Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 17469 

1 Indicates a newly listed company, which must 

file a report beginning with the report due October 

25, 2007. 

1 Indicates a newly listed company, which must 

file a report beginning with the report due October 

25, 2007. 

Appendix A—Insurers of Motor Vehicle 

Insurance Policies Subject to the 

Reporting Requirements in Each State 

in Which They Do Business 

Allstate Insurance Group 

American Family Insurance Group 

American International Group 

Auto-Owners Insurance Group 

CNA Insurance Companies 

Erie Insurance Group 

Berkshire Hathaway/GEICO Corporation 

Group 

Hartford Insurance Group 

Liberty Mutual Insurance Companies 

Metropolitan Life Auto & Home Group 

Mercury General Group 

Nationwide Group 

Progressive Group 

Safeco Insurance Companies 

State Farm Group 

St Paul Travelers Companies 1

USAA Group 

Farmers Insurance Group 

4. Appendix B to Part 544 is revised 

to read as follows: 

Appendix B—Issuers of Motor Vehicle 

Insurance Policies Subject to the 

Reporting Requirements Only in 

Designated States 

Alfa Insurance Group (Alabama) 

Auto Club (Michigan) 

Commerce Group, Inc. (Massachusetts) 

Farm Bureau of Idaho Group (Idaho) 1

Kentucky Farm Bureau Group (Kentucky) 

New Jersey Manufacturers Group (New 

Jersey) 

Safety Group (Massachusetts) 

Southern Farm Bureau Group (Arkansas, 

Mississippi) 

Tennessee Farmers Companies (Tennessee) 

5. Appendix C to Part 544 is revised 

to read as follows: 

Appendix C—Motor Vehicle Rental and 

Leasing Companies (Including 

Licensees and Franchisees) Subject to 

the Reporting Requirements of Part 544 

Cendant Car Rental 

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group 

EmKay, Inc. 1 

Enterprise Rent-A-Car 

Enterprise Fleet Services 

Hertz Rent-A-Car Division (subsidiary of The 

Hertz Corporation) 

U-Haul International, Inc. (Subsidiary of 

AMERCO) 

Vanguard Car Rental USA 

Issued on: March 30, 2007. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E7–6519 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 070323069–7069–01;I.D. 

031907A] 

RIN 0648–AV46 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule 

to establish catch accounting 

requirements for persons who receive, 

buy, or accept Pacific whiting (whiting) 

deliveries of 4,000 pounds (lb) (1.18 mt) 

or more from vessels using mid-water 

trawl gear during the primary whiting 

season. This action would improve 

NMFS’s ability to effectively monitor 

the whiting fishery such that catch of 

whiting and incidentally caught species, 

including overfished groundfish 

species, do not result in a species’

optimum yield (OY), harvest guideline, 

allocations, or bycatch limits being 

exceeded. This action would also 

provide for timely reporting of Chinook 

salmon take as specified in the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 

Biological Opinion for Chinook salmon 

catch in the Pacific groundfish fishery. 

This action is consistent with the 

conservation goals and objectives of the 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP). 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

April 24, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by I.D. 031907A by any of the 

following methods: 

• E-mail: 

HakeProcessors.nwr@noaa.gov: Include 

I.D 031907A in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 206–526–6736, Attn: Becky 

Renko 

• Mail: D. Robert Lohn, 

Administrator, Northwest Region, 

NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, 

Seattle, WA 98115–0070, Attn: Becky 

Renko 

Copies of the Environmental 

Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/ 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action 

may be obtained from the Northwest 

Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way 

N.E., BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 

98115–0070. Written comments 

regarding the burden-hour estimates or 

other aspects of the collection-ofinformation requirements contained in 

this proposed rule may be submitted to 

the Northwest Region (see Addresses) 

and by e-mail to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

(202) 395–7285 Send comments on 

collection-of-information requirements 

to the NMFS address above and to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), Washington DC 

20503 (Attn: NOAA Desk Officer). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Becky Renko, phone: 206–526–6110, 

fax: 206–526–6736, or e-mail: 

becky.renko@noaa.gov. 

Electronic Access: This proposed rule 

is accessible via the Internet at the 

Office of the Federal Register’s Web site 

at http://www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs/ 

aces/aces140.html. Background 

information and documents are 

available at the NMFS Northwest Region 

Web site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/

Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-FisheryManagement/index.cfmand at the 

Council’s Web site at http:// 

www.pcouncil.org. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed action is to provide for 

electronic catch accounting and other 

monitoring improvements for the shorebased sector of the whiting fishery. The 

proposed action defines requirements 

for recordkeeping, reporting, catch 

sorting, and scale use for persons who 

receive, buy, or accept unsorted 

deliveries (generally processors or 

transporters) of 4,000 lb (1.8 mt) or more 

of whiting from vessels using midwater 

trawl gear during the primary season for 

the shore-based sector. This action is 

intended to address difficulties that 

occurred during the 2006 whiting 

season that could compromise the 

ability to account for the catch of target, 

incidental and prohibited species, and 

which could compromise the ability to 

manage groundfish species OYs, trip 

limits, bycatch limits, and Chinook 

salmon take in relation to Biological 

Opinion specifications. 

The shore-based whiting fishery 

needs to have a catch reporting system 

in place that: provides timely reporting 

of catch data so that whiting, overfished 

species and Chinook salmon can be 

adequately monitored and accounted for 

inseason; and, specifies catch sorting 

and weight requirements necessary to 

maintain the integrity of fish ticket 

values used to manage groundfish 

species OYs, trip limits, and bycatch 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
17470 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

limits. This proposed rule is part of an 

ongoing process to develop a maximized 

retention program for the shoreside 

whiting sector. The rule is intended to 

address shoreside monitoring that will 

be implemented in 2007 in conjunction 

with the issuance of exempted fishing 

permits (EFPs) to vessels. At its April 

2007 meeting, the Council will consider 

recommending a rulemaking for 2008 

and beyond for a related action titled ‘‘A 

Maximized Retention and Monitoring 

Program for the Whiting Shoreside 

Fishery.’’

Each year since 1992, EFPs have been 

issued to vessels in the whiting 

shoreside fishery to allow unsorted 

catch to be retained and landed at 

shoreside processing facilities. The EFPs 

have specified the terms and conditions 

that participating vessels must follow to 

be included in the EFP program. The 

EFPs have routinely required vessels to 

deliver EFP catch to state-designated 

processors. Designated processors were 

identified by each of the states and were 

processors that had signed written 

agreements that specified the standards 

and procedures they agreed to follow 

when receiving EFP catch. 

The whiting fishery is managed under 

a ‘‘primary’’ season structure where 

vessels harvest whiting until the sector 

allocation is reached and the fishery is 

closed. This is different from most West 

Coast groundfish fisheries, which are 

managed under a ‘‘trip limit’’ structure, 

where catch limits are specified by gear 

type and species (or species group) and 

vessels can land catch up to the 

specified limits. Incidental catch of 

groundfish in the whiting fishery, 

however, is managed under a trip limit 

structure. Vessels fishing under the 

whiting EFPs are allowed to land 

unsorted catch at shoreside processing 

facilities, including species in excess of 

the trip limits and species such as 

salmon that would otherwise be illegal 

to have on board the vessel. Without an 

EFP, groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 

660.306(a)(2) and (a)(6) require vessels 

to sort their catch at sea and discard as 

soon as practicable all prohibited 

species (including salmon and halibut), 

protected species, and groundfish 

species in excess of cumulative limits at 

sea. 

Overall management of the salmon 

and groundfish fisheries has 

significantly changed since the early 

1990’s, when EFPs were first used in the 

whiting fishery. Since the beginning of 

the shore-based whiting fishery in 1992, 

new salmon Evolutionarily Significant 

Unit (ESUs) have been listed under the 

ESA, and several groundfish species 

that are incidentally taken in the 

whiting fishery have been declared 

overfished. In addition, ‘‘bycatch limit’’

management of overfished species has 

been used to allow the whiting fishery 

full access to the whiting OY. With the 

bycatch limit management approach, a 

bycatch limit amount is specified for an 

overfished species and the whiting 

fishery is allowed incidental catch of 

that species up to that amount. If a 

bycatch limit for any one of the species 

limits is reached before the whiting 

allocations are attained, all non-tribal 

commercial sectors of the whiting 

fishery must be closed. 

The Shoreside Whiting Observation 

Program (SHOP), a coordinated 

monitoring effort by the States of 

Oregon, Washington, and California, 

was established to provide catch data 

from vessels fishing under the EFPs. 

Although the program’s structure and 

priorities have changed over the years, 

the SHOP has had the primary 

responsibility of monitoring the shorebased whiting fishery and providing 

catch data to NMFS for management of 

the fishery. In 2006, SHOP experienced 

ongoing difficulties in obtaining timely 

catch reports from some designated 

processors. Delays in catch reports can 

compromise the ability to adequately 

monitor the catch of whiting, bycatch 

limits, and in particular the bycatch 

limits for the overfished species that are 

most frequently encountered in the 

whiting fishery. Having the ability to 

closely monitor bycatch limits and close 

the whiting fishery if a limit is reached 

prevents the whiting fishery from 

affecting the other groundfish fisheries 

and reduces the risk of exceeding 

overfished species OYs. 

In 2007, the shore-based whiting 

fishery will be managed under an EFP, 

similar to what was in place in 2006. 

Therefore, NMFS believes that it is 

necessary to implement this rule to 

prevent catch accounting difficulties 

experienced in 2006. During 2007, 

NMFS and the Council will continue to 

develop the Maximized Retention and 

Monitoring Program for the whiting 

Shoreside Fishery, which is intended to 

be implemented by regulation before the 

2008 fishery. 

This proposed rule would require 

persons called ‘‘first receivers’’ who 

receive, buy, or accept whiting 

deliveries of 4,000 lb (1.8 mt) or more 

from vessels using mid-water trawl gear 

during the primary whiting season 

(generally, these are whiting shoreside 

processing facilities, but also include 

entities that truck whiting to other 

facilities) to have and use a NMFSapproved electronic fish ticket program 

and to send daily catch reports to the 

Pacific States Marine Fish Commission 

(PSMFC). The electronic fish tickets are 

used to collect information similar to 

the information currently required in 

state fish receiving tickets or landing 

receipts (state fish tickets). The daily 

reports would be used to track catch 

allocations, bycatch limits and 

prohibited species catch. First receivers 

would provide the computer hardware, 

software (Microsoft Office with Access 

2003 or later,) and internet access 

necessary to support the electronic fish 

ticket program and daily e-mail 

transmissions. Electronic fish tickets 

must be submitted within 24 hours from 

the date the catch is received upon 

landing. Because 2007 will be the first 

year that the electronic fish ticket 

program will be used, the proposed 

action includes waiver provisions and 

defines alternative means for submitting 

fish tickets to meet the daily reporting 

needs of the fishery, should there be 

performance issues with software or 

other system failures beyond a receiver’s 

control. 

Federal regulations would not replace 

any state recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements. Regulations at 50 CFR 

660.303 would continue to require 

vessels to make and/or file, retain, or 

make available any and all reports (i.e., 

logbooks, fish tickets, etc.) of groundfish 

harvests and landings as required by the 

applicable state law. At this time, only 

the State of Oregon allows printed and 

signed copies of the electronic fish 

tickets to be submitted as the official 

state fish ticket. The States of 

Washington and California could 

continue to require the submission of 

paper forms as issued by the state. 

In addition to the sorting 

requirements specified at 

§§ 660.306(a)(7) and 660.370(h)(6)(i), 

sorting requirements would be specified 

for whiting catch received by first 

receivers, since these deliveries may 

contain groundfish in excess of trip 

limits, unmarketable groundfish, 

prohibited species, and protected 

species that are not addressed by 

current groundfish regulations. In 

addition, Federal groundfish regulations 

would be revised to require that 

deliveries from vessels participating in 

the whiting shoreside fishery must be 

adequately sorted by species or species 

group and the catch weighed following 

offloading from the vessel and prior to 

transporting the catch. If sorting and 

weighing requirements specified in 

Federal regulation are more specific 

than state fish ticket requirements, the 

first receivers would be required to 

record the species that are sorted and 

weighed on all electronic fish ticket 

submissions. 

First receivers would be required to 

report, on electronic fish tickets, actual 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 17471 

and accurate weights derived from 

scales. Though there are considerable 

differences in the requirements between 

states, each state has requirements for 

scale performance and testing 

established by state agencies for weights 

and measures. How these requirements 

apply to seafood processors varies 

between states. 

Classification 

NMFS has determined that the 

proposed rule is consistent with the 

FMP and has preliminarily determined 

that the rule is consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act and 

other applicable laws. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

An initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 

required by section 603 of the RFA 

(RFA). The IRFA describes the 

economic impact this proposed rule, if 

adopted, would have on small entities. 

A description of the action, why it is 

being considered, and the legal basis for 

this action are contained at the 

beginning of this section in the 

preamble and in the SUMMARY section 

of the preamble. A copy of the IRFA is 

available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

A summary of the analysis follows: 

The whiting shoreside fishery has 

been managed under an EFPs since 

1992. However, an EFP is supposed to 

be a short-term, temporary and 

exploratory response to issues that 

potentially should be addressed by 

permanent regulations. The proposed 

action (Alternative 2) would be the first 

step towards replacing the EFP with 

permanent regulations as it would put 

in place new Federal catch accounting 

requirements. Although EFPs will 

continue to be issued in 2007, the 

proposed regulations are intended to 

supplement EFP activities with 

regulations that mainly affect the 

processors or other first receivers of 

whiting EFP catch. The proposed 

regulations will require the submission 

of electronic fish tickets within 24 hours 

of landing, the sorting of catch at time 

of offload and prior to transporting 

catch from the port of fish landing, the 

use of state approved scales with 

appropriate accuracy ranges for the 

amount of fish being weighed, and that 

all weights reported on the electronic 

fish tickets be from such scales. The 

proposed Federal regulations mirror or 

enhance existing state regulations and 

associated paper-based fish ticket 

systems or put into Federal regulation 

provisions associated with current EFP 

management. This action is expected to 

provide more timely reporting and 

improved estimates of the catch of 

whiting, ESA listed salmon species, and 

overfished groundfish species. The 

whiting shoreside fishery needs to have 

a catch reporting system in place to: 

adequately track the incidental take of 

Chinook salmon as required in the ESA 

Section 7 Biological Opinion for 

Chinook salmon catch in the whiting 

fishery; and to track the catch of target 

and overfished groundfish species such 

that the fishing industry is not 

unnecessarily constrained and that the 

sector allocation and bycatch limits are 

not exceeded. This action is intended to 

address catch accounting concerns that 

occurred during the 2006 season that 

compromised the ability to account for 

the catch of target, incidental and 

prohibited species. 

In 2006 there were 23 processors that 

purchased whiting from fishermen with 

ten of these processors purchasing from 

4 lb (2 kg) to 8,000 lb (3,629 kg) of 

whiting. The other thirteen processors 

all processed at least 1 million lb (454 

mt) of whiting each. During 2006 these 

thirteen processors purchased 280 

million lb (127,007 mt) of whiting worth 

$17.4 million ex-vessel, and 110 million 

lb (49,896 mt) of other fish and shellfish 

worth $78.5 million. Over the 2000–

2006 period there were seventeen 

different facilities that processed at least 

1 million lb (454 mt) in any one year. 

These processors can be classified into 

‘‘Main’’ and ‘‘Other’’ plants. Over this 

period there were eight ‘‘Main’’

processors that processed 1 million lb 

(454 mt) in at least seven of the eight 

years during this period. Because of 

entry and exit of the processors, the 

composition of the ‘‘Other’’ processor 

group changes significantly in most 

years. In 2005, there were no ‘‘Other’’

processors while in 2006, five new 

processors entered, only one of which 

had operated before. Over the 2000–

2006 period, the ‘‘Main’’ processors 

typically harvest 90 to 100 percent of 

the whiting. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) has established size criteria for all 

major industry sectors in the U.S. 

including fish harvesting entities, forhire entities, fish processing businesses, 

and fish dealers. A business involved in 

fish harvesting is a small business if it 

is independently owned and operated 

and not dominant in the field of 

operation (including its affiliates) and if 

it has combined annual receipts not in 

excess of $3.5 million for all its 

affiliated operations worldwide. Forhire vessels are considered small 

entities, if they have annual receipts not 

in excess of $6 million. A seafood 

processor is a small business if it is 

independently owned and operated, not 

dominant in its field of operation, and 

employs 500 or fewer persons on a fulltime, part-time, temporary, or other 

basis, at all its affiliated operations 

world wide. Finally, a wholesale 

business servicing the fishing industry 

(fish dealer) is a small business if it 

employs 100 or few persons on a full 

time, part-time, temporary, or other 

basis, at all its affiliated operations 

worldwide. 

The SBA has established ‘‘principles 

of affiliation’’ to determine whether a 

business concern is ‘‘independently 

owned and operated.’’ In general, 

business concerns are affiliates of each 

other when one concern controls or has 

the power to control the other, or a third 

party controls or has the power to 

control both. The SBA considers factors 

such as ownership, management, 

previous relationships with or ties to 

another concern, and contractual 

relationships, in determining whether 

affiliation exists. Individuals or firms 

that have identical or substantially 

identical business or economic interests, 

such as family members, persons with 

common investments, or firms that are 

economically dependent through 

contractual or other relationships, are 

treated as one party with such interests 

aggregated when measuring the size of 

the concern in question. The SBA 

counts the receipts or employees of the 

concern whose size is at issue and those 

of all its domestic and foreign affiliates, 

regardless of whether the affiliates are 

organized for profit, in determining the 

concern’s size. 

Based on the SBA criteria and a 

review of West Coast processor 

company websites, state employment 

websites, newspaper articles, personal 

communications, and the ‘‘Research 

Group’’ publications (2006), it appears 

that the thirteen major whiting 

processors can be grouped into nine 

businesses under the SBA criteria based 

on analysis of affiliates. Three of the 

nine businesses generated at least $500 

million in sales in 2003. One of these 

businesses reported employing 4,000 

people, and it is presumed that the other 

two companies have employment levels 

much higher than 500 employees. Four 

of the nine businesses have employment 

estimates that range from 100–250 

employees, while the remainder appear 

to be in the 50–100 range (because of 

missing data, one of these relatively 

small businesses may have less than 50 

employees). In terms of the SBA size 

standard of 500 employees, there are six 

‘‘small’’ businesses that participated in 

the shorebased whiting processing 

sector in 2006. Annual sales information 

for these ‘‘small’’ businesses is 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
17472 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

unavailable. Total ex-vessel revenues 

(the value of the fish purchased from 

fisherman) is available. In 2006, these 

six businesses purchased approximately 

$40 million in whiting and other fish 

and shellfish from West Coast 

fishermen. This compares to the $60 

million in whiting and other fish and 

shellfish purchased by the three large 

businesses. 

In sizing up all the potential impacts, 

implementation of these rules will 

require firms to bear minimal costs in 

reporting data electronically that they 

already are required to report on paper. 

In terms of equipment purchases, it is 

expected that there will be few if any 

instances where processors have to 

purchase computers or software because 

this is equipment that most business 

already have. It is also not expected that 

processors will need to purchase scale 

equipment as the presumption about 

this rule is that it enhances existing 

state regulations that already require 

processors to use scales in conducting 

their businesses but may not specifically 

require the use of scale weights in 

reporting fisheries data to state agencies. 

There may be some interest by a few 

small processors to weigh and count 

fish at locations other than the point of 

first landing, but these instances appear 

to be few. 

In light of the recent economic 

improvement going on in the whiting 

fisheries, the proposed regulations are 

reasonable and affordable and do not 

appear to place small businesses at a 

competitive disadvantage to large 

businesses. The major benefits of this 

program from a conservation and 

management context is an allowance for 

more liberal management to obtain 

better and quicker data for use in quota 

monitoring and a potential reduction in 

costs of monitoring, and to move 

management measures for monitoring 

whiting from a temporary ‘‘EFP’’ to 

formal regulations. In the short term, 

from an industry and fishing 

community perspective, better 

management of the whiting shoreside 

fishery minimizes the risk that sector 

quotas and bycatch limits are not 

exceeded in ways that may lead to 

closure of other fisheries thus affecting 

other small businesses. In the medium 

term, the proposed rule will aid 

development of an Individual Fishing 

Quota (IQ) catch accounting system. IQs 

are expected to increase profitability in 

the fishing industry and improve the 

sustainability of fishing communities. In 

the long term, the entire fishing industry 

and its communities including 

associated small businesses will benefit 

by reducing the risk of overfishing and 

increasing the potential that the 

rebuilding schedules for the overfished 

species are maintained, thus increasing 

the chances that current levels of 

groundfish ex-vessel revenues of $70 

million can be restored to levels above 

$100 million which were consistently 

seen in the early to mid 1990’s. There 

were no other alternatives to the 

proposed action that would have 

accomplish the stated objectives. Under 

Status Quo, general catch sorting 

requirements and prohibited actions 

would continue to be specified for 

limited entry trawl vessel; each state 

would continue to specify requirements 

for landing reports. 

This proposed rule contains 

collection-of-information requirements 

approved under OMB control number 

0648–0203, as well as a new collectionof-information requirement subject to 

review and approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This 

requirement has been submitted to OMB 

for approval. Public reporting burden 

for preparing and submitting electronic 

fish tickets is estimated to average ten 

minutes per individual response for 

whiting shoreside processors/first 

receivers in the states of California and 

Washington, and two minutes per 

individual response for whiting 

shoreside processors/first receivers in 

the State of Oregon, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

information. Public comment is sought 

regarding: whether this proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; the accuracy of the 

burden estimate; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Send comments on these or any other 

aspects of the collection of information 

to the Northwest Region at the 

ADDRESSES above, and by e-mail to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to 

(202) 395–7285. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, and no person shall be 

subject to penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

There are no Federal rules that 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this 

proposed rule. 

NMFS issued Biological Opinions 

under the ESA on August 10, 1990, 

November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, 

September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and 

December 15, 1999 pertaining to the 

effects of the Pacific Coast groundfish 

FMP fisheries on Chinook salmon 

(Puget Sound, Snake River spring/ 

summer, Snake River fall, upper 

Columbia River spring, lower Columbia 

River, upper Willamette River, 

Sacramento River winter, Central Valley 

spring, California coastal), coho salmon 

(Central California coastal, southern 

Oregon/northern California coastal), 

chum salmon (Hood Canal summer, 

Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake 

River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead 

(upper, middle and lower Columbia 

River, Snake River Basin, upper 

Willamette River, central California 

coast, California Central Valley, south/ 

central California, northern California, 

southern California). These biological 

opinions have concluded that 

implementation of the FMP for the 

Pacific Coast groundfish fishery was not 

expected to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species under the 

jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

NMFS reinitiated a formal section 7 

consultation under the ESA in 2005 for 

both the whiting midwater trawl fishery 

and the groundfish bottom trawl fishery. 

The December 19, 1999 Biological 

Opinion had defined an 11,000 Chinook 

incidental take threshold for the whiting 

fishery. During the 2005 whiting season, 

the 11,000 fish Chinook incidental take 

threshold was exceeded, triggering 

reinitiation. Also in 2005, new data 

from the West Coast Groundfish 

Observer Program became available, 

allowing NMFS to complete an analysis 

of salmon take in the bottom trawl 

fishery. 

NMFS prepared a Supplemental 

Biological Opinion dated March 11, 

2006, which addressed salmon take in 

both the whiting midwater trawl and 

groundfish bottom trawl fisheries. In its 

2006 Supplemental Biological Opinion, 

NMFS concluded that catch rates of 

salmon in the 2005 whiting fishery were 

consistent with expectations considered 

during prior consultations. Chinook 

bycatch has averaged about 7,300 over 

the last 15 years and has only 

occasionally exceeded the reinitiation 

trigger of 11,000. Since 1999, annual 

Chinook bycatch has averaged about 

8,450. The Chinook ESUs most likely 

affected by the whiting fishery have 

generally improved in status since the 

1999 section 7 consultation. Although 

these species remain at risk, as 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 17473 

indicated by their ESA listing, NMFS 

concluded that the higher observed 

bycatch in 2005 does not require a 

revision of its prior ‘‘no jeopardy’’

conclusion with respect to the fishery. 

For the groundfish bottom trawl fishery, 

NMFS concluded that incidental take in 

the groundfish fisheries is within the 

overall limits articulated in the 

Incidental Take Statement of the 1999 

Biological Opinion. The groundfish 

bottom trawl limit from that opinion 

was 9,000 fish annually. NMFS will 

continue to monitor and collect data to 

analyze take levels. NMFS also 

reaffirmed its prior determination that 

implementation of the Groundfish FMP, 

including this current action, is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any of the affected ESUs. 

Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 

37160, June 28, 2005) and the Southern 

Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of 

green sturgeon (71 FR 17757, April 7, 

2006) were recently listed as threatened 

under the ESA. As a consequence, 

NMFS has reinitiated its Section 7 

consultation on the PFMC’s Groundfish 

FMP. After reviewing the available 

information, NMFS concluded that, in 

keeping with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, 

the proposed action would not result in 

any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitment of resources that would 

have the effect of foreclosing the 

formulation or implementation of any 

reasonable and prudent alternative 

measures. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, 

this proposed rule was developed after 

meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribal officials from 

the area covered by the FMP. At the 

Council=s September and November 

2006 meetings, NMFS informed the 

Council, which includes a tribal 

representative, of the intent to evaluate 

and implement catch accounting 

requirements for whiting shoreside 

processors. This action does not alter 

the treaty allocation of whiting, nor does 

it affect the prosecution of the tribal 

fishery. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 

Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries. 

Dated: April 3, 2007. 

William T. Hogarth, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST 

COAST STATES 

1. The authority citation for part 660 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

2. In § 660.302, the definitions for 

‘‘Electronic Monitoring System,’’

‘‘Pacific whiting shoreside or shorebased fishery,’’ ‘‘Pacific whiting 

shoreside first receiver,’’ and ‘‘Pacific 

whiting shoreside vessel’’ are added to 

read as follows: 

§ 660.302 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Electronic Monitoring System (EMS) 

means a data collection tool that uses a 

software operating system connected to 

an assortment of electronic components, 

including video recorders, to create a 

collection of data on vessel activities. 

* * * * * 

Pacific whiting shoreside first 

receivers means persons who receive, 

purchase, take custody, control, or 

possession of Pacific whiting onshore 

directly from a Pacific whiting shoreside 

vessel. 

Pacific whiting shoreside or shorebased fishery means Pacific whiting 

shoreside vessels and Pacific whiting 

shoreside first receivers. 

Pacific whiting shoreside vessel 

means any vessel that fishes using 

midwater trawl gear to take, retain, 

possess and land 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) or 

more of Pacific whiting per fishing trip 

from the Pacific whiting shore-based 

sector allocation for delivery to a Pacific 

whiting shoreside first receiver during 

the primary season. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 660.303, paragraph (a) is 

revised and paragraph (e) is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 660.303 Reporting and recordkeeping. 

(a) This subpart recognizes that catch 

and effort datanecessary for 

implementing the PCGFMP are 

collected by the States of Washington, 

Oregon, and California under existing 

state data collection requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) Participants in the Pacific whiting 

shoreside fishery. Reporting 

requirements defined in the following 

section are in addition to reporting 

requirements under applicable state law 

and requirements described at 

§ 660.303(b). 

(1) Reporting requirements for any 

Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver—

(i) Responsibility for compliance. The 

Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver 

is responsible for compliance with all 

reporting requirements described in this 

paragraph. 

(ii) General requirements. All records 

or reports required by this paragraph 

must: be maintained in English, be 

accurate, be legible, be based on local 

time, and be submitted in a timely 

manner as required in paragraph 

(e)(1)(iv) of this section. 

(iii) Required information. All Pacific 

whiting shoreside first receivers must 

provide the following types of 

information: date of landing, delivery 

vessel, gear type used, first receiver, 

round weights of species landed listed 

by species or species group including 

species catch with no value, number of 

salmon by species, number of Pacific 

halibut, and any other information 

deemed necessary by the Regional 

Administrator as specified on the 

appropriate electronic fish ticket form. 

(iv) Electronic fish ticket submissions. 

The Pacific whiting shoreside first 

receiver must: 

(A) Sort catch, prior to first weighing, 

by species or 

species groups as specified at 

§ 660.370 (h)(6)(iii). 

(B) Include as part of each electronic 

fish ticket submission, the actual scale 

weight for each groundfish species as 

specified by requirements at § 660.373 

(j)(2)(i) and the catcher vessel 

identification number. 

(C) Use for the purpose of submitting 

electronic fish tickets, and maintain in 

good working order, computer 

equipment as specified at § 660.373 

(j)(2)(ii)(A); 

(D) Install, use, and update as 

necessary, any NMFS-approved 

software described at § 660.373 

(j)(2)(ii)(B); 

(E) Submit a completed electronic fish 

ticket for every landing that includes 

4,000 lb (1,814 kg) or more of Pacific 

whiting (round weight equivalent) no 

later than 24 hours after the date the fish 

are received, unless a waiver of this 

requirement has been granted under 

provisions specified at paragraph (e)(1) 

(vii) of this section. 

(v) Revising a submitted electronic 

fish ticket submission. In the event that 

a data error is found, electronic fish 

ticket submissions may be revised by 

resubmitting the revised form. 

Electronic fish tickets are to be used for 

the submission of final catch data. 

Preliminary data, including estimates of 

catch weights or species in the catch, 

shall not be submitted on electronic fish 

tickets. 

(vi) Retention of records. [Reserved] 

(vii) Waivers for submission of 

electronic fish tickets. On a case-by-case 

basis, a temporary waiver of the 

requirement to submit electronic fish 

tickets may be granted by the Assistant 

Regional Administrator or designee if 

he/she determines that circumstances 

beyond the control of a Pacific whiting 

shoreside first receiver would result in 

inadequate data submissions using the 

electronic fish ticket system. The 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
17474 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

duration of the waiver will be 

determined on a case-by-case basis. 

(viii) Reporting requirements when a 

temporary waiver has been granted. 

Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers 

that have been granted a temporary 

waiver from the requirement to submit 

electronic fish tickets must submit on 

paper the same data as is required on 

electronic fish tickets within 24 hours of 

the date received during the period that 

the waiver is in effect. Paper fish tickets 

must be sent by facsimile to NMFS, 

Northwest Region, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, 206–526–6736 or by delivering 

it in person to 7600 Sand Point Way NE, 

Seattle, WA 98115. The requirements 

for submissions of paper tickets in this 

paragraph are separate from, and in 

addition to existing state requirements 

for landing receipts or fish receiving 

tickets. 

(2) [Reserved] 

4. In § 660.306, paragraphs (b)(4) and 

(f)(6) are added to read as follows: 

§ 660.306 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Fail to comply with all 

requirements at § 660.303 (d); or to fail 

to submit, submit inaccurate 

information, or intentionally submit 

false information on any report required 

at § 660.303 (d) when participating in 

the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(6) Pacific whiting shoreside first 

receivers. (i) Receive for transport or 

processing catch from a Pacific whiting 

shoreside vessel that does not have a 

properly functioning EMS system as 

required by Federal regulation or by an 

EFP, unless a waiver for EMS coverage 

was granted by NMFS for that trip. 

(ii) Fail to sort catch from a Pacific 

whiting shoreside vessel prior to first 

weighing after offloading as specified at 

§ 660.370 (h)(6)(iii) for the Pacific 

whiting fishery. 

(iii) Process, sell, or discard 

groundfish catch that has not been 

weighed on a scale that is in compliance 

with requirements at § 660.373 (j)(1)(i) 

and accounted for on an electronic fish 

ticket with the identification number for 

the catcher vessel that delivered the 

catch. 

(iv) Fail to weigh catch landed from 

a Pacific whiting shoreside vessel prior 

to transporting any fish from that 

landing away from the point of landing. 

* * * * * 

5. In § 660.370, paragraph (h)(6)(iii) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 660.370 Specifications and management 

measures. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(6) * * * 

(iii) Sorting requirements for the 

Pacific whiting shoreside fishery. Catch 

delivered to Pacific whiting shoreside 

first receivers (including shoreside 

processing facilities and buying stations 

that intend to transport catch for 

processing elsewhere) must be sorted, 

prior to first weighing after offloading 

from the vessel and prior to transport 

away from the point of landing, to the 

species groups specified in paragraph 

(h)(6)(i)(A) of this section for vessels 

with limited entry permits. Prohibited 

species must be sorted according to the 

following species groups: Dungeness 

crab, Pacific halibut, Chinook salmon, 

Other salmon. Non-groundfish species 

must be sorted as required by the state 

of landing. 

* * * * * 

6. In § 660.373, paragraph (j) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 660.373 Pacific whiting (whiting) fishery 

management. 

* * * * * 

(j) Additional requirements for 

participants in the Pacific Whiting 

Shoreside fishery—(1) Pacific whiting 

shoreside first receiver responsibilities—

(i) Weights and measures. All 

groundfish weights reported on fish 

tickets must be recorded from scales 

with appropriate weighing capacity that 

ensures accuracy for the amount of fish 

being weighed. For example: amounts of 

fish less than 1,000 lb (454 kg) should 

not be weighed on scales that have an 

accuracy range of 1,000 lb–7,000 lb (454 

- 3,175 kg) and are therefore not capable 

of accurately weighing amounts less 

than 1,000 lb (454 kg). 

(ii) Electronic fish tickets—(A) 

Hardware and software requirements. 

First receivers using the electronic fish 

ticket software provided by Pacific 

States Marine Fish Commission are 

required to meet the hardware and 

software requirements below. Those 

whiting first receivers who have NMFSapproved software compatible with the 

standards specified by Pacific States 

Marine Fish Commission for electronic 

fish tickets are not subject to any 

specific hardware or software 

requirements. 

(1) A personal computer with 

Pentium 75–MHz or higher. Random 

Access Memory (RAM) must have 

sufficient megabyte (MB) space to run 

the operating system, plus an additional 

8 MB for the software application and 

available hard disk space of 217 MB or 

greater. A CD-ROM drive with a Video 

Graphics Adapter(VGA) or higher 

resolution monitor (super VGA is 

recommended). 

(2) Microsoft Windows 2000 (64 MB 

or greater RAM required), Windows XP 

(128 MB or greater RAM required) or 

later operating system. 

(3) Microsoft Access 2003 or newer 

for. 

(B) NMFS Approved Software 

Standards and Internet Access. The 

Pacific whiting shoreside first receiver 

is responsible for obtaining, installing 

and updating electronic fish tickets 

software either provided by Pacific 

States Marine Fish Commission, or 

compatible with the standards specified 

by Pacific States Marine Fish 

Commission and for maintaining 

internet access sufficient to transmit 

data files via email. 

(C) Maintenance. The Pacific whiting 

shoreside first receiver is responsible for 

ensuring that all hardware and software 

required under this subsection are fully 

operational and functional whenever 

the Pacific whiting primary season 

deliveries are accepted. 

(2) Pacific whiting shoreside first 

receivers and processors that receive 

groundfish species other than Pacific 

whiting in excess of trip limits from 

Pacific whiting shoreside vessels fishing 

under an EFP issued by the Assistant 

Regional Administrator are authorized 

to possess the catch. 

(3) Vessel owners and operators, or 

shoreside processor owners, or 

managers may contact NMFS in writing 

to request assistance in improving data 

quality and resolving monitoring issues. 

Requests may be submitted to: Attn: 

Frank Lockhart,National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Northwest Region 

Sustainable Fisheries Division, 7600 

Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, 

or via email to frank.lockhart@noaa.gov. 

[FR Doc. E7–6643 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL