+(,121/,1(

Citation: 71 Fed. Reg. 44587 2006 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Fri Jul 30 17:43:54 2010

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday,, August 7, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their discretionary regulatory actions. In

particular, the Act addresses actions

that may result in the expenditure by a

State, local, or tribal government, in the

aggregate, or by the private sector of

$100,000,000 or more in any one year.

Though this rule would not result in

such an expenditure, we do discuss the

effects of this rule elsewhere in the

preamble.

Taking of Private Property

This rule will not effect a taking of

private property or otherwise have

taking implications under Executive

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standards

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate

ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under

Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not

an economically significant rule and •

would not create an environmental risk

to health or risk to safety that might

disproportionately affect children'

Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal

implications under Executive Order

13175, Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments,

because it does not have a substantial

direct effect on one or more Indian

tribes, on the relationship between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule under

Executive Order 13211, Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use. We have

determined that it is not a "significant

energy action" under that order, because

it is not a "significant regulatory action"

under Executive Order 12866 and is not

likely to have a significant adverse effect

on the supply, distribution, or use of

energy. The Administrator of the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs

has not designated it as a significant

energy action. Therefore, it does not

require a statement of Energy Effects

under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

The National Technology Transfer

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) ,(15

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use

voluntary consensus standards in their

regulatory activities unless the agency

provides Congress, through the Office of

Management and Budget, with an

explanation of why using these

standards would be inconsistent with

applicable law or otherwise impractical.

Voluntary consensus standards are

technical standards (e.g., specifications

of materials, performance, design, or

operation; test methods; sampling

procedures; and related management

systems practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical

standards. Therefore, we did not

consider the use of voluntary consensus

standards.

Environment

We have analyzed this rule under

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,

which guides the Coast Guard in

complying with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and

have concluded that there are no factors

in this case that would limit the use of

a categorical exclusion under section

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this

rule is categorically excluded, under

figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the

Instruction, from further environmental

documentation. Under figure 2-1,

paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an

"Environmental Analysis Check List"

and a "Categorical Exclusion

Determination" are not required for this

rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations

0 For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117-DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

m 1. The authority citation for part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33

CFR 1.05-1(g); Section 117.255 also issued

under authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat.

5039.

N 2. From August 7, 2006 through 7 p.m.

on October 29, 2006, § 117.287(d)(3) is

suspended and (d)(5) is added to read as

follows:

§ 117.287 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

(d) * * *

(5) Pinellas Bayway Structure "E" (SR

679) bridge, mile 113 at St. Petersburg

Beach. The draw shall open on signal,

except that from 9 am. to 7 p.m. the

-draw need open only on the hour and

30 minutes past.the hour.

Dated: July 17, 2006.

D.W. Kunkel,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Seventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. E6-12528 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-RO9-OAR-2006-0322; FRL-8190-2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Las Vegas

Valley Carbon Monoxide Attainment

Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA-is taking final action to

approve a revised attainmbnt plan, as

modified to withdraw the motor vehicle

emissions budget for 2030, for the Las

Vegas Valley carbon monoxide

nonattainment area as a revision to the

Nevada state implementation plan. The

revised attainment plan, as modified,

includes revised base year and future

year emissions inventories and a revised

demonstration of continued attainment

of the carbon monoxide national

ambient air quality standard in Las

Vegas Valley through 2020 based on the

most recent emissions models and

planning assumptions and establishes

new motor vehicle emissions budgets.

EPA is acting under section 110(k) of

the Clean Air Act, which obligates the

Agency to take action on State

submittals of revisions to state

implementation plans. The intended

effect of this approval action is to

update the carbon monoxide motor

vehicle emissions budgets in the Las

Vegas area and thereby make them

available for the purposes of

transportation conformity.

DATES: This rule is effective on "

September 6, 2006.

44587

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 44587 2006
Federil -Register/-VoL 71; No. '151 /Mbnda' -Aufgust 7, 2006/Rheds. and.-Re§ulatibns

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a

docket for this action under Docket ID

No. EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0322. All

documents in the docket are listed on

the http://www.regulations.gov Web

site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available,

e.g., CBI or other information whose

disclosure is restricted by statute.

Certain other information, such as

copyrighted material, will be publicly

available only in hard copy. Publicly

available 'docket materials are available

either electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, California. To inspect the

hard copy materials; please schedule an

appointment during normal business

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karina O'Connor, EPA Region IX,

telephone number: (775) 833-1276; fax

number: (775) 833-1276; e-mail address:

oconnor.karina@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, "we," "us"

and "our" refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

1. What Action Did EPA Propose?

II. Is the Background for This Rule?

III. What Comments Did We Receive on the

Proposed Action?

IV. What Is Our Final Action?

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Did EPA Propose?

On May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26910), under

section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA or "Act"), we proposed to

approve the Carbon Monoxide State

Implementation Plan Revision, Las

Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area,

Clark County, Nevada (October 2005),

which was adopted by the Clark County

Board of Commissioners on October 4,

2005 and submitted to EPA by NDEP on

February 14, 2006, as a revision to the

Nevada SIP on the condition that Clark

County and the State of Nevada

withdraw the 2030 motor vehicle

emission budget, or, in the alternative,

we propose to disapprove the plan.

Specifically, we proposed to approve

the plan's revised base year and

projected emission inventories and

modeling demonstration of continued

attainment of the CO standard through

2020. Our proposed disapproval was

based. on our finding that the plan does

not demonstrate continued attainment

in year 2030 because it lacks micro-scale

modeling analysis for the environs of

the County's airports in that year.

Furthermore, we found that, with the

exception of the 2030 budget, the new

motor vehicle emissions budgets

established in the plan are also

consistent with continued attainment of

the CO NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley.

Thus, we proposed to approve the motor

vehicle emissions budgets from the 2005

CO plan for 2006, 2010, 2015, and 2020

as meeting the purposes of section

176(c)(1) and the transportation

conformity rule at 40 CFR 93, subpart A

contingent upon the withdrawal of the

2030 budget by Clark County and the

State of Nevada, and to disapprove the

submitted budgets in the 2005 CO plan,

in the alternative, if no such withdrawal

was made.

As discussed below, the State of

Nevada has submitted a second SIP

revision that withdraws the 2030

budget, and we received no comments

on our proposal, and thus, we are taking

final action to approve the 2005 CO

plan, as amended, and to approve the

related motor vehicle emissions budgets

for 2006, 2010, 2015, and 2020.

II. What Is the Background for This

Rule?

Based on monitoring data from the

mid-1970's, EPA designated Las Vegas

Valley ' as a carbon monoxide (CO)

nonattainment area under the Clean Air

Act (CAA or "Act"), as amended in

1977. See 43 FR 8962, 9012 (March 3,

1978). In response, Clark County and

the State of Nevada adopted and

implemented various air quality plans

and programs, including a vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program, to reduce CO levels in Las

Vegas Valley, but the CO national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

were not attained by the then-applicable

1987 attainment date. [EPA approved

these plans and programs at various

times as revisions to the Nevada state

implementation plan (SIP).]

The CAA was significantly amended

by Congress in 1990 to establish new

.attainment dates and planning and

control requirements for areas that had

failed to attain the NAAQS under the

1977 Amendments. Under the 1990

Amended Act, Las Vegas Valley was

initially classified as a "moderate"

nonattainment area for CO but was later

reclassified as a "serious" CO

nonattainment area after having missed

the attainment date for moderate areas.

In response to the "moderate", and

then "serious," nonattainment

classification and related CAA

requirements, Clark County and the

State of Nevada adopted and

implemented new air quality plans and

I The boundaries of the Las Vegas Valley CO

nonattainment area ar6 defined by reference to State

hydrographic area #212, which covers the central

portion of Clark County. See 40 CFR 81.329.

programs, including a,"serious" area

attainment plan, the Carbon Monoxide

State Implementation Plan, Las Vegas

Valley Nonattainment Area, Clark

County, Nevada (August 2000) ("2000

CO plan"). In 2004, we approved the

2000 CO plan and related motor vehicle

emissions budgets for years 2000, 2010

and 2020. See 69 FR 56351, September

21, 2004.

In response to changes in the EPAapproved motor vehicle emission factor

model and higher-than-forecast

increases in population growth in Las

Vegas Valley, the Clark County

Department of Air Quality and

Environmental Management (DAQEM),

in cohsultation with the Regional

Transportation Commission of Southern

Nevada (RTC), undertook a

comprehensive air quality planning

effort to review and update the 2000 CO

plan and the associated motor vehicle

emission budgets to maintain

consistency for future transportation

conformity findings. The planning

efforts culminated in the preparation of

the Carbon Monoxide State

Implementation Plan Reyision, Las

Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area,

Clark County, Nevada (October 2005)

("2005 CO plan"). The Clark County

Board of Commissioners adopted the

2005 CO plan on October 4, 2005, and

the Nevada Division of Environmental

Protection (NDEP) submitted the plan to

EPA as a revision to the Nevada SIP on

February 14, 2006.

The 2005 CO plan, as adopted on

October 4, 2005 and submitted-on

February 14, 2006, includes revised base

year and future year emissions

inventories and a revised demonstration

of continued attainment of the CO

NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley through

2030 based on the most recent

emissions models and planning

assumptions and establishes new motor

vehicle emissions budgets. The

inventories and modeling

demonstration included in the 2005 CO

plan relate to analysis years 1996, 2006,

2010, 2015, 2020 and 2030. The plan

allocates almost all of the estimated

safety margins 2 in years 2006, 2010,

2015, 2020, and 2030 to the on-road

motor vehicle emissions category. Based

on our review and evaluation of NDEP's

February 14, 2006 SIP revision

submittal, we proposed to approve the

2005 CO plan on the condition that

2 The term "safety margin" refers to the amount

by which the total projeted emissions from all

sources of a given pollutant are less than the total

emissions that would satisfy the applicable

requirement for reasonable further progress,

attainment or maintenance. See 40 CFR 93.101. The

2005 CO plan also allocates a small portion of the

safety margins to certain point sources.

44588

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 44588 2006
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday,. August 7, 2006 /Rules and Regulations

Clark County and the State of Nevada

withdraw the 2030 motor vehicle

emission budget, or, in the alternative,

to disapprove the plan. See 71 FR 26910

(May 9, 2006).

As stated in our proposed rule

published on May 9, 2006, our objection

to the 2030 budget was premised on our

finding that the plan lacks micro-scale

modeling analysis for the environs of

the County's airports in that year. In

response, on May 2, 2006, Clark County

adopted a revision to the 2005 CO plan

that involved withdrawal of the 2030

budget and revision and replacement of

the specific section of the plan (section

7.3, page 7-2, "Mobile Source

Emissions Budget") that identifies the

emissions budgets. On May 12, 2006,

NDEP submitted the amended page of

the plan to EPA as a SIP revision

together with evidence of adoption of

this amendment by the Clark County

Board of Commissioners. We have

reviewed the May 12, 2006 submittal,

and find that it meets the condition we

placed on the proposed approval of the

2005 CO plan, and thus we are taking

final action today to approve the plan,

as amended.

Please see the proposed rule at 71 FR

26910 (May 9, 2006) for more

information about the background

leading up to the submittal of the 2005

CO plan and our review and evaluation

of the plan.

IH. What Comments Did We Receive on

the Proposed Action?

EPA provided a 30-day. review and

comment period on the proposal

published in the Federal Register on

May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26910). We received

no comments on our proposed

rulemaking.

IV. What Is Our Final Action?

Pursuant to section 110(k) of the Act

and for the reasons set forth above and

in the proposed rule, we are approving

the Carbon Monoxide State

Implementatibn Plan Revision, Las

Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area,

Clark County, Nevada (October 2005), as

adopted on October 4, 2005 by the Clark

County Board of Commissioners and

submitted by NDEP on February 14,

2006, and as amended by the board on

May 2, 2006 and submitted by NDEP on

May 12, 2006, as a revision to the

Nevada SIP.

Our approval is based on our

evaluation of the plan submittals and

determination that the plan's revised

base year and projected emission

inventories and modeling

demonstration of continued attainment

of the CO standard through 2020 reflect

acceptable methods and the most recent

models and planning assumptions.

Furthermore, we find that the new

motor vehicle emissions budgets

established in the plan and reflecting

scaled inventories are also consistent

with continued attainment of the CO

NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley. Thus, we

are approving the following motor

vehicle emissions budgets from the 2005

CO plan, as modified by the withdrawal

of the 2030 budget as set forth in

NDEP's February 12, 2006 submittal, as

meeting the purposes of section

176(c)(1) and the transportation

conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93,

subpart A:

CO MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS

BUDGET

[December weekday]

Year Tons per day

2006 .............................................. 623

2010- ............................................. 690

2015 .............................................. 768

2020 .............................................. 817

Our action today in approving the

above budgets has the effect of replacing

the previously-approved CO motor

vehicle emissions budgets from the Las

Vegas Valley 2000 CO plan for the

purposes of transportation conformity.

V. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a "significant regulatory action" and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. For

this reason, this action is also not

subject to Executive Order 13211,

"Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May

22, 2001). This action merely approves

an air quality plan as meeting Federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

-Administrator certifies that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this

rule approves pre-existing requirements

under state law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by state law, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or'

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

.Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal

implications because it will not have a

substantial direct effect on one or more

Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175

(65 FR 67249, NovQmber 9, 2000). This

action also does not have Federalism

implications because it does not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999). This action merely

approves a state plan implementing a

Federal standard and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045,

"Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

because it is not economically

significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authbrity

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. This rule does

not impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

44589

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 44589 2006
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 151/Monday, August 7, 2006/Rules and Regulations

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a "major rule" as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by October 6, 2006. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not

affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed,.and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 20, 2006.

Wayne Nastri,

Regional Administrator, Region LX.

0 Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart DD-Nevada

0 2. Section 52.1470 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(57) and (c)(58) to

read as follows:

§52.1470 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

(57) The following plan revision was

submitted on February 14, 2006, by the

Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Clark County Department of Air

Quality and Environmental

Management.

(1) Carbon Monoxide State

Implementation Plan Revision, Las

Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area, Clark

County, Nevada, adopted on October 4,

2005 by the Clark County Board of

Commissioners (with the exception of

section 7.3 (page 7-2), "Mobile Source

Emissions Budget").

(58) The following plan revision was

submitted on May 12, 2006, by the

Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Clark County Department of Air

Quality and Environmental

Management.

(1) Section 7.3 (page 7-2), "Mobile

Source Emissions Budget" of the Carbon

Monoxide State Implementation Plan

Revision, Las Vegas Valley

Nonattainment Area, Clark County,

Nevada, adopted on May 2, 2006 by the

Clark County Board of Commissioners.

[FR Doc. E6-12761 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 051014263-6028-03; I.D.

080106A]

Fisheries Off West Coast States;

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; End

of the Pacific Whiting Primary Season

for the Shore-based Sector and the

Resumption of Trip Limits

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Temporary rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the end of

the 2006 primary season for the Pacific

whiting (whiting) shore-based sector at

6 p.m. local time (i.t.) August 2, 2006,

because the allocation is projected to be

reached. This action is intended to keep

the harvest of whiting at the 2006

allocation levels.

DATES: Effective from 6 p.m. Lt. August

2, 2006, until January 1, 2007.

Comments will be accepted through

August 22, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,

identified by [docket number and/or

RIN number], by any of the following

methods:

* E-mail:.

WhitingSBclosure2006.nwr@noaa.gov

Include [docket number and/or RIN

number] in the subject line of the

message.

* Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments.

e Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Becky

Renko.

* Mail: D. Robert Lohn,

Administrator, Northwest Region,

NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE,

Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Becky

Renko.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Becky Renko at 206-526-6110.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

action is authorized by regulations

implementing the Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan

(FMP), which governs the groundfish

fishery off Washington, Oregon, and

California.

The regulations at 50 CFR 660.323(a)

establish separate allocations for the

catcher/processor, mothership, and

shore-based sectors of the whiting

fishery. For 2006, the 232,069 mt

commercial harvest guideline for

whiting is divided with the catcher/

processor sector receiving 78,903 mt (34

percent); the mothership sector

receiving 55,696 mt (24 percent); and

the shore-based sector receiving 97,469

mt (42 percent).

Regulations at 50 CFR 660.373(b)

'describe the primary season for each

sector. The primary season for the

shore-based sector is the period(s) when

the large-scale target fishery is

conducted, and when "per trip" limits

are not in effect. Before and after the

primary season, per-trip limits are in

effect for whiting.

The best available information on July

31, 2006, indicates that81,159 mt had

been taken through July 27, 2006, 2006,

and that the 97,469 mt shore-based

allocation will be reached by August 2,

2006. This Federal Register document

announces that the primary season for

the shore-based sector ends on August

2, 2006, and a 10,000-lb (4,536-kg) trip

limit is imposed. Per-trip limits are for

vessels using large or small footrope

trawl gear and are intended to

accommodate small bait and fresh fish

markets, and bycatch in other fisheries.

To minimize incidental catch of

Chinook salmon by vessels fishing

shoreward of the 100-fm (183-m)

c'ontour in the Eureka area, at any time

during a fishing trip, a limit of 10,000

lb (4,536 kg) of whiting is in effect yearround, except when landings of whiting

are prohibited.

NMFS Action

For the reasons stated above, and in

accordance with the regulations at 50.

CFR 660.323(b)(3), NMFS herein

announces:

Effective 6 p.m. l.t. August 2, 2006, no

more than 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of

whiting may be taken and retained,

possessed or landed by any vessel -

participating in the shore-baseds.ector

of the whiting fisbery, unless otherwise

announced in the Federal Register. If a

vessel fishes shoreward of the 100-fm

(183-m) contour in the Eureka area (430

- 40'30' N. lat.) at any time during a

fishing trip, the 10,000-lb (4,536-kg)

44590

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 44590 2006