Room: 3334, Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through, or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer, U.S. EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. The Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, (i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is
(202)566-1742. Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's **Federal Register** notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* for current information on docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for submitting comments to are not affected by the flooding and will remain the same. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Colyer, Program Design Group (D205-02), Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number
(919)541-5262, electronic mail (e-mail) address, *colyer.rick@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Regulated Entities.* Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include all major sources regulated under section 112 of the CAA. *World Wide Web (WWW).* In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's notice will be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Assistant Administrator's signature a copy of this notice will be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network
(TTN)policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg* . The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. *Comment Period:* We received 2 requests to extend the public comment period on the proposed amendments to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January 3, 2007). We agreed to these requests and are extending the comment period to May 4, 2007. Public comments must be received on or before that date. We expect to add to the docket by the end of March some additional information and analyses relevant to the proposal. Commenters will then have approximately 30 days to review the additional information and provide any comments by May 4, 2007. Anyone interested in reviewing the additional information should check the docket beginning in April. How Can I Get Copies of the Proposed Amendments and Other Related Information? EPA has established the official public docket for the proposed rulemaking under docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094. Information on how to access the docket is presented above in the ADDRESSES section. In addition, information may be obtained from the Web page for the proposed rulemaking at: *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/gp/gppg.html.* Dated: February 28, 2007. Elizabeth Craig, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E7-3758 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 070215035-7035-01; I.D. 020907E] RIN 0648-AT62 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery; Framework Adjustment 1 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Framework Adjustment 1 (FW 1) to the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan (FMP). FW 1 management measures were developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and propose to implement a vessel monitoring system
(VMS)requirement for vessels participating in the surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. The VMS requirement would replace the current telephone-based notification requirement necessary prior to departure on a surfclam or ocean quahog fishing trip. The intent of this action is to propose management measures that would improve the management and enforcement of regulations governing the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on April 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *Mail:* Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. Mark on the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Framework 1 VMS Proposed Rule.” • *Fax:*
(978)281-9135. • *E-mail:* 0648AT62@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the email the following document identifier: “Comments on Framework 1.” • *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Copies of supporting documents, including the Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR)and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA)are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. A copy of the RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at *http://www.nero.noaa.gov/* . Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule should be submitted to the Regional Administrator at the address above and to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail at *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to
(202)395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian R. Hooker, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9220. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Council voted on December 13, 2006, to recommend to NMFS that a VMS requirement for Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishing vessels, including Maine mahogany quahog vessels, be implemented for their respective fisheries. This action was originally approved by the Council as part of Amendment 13 to the FMP in 2003. However, the Council recommended that the Regional Administrator implement a VMS requirement for the fisheries when an economically viable system became available to the industry. Three vendors have been approved by NMFS for use in the Northeast Region. The costs of the VMS units have decreased since 2003 so that purchase and installation costs now range from approximately $3,150 to $4,200, and recurring monthly costs range from $25 to $100. As a result of the lower costs, the Council voted in June 2005 to begin the development of a framework adjustment to require the mandatory use of VMS for surfclams and ocean quahogs. The Council held two public meetings, on October 11, 2006, and December 13, 2006, to discuss the management measures contained in FW1 and, on December 13, 2006, the Council selected and approved the VMS management measures to submit to NMFS for approval and implementation. Proposed Measures A VMS requirement is being proposed for the surfclam and ocean quahog fishery in order to:
(1)eliminate the requirement to notify NMFS Office of Law Enforcement via telephone prior to beginning a fishing trip;
(2)facilitate the monitoring of areas closed to fishing due to environmental degradation (e.g., harmful algal blooms and former dump sites); and
(3)facilitate the monitoring of borders between state and Federal regulatory juridictions. The VMS requirement would include a fishing trip declaration prior to starting a fishing trip and automatic hourly polling of the vessel position. Proof of an installed and operational VMS unit would be a condition for the issuance of the applicable vessel permits, with some exceptions granted to the limited access Maine mahogany quahog permit. There are three commercial fishing vessel permit categories for these fisheries: An open access Atlantic surfclam permit (SF 1); an open access ocean quahog permit (OQ 6); and a limited access Maine mahogany quahog permit (OQ 7). FW 1 management measures would implement a requirement for vessels participating in the fisheries to use a VMS to facilitate better monitoring and reporting in the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. The VMS requirement would replace the current management measure that requires vessels fishing outside the Maine mahogany quahog fishery to call their local NOAA law enforcement office prior to departure on an Atlantic surfclam or ocean quahog fishing trip to provide vessel and trip information. Furthermore, the VMS requirement would facilitate the monitoring of state and Federal fishing areas, and areas closed to environmental degradation or harmful algal blooms. The VMS unit would be required of all vessels issued an Atlantic surfclam (SF 1) or ocean quahog (OQ 6) open access permit. For vessels issued a Maine mahogany quahog limited access permit (OQ 7), the VMS requirement would be delayed by 1 year from the effective date of the final rule to allow greater time for the participants in the smaller, artisanal fishery in Maine, to comply with the new requirement. Vessels required to use VMS under this action would declare their intended fishing activity via the VMS unit prior to crossing the vessel demarcation line, as specified at § 648.10, before beginning a fishing trip. Under this action, vessels would have their position automatically polled once per hour. Vessels would be able to power-down their VMS unit if one of the following conditions is met:
(1)The vessel will be continuously out of the water for more than 72 hr, and the vessel signs out of the VMS program by obtaining a valid letter of exemption from the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator); or
(2)the vessel declares out of the fishery and the VMS program for a minimum period of 30 consecutive days and the vessel signs out of the VMS program by obtaining a valid letter of exemption from the Regional Administrator, the vessel does not engage in any fisheries until the VMS unit is turned back on, and the vessel complies with all conditions and requirements of said letter. In addition to the management measures contained in FW 1, this proposed rule would clarify that federally permitted Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog dealers and processors must retain used ITQ cage tags for 60 days beyond the end of the calendar year. Previously, cage tags were required to be retained for an unspecified period of time, which created confusion when seafood dealers wished to dispose of used cage tags. Atlantic Surfclam (SF 1) and Ocean Quahog
(OQ6)VMS Measures Effective upon implementation of this action, this VMS requirement would affect all vessel owners that apply for and are subsequently issued the SF 1 and/or OQ 6 open access permit. More than 1,500 vessels were issued these permits in 2006, however only approximately 40 vessels actually participated in this fishery in Federal waters. It is believed that many individuals apply for this permit because it is available to most vessels and there is no additional cost to vessel owners to obtain open access permits for fisheries in which they do not currently participate. Upon the effective date of the proposed measure, if the VMS requirement is not met, the SF 1 and/or OQ 6 permit will be cancelled until such time that the vessel comes into compliance with the management measures and reapplies for the permit. Maine Ocean Quahog (OQ 7) VMS Measures All vessels with a limited access OQ 7 permit would be granted an additional year from the effective date of a final rule implementing FW 1 to come into compliance with the VMS requirement. This additional year is proposed for the Maine mahogany quahog fishery because it operates in an area where shore-based electrical power may not currently be available. Vessel owners in this fishery often moor their vessels away from shore due to lack of shoreside facilities and, when shoreside docking facilities are available, electrical power may not be included. Thus, it is anticipated that this sector will have the additional burden of procuring an auxiliary power system (e.g., an extra battery, photovoltaic cells) in order to comply with the VMS requirement to maintain power to the VMS unit 24 hr per day. Since the revocation of an OQ 7 limited access permit could result in the permit becoming ineligible for renewal, special provision would be made for the implementation of the VMS requirement for the OQ 7 permit category (in addition to being effective 1 year from the effective date of the final rule implementing FW 1), in that the limited access permit would not be cancelled for failure to install a VMS unit as long as the vessel is not participating in the Maine mahogany quahog fishery. Once a vessel comes into compliance with the VMS requirement, the vessel owner must maintain an operational VMS unit onboard the vessel until such time that the permit is relinquished or the vessel meets a condition to power-down the VMS unit and receives authorization from the Regional Administrator. Classification At this time, NMFS has not determined that FW 1, which this proposed rule would implement, is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, an IRFA has been prepared, which describes the economic impacts that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, as well as the objectives of and legal basis for this proposed rule, is found in the preamble to this document. There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. This action proposes to implement a mandatory VMS requirement in the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. This action was compared to five different alternatives, including a no action (status quo) alternative. The other, non-preferred alternatives included:
(1)A mandatory VMS requirement for all surfclam and ocean quahog vessels without a deferment of the requirement for Maine mahogany quahog vessels for the first year (Alternative 2a);
(2)a mandatory VMS requirement for all surfclam and ocean quahog vessels that includes a VMS power-down provision for all vessels moored or docked in the Maine mahogany quahog zone (Alternative 3a);
(3)a mandatory VMS requirement for all surfclam and ocean quahog vessels with an exemption to the VMS requirement to all vessels fishing exclusively in the Maine mahogany quahog zone (Alternative 3b); and
(4)a mandatory VMS requirement for all surfclam and ocean quahog vessels with an exemption to all vessels participating in the limited access Maine mahogany quahog fishery (Alternative 3c). Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply The Small Business Administration
(SBA)defines a small commercial fishing entity as a firm with gross receipts not exceeding $3.5 million. In 2005, a total of 80 vessels were reported harvesting surfclams and/or ocean quahogs from the federally managed surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. Thirty-two of the vessels were operating in the limited access Maine mahogany quahog fishery, and 48 vessels were participating in the open access surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ program. In 2005, average gross income for each species category was:
(1)$728,780 per vessel for ocean quahog harvesters;
(2)$846,186 per vessel for surfclam harvesters; and
(3)$120,591 per vessel for the Maine mahogany quahog limited access fishery. Each vessel in this analysis is treated as a single entity for purposes of size determination and impact assessment. All 80 commercial fishing entities fall within the SBA size standard for small commercial fishing entities. Economic Impacts of This Proposed Action As of November 2006, a total of 62 vessels had reported participating in the 2006 Federal surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. Of those vessels, 29 were not registered with NMFS as having an operational VMS unit on the vessel. The 33 vessels that have VMS likely have it installed as a result of a requirement for another fishery in which the vessel participates. Initial, one-time, purchase and installation costs for a VMS unit from one of the three vendors ranges from $1,800 - $3,800. Annual service costs are estimated to be between $360 and $960, depending on vendor and service plan. Thus, assuming current fishery participation levels, total costs in the first year of implementation of this proposed rule would be approximately $50,000 (includes purchase, installation, and annual service costs for 14 vessels) in total for all of the affected vessel owners. In the second year of implementation, when the limited access Maine mahogany quahog vessels would need to comply with the VMS requirement, the total cost would be approximately $77,000. This figure includes the purchase of a VMS unit and auxiliary battery (see below), installation, and annual service costs for 19 vessels. As discussed in the preamble, it is assumed that the vessels participating in the Maine mahogany quahog fishery do not have access to shore-based electrical power. In order to stay in compliance with keeping the VMS turned on 24 hr each day, including while moored or docked, it is estimated that the vessels will need to purchase an auxiliary battery to maintain power to the VMS unit. The one-time cost of an auxiliary battery is estimated to be $500 per vessel. Thus, the six vessels that already have VMS installed on their vessels would incur an additional cost of an auxiliary battery (the current VMS requirement for these vessels allows for the vessels to power-down the VMS unit when it is moored or docked). In addition, the annual service costs for the 14 vessels from the first year of implementation would also recur, at approximately $5,040. This brings the total cost across the whole fishery for the second year of implementation to $85,000. Approximately 62 vessels are currently active in these fisheries. However, many of these vessels already have VMS as a requirement of another fishery, such as the Atlantic sea scallop, Northeast multispecies, monkfish, and/or Atlantic herring fisheries. As a result of their current VMS status, these vessels were excluded from the analysis of the VMS purchase, installation, and service costs in years one and two of implementation. However, if the vessels that are already in compliance with the VMS requirement were to cancel their participation in those fisheries for which the VMS unit is also required, the total annual cost to the industry in year three and beyond (service costs only) would be approximately $23,000 (62 vessels x $360 in annual fees). The indirect economic impact of the proposed rule to entities, other than those directly impacted, is a slight increase in exvessel prices. The market for clam meats is relatively soft and quite competitive coast-wide, so it is unlikely that producers would be able to pass along much of the increased costs to processors and consumers. Economic Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action The Council analyzed five ocean quahog quota alternatives in addition to the preferred alternative, which are summarized in the introduction to this section. The range of alternatives are from a status-quo (no action) alternative to an alternative requiring compliance with the VMS requirement to begin for all vessels once a final rule implementing FW 1 is effective. The current, status quo, call-in notification is estimated to take 2 minutes (OMB Control Number 0648-0202). However, the call-in notification has been suspended for the limited access Maine mahogany quahog fishery since the establishment of this sector in 1998. In comparison to this status quo, each of the four non-preferred alternatives would result in slight increases in exvessel values, as all the alternatives contained a VMS requirement for all or part of the fishery. Alternative 2a is very similar to the preferred alternative except that it would not allow vessels participating in the Maine mahogany quahog limited access fishery to defer the VMS requirement for 1 year. Thus, the cost for this requirement would be similar to that of the preferred alternative except that the start-up costs ($116,450) would be borne by the whole industry in the first year of implementation. After the first year of implementation, the increase in vessel costs beyond status quo would be $11,880. Alternative 3a would also require all vessels to purchase and install a VMS unit. However, this alternative would allow vessels participating exclusively in the Maine mahogany quahog fishery to turn off their VMS units when moored or tied to the dock. Thus purchase and installation of an auxiliary power supply would not be necessary. This would result an initial additional cost of approximately $103,950 in the first year of the VMS requirement falling, to $11,880 each year afterward. The economic impacts of alternatives 3b and 3c would be the same in relation to the status quo. Both of these alternatives would exempt vessels operating in either the Maine mahogany quahog zone (Alternative 3b, area-based exemption) or the limited access Maine mahogany quahog fishery (Alternative 3c, permit-based exemption) from the VMS requirement in its entirety. The ITQ vessels that fish exclusively in the Maine mahogany quahog zone already have VMS installed on their vessels as a result of a requirement for another fishery. Thus the 14 actively participating ITQ vessels that do not have VMS installed would be the only vessels bearing the costs of these alternatives. These two alternatives have the smallest economic impact, an increase of $44,100 in the first year for initial VMS purchase and installation costs, and $5,500 in service and maintenance costs each year thereafter, in comparison to the other alternatives. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements This proposed rule contains collection of information requirements subject to review and approval by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This action would eliminate the collection currently approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0202. A new control number would be assigned to this new collection until such time that 0648-0202 may be modified. Annualized over a 3-yr period, the direct financial cost to the fishing industry for the purchase, installation, and service of equipment in order to comply with the VMS trip declaration requirement would be $73,491. For this proposed action the actual reporting burden (e.g., vessel trip declaration) would not change significantly from that currently approved under 0648-0202 because, although the reporting time for each vessel would be reduced, the total number of vessels required to report would increase, due to the inclusion of the Maine mahogany quahog fishery. The vessel owner or operator of a vessel participating in the ITQ program would no longer have to telephone a local port office prior to departure on a surfclam or ocean quahog trip and verbally give the following information: Name of the vessel; NMFS permit number assigned to the vessel; expected date and time of departure from port, whether the trip will be directed on surfclams or ocean quahogs, expected date, time, and location of landing; and name of individual providing notice. The reporting burden for this requirement was estimated at 2 min per response (OMB Control Number 0648-0202) when the reporting requirement was implemented in 1993 (58 FR 14342, March 17, 1993). Under this proposed rule, the vessel owner or operator would only be required to select the appropriate fishery displayed on the VMS monitor located in the wheelhouse of the vessel. All identifying information is transmitted with the selection and authorities would be able to monitor for themselves when the vessel departs and returns from the fishing trip. On the surfclam and ocean quahog trip declaration screen, there would be three options to choose from:
(1)Atlantic surfclam ITQ trip;
(2)ocean quahog ITQ trip; and
(3)Maine mahogany quahog trip. It is estimated that choosing the appropriate trip declaration would take 1 min per response. In 2005, there were approximately 5,580 fishing trips taken by the entire industry. This would make the time burden for the VMS trip declaration 92 hr per year. When the time to respond to the providing proof of VMS installation, and time for requesting an exemption to turn off the VMS unit are considered, the annual reporting burden is 100 hr. The public's reporting burden for the collection-of information requirements includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection-of-information requirements. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to a 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. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated:February 27, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.2, a definition for “Individual Transferable Quota
(ITQ)Program” and “Mahogany Quahog” are added in alphabetical order and the definition for “Vessel Monitoring System” is revised to read as follows: § 648.2 Definitions. *Individual Transferable Quota
(ITQ)Program* means, for the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery, the annual individual allocation of quota specified at § 648.70. *Mahogany Quahog* see *Ocean Quahog.* *Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)* means a vessel monitoring system or VMS unit as set forth in § 648.9 and approved by NMFS for use on Atlantic sea scallop, NE multispecies, monkfish, Atlantic herring, and Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog vessels, as required by this part. 3. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(4)(ii) is revised to read as follows: § 648.4 Vessel permits. (a)* * * (4)* * *
(ii)*VMS Requirement.*
(A)*Surfclam and ocean quahog open access permits.* In order to be eligible for issuance of an open access surfclam or ocean quahog permit the vessel owner must have installed on the vessel an operational VMS unit that meets the criteria set forth in § 648.9. The vessel owner/operator must provide to the NMFS Northeast Region Permit Office a copy of the VMS vendor's installation receipt or provide verification of vendor activation from a NMFS-approved VMS vendor as described in § 648.9.
(B)*Maine mahogany quahog limited access permit.* In order to be eligible for issuance of a Maine mahogany quahog permit, the vessel owner must have installed on the vessel an operational VMS unit that meets the criteria set forth in § 648.9. By [ *DATE 1 YEAR FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE* ], unless otherwise exempted under section § 648(a)(4)(ii)(B)(1) of this section. The vessel owner/operator must provide to NMFS a copy of the VMS vendor's installation receipt or provide verification of vendor activation from a NMFS-approved VMS vendor as described in § 648.9. ( *1* ) *Special VMS exemption for Maine mahogany quahog vessels.* Vessel owners eligible to renew a limited access Maine mahogany quahog permit may do so without proof of installation of a VMS, provided the vessel does not fish for, catch, or possess; or attempt to fish for, catch, or posses; Maine mahogany quahogs. Proof of VMS installation must be provided to NMFS Northeast Region Permit Office prior to departure on any fishing trip on which ocean quahogs may be caught or landed. Once a vessel issued a Maine mahogany quahog permit has elected to participate in the Maine mahogany quahog fishery, the vessel must keep the VMS unit turned on and functioning as specified under § 648.9. Once a limited access Maine mahogany quahog permitted vessel has participated in the Maine mahogany quahog fishery, this exemption no longer applies. ( *2* ) [Reserved] 4. In § 648.9, paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(B) and
(e)are revised to read as follows: § 648.9 VMS requirements.
(c)* * *
(2)* * *
(i)* * *
(B)For vessels fishing with a valid NE multispecies limited access permit, or a valid surfclam and ocean quahog permit specified at § 648.4(a)(4), the vessel owner signs out of the VMS program for a minimum period of 30 consecutive days by obtaining a valid letter of exemption pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, the vessel does not engage in any fisheries until the VMS unit is turned back on, and the vessel complies with all conditions and requirements of said letter; or
(e)*New and replacement VMS installations.* The vessel owner/operator required to use a VMS must provide to the NMFS Northeast Region Permit Office a copy of the VMS vendor's installation receipt or provide verification of vendor activation prior to departure on a fishing trip requiring VMS. A VMS certification of installation form is available from the NMFS Regional Administrator. Should a VMS unit require replacement, a vessel owner must submit documentation to the Regional Administrator, within 3 days of installation and prior to the vessel's next trip, verifying that the new VMS unit is an operational, approved system as described under paragraph
(a)of this section. Vessel owners required to use a VMS in the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery, as specified at § 648.15(b), must confirm the VMS operation and communications service to NMFS by calling 978-281-9213 to ensure that position reports are automatically sent to and received by NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE). For the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery, NMFS does not regard the fishing vessel as meeting the VMS requirements until automatic position reports and a manual declaration are received. 5. In § 648.10, paragraphs (b)(1)(vii) and (b)(1)(viii) are added, and (b)(2) is revised to read as follows: § 648.10 DAS and VMS notification requirements.
(b)* * *
(1)* * *
(vii)A vessel issued a surfclam (SF 1) or an ocean quahog (OQ 6) open access permit;
(viii)Effective [ *DATE 1 YEAR FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE* ] a vessel issued a Maine mahogany quahog (OQ 7) limited access permit, unless otherwise exempted under paragraph § 648.4(a)(4)(ii)(B)( *1* );
(2)The owner of such a vessel specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, with the exception of a vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies permit as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section, must provide documentation to the Regional Administrator at the time of application for a limited access permit that the vessel has an operational VMS unit installed on board that meets the minimum performance criteria, unless otherwise allowed under this paragraph (b). If a vessel has already been issued a limited access permit without the owner providing such documentation, the Regional Administrator shall allow at least 30 days for the vessel to install an operational VMS unit that meets the criteria and for the owner to provide documentation of such installation to the Regional Administrator. The owner of a vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies permit that fishes or intends to fish under a Category A or B DAS as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section, must provide documentation to the Regional Administrator that the vessel has an operational VMS unit installed on board that meets those criteria prior to fishing under a groundfish DAS. NMFS shall send letters to all limited access NE multispecies DAS and Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog permit holders and provide detailed information on the procedures pertaining to VMS purchase, installation, and use. 6. In § 648.14, paragraph (a)(25) is revised to read as follows: § 648.14 Prohibitions.
(a)* * *
(25)Fail to comply with any of the notification requirements specified in § 648.15(b) including:
(i)Fish for, land, take, possess, or transfer surfclams or ocean quahogs under an open access surfclam or ocean quahog permit without having provided proof to the Regional Administrator of NMFS that the vessel has a fully functioning VMS unit on board the vessel and declared a fishing trip via the VMS unit as specified at § 648.15(b);
(ii)Beginning [DATE ONE YEAR FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] fish for, land, take, possess, or transfer ocean quahogs under a limited access Maine mahogany quahog permit without having provided proof to the Regional Administrator of NMFS that the vessel has a fully functioning VMS unit on board the vessel and declared a fishing trip via the VMS unit as specified at § 648.15(b). 7. In § 648.15, paragraph
(b)is revised to read as follows: § 648.15 Facilitation of enforcement.
(b)Special notification requirements applicable to surfclam and ocean quahog vessel owners and operators.
(1)Surfclam and ocean quahog open access permitted vessels. Vessel owners or operators issued an open access surfclam or ocean quahog open access permit for fishing in the ITQ Program, as specified at § 648.70, are required to declare their intended fishing activity via VMS prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line specified at § 648.10(a).
(2)*Maine mahogany quahog limited access permitted vessels.* Beginning [ *DATE 1 YEAR FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE* ], vessel owners or operators issued a limited access Maine mahogany quahog permit for fishing for Maine mahogany quahogs in the Maine mahogany quahog zone, as specified at § 648.76, are required to declare via VMS, prior to departure on a fishing trip, into the Maine mahogany quahog zone their intended fishing activity, unless otherwise exempted under paragraph § 648.4(a)(4)(ii)(B)( *1* ).
(3)*Declaration out of surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries.* Owners or operators that are transiting between ports or fishing in a fishery other than surfclams and ocean quahogs must either declare out of fisheries or declare the appropriate fishery, if required, via the VMS unit, before beginning the trip. The owner or operator discontinuing a fishing trip in the EEZ or Maine mahogany quahog zone must return to port and offload any surfclams or ocean quahogs prior to commencing fishing operations in the waters under the jurisdiction of any state.
(4)*Inspection by authorized officer.* The vessel permits, the vessel, its gear, and catch shall be subject to inspection upon request by an authorized officer.
(5)*Authorization for use of fishing trip notification via telephone.* The Regional Administrator may authorize or require, the notification of a surfclam or ocean quahog fishing trip information via a telephone call to the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement nearest to the point of offloading instead of the use of VMS. If authorized, the vessel owner or operator must accurately provide the following information prior to departure of their vessel from the dock to fish for surfclams or ocean quahogs in the EEZ: Name of the vessel; NMFS permit number assigned to the vessel; expected date and time of departure from port; whether the trip will be directed on surfclams or ocean quahogs; expected date, time, and location of landing; and name of individual providing notice. If use of a telephone call-in notification is authorized or required, the Regional Administrator shall notify affected permit holders through a letter, notification in the **Federal Register** , e-mail, or other appropriate means. 8. In § 648.75, paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 648.75 Cage identification.
(a)*Tagging.* Before offloading, all cages that contain surfclams or ocean quahogs must be tagged with tags acquired annually under paragraph
(b)of this section. A tag must be fixed on or as near as possible to the upper crossbar of the cage for every 60 ft3 (1,700 L), or portion thereof, of the cage. A tag or tags must not be removed until the cage is emptied by the processor, at which time the processor must promptly remove and retain the tag(s) for 60 days beyond the end of the calendar year, unless otherwise directed by authorized law enforcement agents. [FR Doc. E7-3776 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 42 Monday, March 5, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Pre-Decisional Objection Process for Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects Authorized by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the reinstatement of a currently approved information collection, OMB 0596-0172—Pre-Decisional Objection Process for Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects Authorized by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before May 4, 2007, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Forest Service, USDA, Assistant Director for Appeals and Litigation, Ecosystem Management Coordination, Mail Stop 1104, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1104. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to
(202)205-1012 or by e-mail to: *dbeighley@fs.fed.us.* The public may inspect comments received at the Ecosystem Management Coordination Office, 201 14th St. SW., Washington, DC, during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to
(202)205-0895 to facilitate entry into the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deb Beighley, Ecosystem Management Coordination, at
(202)205-1277 or e-mail to: *dbeighley@fs.fed.us.* Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Pre-Decisional Objection Process for Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects Authorized by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. *OMB Number:* 0596-0172. *Expiration Date of Approval:* August 31, 2007. *Type of Request:* Renewal, without changes, of currently approved collection. *Abstract:* The information required by Section 105 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 is the minimum necessary for an individual or organization to object to an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project on Forest Service land. An objector must provide, in writing, their name, mailing address, and phone number (if available); the name of the project for which they are filing an objection, as well as the name and title of the Responsible Official and the Forest Service unit on which the proposed project will be implemented; and the specific changes in the authorized project they seek, as well as the rationale for those changes. The Reviewing Officer must review the objection(s) and relevant information and then respond to the objector(s) in writing. No forms are associated with this information collection. *Estimate of Annual Burden:* 8 hours per respondent. *Type of Respondents:* Interested and affected individuals, organizations, and governmental units who participate in the planning process for projects on National Forest System lands. *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 121. *Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 968 hours. Comment is Invited *Comment is invited on:*
(1)Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility;
(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Use of Comments All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. Dated: February 23, 2007. Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System. [FR Doc. E7-3729 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Bridger-Teton National Forest—Big Piney Ranger District, WY; Eagle Prospect AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Revised Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. SUMMARY: This notice revises an earlier Notice of Intent
(NOI)to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS)on an exploratory oil and gas drilling proposal submitted by Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP). The Forest Service is providing this Revised Notice of Intent because the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)has been designated as a cooperating agency and the BLM Wyoming State Director has been added as an additional responsible official for the ongoing EIS for the Eagle Prospect Exploratory Wells Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. The State of Wyoming also has been designated as a cooperating agency. DATES: The Draft EIS
(DEIS)is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)and be available for public comment in March 2007 and the Final EIS
(FEIS)is expected to be available in August 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Clark, District Ranger, at the Big Piney Ranger District at 307-276-3375. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This revised notice updates the original NOI, which appeared Wednesday January 11, 2006, in the **Federal Register** (71 FR pages 1731-1732). There will be no additional scoping on this revised NOI. The next opportunity to comment will be on the DEIS (see discussion below). Comments on the DEIS will be requested during the 45 day comment period following the Notice of Availability (NOA), anticipated to be published in the **Federal Register** in March 2007. The publication date of the NOA in the **Federal Register** is the exclusive means for calculating the comment period for a proposed action documented in a DEIS. Those wishing to comment should not rely on dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the DEIS. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the FEIS, thus avoiding undue delay in the decisionmaking process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers' position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978).* Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the FEIS. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel (9th Circuit, 1986)* and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980).* Comments on the DEIS should be specific and should address the adequacy of the Statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). Responsible Officials Greg Clark, District Ranger; Big Piney Ranger District; P.O. Box 218; Big Piney, Wyoming 83113. Robert A. Bennett, State Director, BLM—Wyoming State Office 5353 Yellowstone (P.O. Box 1828), Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009. Nature of Decision To Be Made The decisions, which will be based on the EIS analysis, will be to make the final decisions on the Applications for Permits to Drill
(APDs)and Surface Use Plans of Operation (SUPOs) submitted by PXP for the Eagle # 1-8, Eagle # 2-8, and Eagle # 3-8 wells, and to specify the access route, project design criteria, best management practices, and agency requirements that will be included as conditions of approval for these wells. The decisions made will include reasonable measures identified as being needed during the EIS analysis in addition to any prescribed in the Forest Plan for the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Dated: February 26, 2007. Greg W. Clark, District Ranger, Big Piney Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest. [FR Doc. 07-987 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45am]
Connectionstraces to 21
Traces to 21 documents
20 references not yet in our index
  • 50 CFR 679
  • Pub. L. 108-199
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 10 CFR 50
  • Pub. L. 109-347
  • 20 CFR 404
  • 20 CFR 416
  • 31 USC 3720A
  • 26 CFR 301
  • Pub. L. 104-168
  • Pub. L. 105-206
  • Pub. L. 108-357
  • 118 Stat. 1418
  • IRM 1.2.1.5.2
  • 29 CFR 1910
  • 40 CFR 63
  • 50 CFR 648
  • 435 U.S. 519
  • 490 F. Supp. 1334
  • 40 CFR 1503.3
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule; closures
U.S.C.§ 1801
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 553
U.S.C.§ 773
C.F.R.§ 2.802
C.F.R.§ 50.47
C.F.R.§ 50.54
Fed. Reg.Rules and Regulations
U.S.C.§ 404
SCOTUS435 U.S. 519
F. Supp.490 F. Supp. 1334
Cite50 CFR 679
Cites 41 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.