Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18943 

participation in the Sector enables their 

businesses to remain economically 

viable. 

Economic Impacts of Alternatives to the 

Proposed Action 

Under the No Action alternative, all 

Sector members would remain in the 

common pool of vessels and fish under 

all the rules implemented by 

Amendment 13 and subsequent 

Framework Adjustments. Under the 

regulatory scenario of the No Action 

alternative, Sector members would 

likely face increased economic 

uncertainty, a loss of efficiency, and 

revenue loss. Because cod usually 

represents a high proportion of total 

fishing income for hook gear vessels, 

revenues for Sector members are 

sensitive to regulations that impact how 

and when they can fish for cod, such as 

trip limits and hook gear restrictions. 

Sector members would be unnecessarily 

impacted by regulations designed to 

affect the catch of species of which hook 

gear catches very little (e.g., yellowtail 

flounder, because hook gear is more 

selective than other gear types). For 

example, under the No Action 

alternative, Sector members would be 

affected by the differential DAS 

counting requirement, one of the 

objectives of which is to protect 

yellowtail flounder. 

Description of the Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements of the Proposed Action 

This rule contains a collection-ofinformation requirement subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and 

which has been approved by OMB 

under control number 0648–0202. 

Public reporting burden for the 

Submission of a Plan of Operation for an 

Approved Sector Allocation is estimated 

to average 50 hr per response, and for 

the Annual Reporting Requirements for 

Sectors is estimated to average 6 hr per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. Send comments 

regarding this burden estimate, or any 

other aspect of this data collection, 

including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and 

by e-mail to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

(202) 395–7285. Nothwithstanding any 

other provision of the law, no person is 

required to respond to, nor shall any 

person be subject to a penalty for failure 

to comply with, a collection of 

information subject to the requirements 

of the PRA, unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB Control Number. 

Regulations under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act require publication of 

this notification to provide interested 

parties the opportunity to comment on 

proposed TAC allocations and plans of 

operation of sectors. 

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

Dated: April 11, 2007. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–1883 Filed 4–12–07; 10:41 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 060511126–7082–04; I.D. 

050306E] 

RIN 0648–AT71 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Gulf of 

Alaska Fishery Resources 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed 

rule for the Central Gulf of Alaska 

(GOA) rockfish fisheries to revise 

monitoring and enforcement (M&E) 

provisions related to catcher/processor 

vessels harvesting under the opt-out 

fishery, and to make changes to 

regulations governing the rockfish 

fisheries. This action is necessary to 

clarify procedures and to correct 

discrepancies in a November 20, 2006, 

final rule. This proposed rule is 

intended to promote the goals and 

objectives of the Fishery Management 

Plan for groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska 

(FMP), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), and other 

applicable law. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

April 30, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Mail: to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802; 

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, AK 99802; 

• Fax: (907) 586–7557; 

• E-mail: 0648–AT71– 

GOA68PR@noaa.gov. Include in the 

subject line of the email the following 

identifier: Rockfish Program correction 

0648–AT71. E-mail comments, with or 

without attachments, are limited to five 

megabytes; or 

• Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Copies of Amendment 68; the 

Environmental Assessment/Regulatory 

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) 

prepared for Amendment 68; and Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

prepared for Amendment 68 may be 

obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region, 

P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, 

Attn: Ellen Sebastian, and on the NMFS 

Alaska Region website at http:// 

www.fakr.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Anderson, 907 586 7228 or 

jason.anderson@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In January 2004 the U.S. Congress 

amended section 313(j) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act through the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2004 (Public Law 108 199, section 802). 

As amended, the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to 

establish a limited access privilege 

program for the Central GOA rockfish 

fisheries (Program), developed in 

coordination with the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council). 

The Council recommended Amendment 

68 to the FMP for groundfish in the 

GOA on June 6, 2005, to make the 

Program effective. 

NMFS published a notice of 

availability for Amendment 68 on May 

15, 2006 (71 FR 27984). On June 7, 

2006, NMFS published a proposed rule 

to implement Amendment 68 and the 

Program (71 FR 33040). The Secretary 

approved Amendment 68 on August 11, 

2006. NMFS published a final rule to 

implement Amendment 68 on 

November 20, 2006 (71 FR 67210). 

The Program provides exclusive 

harvesting and processing privileges for 

a specific set of rockfish species and 

associated species harvested 

incidentally to those rockfish in the 

Central GOA an area between 147° W. 

longitude and 159° W. longitude. A 

detailed overview of the Program is 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
18944 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

provided in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (71 FR 33040; June 7, 

2006) and is not repeated here. 

However, a component of the Program 

allows holders of License Limitation 

Program licenses that are assigned 

rockfish quota share (QS) for the 

catcher/processor sector to opt-out of 

many of the aspects of the Program (optout fishery). Participants in the opt-out 

fishery are subject to harvest limitations, 

called sideboards, during the month of 

July. Sideboard limits applicable to 

participants in the opt-out fishery 

include measures to limit catch of 

specific groundfish species to historic 

levels, and limits on the amount of 

Pacific halibut bycatch, specifically 

termed prohibited species catch (PSC). 

NMFS requires a suite of M&E 

provisions for participants in the optout fishery to ensure they do not exceed 

their sideboards. 

Need for Corrections 

NMFS seeks to ensure that the 

November, 20, 2006, final rule (71 FR 

67210) conforms to the intent of the 

Program, and to provide clarification 

regarding the Program’s regulatory 

requirements. 

Regulatory Intent Clarification 

In the proposed rule to implement 

Amendment 68 (71 FR 33040; June 7, 

2006), NMFS detailed the M&E 

provisions that would apply to 

participants in the opt-out fishery. The 

proposed suite of M&E provisions 

applicable to the opt-out fishery 

included requirements that each haul 

must be weighed separately, all catch 

must be made available for sampling by 

a NMFS-certified observer (see proposed 

regulatory text at § 679.84(c)(1); 71 FR 

33096), and that the vessel has no more 

than one operational line or other 

conveyance for the mechanized 

movement of catch between the scale 

used to weigh total catch and the 

location where the observer collects 

species composition samples (see 

proposed regulatory text at 

§ 679.84(c)(4); 71 FR 33096). The 

proposed rule would have required that 

all catcher/processor vessels in the optout fishery be subject to these M&E 

requirements during July. The effect of 

the full suite of these M&E requirements 

on the regulated industry and the 

environment was analyzed in the draft 

EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the proposed 

rule to implement the Program. 

In response to public comment 

received on the proposed rule, NMFS 

modified the M&E provisions that apply 

to the opt-out fishery. The modifications 

were detailed in the preamble to the 

final rule. Specifically, NMFS noted 

these changes in the summary of 

changes section to the preamble (71 FR 

67213) and in its response to comment 

90 (71 FR 67229). NMFS also analyzed 

the effect of the revised M&E provisions 

for the opt-out fishery in the final EA/ 

RIR and FRFA prepared for the Program 

final rule (see ADDRESSES). The 

preamble to the final rule clearly 

indicated that NMFS intended to 

maintain the requirement for hauls to be 

weighed separately, and intended to 

require only one operational line. 

The final regulatory text applicable to 

the opt-out fishery omitted some of the 

M&E requirements for catcher/processor 

vessels in the opt-out fishery that were 

detailed in the preamble to the final 

rule. Specifically, the regulations at 

§ 679.84(d) failed to include the 

requirements to prevent mixing of hauls 

and maintain only one operational line 

before the point where the observer 

samples catch. These two requirements 

are essential for accurately attributing 

species composition to a specific haul 

and, in particular, to provide onboard 

observers the ability to properly 

attribute halibut PSC to a specific haul. 

Assigning halibut PSC to a specific haul 

is necessary to generate halibut PSC 

usage rates for specific fishery targets. 

Mixing of hauls and using more than 

one operational line undermines NMFS’

ability to determine accurate halibut 

PSC usage for specific fisheries and 

creates the potential for improper 

halibut PSC accounting. Because the 

distribution of organisms by size and 

species often differs among hauls, an 

aggregation of hauls (i.e., mixing two or 

more hauls) could create errors in the 

calculation of total groundfish catch. 

For example, if a vessel were to mix 

hauls from two different areas or depths, 

species catch composition and size 

could be significantly different between 

these hauls, and a composite sample 

may not be representative of each 

individual haul. Any errors would be 

exacerbated as the composite sample is 

expanded to represent the total weight 

of the mixed hauls. Similarly, the use of 

more than one operational line could 

lead to improperly sampled catch 

because catch could be diverted or 

otherwise conveyed in a manner that 

would limit adequate sampling. 

Improper accounting of halibut PSC 

increases the risk that NMFS’ catch 

accounting system may underestimate 

the amount of halibut PSC in the opt-out 

fishery, which undermines the 

conservation goals of this program. 

Because halibut PSC sideboards are 

likely to be small relative to harvest 

rates, timely and accurate accounting is 

essential to properly constrain fishing 

operations and ensure adequate 

conservation of the halibut resource. 

Additionally, halibut PSC sideboards 

are allocated to specific participants 

within the catcher/processor sector (i.e., 

halibut PSC sideboard limits are 

established for each catcher/processor 

rockfish cooperative, and a combined 

halibut PSC limit is established for the 

combined catcher/processor rockfish 

limited access and opt-out fisheries). 

Failure to properly account for halibut 

PSC in a timely fashion with the best 

available data could increase the 

possibility that the opt-out fishery 

exceeds its halibut PSC sideboard limit. 

This could adversely constrain other 

fishery participants with halibut PSC 

limits (e.g., participants in catcher/ 

processor cooperatives). 

Finally, certain catcher/processor 

operators that may choose to participate 

in the opt-out fishery may have an 

incentive to use techniques to 

intentionally bias halibut PSC rates if 

mixing of hauls and the use of more 

than one operational line is permitted. 

Recent enforcement actions document 

intentional presorting of catch to bias 

observed catch rates of halibut PSC to 

maximize groundfish catch relative to 

constraining PSC or other groundfish 

catch. However, NMFS expects that 

opportunities to bias observer samples 

in the opt-out fishery will be reduced 

with the changes established under this 

rule. 

NMFS proposes to revise the 

regulatory text to include requirements 

to prevent the mixing of hauls and 

maintain only one operational line 

before the point where the observer 

samples catch. This action is necessary 

to be consistent with the intent of the 

final rule and provide the affected 

public with accurate information 

regarding these requirements. 

Additional Changes 

Regulations at § 679.80(f)(3)(iii)(F) 

include a grammatical error. This 

paragraph would be revised to correct 

the phrase, ‘‘are the sum of all catch 

history’’ to read, ‘‘is the sum of all catch 

history.’’

Regulations at § 679.82(d)(5)(iii) 

describe sideboard limits applicable to 

catcher vessels for the Program. This 

paragraph includes an erroneous crossreference to ‘‘§ 679.65(b)(1)(i)(B).’’ This 

cross-reference would be corrected to 

read ‘‘§ 679.64(b)(2)(ii).’’

Regulations at § 679.82(d)(8)(ii)(B) 

include a misspelled word. This 

paragraph would be revised to correct 

the phrase, ‘‘percent fo the GOA’’ to 

read, ‘‘percent of the GOA.’’

Regulations at § 679.83(a)(1)(i) 

describe rockfish allocations for the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18945 

Program’s entry level fishery. This 

paragraph includes an erroneous crossreference to ‘‘§ 679.81(ab)(2).’’ This 

cross-reference would be corrected to 

read ‘‘§ 679.81(a)(2).’’

Classification 

NMFS has determined that this 

proposed rule is consistent with the 

FMP and preliminarily determined that 

the rule is consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

An IRFA was prepared, as required by 

section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, for the regulations implementing 

the Program. 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 in the 

preamble. Copies of the EA/RIR/IRFA 

prepared for the Program are available 

from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A 

summary of that analysis follows. 

Why action by the agency is being 

considered and objectives of, and legal 

basis for, the proposed rule. The IRFA 

prepared for the Program describes in 

detail the reasons why this action is 

being proposed, describes the objectives 

and legal basis for the proposed rule, 

and discusses both small and non-small 

regulated entities to adequately 

characterize the fishery participants. 

Section 802 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2004 and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act provide the legal 

basis for the Program, namely to achieve 

the objective of reducing excessive 

fishing capacity and ending the race for 

fish under the current management 

strategy for commercial fishing vessels 

operating in the Central GOA rockfish 

fisheries. NMFS proposes to revise the 

regulatory text to include requirements 

to prevent the mixing of hauls and 

maintain only one operational line 

before the point where the observer 

samples catch. This action is necessary 

to be consistent with the intent of the 

Program and provide the affected public 

with accurate information regarding 

these requirements. 

Description of significant alternatives. 

The Council considered an extensive 

and elaborate series of alternatives, 

options, and suboptions as it designed 

and evaluated the potential for 

rationalization of the Central GOA 

rockfish fisheries, including the ‘‘no 

action’’ alternative. Three alternatives 

for catcher vessels were considered: 

Status Quo/No Action (Alternative 1); 

rockfish cooperative management with a 

limited license program for processors 

(Alternative 2); and rockfish cooperative 

management with linkages between 

rockfish cooperatives and processors 

(Alternative 3). Three alternatives for 

catcher/processors also were 

considered: Status Quo/No Action 

(Alternative 1); rockfish cooperative 

management (Alternative 2); and a 

sector allocation (Alternative 3). 

Alternative 3 for catcher vessels and 

Alternative 2 for catcher/processors 

were combined to form the Council’s 

preferred alternative the rockfish 

cooperative alternative. The alternatives 

were analyzed relative to the status quo. 

Because the regulatory effect for opt-out 

sideboard fisheries will not occur until 

July, 1 2007, the status quo has not 

changed. Therefore, the effects of these 

alternatives described in the Program 

IRFA have not changed relative to this 

action. These alternatives constitute the 

suite of ‘‘significant alternatives,’’ under 

the proposed action, for purposes of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). 

After an exhaustive public process 

spanning several years, the Council 

concluded that the Program best 

accomplishes the stated objectives 

articulated in the problem statement 

and applicable statutes, and minimizes 

to the extent practicable adverse 

economic impacts on the universe of 

directly regulated small entities. 

Number of small entities to which the 

proposed rule will apply. The IRFA 

prepared for the Program contains a 

description and estimate of the number 

of small entities to which the proposed 

rule would apply. The IRFA estimates 

that as many as 15 catcher/processor 

vessels are eligible to receive QS under 

the Program. The IRFA estimates that 

approximately 171 trawl vessels and 

900 non-trawl vessels could participate 

in the entry level fishery. The number 

of vessels that would choose to 

participate in the entry level fishery 

component of the Program is not 

known; therefore, there is no estimate of 

the number of entities in the entry level 

fishery that are directly regulated under 

this Program. 

In addition, six entities that process 

rockfish are estimated to be eligible 

rockfish processors and would be 

regulated under this Program. None of 

these eligible rockfish processors are 

estimated to be small entities based on 

the number of persons employed by 

these processors. Additionally, some of 

these eligible rockfish processors are 

estimated to be involved in both the 

harvesting and processing of seafood 

products and exceed the $4.0 million in 

revenues as a fish harvesting operation. 

Some processors that are not eligible 

rockfish processors may choose to 

compete for landings from the entry 

level fishery and would be regulated by 

this Program. Some of these processors 

may be small entities. The extent of 

participation by small entities in the 

processing segment of the entry level 

fishery cannot be predicted. 

Of the estimated 63 entities owning 

vessels eligible for fishing under the 

Program (other than the entry-level 

fishery), 45 are estimated to be small 

entities because they generated $4.0 

million or less in gross revenue based 

on participation in 1996 through 2002. 

All 15 of the entities owning eligible 

catcher/processor vessels are non-small 

entities as defined by the RFA. No 

catcher vessel individually exceeds the 

small entity threshold of $4.0 million in 

gross revenues. At least three catcher 

vessels are believed to be owned by 

entities whose operations exceed the 

small entity threshold, leaving an 

estimated many as 45 small catcher 

vessel entities that are directly regulated 

by this action. The ability to estimate 

the number of small entities that operate 

catcher vessels regulated by this action 

is limited due to incomplete 

information concerning vessel 

ownership. 

It is likely that a substantial portion 

of the catcher vessel participants in the 

entry level fishery will be small entities. 

Based on data from NOAA Fisheries, 

there are approximately 171 LLP 

licenses that would be qualified to fish 

in the Central GOA entry level trawl 

fishery, and 900 LLP licenses that 

would qualify to fish in the entry level 

fixed gear fishery. However, it is not 

possible to determine how many 

persons may hold these LLP licenses 

and chose to participate in the entry 

level fishery at the time of application 

to participate in the fishery. The number 

of persons holding LLPs is likely to be 

less than the total number of LLP 

licenses that may be used to participate 

in the entry level fishery because a 

person may hold more than one LLP 

license at a time. 

Six entities made at least one rockfish 

landing from 1996 to 2002, but none 

appeared to qualify as an eligible 

rockfish harvester. Five of these entities 

are not small entities and one entity 

qualifies as ‘‘small’’ by Small Business 

Administration (SBA) standards. The 

non-small entities owned five catcher/ 

processors. The one small entity owns a 

catcher vessel. Entities that do not 

qualify for the Program either left the 

fishery, currently fish under interim 

LLP licenses, or do not hold an LLP 

license. Moreover, the vessels the IRFA 

prepared for the Program considers 

‘‘non-qualified’’ could not or would not 

be allowed to continue fishing under the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
18946 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

current LLP. The impacts to the small 

entities that would be prohibited from 

fishing by the LLP were analyzed in the 

RIR/IRFA and Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared for 

the LLP. Therefore, the non-qualified 

vessels are not considered impacted by 

the proposed rule and are not discussed 

in this IRFA. 

For purposes of the RIR prepared for 

the Program, the community of Kodiak, 

Alaska, could be directly impacted by 

the Program. All of the eligible rockfish 

processors are located in Kodiak. The 

specific impacts on Kodiak cannot be 

determined until NMFS issues QS and 

eligible rockfish harvesters begin fishing 

under the Program. Other supporting 

businesses may also be indirectly 

affected by this action if it leads to fewer 

vessels participating in the fishery. 

These impacts are analyzed in the RIR 

prepared for this action (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Projected reporting, recordkeeping 

and other compliance requirements. 

Implementation of the Program would 

change the overall reporting structure 

and recordkeeping requirements of the 

participants in the Central GOA rockfish 

fisheries. All participants would be 

required to provide additional reporting. 

Each harvester would be required to 

track harvests to avoid exceeding his or 

her allocation. As in other North Pacific 

rationalized fisheries, processors would 

provide catch recording data to 

managers to monitor harvest of 

allocations. Processors would be 

required to record deliveries and 

processing activities to aid in the 

Program administration. The specifics of 

changes to reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements can be found in the 

preamble to the Program proposed rule 

(71 FR 33040, June 2, 2006). 

Federal rules which may duplicate, 

overlap or conflict with the proposed 

rule. No Federal rules that may 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this 

proposed action have been identified. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 

Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: April 11, 2007. 

John Oliver, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Operations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

For reasons stated in the preamble, 

NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 

679 as follows: 

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 

ALASKA 

1. The authority citation for part 679 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et 

seq., 3631 et seq.; and Pub. L. 108–199, 118 

Stat. 110. 

2. In § 679.80, revise paragraph 

(f)(3)(iii)(F) to read as follows: 

§ 679.80 Initial allocation of rockfish QS. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(F) Determine the percentage of legal 

rockfish landings from the official 

Rockfish Program record in the 

qualifying years used to calculate the 

rockfish QS assigned to the catcher/ 

processor sector and multiply the 

rockfish QS units calculated in 

paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(E) of this section by 

this percentage. This yields the rockfish 

QS units to be assigned to the catcher/ 

processor sector for that LLP license and 

species. For each primary rockfish 

species, the total amount of rockfish QS 

units assigned to the catcher/processor 

sector is the sum of all catch history 

allocation units assigned to all eligible 

rockfish harvesters in the catcher/ 

processor sector. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 679.82, revise paragraphs 

(d)(5)(iii) and (d)(8)(ii)(B) to read as 

follows: 

§ 679.82 Rockfish Program use caps and 

sideboard limits. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(iii) Any AFA vessel that is not 

exempt from GOA groundfish 

sideboards under the AFA as specified 

under § 679.64(b)(2)(ii) is exempt from 

the sideboard limits in this paragraph 

(d). 

* * * * * 

(8) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) The aggregate halibut PSC used in 

the shallow-water complex from July 1 

through July 31 in each year from 1996 

through 2002 by LLP licenses assigned 

to that rockfish cooperative that are 

subject to directed fishing closures 

under this paragraph (d), divided by 

0.54 percent of the GOA annual halibut 

mortality limit. 

* * * * * 

4. In § 679.83, revise paragraph 

(a)(1)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 679.83 Rockfish Program entry level 

fishery. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Trawl catcher vessels. Trawl 

catcher vessels participating in the 

rockfish entry level fishery may 

collectively harvest, prior to September 

1, an amount not greater than 50 percent 

of the total allocation to the rockfish 

entry level fishery as calculated under 

§ 679.81(a)(2). Allocations to trawl 

catcher vessels shall be made first from 

the allocation of Pacific ocean perch 

available to the rockfish entry level 

fishery. If the amount of Pacific ocean 

perch available for allocation is less 

than the total allocation allowable for 

trawl catcher vessels in the rockfish 

entry level fishery, then northern 

rockfish and pelagic shelf rockfish shall 

be allocated to trawl catcher vessels. 

* * * * * 

5. In § 679.84, revise paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 679.84 Rockfish Program recordkeeping, 

permits, monitoring, and catch accounting. 

* * * * * 

(d) Catch monitoring requirements for 

catcher/processors assigned to the optout fishery. At all times any catcher/ 

processor vessel assigned to the opt-out 

fishery has groundfish onboard that 

vessel that were harvested subject to a 

sideboard limit as described under 

§ 679.82(d) through (h), as applicable, 

the vessel owner or operator must 

ensure catch from an individual haul is 

not mixed with catch from another haul 

prior to sampling by a NMFS-certified 

observer, that all catch be made 

available for sampling by a NMFScertified observer, and that the 

requirements in paragraphs (c)(3), (4), 

(5), (8), and (9) of this section are met. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–7193 Filed 4–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS