14466 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

■ As stated in the preamble, the Federal 

Communications Commission amends 

47 CFR part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under California, is 

amended by adding Wofford Heights, 

California, Channel 251A. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E7–5565 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 229 

[Docket No. 061106290–7059–02, I.D. 

101706C] 

RIN 0648–AV01 

List of Fisheries for 2007 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) is publishing 

its final List of Fisheries (LOF) for 2007, 

as required by the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA). The final LOF 

for 2007 reflects new information on 

interactions between commercial 

fisheries and marine mammals. NMFS 

must categorize each commercial fishery 

on the LOF into one of three categories 

under the MMPA based upon the level 

of serious injury and mortality of marine 

mammals that occurs incidental to each 

fishery. The categorization of a fishery 

in the LOF determines whether 

participants in that fishery are subject to 

certain provisions of the MMPA, such as 

registration, observer coverage, and take 

reduction plan requirements. 

DATES: This final rule is effective April 

27, 2007. 

The Alaska Cook Inlet set gillnet 

fishery, Alaska Cook Inlet salmon purse 

seine fishery, Alaska Kodiak salmon 

purse seine fishery, California tuna 

purse seine fishery, Mid-Atlantic midwater trawl (including pair trawl) 

fishery, and Mid-Atlantic flynet fishery 

are considered to be Category II fisheries 

on April 27, 2007, and are required to 

comply with all requirements of 

Category II fisheries (i.e., complying 

with applicable registration 

requirements, complying with 

applicable take reduction plan 

requirements, and carrying observers, if 

requested) on that date. 

ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for a listing of all Regional 

offices. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the information collection 

requirements contained in this final rule 

may be submitted to NMFS, Attn: 

Patricia Lawson, fax: 301–427–2522 or 

Patricia.Lawson@noaa.gov, or the Office 

of Management and Budget, Attn: David 

Rostker, fax: 202–395–7285 or 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Andersen, Office of Protected 

Resources, 301–713–2322; David 

Gouveia, Northeast Region, 978–281–

9328; Nancy Young, Southeast Region, 

727–551–5607; Elizabeth Petras, 

Southwest Region, 562–980–3238; Brent 

Norberg, Northwest Region, 206–526–

6733; Bridget Mansfield, Alaska Region, 

907–586–7642; Lisa Van Atta, Pacific 

Islands Region, 808–944–2257. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the 

hearing impaired may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service at 1–800–

877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

Eastern time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Published Materials 

Information regarding the LOF and 

the Marine Mammal Authorization 

Program, including registration 

procedures and forms, current and past 

LOFs, observer requirements, and 

marine mammal injury/mortality 

reporting forms and submittal 

procedures, may be obtained at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/ 

mmap, or from any NMFS Regional 

Office at the addresses listed below. 

Regional Offices 

NMFS, Northeast Region, One 

Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 

01930–2298, Attn: Marcia Hobbs; 

NMFS, Southeast Region, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, 

Attn: Teletha Mincey; 

NMFS, Southwest Region, 501 W. 

Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, 

CA 90802–4213, Attn: Lyle Enriquez; 

NMFS, Northwest Region, 7600 Sand 

Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, Attn: 

Permits Office; 

NMFS, Alaska Region, Protected 

Resources, P.O. Box 22668, 709 West 

9th Street, Juneau, AK 99802; or 

NMFS, Pacific Islands Region, 

Protected Resources, 1601 Kapiolani 

Boulevard, Suite 1100, Honolulu, HI 

96814–4700. 

What is the List of Fisheries? 

Section 118 of the MMPA requires 

NMFS to place all U.S. commercial 

fisheries into one of three categories 

based on the level of incidental serious 

injury and mortality of marine mammals 

occurring in each fishery (16 U.S.C. 

1387(c)(1)). The categorization of a 

fishery in the LOF determines whether 

participants in that fishery may be 

required to comply with certain 

provisions of the MMPA, such as 

registration, observer coverage, and take 

reduction plan requirements. NMFS 

must reexamine the LOF annually, 

considering new information in the 

Stock Assessment Reports and other 

relevant sources and publish in the 

Federal Register any necessary changes 

to the LOF after notice and opportunity 

for public comment (16 U.S.C. 1387 

(c)(1)(C)). 

How Does NMFS Determine in which 

Category a Fishery is Placed? 

The definitions for the fishery 

classification criteria can be found in 

the implementing regulations for section 

118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2). The 

criteria are also summarized here. 

Fishery Classification Criteria 

The fishery classification criteria 

consist of a two-tiered, stock-specific 

approach that first addresses the total 

impact of all fisheries on each marine 

mammal stock, and then addresses the 

impact of individual fisheries on each 

stock. This approach is based on 

consideration of the rate, in numbers of 

animals per year, of incidental 

mortalities and serious injuries of 

marine mammals due to commercial 

fishing operations relative to the 

potential biological removal (PBR) level 

for each marine mammal stock. The 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362 (20)) defines the 

PBR level as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population. This 

definition can also be found in the 

implementing regulations for section 

118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2). 

Tier 1: If the total annual mortality 

and serious injury of a marine mammal 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14467 

stock, across all fisheries, is less than or 

equal to 10 percent of the PBR level of 

the stock, all fisheries interacting with 

the stock would be placed in Category 

III (unless those fisheries interact with 

other stock(s) in which total annual 

mortality and serious injury is greater 

than 10 percent of PBR). Otherwise, 

these fisheries are subject to the next 

tier (Tier 2) of analysis to determine 

their classification. 

Tier 2, Category I: Annual mortality 

and serious injury of a stock in a given 

fishery is greater than or equal to 50 

percent of the PBR level. 

Tier 2, Category II: Annual mortality 

and serious injury of a stock in a given 

fishery is greater than 1 percent and less 

than 50 percent of the PBR level. 

Tier 2, Category III: Annual mortality 

and serious injury of a stock in a given 

fishery is less than or equal to 1 percent 

of the PBR level. 

While Tier 1 considers the cumulative 

fishery mortality and serious injury for 

a particular stock, Tier 2 considers 

fishery-specific mortality and serious 

injury for a particular stock. Additional 

details regarding how the categories 

were determined are provided in the 

preamble to the final rule implementing 

section 118 of the MMPA (60 FR 45086, 

August 30, 1995). 

Since fisheries are categorized on a 

per-stock basis, a fishery may qualify as 

one Category for one marine mammal 

stock and another Category for a 

different marine mammal stock. A 

fishery is typically categorized on the 

LOF at its highest level of classification 

(e.g., a fishery qualifying for Category III 

for one marine mammal stock and for 

Category II for another marine mammal 

stock will be listed under Category II). 

Other Criteria That May Be Considered 

In the absence of reliable information 

indicating the frequency of incidental 

mortality and serious injury of marine 

mammals by a commercial fishery, 

NMFS will determine whether the 

incidental serious injury or mortality 

qualifies for Category II by evaluating 

other factors such as fishing techniques, 

gear used, methods used to deter marine 

mammals, target species, seasons and 

areas fished, qualitative data from 

logbooks or fisher reports, stranding 

data, and the species and distribution of 

marine mammals in the area, or at the 

discretion of the Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries (50 CFR 

229.2). 

How Does NMFS Determine which 

Species or Stocks are Included as 

Incidentally Killed or Seriously Injured 

in a Fishery? 

The LOF includes a list of marine 

mammal species or stocks incidentally 

killed or seriously injured in each 

commercial fishery, based on the level 

of mortality or serious injury in each 

fishery relative to the PBR level for each 

stock. To determine which species or 

stocks are included as incidentally 

killed or seriously injured in a fishery, 

NMFS annually reviews the information 

presented in the current Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessment Reports 

(SARs). The SARs are based upon the 

best available scientific information and 

provide the most current and inclusive 

information on each stock’s PBR level 

and level of mortality or serious injury 

incidental to commercial fishing 

operations. NMFS also reviews other 

sources of new information, including 

observer data, stranding data and fisher 

self-reports. 

In the absence of reliable information 

on the level of mortality or serious 

injury of a marine mammal stock, or 

insufficient observer data, NMFS will 

determine whether a species or stock 

should be added to, or deleted from, the 

list by considering other factors such as: 

changes in gear types used, increases or 

decreases in fishing effort, increases or 

decreases in the level of observer 

coverage, and/or changes in fishery 

management that are expected to lead to 

decreases in interactions with a given 

marine mammal stock (such as a Fishery 

Management Plan or a Take Reduction 

Plan). NMFS will provide case specific 

justification in the LOF for changes to 

the list of species or stocks incidentally 

killed or seriously injured. 

How do I Determine the Level of 

Observer Coverage in a Fishery? 

Data obtained from observers and the 

level of observer coverage are important 

tools in estimating the level of marine 

mammal mortality and serious injury in 

commercial fishing operations. The best 

available information on the level of 

observer coverage, and the spatial and 

temporal distribution of observed 

marine mammal interactions, is 

presented in the SARs. Starting in 2005, 

each SAR includes an appendix with 

detailed descriptions of each Category I 

and II fishery on the LOF. The SARs 

generally do not provide detailed 

information on observer coverage in 

Category III fisheries because Category 

III fisheries are not required to 

accommodate observers aboard vessels 

due to the remote likelihood of 

mortality and serious injury of marine 

mammals. Information presented in the 

SARs’ appendices include: level of 

observer coverage, target species, levels 

of fishing effort, spatial and temporal 

distribution of fishing effort, gear 

characteristics, management and 

regulations, and marine mammal 

interactions. 

NMFS refers readers to the SARs for 

the most current information on the 

level of observer coverage for each 

fishery. Copies of the SARs are available 

on the NMFS Office of Protected 

Resource’s web site at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. 

Additional information on observer 

coverage in commercial fisheries can be 

found on the National Observer 

Program’s web site at: http:// 

www.st.nmfs.gov/st4/nop/. 

How Do I Find Out if a Specific Fishery 

is in Category I, II, or III? 

This final rule includes two tables 

that list all U.S. commercial fisheries by 

LOF Category. Table 1 lists all of the 

fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including 

Alaska). Table 2 lists all of the fisheries 

in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, 

and Caribbean. 

Am I Required to Register Under the 

MMPA? 

Owners of vessels or gear engaging in 

a Category I or II fishery are required 

under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(2)), 

as described in 50 CFR 229.4, to register 

with NMFS and obtain a marine 

mammal authorization from NMFS in 

order to lawfully incidentally take a 

marine mammal in a commercial 

fishery. Owners of vessels or gear 

engaged in a Category III fishery are not 

required to register with NMFS or 

obtain a marine mammal authorization. 

How Do I Register? 

Vessel or gear owners must register 

with the Marine Mammal Authorization 

Program (MMAP) by contacting the 

relevant NMFS Regional Office (see 

ADDRESSES) unless they participate in a 

fishery that has an integrated 

registration program (described below). 

Upon receipt of a completed 

registration, NMFS will issue vessel or 

gear owners an authorization certificate. 

The authorization certificate, or a copy, 

must be on board the vessel while it is 

operating in a Category I or II fishery, or 

for non-vessel fisheries, in the 

possession of the person in charge of the 

fishing operation (50 CFR 229.4(e)). 

What is the Process for Registering in 

an Integrated Fishery? 

For some fisheries, NMFS has 

integrated the MMPA registration 

process with existing state and Federal 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14468 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

fishery license, registration, or permit 

systems. Participants in these fisheries 

are automatically registered under the 

MMPA and are not required to submit 

registration or renewal materials or pay 

the $25 registration fee. The following 

section indicates which fisheries are 

integrated fisheries and has a summary 

of the integration process for each 

Region. Vessel or gear owners who 

operate in an integrated fishery and 

have not received an authorization 

certificate by January 1 of each new year 

or with renewed state fishing licenses 

(as in Washington and Oregon) must 

contact their NMFS Regional Office (see 

ADDRESSES). Although efforts are made 

to limit the issuance of authorization 

certificates to only those vessel or gear 

owners that participate in Category I or 

II fisheries, not all state and Federal 

permit systems distinguish between 

fisheries as classified by the LOF. 

Therefore, some vessel or gear owners in 

Category III fisheries may receive 

authorization certificates even though 

they are not required for Category III 

fisheries. Individuals fishing in Category 

I and II fisheries for which no state or 

Federal permit is required must register 

with NMFS by contacting their 

appropriate Regional Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Which Fisheries Have Integrated 

Registration Programs? 

The following fisheries have 

integrated registration programs under 

the MMPA: 

1. All Alaska Category II fisheries; 

2. All Washington and Oregon 

Category II fisheries; 

3. Northeast Regional fisheries for 

which a state or Federal permit is 

required; 

4. All Southeast Regional fisheries for 

which a Federal permit is required, as 

well as fisheries permitted by the states 

of North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, 

Louisiana, and Texas; and 

5. The Hawaii Swordfish, Tuna, 

Billfish, Mahi Mahi, Wahoo,Oceanic 

Sharks Longline/Set line Fishery. 

How Do I Renew My Registration 

Under the MMPA? 

Vessel or gear owners that participate 

in fisheries that have integrated 

registration programs (described above) 

are automatically renewed and should 

receive an authorization certificate by 

January 1 of each new year, with the 

exception of Washington and Oregon 

Category II fisheries. Washington and 

Oregon fishers receive authorization 

with each renewed state fishing license, 

the timing of which varies based on 

target species. Vessel or gear owners 

who participate in an integrated fishery 

and have not received authorization 

certificates by January 1 or with 

renewed fishing licenses (Washington 

and Oregon) must contact the 

appropriate NMFS Regional Office (see 

ADDRESSES). Vessel or gear owners that 

participate in fisheries that do not have 

integrated registration programs and 

that have previously registered in a 

Category I or II fishery will receive a 

renewal packet from the appropriate 

NMFS Regional Office at least 30 days 

prior to January 1 of each new year. It 

is the responsibility of the vessel or gear 

owner in these fisheries to complete 

their renewal form and return it to the 

appropriate NMFS Regional Office at 

least 30 days in advance of fishing. 

Individuals who have not received a 

renewal packet by January 1 or are 

registering for the first time must 

request a registration form from the 

appropriate Regional Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Am I Required to Submit Reports When 

I Injure or Kill a Marine Mammal 

During the Course of Commercial 

Fishing Operations? 

In accordance with the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1387(e)) and 50 CFR 229.6, any 

vessel owner or operator, or gear owner 

or operator (in the case of non-vessel 

fisheries), participating in a Category I, 

II, or III fishery must report to NMFS all 

incidental injuries and mortalities of 

marine mammals that occur during 

commercial fishing operations. ‘‘Injury’’

is defined in 50 CFR 229.2 as a wound 

or other physical harm. In addition, any 

animal that ingests fishing gear or any 

animal that is released with fishing gear 

entangling, trailing, or perforating any 

part of the body is considered injured, 

regardless of the presence of any wound 

or other evidence of injury, and must be 

reported. Injury/mortality report forms 

and instructions for submitting forms to 

NMFS can be downloaded from: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/ 

interactions/ 

mmaplreportinglform.pdf. Reporting 

requirements and procedures can be 

found in 50 CFR 229.6. 

Am I Required to Take an Observer 

Aboard My Vessel? 

Fishers participating in a Category I or 

II fishery are required to accommodate 

an observer aboard vessel(s) upon 

request. Observer requirements can be 

found in 50 CFR 229.7. 

Am I Required to Comply With Any 

Take Reduction Plan Regulations? 

Fishers participating in a Category I or 

II fishery are required to comply with 

any applicable take reduction plans. 

Take reduction plan requirements can 

be found at 50 CFR 229.30–34. 

Sources of Information Reviewed for 

the Final 2007 LOF 

NMFS reviewed the marine mammal 

incidental serious injury and mortality 

information presented in the SARs for 

all observed fisheries to determine 

whether changes in fishery 

classification were warranted. NMFS’

SARs are based on the best scientific 

information available at the time of 

preparation, including the level of 

serious injury and mortality of marine 

mammals that occurs incidental to 

commercial fisheries and the PBR levels 

of marine mammal stocks. The 

information contained in the SARs is 

reviewed by regional Scientific Review 

Groups (SRGs) representing Alaska, the 

Pacific (including Hawaii), and the U.S. 

Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. 

The SRGs were created by the MMPA to 

review the science that informs the 

SARs, and to advise NMFS on 

population status and trends, stock 

structure, uncertainties in the science, 

research needs, and other issues. 

NMFS also reviewed other sources of 

new information, including marine 

mammal stranding data, observer 

program data, fisher self-reports, and 

other information that may not be 

included in the SARs. 

The LOF for 2007 was based, among 

other things, on information provided in 

the final SARs for 1996 (63 FR 60, 

January 2, 1998), the final SARs for 2001 

(67 FR 10671, March 8, 2002), the final 

SARs for 2002 (68 FR 17920, April 14, 

2003), the final SARs for 2003 (69 FR 

54262, September 8, 2004), the final 

SARs for 2004 (70 FR 35397, June 20, 

2005), the final SARs for 2005 (71 FR 

26340, May 4, 2006), and the draft SARs 

for 2006 (71 FR 42815, July 28. 2006). 

All SARs are available at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received 9 comment letters on 

the proposed 2007 LOF (71 FR 70339, 

December 4, 2006) from environmental, 

commercial fishing, and Federal and 

state interests. Comments on issues 

outside the scope of the LOF were 

noted, but are not responded to in this 

final rule. 

General Comments 

Comment 1: One commenter 

recommended NMFS continue to 

support current research efforts, and 

support and engage in additional 

research, on depredation and associated 

fishery interactions. Research should 

focus on developing means of reducing 

or controlling depredation rates and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14469 

minimizing or mitigating any serious 

injuries or deaths of marine mammals 

from depredation-related interactions. 

Response: NMFS has supported and 

will continue to support research efforts 

intended to better understand the nature 

of depredation-related interactions, to 

reduce the risk of serious injury and 

mortality to marine mammal stocks, and 

to investigate potential mitigation 

strategies. 

Through the Take Reduction Team 

(TRT) process, NMFS has developed 

and implemented successful gear 

research components to several Take 

Reduction Plans (TRP). Specifically, 

NMFS has allocated research funding 

for several TRPs including the Atlantic 

Trawl Gear, Atlantic Large Whale, 

Pelagic Longline, and Bottlenose 

Dolphin TRPs. The research identified 

by the respective TRTs allows NMFS to 

better understand the behavior of 

several marine mammal species. The 

recommended research included 

techniques such as the use of video 

cameras to document marine mammal 

interactions with various gear types in 

hopes of gaining a better understanding 

of whether these interactions are a result 

of depredation of the target species by 

the marine mammals, or other 

behavioral factors. This knowledge will 

provide insights into what types of 

mitigation measures can be 

implemented in order to minimize the 

serious injuries and mortalities 

associated with depredation-related 

interactions. Various gear modifications 

are routinely researched to reduce the 

risk of interactions and serious injury 

and mortality of marine mammals 

should an entanglement occur. 

NMFS also gathers information on 

marine mammal depredation in 

fisheries from various sources 

including, fishery observer records, 

vessel logbooks, data collected during 

dockside surveys, independent 

researchers, State agencies, and the 

general public. NMFS uses this 

information to monitor fisheries and 

evaluate whether action is needed to 

prevent or limit depredation in order to 

protect marine mammals. For example, 

in the past NMFS has participated in a 

program to conduct research in 

California, Oregon, and Washington 

examining pinniped depredation in 

various fisheries and develop methods 

to reduce or control the depredation. 

However, funding for this program was 

eliminated in 2005 and it is not known 

if funding will be re-instated in the 

future. Also, NMFS is currently 

reviewing the issues related to 

depredation by false killer whales in the 

Hawaii-based longline fishery and is 

supportive of research efforts to reduce 

false killer whale take. NMFS continues 

to seek ways to support and participate 

in research on depredation and the 

development of deterrent methods, 

within existing budget constraints. 

Comment 2: One commenter 

recommended NMFS work with 

regional Fishery Management Councils 

to improve monitoring and mitigation of 

serious injury and mortality rates 

incidental to trap/pot fisheries. 

Interactions with trap/pot gear are 

known to occur. However, the frequency 

is difficult to quantify because 

traditional fishery observer programs are 

unlikely to observe entangled animals, 

particularly large whales that often carry 

entangling gear away. In absence of 

better monitoring, characterization of 

such problems is often based on 

anecdotal information. 

Response: NMFS has been often 

unable to identify lines wrapped on 

entangled whales conclusively or 

determine to which specific fishery gear 

belongs, including whether it is a 

commercial or recreational fishery. This 

is particularly difficult for pot gear, 

when often just a single line or line with 

an unidentified buoy is found 

associated with an entangled whale. 

This information is critically important 

in assigning fisheries under the LOF, 

and NMFS will only assign a serious 

injury or mortality to a specific fishery 

when gear can be identified to that 

fishery with a high degree of certainty. 

NMFS is working to improve the ability 

to identify such gear found on entangled 

whales. 

NMFS agrees that quantifying 

entanglement rates in the trap/pot 

fishery would be difficult through an 

observer program due to the low 

likelihood of observing an 

entanglement. However, other means of 

collecting information on entanglements 

of marine mammals are also available. 

For example, information regarding 

fishery interactions with marine 

mammals is included in reports by 

fishermen collected under the Marine 

Mammal Authorization Program 

(MMAP), under which all commercial 

vessel owners or operators, regardless of 

the category of fishery they participate 

in, must report all incidental injuries 

and mortalities of marine mammals. 

Stranding data is also used to collect 

information on entanglements. 

Trap/pot fisheries are of interest based 

on available information concerning 

trap/pot gear interactions with large 

whales in the Atlantic, Pacific, and 

Alaska, and bottlenose dolphins in the 

Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

In the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of 

Mexico, NMFS has funded, and plans to 

continue to fund based on available 

resources, several research projects for 

mitigating blue crab trap/pot 

interactions with bottlenose dolphins in 

the Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico. Many of these projects have 

been incorporated into non-regulatory 

components of the Bottlenose Dolphin 

Take Reduction Plan. NMFS is 

considering folding trap/pot fisheries 

into the Atlantic Large Whale Take 

Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) in an 

upcoming action. The Atlantic Large 

Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) 

currently emphasizes the incorporation 

of the regional fishery management 

councils by asking council 

representatives to serve as team 

members. NMFS will raise this issue 

with council representatives at future 

meetings to further the discussion. 

In the Pacific Ocean, NMFS plans to 

communicate with the Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council when considering 

current fishery descriptions for trap/pot 

fisheries, as well as when assessing 

potential changes to fishery descriptions 

to more accurately reflect differences in 

trap gear fisheries and the likelihood for 

interactions with marine mammals. 

In Alaska, a high proportion of all 

humpback whale entanglements are 

thought to be from pot gear relative to 

other fishery sources, while in reality 

the proportion of entanglements 

resulting in known serious injuries and 

mortalities from known or assumed pot 

gear when compared to serious injury 

and mortalities from all entanglements 

is not as high. From 2001 through 2005 

there were 40 humpback whale 

entanglements attributed to commercial 

or recreational fisheries, and 15 (37.5 

percent) of those were thought to be 

from various pot gear, although that is 

not conclusive. Of those 40 humpback 

whale entanglements, 17 (42.5 percent) 

were serious injuries or mortalities, all 

attributed to commercial fisheries. Five 

of the 17 (29 percent) serious injuries or 

mortalities were thought to be from 

various pot gear. Therefore, from 2001–

2005, 5 of the overall 40 humpback 

whale entanglements, or 12.5 percent, 

resulted in serious injuries or 

mortalities thought to be from various 

pot gear. 

Determining whether an entanglement 

results in a serious injury (one that leads 

to mortality) is a challenge for NMFS, 

and an improved approach to this is 

needed, and the agency is working 

toward that end. In the Alaska region, 

NMFS is working to increase public 

awareness of the dangers to whales of 

vertical lines in the water column, and 

is asking for voluntary cooperation to 

minimize the amount of vertical line in 

the water column where possible and in 

marking personal and commercial gear. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14470 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Working with marine mammal 

researchers, the fishing industry, and 

NOAA Sea Grant over the past several 

years, the Alaska Stranding Program has 

increased community outreach. 

Cooperative, ongoing efforts include 

community meetings, informal working 

groups, increased disentanglement 

response training, developing a vessel 

wheelhouse guide on preventive 

measures and reporting information, 

investigating deterrent uses, improved 

reporting, and acquisition of additional 

response equipment, including adding a 

response vessel to the program, and 

satellite telemetry tags and buoys. 

Ultimately, the goal is entanglement 

reduction and prevention. 

Comment 3: One commenter stated 

that the length of the public comment 

period (30 days) on the proposed rule 

does not allow appropriate time for 

formal review and comment by Fishery 

Management Councils, protected 

resources committees, industry 

advisors, and individuals. 

Response: NMFS believes the 30–day 

comment period allowed for adequate 

review and comment on this proposed 

rule. 

Comment 4: One commenter noted 

that the categorization of fisheries under 

the MMPA is not congruent with fishery 

management units defined under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MSFCMA). Congruency between the 

definitions under MSFCMA and the 

categorization of fisheries under the 

MMPA would facilitate the process of 

moving towards an ecosystem approach 

to management, i.e., for the management 

of fisheries resources and the 

conservation of marine mammal stocks. 

Response: The MSFCMA defines 

fishery listings based on fish species 

and fish stocks, while the MMPA 

defines fishery listings based on marine 

mammal stocks and their interactions 

with fishing gear types. Since multiple 

fishing gear types are usually covered 

under each Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP), categorizing marine mammal 

interactions with fisheries on an FMP 

basis is usually not appropriate. To help 

minimize confusion associated with the 

different fishery definitions, the agency 

will continue, as appropriate, to make 

modest changes to facilitate cooperation 

with regional Fishery Management 

Councils (see responses to comments 2 

and 3). 

Comment 5: The proposed rule states 

that less than 360 small entities will be 

affected by the LOF due to the cost of 

permits and that no economic costs will 

be incurred by vessels requested to carry 

an observer. This evaluation fails to 

recognize the burden of carrying an 

observer, especially on smaller fishing 

vessels that may have to operate with 

one less crew member to accommodate 

the observer. This could lead to 

operational inefficiencies and loss of 

revenue. 

Response: An Environmental 

Assessment (EA) was prepared for the 

Final 2006 LOF, which included a full 

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR). The 

effects on small entities were discussed 

and analyzed as part of the RIR. Impacts 

to small entities including the impacts 

associated with carrying an observer 

were adequately addressed. A full copy 

of the December 2005 EA can be 

obtained at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/pdfs/interactions/loflea.pdf. 

In addition, under section 

118(d)(6)(B) of the MMPA, NMFS is not 

required to place an observer on a 

Category I or II vessel if the facilities for 

housing the observer or for carrying out 

observer functions are so inadequate or 

unsafe that the health or safety of the 

observer or the safe operation of the 

vessel would be jeopardized (also stated 

in 50 CFR 229.7(c)(3)). 

Comment 6: NMFS did not provide 

sufficient notice in the proposed rule to 

inform fishermen that their fishery is 

proposed for elevation and the 

associated more stringent regulations. 

Also, the holiday season falling within 

the comment period (December 4, 2006–

January 3, 2007) made it difficult to find 

credible information and to contact 

agency staff to allow public 

involvement. 

Response: See Comment Response 3 

above. 

Comment 7: One commenter viewed 

the LOF fishery classification system as 

inaccurate, under which NMFS is 

downplaying the highly destructive 

nature of commercial fisheries. NMFS 

does not sufficiently monitor these 

fisheries; therefore, many more fisheries 

should be classified higher on the LOF 

to allow for observer coverage. 

Response: NMFS believes that the 

fishery classification system is accurate. 

The current fishery classification 

system, which continues to be widely 

accepted by the scientific community 

and the fishing industry, is based on a 

two-tiered, stock-specific approach that 

first addresses the total impacts of all 

fisheries on each marine mammal stock 

and then addresses the impacts of 

individual fisheries on each stock. 

Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

for additional information on the 

classification criteria. NMFS 

implemented the classification criteria 

in the final regulations to implement the 

1994 amendments to the MMPA (60 FR 

45086, August 30, 1995) after ample 

consider of comments and suggestions 

from the public. NMFS also finalized an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

August, 1995, to analyze the impacts of 

the regulations implementing the 1994 

amendment on the environment and the 

public, and finalized a revised EA in 

December 2005 on the process of 

classifying U.S. commercial fisheries. 

To determine whether changes in 

fishery classification are warranted, 

NMFS reviews all marine mammal 

incidental injury and mortality 

information presented in the Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs). NMFS’

SARs are based on the best available 

scientific information available at the 

time of publication. The SARs are peerreviewed by regional Scientific Review 

Groups (SRGs), created by the MMPA to 

review the science that informs the 

SARs. 

NMFS regularly monitors commercial 

fisheries in the U.S. and reviews data 

gathered by the National Observer 

Program, fisher self-reports, stranding 

data, and other information when 

categorizing fisheries based on the level 

of interactions with marine mammals. 

Category I and II fisheries are required 

to register with NMFS, to carry NMFS 

observers if requested, and comply with 

all applicable take reduction plan 

regulations. In addition, all fishermen, 

regardless of the classification of the 

fishery in which they operate, are 

required by the MMPA to report, within 

48 hours of returning to port, any injury 

or mortality that occurs incidental to 

commercial fishing operations. NMFS 

also reviews other sources of 

information, such as stranding data, to 

assess whether elevation of a Category 

III fishery is warranted, thereby 

requiring the fishery to carry observers, 

if requested. 

Comment 8: One commenter 

reiterated previous letters on the 2005 

and 2006 LOFs calling for the inclusion 

of observer coverage on the LOF. The 

SARs usually include estimates of 

observer coverage only for fisheries 

known to interact with marine 

mammals, while fisheries for which 

interactions have not been documented 

in recent years are not described. 

Without this information, it is not 

possible to determine whether a given 

fishery was adequately observed and no 

interactions documented, or whether 

the fishery was not adequately observed 

and interactions may occur. For this 

reason, NMFS should describe the level 

of observer coverage for each fishery on 

the LOF. 

Response: Including detailed 

information on the level, or percentage, 

of observer coverage to each fishery on 

the LOF will be of limited use without 

also including the confidence associated 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14471 

with mortality/serious injury estimates 

generated from observer data. Presenting 

the level of observer coverage in the 

LOF without the associated confidence 

information will likely lead to 

misinterpretation of the information 

provided. Information including details 

of the interaction data, and the 

Coefficient of Variance (CV) for stockspecific information, is reported in the 

SARs. Please also see NMFS’ response 

to a similar comment in the final LOF 

for 2006 (see Response to Comment 4 in 

60 FR 48802, August 22, 2006). 

NMFS continues to refer readers to 

the SARs for the most current, peerreviewed information on observer 

coverage. Since 2005 each SARs 

includes an Appendix with Category I 

and II fishery-specific information, 

including the level of observer coverage; 

therefore, this information does not 

need to be duplicated in the LOF. NMFS 

is continuing to work to build and 

improve the fisheries interaction 

information presented in order to 

provide a useful source of information 

for the reader. NMFS will consider this 

comment when considering 

improvements to the SARs appendices. 

The SARs can be accessed through the 

NMFS Office of Protected Resource’s 

web site at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr.sars/. Additional information can 

also be found on the National Observer 

Program web site at: http:// 

www.st.nmfs.gov/st4/nop/. 

Information beyond stating 

‘‘interactions have not been documented 

in recent years’’ would be useful as 

further explanation and support for 

changes in fishery classifications or 

additions and deletions of stocks from 

the list of marine mammal species or 

stocks incidentally killed/injured in a 

fishery. For this reason, NMFS will 

present information associated with the 

level of observer coverage or lack of 

observer coverage, if available, as part of 

the justification for proposing changes 

in future LOFs. 

Comment 9: One commenter 

reiterated a previous comment made on 

the 2004 LOF for inclusion of high seas 

fisheries on the LOF. Multiple high sea 

fisheries, in which U.S. flagged vessels 

operate, are known to interact or are 

likely to interact with marine mammals. 

Section 118 of the MMPA applies to 

‘‘commercial fishing operations by 

persons using vessels of the United 

States’’. Therefore, NMFS failure to 

include these high seas fisheries is 

unlawful. Specific fisheries suggested as 

additions are the Cobb Seamount 

fishery, Pacific Pelagic Squid Jig fishery, 

South Pacific Tuna Purse Seine fishery, 

and fisheries in the area of the 

Convention on the Conservation of 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

(CCAMLR) including the Patagonian 

toothfish longline fishery and a trawl 

fishery for krill. 

Response: NMFS is currently 

investigating available information on 

existing high seas fisheries in which 

U.S. nationals and flagged vessels 

participate, the estimated number of 

vessels/participants in these fisheries, 

and fishery interactions with marine 

mammal stocks on the high seas. NMFS 

will continue its investigation and 

consider the inclusion of high seas 

fisheries in future LOFs. 

Comments on Fisheries in the Pacific 

Ocean 

Comment 10: One commenter 

supported the elevation and addition of 

3 Alaska fisheries, the AK Cook Inlet 

salmon set gillnet fishery, AK Cook Inlet 

salmon purse seine fishery, and AK 

Kodiak salmon purse seine fishery, to 

Category II. 

Response: NMFS has added the AK 

Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet fishery as 

a Category II, and has elevated the AK 

Cook Inlet salmon purse seine fishery 

and the AK Kodiak salmon purse seine 

fishery to Category II, on the 2007 LOF. 

Comment 11: One commenter stated 

that NMFS’ proposed elevation or 

addition of 3 Alaska nearshore fisheries, 

the AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet 

fishery, AK Cook Inlet salmon purse 

seine fishery, and AK Kodiak salmon 

purse seine fishery, highlights the 

importance of monitoring interactions 

in state-managed fisheries. The Alaska 

Marine Mammal Observer Program 

(AMMOP) has not been funded 

sufficiently or consistently and does not 

provide an adequate basis for 

characterizing the full extent of such 

interactions. NMFS should increase and 

maintain funding for the AMMOP at 

levels sufficient for reasonable 

assessment of marine mammal take 

levels in AK state-managed fisheries or 

consider alternative means for assessing 

take levels and their population 

impacts. 

Response: The cost of the Alaska 

Marine Mammal Observer Program is 

very high, relative to other observer 

programs around the country, due to the 

remote nature of the fisheries observed. 

To offset such high costs, NMFS is 

investigating alternatives to 

implementing full observer programs in 

these fisheries, such as observing 

focused portions of the fisheries. 

Comment 12: Estimates of abundance 

and PBR level are not readily available 

for North Pacific sperm whales. NMFS 

should develop a scientifically sound 

estimate of this stock’s abundance and 

PBR level that can be used to evaluate 

potential fishery impacts. For example, 

sperm whales are known to depredate 

on catch in the sablefish longline fishery 

and at least one serious injury of a 

sperm whale has been observed, with 

the current estimate of injury/mortality 

at 0.45 whales/year. This rate may 

increase if depredation becomes more 

widespread. 

Response: At this time, resources are 

not available to assess the abundance of 

North Pacific sperm whales in order to 

calculate a PBR level. 

Comment 13: One commenter 

recommended NMFS expedite analyses 

of humpback whale stock structure in 

the North Pacific and increase efforts to 

observe entangled and stranded whales 

in southeastern Alaska to obtain 

accurate estimates of interactions with 

trap/pot fisheries. These analyses will 

better assess the potential impact of 

fishery interactions on the southeastern 

AK feeding aggregation of Central North 

Pacific humpback whales (which NMFS 

is currently considering designating as a 

separate stock), considering recent 

reports of stranded/entangled whales 

suggest interactions with trap/pot 

fisheries in southeastern Alaska may be 

unsustainable. 

Response: The Structure of 

Populations, Levels of Abundance, and 

Status of Humpbacks (SPLASH) project 

collected information on humpback 

whales throughout the North Pacific. 

This project has only recently 

concluded. At this time, NMFS 

anticipates that some preliminary 

results may begin to be published in 

2008 and may be considered during the 

preparation of the draft List of Fisheries 

for 2009. 

Comment 14: One commenter 

referenced the case of a humpback 

whale removed from a set gillnet by 

NMFS personnel in June 2005. 

Although they were not successful in 

removing all the webbing, the animal 

swam away. We are not aware of 

conclusive information that provides a 

determination that mortality resulted 

from this incidental take. 

Response: The Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) requires that 

serious injuries and mortalities be 

included in consideration of the 

classification of fisheries under the 

annual List of Fisheries. NMFS has 

defined serious injury in 50 CFR 229.2 

as an injury that is likely to lead to 

mortality. The agency convened a 

workshop in April 1997 to develop 

guidelines for a consistent approach for 

determining which injuries may be 

considered serious injuries. Results 

from that workshop were published as 

a NOAA Technical Memorandum in 

1998 (NMFS-OPR–13, Angliss, R.P., and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14472 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

D.P. DeMaster) and have been 

incorporated into the annual process of 

fisheries classification. 

Current guidelines for making serious 

injuries determinations for marine 

mammals injuries resulting from 

entanglement in fishing gear include 

consideration of whether the animal’s 

locomotion or feeding is or could be 

impaired by the entanglement. 

Information for each humpback whale 

entanglement in Alaska is reviewed by 

members of the Alaska Scientific 

Review Group (SRG), a Congressionally 

mandated regional advisory board to 

NMFS made up of marine mammal 

scientists. The SRG forwards to NMFS 

recommendations for each entanglement 

on whether the entanglement is likely to 

result in a serious injury or not. NMFS 

makes the final determination for each 

entanglement, taking into account the 

SRG’s recommendation and the proper 

application of the serious injury 

determination guidelines. 

NMFS anticipates holding a follow-up 

serious injury workshop in 2007 to 

update and advance the current 

guidelines for making serious injury 

determinations. 

Comment 15: One commenter stated 

that the population of the Central North 

Pacific humpback whale stock appears 

to be increasing. Therefore, the take in 

the Cook Inlet set gillnet fishery, which 

is calculated to be 1.55 percent of the 

stock’s PBR, should not trigger changing 

this fisheries’ classification from 

Category III to Category II. 

Response: There is evidence that the 

central North Pacific stock of humpback 

whales is increasing in at least portions 

of its range, such as in Southeast Alaska. 

However, it is not clear that this is the 

case throughout the range of the stock. 

Further, the results of the recent study 

of North Pacific humpback whales may 

indicate that the existing stock structure 

is incorrect and that smaller stocks may 

be more appropriate. Given the 

uncertainty in the rate of increase and 

stock structure, NMFS will classify this 

fishery using the classification criteria 

without adjusting for possible changes 

in abundance. 

Comment 16: One commenter stated 

that the area in which the humpback 

whale take in 2005 occurred in Cook 

Inlet is remote, and that portion of the 

fishery is not conducted in the same 

time, area or methodology as 95 percent 

of the set gillnet fishery within Cook 

Inlet. The productivity of this small 

portion of the fishery is only 1 percent 

of the targeted sockeye salmon species. 

There has been no documented 

incidence with humpback whales in the 

Central or Northern districts of Upper 

Cook Inlet through the previous 

observer program (1999–2000) or in the 

commercial fishery. Please consider 

listing Upper and Lower Cook Inlet set 

gillnet fisheries as separate fisheries on 

the List of Fisheries. 

Response: NMFS organizes Alaska 

fisheries under the LOF by target, gear 

type, and geographic area. Separating 

the Upper and Lower Cook Inlet set 

gillnet fisheries into two fisheries on the 

LOF would not be consist with the scale 

of identification of other Alaska state 

and Federal fisheries on the LOF. 

The Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game manages the state fisheries at the 

local scale to achieve the success that 

they have in maintaining sustainable 

fish population levels, because salmon 

fishery management is based in large 

part on achieving local escapement 

goals. However, NMFS manages marine 

mammals by stocks, which generally 

cover large geographic areas in Alaska. 

The fisheries within or across those 

areas are classified under the LOF in 

order to track the relative impacts of the 

fisheries on the marine mammal stocks. 

Because of the large scale of Alaska and 

the high number of small, local fisheries 

throughout the state, NMFS believes 

that the geographic areas and other 

variables used to identify fisheries 

under the LOF are comprehensive 

enough to detect potential concerns 

with marine mammal-fishery 

interactions, but not so large that the 

local source becomes unclear. Under 

circumstances outlined in the MMPA, 

when fishery-related serious injuries 

and mortalities reach a level which 

trigger the need to institute focused take 

reduction measures, a finer scale of 

review is instituted. In such cases, 

detailed differences in gear, area, 

timing, effort, and other variables would 

be taken into account to address specific 

sources of marine mammal incidental 

serious injuries and mortalities. 

Comment 17: One commenter noted 

errors in the number of permits issued 

in, and management of, the WA/OR 

purse seine fishery. The proposed rule 

states that OR and WA issued 26 and 16 

permits, respectively, for the 2004 

fishery, when the correct number of 

permits was 20 and 21, respectively. At 

that time, the OR fishery was a 

developmental fishery and the WA 

fishery was an experimental fishery. In 

2006 the OR fishery operated as a state 

run limited entry fishery and WA 

remained an experimental fishery. 

Response: The commenter is correct. 

OR and WA issued 20 and 21 permits, 

respectively, for the WA/OR purse seine 

fishery in 2004. The figures provided in 

the proposed rule, 26 permits issued in 

OR and 16 in WA, were incorrectly 

associated with the fishery for 2004. In 

fact, 26 and 16 permits were issued for 

OR and WA, respectively in 2006. The 

commenter is also correct that OR 

become a limited entry fishery in 2006, 

while WA remained an emerging 

fishery. 

Comment 18: Two commenters 

recommended elevating the CA lobster, 

prawn, shrimp, rock crab, fish pot 

fishery and the WA/OR/CA crab pot 

fishery to Category II based on 

interactions with humpback and gray 

whales. Interactions with humpback 

whales off the CA coast are likely to 

exceed 1 percent of PBR (PBR = 1.9). At 

least 14 large whales were documented 

entangled in this gear type from 2000–

2005. 

Response: NMFS is aware of 

interactions between humpback and 

gray whales and pot and trap gear. The 

2005 Pacific SAR indicates that there 

were six Eastern North Pacific 

humpback whales observed killed or 

injured between 1999 and 2003 

attributed to unidentified fisheries. This 

results in a mean annual take of more 

than 1.2 humpback whales per year, 

which is greater than 1 percent of this 

stock’s PBR of 2.3. Based upon available 

data from the California Marine 

Mammal Stranding Network Database, 

which is currently being reviewed and 

updated, five humpbacks were observed 

entangled in pot or trap gear between 

1999 and 2003. Thus NMFS has 

initiated a review of the trap/pot 

fisheries to determine whether 

recategorization of the CA lobster, 

prawn, shrimp, rock crab, fish pot 

fishery or the WA/OR/CA crab pot 

fishery is appropriate. At this time, 

NMFS has insufficient information on 

the spatial and temporal distribution on 

these various fisheries to determine 

which fisheries may be interacting with 

marine mammals, particularly 

humpback whales. Stranding reports 

from the stranding network are not 

necessarily a reliable identifier of 

fishing gear types as it is difficult to 

distinguish different pot and trap gears 

from surface observations of line and 

floats. Therefore, NMFS will work with 

the States of California, Oregon, and 

Washington to characterize the state and 

Federal fisheries that utilize these gear 

types, and review observed marine 

mammal entanglement from stranding 

reports and limited data from observer 

programs, to determine which pot and 

trap fisheries are most likely to interact 

with marine mammals. NMFS will also 

consider if the current fishery 

descriptions should be adjusted to more 

accurately reflect spatial and temporal 

differences in the various pot and trap 

gear fisheries, the regulatory authority 

for the fisheries, and the likelihood of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14473 

interactions with marine mammals. 

NMFS will work with the states and the 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

during this process and make 

recommendations on fishery 

recategorizations once sufficient 

information has been collected and 

analyzed. 

Comment 19: One commenter 

recommended NMFS observe the 

category III CA halibut bottom trawl 

fishery and reevaluate classification 

once reliable information on 

interactions with marine mammals 

becomes available. This fishery is 

similar to the WA/OR/CA groundfish 

trawl fishery, also Category III, which is 

known to interact with several marine 

mammal species. 

Response: NMFS is planning to place 

observers on the CA halibut bottom 

trawl fishery beginning in 2007. Because 

this fishery has not been previously 

observed, NMFS reviewed the bottom 

trawl groundfish observer data and 

classified the CA halibut bottom trawl 

fishery as a Category III fishery based 

upon the level of interactions with 

marine mammals and by analogy to the 

WA/OR/CA groundfish trawl fishery 

based upon fishing methods and gear 

used. As of 2006, the State of California 

requires a license for vessels 

participating in the previously openaccess CA halibut bottom trawl fishery. 

Thus NMFS will be able to deploy 

observers in this fleet starting in January 

2007. Once the data are collected and 

analyzed, NMFS will re-evaluate the CA 

halibut bottom trawl fishery to 

determine if recategorization on the LOF 

is appropriate. 

Comment 20: One commenter 

recommended NMFS reclassify the 

category I HI swordfish, tuna, billfish, 

mahi mahi, wahoo, oceanic sharks 

longline/set line fishery as Category II, 

given the lack of evidence of geographic 

isolation or genetic distinction among 

‘‘stocklet’’ populations of false killer 

whales in the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) and false killer whales on 

the high seas, and given the genetic 

evidence of central and eastern Pacific 

stock overlap. Genetic samples taken by 

NMFS observers indicate substantial 

mixing and genetic overlap between 

central and eastern Pacific stocks. 

Therefore, false killer whales that 

interact with the Hawaii-based longline 

fisheries are not clearly identifiable as 

part of the HI EEZ or central Pacific 

stock. It inappropriate to charge all 

mortalities or serious injuries by HIbased longline fisheries against a HI EEZ 

stock when it is clear that some genetic 

samples of the injured or killed whales 

cannot be tracked to a genetically 

distinct HI population. 

The commenter also noted errors and 

uncertainties in the false killer whale 

SARs, which underestimate false killer 

whale abundance and overestimate the 

seriousness of the HI longline fishery 

interactions with this species. NMFS 

improperly divides the central Pacific 

false killer whale stock into two 

stocklets, artificially reducing the 

abundance numbers against which HI 

longline fishery interactions are 

considered. 

NMFS should also: (1) base final SAR 

and LOF decisions on a single, 

combined central Pacific stock of false 

killer whales across the HI and Palmyra 

Atoll EEZs and the central Pacific; (2) 

recognize the size of this single false 

killer whale stock is greater than the 

sum of the estimated populations of 

‘‘stocklets’’ in the HI and Palmyra Atoll 

EEZs (i.e. ≤1813 animals); (3) derive 

values for minimum false killer whale 

population estimates and PBR levels 

based on the combined population 

numbers in the HI and Palmyra Atoll 

EEZs and the central Pacific; and (4) 

apportion mean annual take estimates 

attributable to the HI-based longline 

fisheries between a central and eastern 

false killer whale stock consistent with 

ongoing tissue sampling. This approach 

would result in an overall PBR for the 

single stock as 10.1 (2.4 for the HI EEZ 

+ 7.7 for the Palmyra Atoll EEZ). With 

these changes HI-based longline 

fisheries would be well below 50 

percent of PBR, qualifying the fishery 

for reclassification as a Category II. Also, 

a Category II classification would not 

affect the observer program 

requirements, which are a consequence 

of Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

consultation requirements. 

Response: Genetic analyses of tissue 

samples collected within the Eastern 

North Pacific (ENP) indicate restricted 

gene flow between false killer whales 

sampled near the main Hawaiian 

Islands and false killer whales sampled 

in all other regions of the ENP (Chivers 

et al., 2006). False killer whales sampled 

at Palmyra Atoll appear more closely 

related to animals sampled in the waters 

of the pelagic ENP, Panama, and Mexico 

(Chivers et al., 2006). Thus, false killer 

whales occurring near Palmyra Atoll 

may be part of a larger stock covering a 

broad geographic area within the central 

and eastern North Pacific. 

Since 2003, observers of the Hawaiibased longline fishery have also been 

collecting tissue samples of incidentally 

caught cetaceans for genetic analysis 

whenever possible. Four false killer 

whale samples, two collected outside 

the Hawaiian EEZ and two collected 

more than 100 nautical miles from the 

main Hawaiian Islands, were 

determined to have ENP-like 

haplotypes. This suggests that false 

killer whales within the Hawaiian EEZ 

belong to two stocks, with a boundary 

somewhere within the Hawaiian EEZ. 

Efforts are currently underway to obtain 

and analyze additional tissue samples of 

false killer whales for further studies of 

population structure in the North 

Pacific Ocean. 

Therefore, for the MMPA SARs, there 

are currently two Pacific Island Region 

management stocks. One includes 

animals found within the U.S. EEZ of 

the Hawaiian Islands, the other includes 

false killer whales found with the U.S. 

EEZ of Palmyra Atoll. Estimates of 

abundance, PBR levels, and status 

determinations are analyzed separately. 

Abundance estimates are based upon 

established scientific methods have 

been peer-reviewed and accepted by the 

Pacific SRG. The marine mammal stock 

assessment process under the MMPA 

was specifically designed to allow for 

levels of uncertainty similar to those 

observed for false killer whales. 

Furthermore, NMFS has previously 

responded to a similar comment in our 

List of Fisheries for 2004 (69 FR 48407, 

August 10, 2004). In our Response to 

Comment 17 (69 FR 48413), NMFS 

stated: ‘‘The Hawaiian stock of false 

killer whales is considered a strategic 

stock under the MMPA because fishery 

related mortality and serious injury 

exceeds the PBR level for this stock (see 

16 U.S.C. 1362(19)). Genetic analysis of 

samples from false killer whales in the 

North Pacific Ocean indicates 

population structure, but geographic 

boundaries of the various populations 

cannot yet be identified. However, the 

evidence for reproductive isolation and 

strong genetic differentiation of 

individuals sampled around Hawaii 

from individuals sampled in the ETP 

(Eastern Tropical Pacific) is solid. 

Furthermore, NMFS’ current mortality 

and serious injury estimates are based 

only on takes within the U.S. EEZ and 

compared to PBR levels derived from 

abundance estimates for waters within 

the U.S. EEZ. In addition, even if the 

actual boundaries of the Hawaiian stock 

of false killer whales extended beyond 

the EEZ, the strategic status of the stock 

would not be changed. NMFS’

guidelines for preparing marine 

mammal stock assessment reports 

contain specific instructions for 

calculating PBR of trans-boundary 

stocks. (The guidelines are available in 

electronic form at http:// 

nmml.afsc.noaa.gov/library/gammsrep/ 

gammsrep.htm). In cases such as false 

killer whales in the Hawaiian EEZ, 

where the stock could extend into 

international waters, the PBR would be 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14474 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

based on the abundance of animals 

within the EEZ. This guideline was 

established to prevent underestimating 

the effects of mortality and serious 

injury incidental to U.S. fisheries in 

international waters where unknown 

levels of additional human-caused 

mortality and serious injury (e.g., 

incidental to foreign fisheries in the 

same waters) may also be affecting the 

stock. NMFS does, however, plan to try 

to obtain additional genetic samples 

from a broader geographic range to help 

define stock boundaries.’’

Comments on Fisheries in the Atlantic 

Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean 

Comment 21: Two commenters 

supported reclassification of the midAtlantic mid-water trawl fishery from 

category I to category II and supported 

findings that this fishery does not pose 

a serious risk or contribute to the 

mortality or serious injury of common 

dolphins, Western North Atlantic 

(WNA) stock, and long- and shortfinned pilot whales, WNA stock. One 

commenter encouraged NMFS to 

maintain adequate observer coverage to 

provide robust estimates of mortality 

and serious injury, particularly to 

inform the Atlantic Trawl Gear Take 

Reduction Team (ATGTRT). 

Response: Based on a 

recommendation made by the ATGTRT 

(September 2006), NMFS re-evaluated 

the classification of the mid-Atlantic 

mid-water trawl fishery as a Category I 

fishery on the LOF. After conducting a 

tier analysis, NMFS determined that 

reclassification as a Category II fishery 

is warranted. 

It should be noted that the MMPA 

establishes a requirement that the level 

of incidental mortality and serious 

injury of marine mammals be reduced to 

insignificant levels approaching a zero 

rate, commonly referred to as the Zero 

Mortality Rate Goal (ZMRG). NMFS has 

established a threshold level for 

mortality and serious injury to meet the 

insignificance threshold requirement. 

NMFS has defined the insignificance 

threshold as 10 percent of the PBR level 

for a stock of marine mammals (69 FR 

43338, July 20, 2004). Since the midAtlantic mid-water trawl fishery is a 

Category II fishery and the annual 

mortality and serious injury level is 

above the insignificance threshold, it 

remains subject to future TRPs 

developed by the ATGTRT. 

NMFS will continue to allocate 

observer coverage to the maximum 

extent possible to meet MMPA 

requirements. NMFS will also try to 

make the best use of available resources 

by using existing research programs, 

programs operated by states or other 

authorities, or alternative programs 

where statistically reliable information 

can be obtained. 

Comment 22: One commenter 

requested further evidence of additional 

species being targeted with trap/pot gear 

in the mid-Atlantic region. It is unclear 

from the text in the proposed rule (71 

FR 70339, December 4, 2006) which 

species are being added to the list of 

target species in the Atlantic mixed 

species trap/pot fishery. 

Response: Clarification on which 

targeted species are being included in 

the expansion of species associated with 

the Atlantic mixed species trap/pot 

fishery can be found in the proposed 

2007 LOF (71 FR 70346, December 4, 

2006). NMFS added the category II 

Atlantic mixed species trap/pot fishery 

to the 2003 LOF to encompass the 

Northeast trap/pot fishery, the midAtlantic mixed species trap/pot fishery, 

the U.S. mid-Atlantic and Southeast 

U.S. Atlantic black sea bass trap/pot 

fisheries and any other trap/pot fisheries 

otherwise not identified in the LOF, 

based on the use of similar gear and the 

potential for marine mammal 

entanglements. NMFS has recently 

become aware of additional species 

being targeted in this fishery including 

but not limited to: hagfish, shrimp, 

conch/whelk, red crab, Jonah crab, rock 

crab, black sea bass, scup, tautog, cod, 

haddock, pollock, redfish (ocean perch), 

white hake, spot, skate, catfish and 

American eel (not included in the LOF’s 

U.S. mid-Atlantic eel trap/pot fishery 

description) (71 FR 70346, December 4, 

2006). 

Evidence for this decision can be 

found in the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) for Amending 

the Large Whale Take Reduction Plan 

(ALWTRP): Broad-Based Gear 

Modifications (February 2005), chapter 

4 titled ‘‘Affected Environment’’. This 

chapter includes the reasoning for why 

the addition of these fisheries to the 

Atlantic mixed species trap/pot gear 

fishery is warranted. 

Comment 23: NMFS used ‘‘anecdotal’’

data to help make a category 

determination for the Gulf of Maine 

Atlantic herring purse seine fishery (71 

FR 70347, December 4, 2006). NMFS 

should present the objective criteria 

used to evaluate the legitimacy of 

anecdotal data and how such use 

satisfies the requirements of the Data 

Quality Act. 

Response: In the 2007 proposed LOF, 

NMFS proposed to remove the Gulf of 

Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor 

porpoises from the list of species or 

stocks incidentally killed or seriously 

injured in the Gulf of Maine Atlantic 

herring purse seine fishery. The 

rationale for the removal of the harbor 

porpoise from this list comes from the 

most recent SAR (2005) which 

highlights the most recent 5 years of 

data (from 1999 2003) as well as 

anecdotal or historical information, as 

records of interaction. According to the 

SAR, there is currently no evidence 

indicating that harbor porpoises are 

killed or seriously injured in the Gulf of 

Maine Atlantic herring purse seine 

fishery (71 FR 70347, December 4, 

2006). The removal of harbor porpoises 

from the list of species or stocks 

incidentally killed or injured has not 

resulted in a change in the category 

determination for the Gulf of Maine 

herring purse seine fishery, which is 

currently classified as a Category III 

fishery. 

In order for the agency to determine 

which species or stocks are included as 

incidentally killed or seriously injured 

in a fishery, NMFS reviews the marine 

mammal incidental serious injury and 

mortality information presented in the 

most recent SARs for commercial 

fishing operations. Historical and/or 

anecdotal information is presented in 

the SARs to inform readers about past 

interactions and takes not observed 

through the fishery observer program. 

This information is not factored into the 

incidental take information that is 

collected through observer data. SARs 

are based on the best scientific 

information available at the time of 

preparation. The information contained 

in the SARs is reviewed by regional 

SRGs who review the science that 

informs the SARs and advise NMFS on 

population status and trends, stock 

structure, uncertainties in the science, 

research needs, and other issues. NMFS 

also reviewed other sources of new 

information, including marine mammal 

stranding data, observer program data, 

fisher self-reports, and other 

information that may not be included in 

the SARs (71 FR 70342, December 4, 

2006). 

Information evaluated by NMFS that 

is disseminated to the public is required 

to comply with the Information Quality 

Act. The information used to classify 

fisheries for the 2007 LOF has 

undergone a predissemination review 

and is consistent with Information 

Quality Act requirements and NOAA 

guidelines. In the predissemination 

review, NMFS explains how the 

contents of the 2007 LOF meet the 

standards for utility, integrity, and 

objectivity established in the 

Information Quality Act and NOAA 

guidelines. The information in the 2007 

LOF meets the standards for utility 

because it provides current, updated 

information on marine mammal 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14475 

abundance and serious injury and 

mortality rates that is beneficial or 

serviceable to the public and affected 

fisheries. The information in the 2007 

LOF is provided in a publicly accessible 

and broadly available document, 

published in the Federal Register and 

available through paper and electronic 

media, in which the updated 

information is an improvement over 

previously available information. The 

contents of the 2007 LOF meet the 

standards for integrity because the 2007 

LOF adheres to the standards set out in 

the Computer Security Act and the 

Government Information Security 

Reform Act for electronic information 

disseminated by NOAA. The 

information in the 2007 LOF also meets 

the standards for objectivity. The LOF is 

categorized as a natural resource plan 

for purposes of Information Quality Act 

compliance, an information product that 

is prescribed by law and has content, 

structure, and public review processes 

based upon published standards. The 

2007 LOF meets the standards for 

objectivity because it is published in 

compliance with the requirements of the 

MMPA, National Environmental Policy 

Act, Endangered Species Act, Coastal 

Zone Management Act, Administrative 

Procedures Act, Paperwork Reduction 

Act, and Executive Orders 13132 and 

12866. The 2007 LOF is supported by 

the best available information, which 

has been reviewed by independent 

technically qualified individuals (i.e., 

SRG members) to ensure that the 

information is valid, complete, 

unbiased, and relevant. The peer review 

process of evaluating the SARs through 

the SRG allows the agency to maximize 

the objectivity and utility of the 

information the SARs promote. 

Comment 24: One commenter 

supported the removal of superscript (1) 

from bottlenose dolphin (WNA) and 

minke whale (Canadian east coast) 

under the mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery. 

Response: The superscript (1) next to 

the offshore bottlenose dolphins and 

minke whale stocks be removed under 

the mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery. The 

superscript (1) was defined to denote if 

a stock was responsible for a current 

fishery’s classification (71 FR 70347, 

December 4, 2006). The tier analysis 

conducted in 1996 that drove 

classification of the mid-Atlantic gillnet 

fishery from category III to category II 

focused on the incidental mortality and 

serious injury for harbor porpoise, 

coastal bottlenose dolphin, and 

humpback whales (60 FR 67081, 

December 28, 1995). For reclassification 

to a category I fishery, the tier analysis 

was based on coastal bottlenose 

dolphins (68 FR 1422, January 10, 

2003). Though offshore bottlenose 

dolphins and minke whales have the 

potential to interact with the midAtlantic gillnet fishery, these species 

have not influenced the fishery 

classification or its elevation; therefore, 

the superscript (1) has been removed. 

Comment 25: Two commenters 

viewed the category I Mid-Atlantic 

gillnet fishery as too broad in 

classification. The definition 

encompasses a large range of mesh 

sizes, areas, and gear deployments (sink 

and anchored gillnet, drift net, stab net, 

etc). This fishery should be stratified, 

perhaps by mesh size or target species. 

Stratification would allow for more 

precise estimation of marine mammal 

interactions by gear type and species 

targeted. 

One commenter specifically 

recommended separating the bluefish 

and croaker portions from the generic 

mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery and redesignating each as either Category II or 

III. These fisheries have developed into 

two separate and distinct directed 

fisheries that are proven to pose little or 

no threat to marine mammals. The 

commenter reiterated a previous request 

that NMFS perform a separate Tier 

Analysis for both the bluefish and 

croaker portions of the mid-Atlantic 

gillnet fishery. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

information provided by the 

commenters on the potential for 

subdivisions within this fishery. 

Typically NMFS has bundled different 

targeted species into groups based on 

similar fishery characteristics unless 

there is information on marine mammal 

interaction rates or fishery operation to 

warrant a separate listing (see response 

to comment 4). Based on the best 

available (peer reviewed) information, 

NMFS does not find it appropriate to 

subdivide the bluefish and/or croaker 

mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries at this 

time. The information currently 

available on the composition and 

distribution of the mid-Atlantic gillnet 

fishery and its incidental take levels is 

insufficient to identify distinct 

subcomponents of this fishery based on 

mesh size, area, or type of gear 

deployment. NMFS will investigate 

whether or not evidence exists to 

separate the bluefish and croaker 

portions of the mid-Atlantic gillnet 

fishery based on the criteria addressed 

above. If a reclassification is warranted, 

NMFS will propose these changes in a 

future LOF. 

Comment 26: One commenter 

supported the addition of the midAtlantic flynet fishery as a Category II 

and encouraged NMFS to place 

observers aboard vessels in this fishery 

to obtain the necessary information to 

assess the frequency of interactions. 

Response: The mid-Atlantic flynet 

fishery has been observed 

opportunistically out of Wanchese, NC. 

During observed trips, no marine 

mammal takes were observed. Since this 

is a Category II fishery, NMFS may place 

observers in the fishery to further assess 

the frequency of marine mammal 

interactions; however, initiation of 

observer coverage is dependent on 

resources. NMFS also notes that selfreporting of injuries and mortalities of 

marine mammals by fishers is required 

by the MMPA. For this purpose, NMFS 

developed the MMAP Mortality/Injury 

Report Form, which is available at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/ 

interactions/mmaplreportinlform.pdf 

Comment 27: One commenter 

requested further information and 

description of the specific gear types 

used to list the mid-Atlantic flynet 

fishery as a category II by analogy with 

other category II bottom trawl fisheries. 

Response: The flynet fishery was 

listed as a Category II fishery because of 

its similarities to other Category II 

bottom trawl fisheries in terms of gear 

configuration, seasons and areas fished, 

and target species. As described in the 

proposed rule, flynets are high profile 

trawls similar to bottom otter trawls, 

except that they fish just off the bottom, 

rather than on the bottom. Fishermen 

use flynets to target summer flounder, 

croaker, and weakfish in waters off 

North Carolina from October through 

April. The flynet fishery is analogous to 

the Category II mid-Atlantic bottom 

trawl fishery, which, as defined in the 

LOF, includes any bottom trawl gear 

targeting a wide range of species, 

including, but not limited to, monkfish, 

summer flounder (fluke), winter 

flounder, silver hake (whiting), spiny 

dogfish, smooth dogfish, scup, black sea 

bass, bluefish, and croaker. This fishery 

operates year-round from Cape Cod, MA 

to Cape Hatteras, NC. Because of the 

similarities between these two fisheries, 

they present a similar risk of serious 

injury and mortality to marine 

mammals; therefore, the mid-Atlantic 

flynet fishery warrants a Category II 

classification. 

Comment 28: One commenter stated 

that several fisheries in the Gulf of 

Mexico are known to injure and kill 

marine mammals, particularly 

bottlenose dolphins. The commenter 

raised concern in previous letters from 

2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, about the 

uncertainties of interactions with Gulf 

of Mexico fisheries (in particular the 

Gulf of Mexico blue crab trap/pot 

fishery and the Gulf of Mexico 

menhaden purse seine fishery) and the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14476 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

unreliable information about bottlenose 

dolphin stock structure in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Since there is no evidence that 

research on bottlenose dolphin stock 

structure will take place in the near 

future, NMFS should expand its efforts 

to collect reliable information on 

interaction rates of marine mammals 

incidental to Gulf of Mexico fisheries, 

with priority given to an observer 

program for the Gulf of Mexico blue 

crab/trap pot fishery and the Gulf of 

Mexico menhaden purse seine fishery. 

Response: Investigating bottlenose 

dolphin stock structure in the Gulf of 

Mexico is a high priority for NMFS, and 

efforts to update abundance estimates 

are underway. For northern Gulf of 

Mexico coastal stocks, aerial surveys 

began in January 2007 for the northern 

and eastern stocks from the mouth of 

the Mississippi River Delta to Key West, 

Florida. At least two abundance 

estimates per year are planned for the 

Bays, Sounds, and Estuarine stocks for 

the northern Gulf of Mexico. 

Additionally, a ship survey that will 

include the northern Gulf of Mexico 

continental shelf stock is being planned 

for the summer of 2007. 

More information is needed on 

interactions rates with marine mammals 

in the Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse 

seine fishery. NMFS recently elevated 

this fishery to Category II based on 

documented serious injury and 

mortality to bottlenose dolphins. 

Because this is a Category II fishery, 

NMFS may place observers in the 

fishery to better assess the frequency of 

marine mammal interactions. While this 

fishery is a high priority for observer 

coverage, initiation of observer coverage 

is dependent on resources. 

NMFS will continue to monitor blue 

crab fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico 

and evaluate bottlenose dolphin 

strandings for evidence of trap/potrelated fishery interactions to determine 

the need for future reclassification of the 

fishery. NMFS has made efforts to train 

stranding responders in assessing and 

better documenting human interactions, 

and will continue efforts to work with 

the Gulf of Mexico Marine Fisheries 

Commission on outreach and derelict 

crab trap removals to reduce the risk of 

trap/pot interactions with marine 

mammals. 

Comment 29: Two commenters 

recommended NMFS elevate the Gulf of 

Mexico blue crab trap/pot fishery to 

Category II based on the level of 

bottlenose dolphin mortality and 

serious injury obtained from available 

stranding data. The commenters also 

recommended NMFS elevate the Gulf of 

Mexico menhaden purse seine fishery to 

Category I. One commenter previously 

commented on the classification of 

these fisheries and the need for an 

observer program to obtain more reliable 

information about bottlenose stock 

structure and interactions with fisheries 

in the Gulf of Mexico in letters from 

2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. 

Response: More information is needed 

on interaction rates with marine 

mammals in the Gulf of Mexico 

menhaden purse seine fishery, as well 

as an increased understanding of stock 

structure of bottlenose dolphins in this 

area. NMFS recently elevated this 

fishery to a Category II based on 

documented serious injury and 

mortality to bottlenose dolphins, thus, 

NMFS may place observers in the 

fishery to better assess the frequency of 

marine mammal interactions. At this 

time, NMFS believes that more 

information is needed prior to 

considering elevating this fishery to 

Category I. 

Comment 30: One commenter 

recommended that NMFS elevate the 

Gulf of Mexico gillnet fishery to 

Category I. 

Response: At this time, there is no 

evidence to support a Category I 

classification for the Gulf of Mexico 

gillnet fishery. This fishery is currently 

listed as a Category II based on analysis 

of bottlenose dolphin stranding data. 

NMFS will continue to monitor fishing 

effort and evaluate bottlenose dolphin 

strandings for evidence of gillnet-related 

fishery interactions in the Gulf of 

Mexico to determine the need for future 

reclassification of this fishery. As with 

other Gulf of Mexico fisheries 

interacting with bottlenose dolphins, 

this fishery is a high priority for 

observer coverage, but initiation of 

coverage is dependent on resources. 

Comment 31: One commenter 

recommended NMFS elevate the 

Caribbean gillnet fishery to Category I 

because it is known to injure or kill 

Antillean manatees, a highly 

endangered species. Therefore, any 

mortality or serious injury results in 

levels above 50 percent of PBR. 

Response: NMFS discussed this 

comment with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), the agency 

with responsibility for the Antillean 

manatee stock of the West Indian 

Manatee. The USFWS is unsure of the 

source of information used by the 

commenter to support the statement that 

the Caribbean gillnet fishery is ‘‘known 

to injure or kill Antillean manatees’’. 

The commenter may have referenced 

the USFWS SAR for the Antillean stock 

of the West Indian Manatee. This SAR 

expresses concern for the status of the 

Antillean manatee as it relates to local 

fisheries. This SAR was written in 1995 

and was reflective of the best available 

information present at that time. The 

USFWS has not updated this SAR since 

it was originally written. Pursuant to 

publication of the USFWS’ forthcoming 

‘‘Five-year Status Review of the West 

Indian Manatee’’ in 2007, which 

indicates that the status of manatees 

within this region is improving, the 

USFWS plans to update and revise the 

SAR for this stock. The revised SAR will 

incorporate the best currently available 

information and should address 

concerns that may be expressed 

regarding the impact of this fishery on 

the Antillean manatee. 

The USFWS reviewed its records 

pertaining to the Antillean manatee 

within its range in Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands. The latest mortality 

information from the region indicates 

that no mortalities or injuries from a 

historical fishery for manatees have 

been observed since 1995. These records 

also document a single manatee death 

attributed to an incidental entanglement 

in a gillnet over the same period of time. 

Therefore, elevation of the Caribbean 

gillnet fishery is not warranted at this 

time based on the low level of fisheriesrelated interactions over the past 12 

years, combined with recent 

information suggesting that the status of 

manatees within this region is 

improving. 

Summary of Changes to the LOF for 

2007 

The following summarizes changes to 

the LOF for 2007 in fishery 

classification, fisheries listed on the 

LOF, the number of participants in a 

particular fishery, and the species and/ 

or stocks that are incidentally killed or 

seriously injured in a particular fishery. 

The placement and definition of U.S. 

commercial fisheries for 2007 are 

identical to those provided in the LOF 

for 2006 with the following exceptions. 

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific 

Ocean 

Fishery Classification 

The ‘‘AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet 

fishery’’ is elevated 

from Category III to Category II. 

Addition of Fisheries to the LOF 

The ‘‘WA, OR sardine purse seine 

fishery’’ is added to the LOF as a 

Category III fishery. 

The ‘‘CA halibut bottom trawl 

fishery’’ is added to the LOF as a 

Category III fishery. 

The ‘‘CA tuna purse seine fishery’’ is 

added to the LOF as a Category II 

fishery. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14477 

The ‘‘AK Cook Inlet salmon purse 

seine fishery’’ is added to the LOF as a 

Category II fishery. 

The ‘‘AK Kodiak salmon purse seine 

fishery’’ is added to the LOF as a 

Category II fishery. 

Removal of Fisheries from the LOF 

The ‘‘CA sardine purse seine fishery’’

is removed from the LOF. 

The ‘‘CA herring purse seine fishery’’

is removed from the LOF. 

Fishery Name and Organizational 

Changes and Clarifications 

The definition of superscript (1)in 

‘‘Table 1- List of Fisheries Commercial 

Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean’’ is 

modified from ’’...1...greater than 1 

percent, but less than 50 percent of the 

stock’s PBR’’ to read ’’...1...greater than 

1 percent of the stock’s PBR.’’

The ‘‘Hawaii gillnet fishery’’ is 

renamed the ‘‘Hawaii inshore gillnet 

fishery’’. 

The ‘‘Hawaii purse seine fishery’’ is 

renamed the ‘‘Hawaii inshore purse 

seine fishery’’. 

The ‘‘CA yellowtail, barracuda, white 

seabass, and tuna drift gillnet (mesh size 

>3.5 inches and <14 inches) fishery’’ is 

renamed the ‘‘CA yellowtail, barracuda, 

and white seabass drift gillnet (mesh 

size >3.5 inches and <14 inches) 

fishery’’. 

The ‘‘CA anchovy, mackerel, tuna 

purse seine fishery’’ and the ‘‘CA 

sardine purse seine fishery’’ are 

reorganized by switching the sardine 

and tuna portions of the fisheries. The 

end result is the ‘‘CA anchovy, 

mackerel, sardine purse seine fishery’’

and the ‘‘CA tuna purse seine fishery’’. 

Number of Vessels/Persons 

The estimated number of participants 

in the ‘‘Commonwealth of Northern 

Mariana Islands tuna troll fishery’’ is 

updated to 88. 

The estimated number of participants 

in the ‘‘Guam tuna troll fishery’’ is 

updated to 401. 

The estimated number of participants 

in the ‘‘American Samoa longline 

fishery’’ is updated to 60. 

The estimated number of participants 

in the ‘‘Guam bottomfish fishery’’ is 

updated to 200. 

The estimated number of participants 

in the ‘‘HI Main Hawaiian Islands, 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands deepsea 

bottomfish fishery’’ is updated to 300. 

The waters surrounding the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), 

out to a distance of approximately 50 

nmi from the islands, have been 

designated as part of the P 

pahanaumoku kea Marine National 

Monument by Proclamation 8031 (June 

15, 2006). Proclamation 8031 limits the 

number of bottomfish fishery 

participants in the Monument to 8 

commercial fishermen permitted at the 

time of designation to fish for certain 

species within particular zones in the 

Monument. These 8 permittees are 

authorized to continue fishing in the 

Monument until June 15, 2011. 

List of Species That are Incidentally 

Killed or Injured 

The CA/OR/WA stocks of Baird’s 

beaked whale, Cuvier’s beaked whale, 

Mesoplodont beaked whale, pygmy 

sperm whale, and striped dolphin, the 

CA/OR/WA offshore stock of bottlenose 

dolphin, the Eastern North Pacific 

offshore stock of killer whale, the San 

Miguel Island stock of northern fur seal, 

and the Eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea 

lion are removed from the list of marine 

mammal species and stocks incidentally 

killed or injured by the ‘‘CA/OR 

swordfish/thresher shark drift gillnet 

fishery’’. Also, the humpback whale 

stock from the list of marine mammal 

species and stocks incidentally injured 

or killed is changed from CA/OR/WAMexico to Eastern North Pacific. 

The Eastern North Pacific stocks of 

humpback whale and gray whale, and 

the CA stock of harbor seal are added to 

the list of marine mammal species and 

stocks incidentally killed or injured in 

the ‘‘CA lobster, prawn, shrimp, rock 

crab, fish pot fishery’’. 

The Eastern North Pacific stock of 

humpback whale is added to the list of 

marine mammal species and stocks 

incidentally killed or injured in the 

‘‘WA, OR, CA crab pot fishery’’. 

Technical Corrections 

The proposed LOF for 2007 contained 

multiple errors in Table 1, ‘‘List of 

Fisheries Commercial Fisheries in the 

Pacific Ocean’’, due to technical 

difficulties in merging the proposed 

2007 LOF document between computers 

for printing in the Federal Register. 

These errors have been corrected in this 

final rule. Errors corrected in Table 1, in 

addition to general formatting errors, 

include: 

Addition of the ‘‘AK Cook Inlet 

salmon purse seine fishery’’ as Category 

II. The text of the proposed rule 

proposed to add this fishery, but the 

addition was not reflected in Table 1. 

Correction to the number of 

participants in the ‘‘American Samoa 

tuna troll fishery’’ from >50 to <50. The 

2007 LOF did not propose to change the 

number of participants in this fishery; 

therefore, the change in the table was 

incorrect. 

Addition of the South Central Alaska 

stock of sea otters to the list of marine 

mammal species or stocks incidentally 

killed or injured in the ‘‘AK Prince 

William Sound salmon drift gillnet 

fishery’’. The deletion of this stock from 

Table 1 was incorrect. This stock 

remains a stock that is incidentally 

killed or injured in this fishery. 

Deletion of common dolphin, stock 

unknown, from the list of marine 

mammal species or stocks incidentally 

killed or injured in the ‘‘CA tuna purse 

seine fishery’’. There are no 

documented takes of any marine 

mammal species or stocks in this 

fishery. 

Correction to the name change of the 

‘‘CA anchovy, mackerel, sardine purse 

seine fishery’’. This change was 

discussed in the text of the proposed 

rule but was not reflected in Table 1. 

Correction of the number of 

participants in the ‘‘CA anchovy, 

mackerel, sardine purse seine fishery’’. 

Table 1 should read 100 participants, 

not 110 participants. 

Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic 

Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean 

Fishery Classification 

The ‘‘Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl 

(including pair trawl) fishery’’ is 

recategorized from Category I to 

Category II. 

Addition of Fisheries to the LOF 

The ‘‘Mid-Atlantic flynet fishery’’ is 

added to the LOF as a Category II. 

Fishery Name and Organizational 

Changes and Clarifications 

The definition of superscript (1)in 

Table 2, ‘‘List of Fisheries Commercial 

Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and Caribbean’’ is modified 

from ’’...1...greater than 1 percent, but 

less than 50 percent of the stocks PBR’’

to read ’’...1...greater than 1 percent of 

the stock’s PBR.’’

The definition of the ‘‘Southeastern 

U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery’’ is 

clarified to include fishermen using 

gillnets set in a sink, stab, set, strike, or 

drift fashion to target sharks. 

The definition of the ‘‘Atlantic Ocean, 

Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics 

longline fishery’’ is clarified to include 

fishermen using pelagic longlines to 

target or land dolphin and wahoo. 

The language defining the ‘‘Northeast 

sink gillnet fishery’’, the ‘‘Northeast 

anchored float gillnet fishery’’, and the 

‘‘Northeast drift gillnet fishery’’ is 

changed by removing ’’...from the 

Maine/Canada border through the 

waters east of 72° 30′ W...’’ (62 FR 33, 

January 2, 1997) from all three fisheries 

descriptions and replacing this with 

’’...from the U.S./Canada border to Long 

Island, NY, at 72° 30′ W. long. south to 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14478 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

36° 33.03′ N. lat. and east to the eastern 

edge of the EEZ...’’. 

The list of target species associated 

with the ‘‘Northeast sink gillnet fishery’’

is expanded to include, but not be 

limited to: all species defined in the 

Northeast Multispecies FMP (American 

plaice, Atlantic cod, Atlantic halibut, 

haddock, ocean pout, offshore hake, 

pollock, red hake [ling], redfish, silver 

hake [whiting], white hake, 

windowpane flounder, winter flounder, 

witch flounder and yellowtail flounder), 

spiny dogfish, monkfish, shad, skate 

and mackerel. 

The list of target species associated 

with the ‘‘Northeast anchored float 

gillnet fishery’’ is expanded to include, 

but not be limited to: shad, herring, 

mackerel and menhaden. 

The list of target species associated 

with the ‘‘Northeast drift gillnet fishery’’

is expanded to include, but not be 

limited to: shad, herring, mackerel and 

menhaden. 

The list of target species associated 

with the ‘‘Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery’’

is expanded to include, but not be 

limited to: Atlantic croaker, mackerel, 

black drum, bluefish, herring, 

menhaden, scup, shad, striped bass, 

weakfish, white perch, yellow perch, 

shark (large and small coastal shark, 

dogfish), and monkfish, spot, and skate. 

Spot and skate were inadvertently 

deleted from the list of targets species in 

the proposed 2007 LOF. Spot and skate 

are targets species in this fishery and are 

added to the list of target species in the 

final 2007 LOF. 

The type of gear associated with the 

‘‘Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery’’ is 

expanded to include gillnets set in a 

sink, stab, set, strike, or drift fashion, 

and any residual large pelagic driftnet 

effort in the mid-Atlantic. 

The language defining the ‘‘MidAtlantic gillnet fishery’’ is changed by 

removing ’’...west of 72° 30′ W. and 

north of a line extending due east from 

the North Carolina/South Carolina 

border...’’ (62 FR 33, January 2, 1997) 

and replacing this with ’’...west of a line 

drawn at 72° 30′ W. long south to 36° 

33.03′ N. lat. and east to the eastern edge 

of the EEZ and north of the North 

Carolina/South Carolina border...’’. 

NMFS clarifies in this final rule that 

the trap/pot effort targeting stone crab 

off Georgia is part of the Category II 

‘‘Atlantic Mixed Species Trap/Pot 

Fishery’’, which includes all trap/pot 

operations for species other than 

American lobster and blue crab from the 

Maine/Canada border through the 

waters east of the fishery management 

demarcation line between the Atlantic 

Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico (50 CFR 

600.105). After the comment period for 

the proposed 2007 LOF closed, NMFS 

became aware of emerging pot fishery 

for stone crab operating in an area off 

Georgia not previously known to sustain 

a directed stone crab fishery. Stone crab 

pot fishing off Georgia is not considered 

part of the Category III ‘‘Southeastern 

US Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico Stone Crab 

Trap/Pot Fishery’’ because that fishery 

is tied to the Gulf of Mexico Stone Crab 

FMP, which only includes south 

Atlantic waters as far north as Miami. 

Therefore, NMFS clarifies that the list of 

target species associated with the 

‘‘Atlantic mixed species trap/pot 

fishery’’ is expanded to include, but not 

be limited to: hagfish, shrimp, conch/ 

whelk, red crab, Jonah crab, rock crab, 

black sea bass, scup, tautog, cod, 

haddock, pollock, redfish (ocean perch), 

white hake, spot, skate, catfish and 

American eel (not included in the LOF’s 

‘‘U.S. mid-Atlantic eel trap/pot fishery’’

description), and stone crab. 

Number of Vessels/Persons 

The number of participants in the 

‘‘Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark 

gillnet fishery’’ is updated to 30. 

The number of participants in the 

‘‘Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery’’ is 

updated to >670. 

List of Species That are Incidentally 

Killed or Injured 

The superscript (1) is removed from 

the Western North Atlantic stocks of 

common dolphins, long-finned pilot 

whales, and short-finned pilot whales 

under the ‘‘Mid-Atlantic mid-water 

trawl (including pair trawl) fishery’’ in 

Table 2. 

The Western North Atlantic stock of 

Northern bottlenose whales is added to 

the list of species and stocks 

incidentally killed or injured in the 

‘‘Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico large pelagics longline fishery’’. 

The Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock 

of harbor porpoise is removed from the 

list of species or stocks incidentally 

killed or injured in the ‘‘Mid-Atlantic 

haul/beach seine fishery’’. 

The Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock 

of harbor porpoise is removed from the 

list of species or stocks incidentally 

killed or injured in the ‘‘Gulf of Maine 

Atlantic herring purse seine fishery’’. 

The superscript (1) is removed from 

the Western North Atlantic offshore 

stock of bottlenose dolphin and the 

Canadian east coast stock of minke 

whale under the ‘‘Mid-Atlantic gillnet 

fishery’’ in Table 2. 

To correct a typographical error, the 

superscript (1) is 

removed from the Western North 

Atlantic stock of harp seals under the 

‘‘Northeast bottom trawl fishery’’ in 

Table 2. 

Technical Corrections 

The proposed LOF for 2007 contained 

multiple formatting errors and one 

substantive error in Table 2, ‘‘List of 

Fisheries Commercial Fisheries in the 

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Caribbean’’, due to technical difficulties 

in merging the proposed 2007 LOF 

document between computers for 

printing in the Federal Register. These 

errors have been corrected in Table 2 of 

this final rule. The substantive error 

corrected removed the superscript (1) 

from the Western North Atlantic stock 

of harp seal from the ‘‘Northeast bottom 

trawl fishery’’, which was discussed in 

the text of the proposed 2007 LOF but 

was not reflected in Table 2 of the 

proposed rule. The superscript (1) has 

been removed from Table 2 in this final 

rule. 

List of Fisheries 

The following two tables list U.S. 

commercial fisheries according to their 

assigned categories under section 118 of 

the MMPA. The estimated number of 

vessels/participants is expressed in 

terms of the number of active 

participants in the fishery, when 

possible. If this information is not 

available, the estimated number of 

vessels or persons licensed for a 

particular fishery is provided. If no 

recent information is available on the 

number of participants in a fishery, the 

number from the most recent LOF is 

used. 

The tables also list the marine 

mammal species and stocks incidentally 

killed or injured in each fishery based 

on observer data, logbook data, 

stranding reports, and fisher reports. 

This list includes all species or stocks 

known to experience mortality or injury 

in a given fishery, but also includes 

species or stocks for which there are 

anecdotal records of interaction. 

Additionally, species identified by 

logbook entries may not be verified. Not 

all species or stocks identified are the 

reason for a fishery’s placement in a 

given category. NMFS has designated 

those stocks that are responsible for a 

current fishery’s classification by a ‘‘1’’. 

There are several fisheries classified 

in Category II that have no recently 

documented interactions with marine 

mammals, or interactions that did not 

result in a serious injury or mortality. 

Justifications for placement of these 

fisheries, which are greater than 1 

percent of a stock’s PBR level, are by 

analogy to other gear types that are 

known to cause mortality or serious 

injury of marine mammals, as discussed 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14479 

in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063, 

December 28, 1995), and according to 

factors listed in the definition of a 

‘‘Category II fishery’’ in 50 CFR 229.2. 

NMFS has designated those fisheries 

originally listed by analogy in Tables 1 

and 2 by a ‘‘2’’ after the fishery’s name. 

Table 1 lists commercial fisheries in 

the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska); 

Table 2 lists commercial fisheries in the 

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Caribbean. 

TABLE 1 - LIST OF FISHERIES COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN

Fishery Description 

Estimated # 

of vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured 

Category I 

GILLNET FISHERIES: 

CA angel shark/halibut and other species set gillnet(> 3.5 

in. mesh) 

58 California sea lion, U.S. 

Harbor seal, CA 

Harbor porpoise, Central CA1

Long-beaked common dolphin, CA 

Northern elephant seal, CA breeding 

Sea otter, CA 

Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA 

CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥ 14 in. mesh) 85 California sea lion, U.S. 

Dall’s porpoise, CA/OR/WA 

Fin whale, CA/OR/WA 

Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific 

Humpback whale, Eastern North Pacific 

Long-beaked common dolphin, CA 

Northern elephant seal, CA breeding 

Northern right-whale dolphin, CA/OR/WA 

Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA 

Risso’s dolphin, CA/OR/WA 

Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA 

Short-finned pilot whale, CA/OR/WA1

Sperm whale, CA/OR/WA 

LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES: 

HI swordfish, tuna, billfish, mahi mahi, wahoo, oceanic 

sharks longline/set line 

140 Blainville’s beaked whale, HI 

Bottlenose dolphin, HI 

False killer whale, HI1

Humpback whale, Central North Pacific 

Pantropical spotted dolphin, HI 

Risso’s dolphin, HI 

Short-finned pilot whale, HI 

Spinner dolphin, HI 

Sperm whale, HI 

Category II 

GILLNET FISHERIES: 

AK Bristol Bay salmon drift gillnet2 1,903 Beluga whale, Bristol Bay 

Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific 

Harbor seal, Bering Sea 

Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific 

Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific 

Spotted seal, AK 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.1

AK Bristol Bay salmon set gillnet2 1,014 Beluga whale, Bristol Bay 

Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific 

Harbor seal, Bering Sea 

Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific 

Spotted seal, AK 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14480 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 - LIST OF FISHERIES COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN—Continued 

Fishery Description 

Estimated # 

of vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured 

AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet 745 Beluga whale, Cook Inlet 

Dall’s porpoise, AK 

Harbor porpoise, GOA 

Harbor seal, GOA 

Humpback whale, Central North Pacific1

Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 

AK Cook Inlet salmon drift gillnet 576 Beluga whale, Cook Inlet 

Dall’s porpoise, AK 

Harbor porpoise, GOA1

Harbor seal, GOA 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 

AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet 188 Harbor porpoise, GOA1

Harbor seal, GOA 

Sea otter, Southwest AK 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 

AK Metlakatla/Annette Island salmon drift gillnet2 60 None documented 

AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon drift gillnet2 164 Dall’s porpoise, AK 

Harbor porpoise, GOA 

Harbor seal, GOA 

Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific 

AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon set gillnet2 116 Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 

AK Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet 541 Dall’s porpoise, AK 

Harbor porpoise, GOA1

Harbor seal, GOA 

Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific 

Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific 

Sea Otter, South Central AK 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.1

AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet 481 Dall’s porpoise, AK 

Harbor porpoise, Southeast AK 

Harbor seal, Southeast AK 

Humpback whale, Central North Pacific1

Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific 

Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. 

AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet2 170 Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific 

Harbor seal, Southeast AK 

Humpback whale, Central North Pacific (Southeast AK) 

CA yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet 

fishery (mesh size > 3.5 inches and < 14 inches)2

24 California sea lion, U.S. 

Long-beaked common dolphin, CA 

Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA 

WA Puget Sound Region salmon drift gillnet (includes all inland waters south of US-Canada border and eastward of 

the Bonilla-Tatoosh line-Treaty Indian fishing is excluded) 

210 Dall’s porpoise, CA/OR/WA 

Harbor porpoise, inland WA1

Harbor seal, WA inland 

PURSE SEINE FISHERIES: 

AK Southeast salmon purse seine 416 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific1

AK Cook Inlet salmon purse seine 82 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific1

AK Kodiak salmon purse seine 370 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific1

CA anchovy, mackerel,sardine purse seine 100 Bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore1

California sea lion, U.S. 

Harbor seal, CA 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14481 

TABLE 1 - LIST OF FISHERIES COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN—Continued 

Fishery Description 

Estimated # 

of vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured 

CA squid purse seine 65 Common dolphin, unknown 

Short-finned pilot whale, CA/OR/WA1

CA tuna purse seine2 None documented 

TRAWL FISHERIES: 

AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl 26 Bearded seal, AK 

Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea 

Harbor seal, Bering Sea 

Killer whale, AK resident1

Northern fur seal, Eastern North Pacific 

Spotted seal, AK 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.1

Walrus, AK 

AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl 120 Dall’s porpoise, AK 

Harbor seal, AK 

Humpback whale, Central North Pacific1

Humpback whale, Western North Pacific1

Killer whale, Eastern North Pacific, GOA, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient1

Minke whale, AK 

Ribbon seal, AK 

Spotted seal, AK 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.1

LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES: 

AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod longline 114 Killer whale, AK resident1

Killer whale, Eastern North Pacific, GOA, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient1

Ribbon seal, AK 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 

CA pelagic longline2 6 California sea lion, U.S. 

Risso’s dolphin, CA/OR/WA 

OR swordfish floating longline2 0 None documented 

OR blue shark floating longline2 1 None documented 

POT, RING NET, AND TRAP FISHERIES: 

AK Bering Sea sablefish pot 6 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific1

Humpback whale, Western North Pacific1

Category III 

GILLNET FISHERIES: 

AK Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton Sound, Kotzebue salmon 

gillnet 

1,922 Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea 

AK miscellaneous finfish set gillnet 3 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 

AK Prince William Sound salmon set gillnet 30 Harbor seal, GOA 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 

AK roe herring and food/bait herring gillnet 2,034 None documented 

CA set and drift gillnet fisheries that use a stretched mesh 

size of 3.5 in or less 

341 None documented 

Hawaii inshore gillnet 35 Bottlenose dolphin, HI 

Spinner dolphin, HI 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14482 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 - LIST OF FISHERIES COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN—Continued 

Fishery Description 

Estimated # 

of vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured 

WA Grays Harbor salmon drift gillnet (excluding treaty Tribal fishing) 24 Harbor seal, OR/WA coast 

WA, OR herring, smelt, shad, sturgeon, bottom fish, mullet, 

perch, rockfish gillnet 

913 None documented 

WA, OR lower Columbia River (includes tributaries) drift 

gillnet 

110 California sea lion, U.S. 

Harbor seal OR/WA coast 

WA Willapa Bay drift gillnet 82 Harbor seal, OR/WA coast 

Northern elephant seal, CA breeding 

PURSE SEINE, BEACH SEINE, ROUND HAUL AND 

THROW NET FISHERIES: 

AK Metlakatla salmon purse seine 10 None documented 

AK miscellaneous finfish beach seine 1 None documented 

AK miscellaneous finfish purse seine 3 None documented 

AK octopus/squid purse seine 2 None documented 

AK roe herring and food/bait herring beach seine 8 None documented 

AK roe herring and food/bait herring purse seine 624 None documented 

AK salmon beach seine 34 None documented 

AK salmon purse seine (except Southeast Alaska, which is 

in Category II) 

953 Harbor seal, GOA 

WA, OR sardine purse seine 42 None documented 

HI Kona crab loop net 42 None documented 

HI opelu/akule net 12 None documented 

HI inshore purse seine 23 None documented 

HI throw net, cast net 14 None documented 

WA (all species) beach seine or drag seine 235 None documented 

WA, OR herring, smelt, squid purse seine or lampara 130 None documented 

WA salmon purse seine 440 None documented 

WA salmon reef net 53 None documented 

DIP NET FISHERIES: 

CA squid dip net 115 None documented 

WA, OR smelt, herring dip net 119 None documented 

MARINE AQUACULTURE FISHERIES: 

CA marine shellfish aquaculture unknown None documented 

CA salmon enhancement rearing pen >1 None documented 

CA white seabass enhancement net pens 13 California sea lion, U.S. 

HI offshore pen culture 2 None documented 

OR salmon ranch 1 None documented 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14483 

TABLE 1 - LIST OF FISHERIES COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN—Continued 

Fishery Description 

Estimated # 

of vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured 

WA, OR salmon net pens 14 California sea lion, U.S. 

Harbor seal, WA inland waters 

TROLL FISHERIES: 

AK North Pacific halibut, AK bottom fish, WA, OR, CA albacore, groundfish, bottom fish, CA halibut non-salmonid 

troll fisheries 

1,530 

(330 AK) 

None documented 

AK salmon troll 2,335 Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 

American Samoa tuna troll < 50 None documented 

CA/OR/WA salmon troll 4,300 None documented 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands tuna troll 88 None documented 

Guam tuna troll 401 None documented 

HI trolling, rod and reel 1,321 None documented 

LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES: 

AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Greenland turbot longline 12 Killer whale, AK resident 

Killer whale, Eastern North Pacific, GOA, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient 

AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands rockfish longline 17 None documented 

AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands sablefish longline 63 None documented 

AK Gulf of Alaska halibut longline 1,302 None documented 

AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod longline 440 None documented 

AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish longline 421 None documented 

AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline 412 Sperm whale, North Pacific 

Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. 

AK halibut longline/set line (State and Federal waters) 3,079 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 

AK octopus/squid longline 7 None documented 

AK state-managed waters groundfish longline/setline (including sablefish, rockfish, and miscellaneous finfish) 731 None documented 

American Samoa longline 60 None documented 

WA, OR, CA groundfish, bottomfish longline/set line 367 None documented 

WA, OR North Pacific halibut longline/set line 350 None documented 

TRAWL FISHERIES: 

AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel trawl 8 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 

AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod trawl 87 Harbor seal, Bering Sea 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 

AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands rockfish trawl 9 None documented 

AK Gulf of Alaska flatfish trawl 52 None documented 

AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod trawl 101 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14484 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 - LIST OF FISHERIES COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN—Continued 

Fishery Description 

Estimated # 

of vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured 

AK Gulf of Alaska pollock trawl 83 Fin whale, Northeast Pacific 

Northern elephant seal, North Pacific 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 

AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish trawl 45 None documented 

AK food/bait herring trawl 3 None documented 

AK miscellaneous finfish otter or beam trawl 6 None documented 

AK shrimp otter trawl and beam trawl (statewide and Cook 

Inlet) 

58 None documented 

AK state-managed waters of Cook Inlet, Kachemak Bay, 

Prince William Sound, Southeast AK groundfish trawl 

2 None documented 

CA halibut bottom trawl 53 None documented 

WA, OR, CA groundfish trawl 585 California sea lion, U.S. 

Dall’s porpoise, CA/OR/WA 

Harbor seal, OR/WA coast 

Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific 

Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA 

Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. 

WA, OR, CA shrimp trawl 300 None documented 

POT, RING NET, AND TRAP FISHERIES: 

AK Aleutian Islands sablefish pot 8 None documented 

AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod pot 76 None documented 

AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands crab pot 329 None documented 

AK Gulf of Alaska crab pot unknown None documented 

AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod pot 154 Harbor seal, GOA 

AK Southeast Alaska crab pot unknown Humpback whale, Central North Pacific (Southeast AK) 

AK Southeast Alaska shrimp pot unknown Humpback whale, Central North Pacific (Southeast AK) 

AK octopus/squid pot 72 None documented 

AK snail pot 2 None documented 

CA lobster, prawn, shrimp, rock crab, fish pot 608 Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific 

Harbor seal, CA 

Humpback whale, Eastern North Pacific 

Sea otter, CA 

OR, CA hagfish pot or trap 25 None documented 

WA, OR, CA crab pot 1,478 Humpback whale, Eastern North Pacific 

Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific 

WA, OR, CA sablefish pot 176 None documented 

WA, OR shrimp pot/trap 254 None documented 

HI crab trap 22 None documented 

HI fish trap 19 None documented 

HI lobster trap 0 Hawaiian monk seal 

HI shrimp trap 5 None documented 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14485 

TABLE 1 - LIST OF FISHERIES COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN—Continued 

Fishery Description 

Estimated # 

of vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured 

HANDLINE AND JIG FISHERIES: 

AK miscellaneous finfish handline and mechanical jig 100 None documented 

AK North Pacific halibut handline and mechanical jig 93 None documented 

AK octopus/squid handline 2 None documented 

American Samoa bottomfish <50 None documented 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands bottomfish <50 None documented 

Guam bottomfish 200 None documented 

HI aku boat, pole and line 4 None documented 

HI Main Hawaiian Islands, Northwest Hawaiian Islands 

deep sea bottomfish 

300 Hawaiian monk seal 

HI inshore handline 307 None documented 

HI tuna handline 298 Hawaiian monk seal 

WA groundfish, bottomfish jig 679 None documented 

Western Pacific squid jig 6 None documented 

HARPOON FISHERIES: 

CA swordfish harpoon 30 None documented 

POUND NET/WEIR FISHERIES: 

AK herring spawn on kelp pound net 452 None documented 

AK Southeast herring roe/food/bait pound net 3 None documented 

WA herring brush weir 1 None documented 

BAIT PENS: 

WA/OR/CA bait pens 13 California sea lion, U.S. 

DREDGE FISHERIES: 

Coastwide scallop dredge 108 (12 

AK) 

None documented 

DIVE, HAND/MECHANICAL COLLECTION FISHERIES: 

AK abalone 1 None documented 

AK clam 156 None documented 

WA herring spawn on kelp 4 None documented 

AK dungeness crab 3 None documented 

AK herring spawn on kelp 363 None documented 

AK urchin and other fish/shellfish 471 None documented 

CA abalone 111 None documented 

CA sea urchin 583 None documented 

HI black coral diving 1 None documented 

HI fish pond N/A None documented 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14486 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 - LIST OF FISHERIES COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN—Continued 

Fishery Description 

Estimated # 

of vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured 

HI handpick 37 None documented 

HI lobster diving 19 None documented 

HI squiding, spear 91 None documented 

WA, CA kelp 4 None documented 

WA/OR sea urchin, other clam, octopus, oyster, sea cucumber, scallop, ghost shrimp hand, dive, or mechanical 

collection 

637 None documented 

WA shellfish aquaculture 684 None documented 

COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FISHING VESSEL (CHARTER BOAT) FISHERIES: 

AK, WA, OR, CA commercial passenger fishing vessel >7,000 

(1,107 

AK) 

Killer whale, stock unknown 

Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S. 

HI charter vessel 114 None documented 

LIVE FINFISH/SHELLFISH FISHERIES: 

CA finfish and shellfish live trap/hook-and-line 93 None documented 

List of Abbreviations and Symbols Used in Table 1: AK - Alaska; CA - California; GOA - Gulf of Alaska; HI - Hawaii; OR - Oregon; WA - Washington; 1 - Fishery classified based on serious injuries and mortalities of this stock are greater than 1 percent of the stock’s PBR; 2 - Fishery classified by analogy. 

TABLE 2 - LIST OF FISHERIES COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND CARIBBEAN

Fishery Description 

Estimated # of 

vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured 

Category I 

GILLNET FISHERIES: 

Mid-Atlantic gillnet >670 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal1

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore 

Common dolphin, WNA 

Gray seal, WNA 

Harbor porpoise, GME/BF1

Harbor seal, WNA 

Harp seal, WNA 

Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine1

Long-finned pilot whale, WNA 

Minke whale, Canadian east coast 

Short-finned pilot whale, WNA 

White-sided dolphin, WNA 

Northeast sink gillnet 341 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore 

Common dolphin, WNA 

Fin whale, WNA 

Gray seal, WNA 

Harbor porpoise, GME/BF1

Harbor seal, WNA 

Harp seal, WNA 

Hooded seal, WNA 

Humpback whale, WNA1

Minke whale, Canadian east coast1

North Atlantic right whale, WNA1

Risso’s dolphin, WNA 

White-sided dolphin, WNA 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14487 

TABLE 2 - LIST OF FISHERIES COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND CARIBBEAN—

Continued 

Fishery Description 

Estimated # of 

vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured 

LONGLINE FISHERIES: 

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics 

longline 

94 Atlantic spotted dolphin, Northern GMX 

Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA 

Bottlenose dolphin, GMX outer continental shelf 

Bottlenose dolphin, GMX, continental shelf edge and slope 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore 

Common dolphin, WNA 

Cuvier’s beaked whale, WNA 

Long-finned pilot whale, WNA1

Mesoplodon beaked whale, WNA 

Northern bottlenose whale, WNA 

Pantropical spotted dolphin, Northern GMX 

Pantropical spotted dolphin, WNA 

Pygmy sperm whale, WNA1

Risso’s dolphin, Northern GMX 

Risso’s dolphin, WNA 

Short-finned pilot whale, Northern GMX 

Short-finned pilot whale, WNA1

TRAP/POT FISHERIES: 

Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot 13,000 Fin whale, WNA 

Harbor seal, WNA 

Humpback whale, WNA1

Minke whale, Canadian east coast1

North Atlantic right whale, WNA1

Category II 

GILLNET FISHERIES: 

Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet2 45 None documented 

Gulf of Mexico gillnet2 724 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, and estuarine 

Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal 

North Carolina inshore gillnet 94 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal1

Northeast anchored float gillnet2 133 Harbor seal, WNA 

Humpback whale, WNA 

White-sided dolphin, WNA 

Northeast drift gillnet2 unknown None documented 

Southeast Atlantic gillnet2 779 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet 30 Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal1

North Atlantic right whale, WNA 

TRAWL FISHERIES: 

Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) 620 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore 

Common dolphin, WNA 

Long-finned pilot whale, WNA 

Risso’s dolphin, WNA 

Short-finned pilot whale, WNA 

White-sided dolphin, WNA1

Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl >1,000 Common dolphin, WNA1

Long-finned pilot whale, WNA1

Short-finned pilot whale, WNA1

Mid-Atlantic flynet2 21 None documented 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14488 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2 - LIST OF FISHERIES COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND CARIBBEAN—

Continued 

Fishery Description 

Estimated # of 

vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured 

Northeast mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) 17 Harbor seal, WNA 

Long-finned pilot whale, WNA1

Short-finned pilot whale, WNA1

White-sided dolphin, WNA 

Northeast bottom trawl 1,052 Common dolphin, WNA 

Harbor porpoise, GME/BF 

Harp seal, WNA 

Long-finned pilot whale, WNA 

Short-finned pilot whale, WNA 

White-sided dolphin, WNA1

TRAP/POT FISHERIES: 

Atlantic blue crab trap/pot >16,000 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal1

West Indian manatee, FL1

Atlantic mixed species trap/pot2 unknown Fin whale, WNA 

Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine 

PURSE SEINE FISHERIES: 

Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine 50 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, estuarine 

Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal1

Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal 

Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine2 22 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 

HAUL/BEACH SEINE FISHERIES: 

Mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine 25 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal1

North Carolina long haul seine 33 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal1

STOP NET FISHERIES: 

North Carolina roe mullet stop net 13 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal1

POUND NET FISHERIES: 

Virginia pound net 187 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal1

Category III 

GILLNET FISHERIES: 

Caribbean gillnet >991 Dwarf sperm whale, WNA 

West Indian manatee, Antillean 

Delaware River inshore gillnet 60 None documented 

Long Island Sound inshore gillnet 20 None documented 

Rhode Island, southern Massachusetts (to Monomoy Island), and New York Bight (Raritan and Lower New 

York Bays) inshore gillnet 

32 None documented 

Southeast Atlantic inshore gillnet unknown None documented 

TRAWL FISHERIES: 

Atlantic shellfish bottom trawl 972 None documented 

Gulf of Mexico butterfish trawl 2 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX outer continental shelf 

Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX continental shelf edge and 

slope 

Gulf of Mexico mixed species trawl 20 None documented 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14489 

TABLE 2 - LIST OF FISHERIES COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND CARIBBEAN—

Continued 

Fishery Description 

Estimated # of 

vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl >18,000 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, estuarine 

West Indian Manatee, FL 

MARINE AQUACULTURE FISHERIES: 

Finfish aquaculture 48 Harbor seal, WNA 

Shellfish aquaculture unknown None documented 

PURSE SEINE FISHERIES: 

Gulf of Maine Atlantic herring purse seine 30 Harbor seal, WNA 

Gray seal, WNA 

Gulf of Maine menhaden purse seine 50 None documented 

Florida west coast sardine purse seine 10 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal 

U.S. Atlantic tuna purse seine 5 Long-finned pilot whale, WNA 

Short-finned pilot whale, WNA 

U.S. Mid-Atlantic hand seine >250 None documented 

LONGLINE/HOOK-AND-LINE FISHERIES: 

Northeast/Mid-Atlantic bottom longline/hook-and-line 46 None documented 

Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic tuna, shark swordfish 

hook-and-line/harpoon 

26,223 Humpback whale, WNA 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean snapper-grouper and other reef fish bottom 

longline/hook-and-line 

>5,000 None documented 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shark bottom 

longline/hook-and-line 

<125 None documented 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean pelagic hook-and-line/harpoon 1,446 None documented 

TRAP/POT FISHERIES 

Caribbean mixed species trap/pot >501 None documented 

Caribbean spiny lobster trap/pot >197 None documented 

Florida spiny lobster trap/pot 2,145 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal 

Gulf of Mexico blue crab trap/pot 4,113 Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Bay, Sound, & Estuarine 

West Indian manatee, FL 

Gulf of Mexico mixed species trap/pot unknown None documented 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico golden crab 

trap/pot 

10 None documented 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico stone crab 

trap/pot 

4,453 None documented 

U.S. Mid-Atlantic eel trap/pot >700 None documented 

STOP SEINE/WEIR/POUND NET FISHERIES: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14490 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2 - LIST OF FISHERIES COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND CARIBBEAN—

Continued 

Fishery Description 

Estimated # of 

vessels/persons Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally killed/injured 

Gulf of Maine herring and Atlantic mackerel stop seine/ 

weir 

50 Gray seal, Northwest North Atlantic 

Harbor porpoise, GME/BF 

Harbor seal, WNA 

Minke whale, Canadian east coast 

White-sided dolphin, WNA 

U.S. Mid-Atlantic crab stop seine/weir 2,600 None documented 

U.S. Mid-Atlantic mixed species stop seine/weir/pound 

net (except the North Carolina roe mullet stop net) 

751 None documented 

DREDGE FISHERIES: 

Gulf of Maine mussel >50 None documented 

Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic sea scallop dredge 233 None documented 

U.S. Mid-Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico oyster 7,000 None documented 

U.S. Mid-Atlantic offshore surf clam and quahog dredge 100 None documented 

HAUL/BEACH SEINE FISHERIES: 

Caribbean haul/beach seine 15 West Indian manatee, Antillean 

Gulf of Mexico haul/beach seine unknown None documented 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, haul/beach seine 25 None documented 

DIVE, HAND/MECHANICAL COLLECTION FISHERIES: 

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean shellfish dive, 

hand/mechanical collection 

20,000 None documented 

Gulf of Maine urchin dive, hand/mechanical collection >50 None documented 

Gulf of Mexico, Southeast Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and 

Caribbean cast net 

unknown None documented 

COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FISHING VESSEL 

(CHARTER BOAT) FISHERIES: 

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean commercial 

passenger fishing vessel 

4,000 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal 

List of Abbreviations and Symbols Used in Table 2: FL - Florida; GA - Georgia; GME/BF - Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy; GMX - Gulf of Mexico; 

NC - North Carolina; SC - South Carolina; TX - Texas; WNA - Western North Atlantic; 1 - Fishery classified based on serious injuries and mortalities of this stock are greater than 1 percent of the stock’s PBR; 2 - Fishery classified by analogy. 

Classification 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration that this 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. For 

convenience, the factual basis leading to 

the certification is repeated below. 

Under existing regulations, all fishers 

participating in Category I or II fisheries 

must register under the MMPA, obtain 

an Authorization Certificate, and pay a 

fee of $25 (with the exception of those 

in regions with a registration process 

integrated with existing state and 

Federal permitting processes). 

Additionally, fishers may be subject to 

a Take Reduction Plan (TRP) and 

requested to carry an observer. The 

Authorization Certificate authorizes the 

taking of marine mammals incidental to 

commercial fishing operations. NMFS 

has estimated that approximately 42,000 

fishing vessels, most of which are small 

entities, operate in Category I or II 

fisheries, and therefore, are required to 

register. However, registration has been 

integrated with existing state or Federal 

registration programs for the majority of 

these fisheries so these fishers do not 

need to register separately under the 

MMPA. Currently, less than 360 fishers 

register directly with NMFS under the 

MMPA authorization program. 

Though this final rule will affect 

approximately 360 small entities, the 

$25 registration fee, with respect to 

anticipated revenues, is not considered 

a significant economic impact. If a 

vessel is requested to carry an observer, 

fishers will not incur any economic 

costs associated with carrying that 

observer. As a result of this certification, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14491 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

was not prepared. In the event that 

reclassification of a fishery to Category 

I or II results in a TRP, economic 

analyses of the effects of that plan will 

be summarized in subsequent 

rulemaking actions. 

This final rule contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. The 

collection of information for the 

registration of fishers under the MMPA 

has been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

OMB control number 0648–0293 (0.15 

hours per report for new registrants and 

0.09 hours per report for renewals). The 

requirement for reporting marine 

mammal injuries or mortalities has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 0648–0292 (0.15 hours per 

report). These estimates include the 

time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection of information. Send 

comments regarding these reporting 

burden estimates or any other aspect of 

the collections of information, including 

suggestions for reducing burden, to 

NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES and 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

An environmental assessment (EA) 

was prepared under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for 

regulations to implement section 118 of 

the MMPA in June 1995. NMFS revised 

that EA relative to classifying U.S. 

commercial fisheries on the LOF in 

December 2005. Both the 1995 EA and 

the 2005 EA concluded that 

implementation of MMPA section 118 

regulations would not have a significant 

impact on the human environment. This 

final rule would not make any 

significant change in the management of 

reclassified fisheries, and therefore, this 

final rule is not expected to change the 

analysis or conclusion of the 2005 EA. 

If NMFS takes a management action, for 

example, through the development of a 

TRP, NMFS will first prepare an 

environmental document, as required 

under NEPA, specific to that action. 

This final rule will not affect species 

listed as threatened or endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) or their associated critical habitat. 

The impacts of numerous fisheries have 

been analyzed in various biological 

opinions, and this rule will not affect 

the conclusions of those opinions. The 

classification of fisheries on the LOF is 

not considered to be a management 

action that would adversely affect 

threatened or endangered species. If 

NMFS takes a management action, for 

example, through the development of a 

TRP, NMFS would conduct consultation 

under ESA section 7 for that action. 

This final rule will have no adverse 

impacts on marine mammals and may 

have a positive impact on marine 

mammals by improving knowledge of 

marine mammals and the fisheries 

interacting with marine mammals 

through information collected from 

observer programs, stranding and 

sighting data, or take reduction teams. 

This final rule will not affect the land 

or water uses or natural resources of the 

coastal zone, as specified under section 

307 of the Coastal Zone Management 

Act. 

References 

Angliss, R.P., and D.P. DeMaster. 

1998. Differentiating Serious and Nonserious Injury of Marine Mammals 

Taken Incidental to Commercial Fishing 

Operations: Report of the Serious Injury 

Workshop 1–2 April 1997, Silver 

Spring, Maryland. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-OPR–13. 

Chivers, S. J., Baird, R.W., 

McSweeney, D.J., Webster, D., Hedrick, 

N.M. and Salinas, J.C. 2006. Genetic 

variation and evidence for population 

structure in eastern North Pacific false 

killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens). 

Submitted- Canadian Journal of 

Zoology. 

Dated: March 22, 2007. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–5709 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[I.D. 032107B] 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason 

retention limit adjustment. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has determined that 

the daily Highly Migratory Species 

(HMS) Angling category retention limits 

for Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) should 

be adjusted to maximize the usefulness 

of the information obtained from 

catches for biological sampling. Vessels 

permitted in the HMS Angling and HMS 

Charter/Headboat categories are eligible 

to land BFT under the HMS Angling 

category quota. Therefore, NMFS adjusts 

the daily BFT retention limits for the 

HMS Angling category quota to allow 

landing of school BFT in North Carolina 

during the three-week period from 

March 24, 2007, through April 15, 2007, 

as specified in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

This action is intended to provide 

scientific data that would enhance 

future recreational fishing opportunities 

for the HMS Angling and HMS Charter/ 

Headboat categories, while minimizing 

the risk of an overharvest of the HMS 

Angling category BFT quota. 

DATES: Effective from 12:01 a.m., March 

24, 2007, through 11:59 p.m., April 15, 

2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dianne Stephan, 978–281–9260. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations implemented under the 

authority of the Atlantic Tunas 

Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) 

and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by 

persons and vessels subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 

635. 

The 2006 BFT fishing year began on 

June 1, 2006, and ends May 31, 2007. 

The final initial 2006 BFT specifications 

and effort controls were published on 

May 30, 2006 (71 FR 30619). These final 

specifications established retention 

limits for school BFT (measuring 27 

inches (69 cm) to less than 47 inches 

(119 cm)) for the HMS Angling and 

HMS Charter/Headboat categories in 

accordance with the following: (1) 

International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 

recommendation limiting the U.S. catch 

of school BFT to no more than 8 percent 

of total U.S. domestic landings 

calculated as a four-year average; (2) the 

Consolidated HMS Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) (October 2, 2006, 71 FR 

58058); and (3) the HMS FMP 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

635.27. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES