21198 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(5) Implement area closures to reduce 

damage to habitat from squid-mackerelbutterfish fisheries, 

(6) Increase the minimum codend 

mesh size requirement in the Loligo 

fishery, (7) Modify the exemption of the Illex 

fishery from the minimum codend mesh 

size requirement of the Loligo fishery, (8) Modify the Loligo incidental catch 

limit in the Illex fishery during Loligo 

fishery closures, (9) Establish a requirement for 

electronic daily reporting in the directed 

Illex fishery, (10) Establish gear restricted areas that 

are seasonally closed to small-mesh 

gear. 

Dates and Locations of the Hearings 

Monday May 14, 2007: Hilton Garden 

Inn Providence Airport, One Thuber 

Street, Warwick, RI 02886. 

Tuesday, May 15, 2007: Holiday Inn 

Express East End, 1707 Old Country 

Road, Riverhead, NY 11901. 

Wednesday, May 16, 2007: The Grand 

Hotel, 1045 Beach Ave., Cape May, NJ 

08204. 

Thursday, May 17, 2007: Days Inn 

Norfolk Airport, 5708 Northampton 

Blvd., Virginia Beach, VA 23455. 

Special Accommodations 

The meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to M. 

Jan Bryan at the Mid-Atlantic Council 

Office (302) 674–2331 extension 18 at 

least five days prior to the meeting date. 

Dated: April 24, 2007. 

James P. Burgess, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–8197 Filed 4–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[I.D. 041 307D] 

RIN 0648–AU68 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering 

Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery 

Resources; American Fisheries Act 

Sideboards 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notification of availability; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) has 

submitted Amendment 80 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area (FMP) to NMFS for 

review. If approved, Amendment 80 

would allocate several Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands (BSAI) non-pollock 

trawl groundfish species among trawl 

fishing sectors, and facilitate the 

formation of harvesting cooperatives in 

the non-American Fisheries Act (AFA) 

trawl catcher/processor sector. 

Amendment 80 is necessary to increase 

resource conservation and improve 

economic efficiency for harvesters who 

participate in the BSAI groundfish 

fisheries. This proposed amendment 

also is necessary to implement recent 

changes to the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA) that modify the allocation of 

groundfish resources in the BSAI to the 

Western Alaska Community 

Development Quota (CDQ) Program, and 

statutory mandates that define who is 

eligible to harvest fish in the non-AFA 

catcher/processor sector for a defined 

list of non-pollock groundfish species in 

the BSAI. This action is intended to 

promote the goals and objectives of the 

MSA, the FMP, and other applicable 

laws. The amendment is available for 

public review and comment. 

DATES: Comments on Amendment 80 

must be received on or before June 29, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer. 

Comments may be submitted by: 

• Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, 

Room 420A, Juneau, AK; 

• E-mail: 0648–

AU68NOA80@noaa.gov. Include in the 

subject line the following document 

identifier: Amendment 80 RIN 0648–

AU68. E-mail comments, with or 

without attachments, are limited to 5 

megabytes; 

• Fax: 907–586–7557; 

• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802–1668; or 

• Webform at the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions at that site for 

submitting comments. 

Copies of the Amendment 80 

Environmental Assessment/Regulatory 

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) 

prepared for this action are available 

from the NMFS Alaska Region website 

at www.fakr.noaa.gov or from the 

mailing and street addresses listed 

above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Glenn Merrill, 907–586–7228 or 

glenn.merrill@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MSA 

requires that each regional fishery 

management council submit any FMP or 

FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS 

for review and approval, disapproval, or 

partial approval by the Secretary. The 

MSA also requires that NMFS, upon 

receiving an FMP amendment, 

immediately publish a notice in the 

Federal Register that the FMP or 

amendment is available for public 

review and comment. This requirement 

is satisfied by this notice of availability 

for Amendment 80. 

Amendment 80 and Bycatch Reduction 

Efforts in the BSAI 

Amendment 80 and its implementing 

regulations would continue initiatives 

by the Council and NMFS to reduce 

bycatch of fish species in the BSAI nonpollock trawl groundfish fisheries. 

Amendment 80 would reduce the 

amount of halibut and crab bycatch, 

known as prohibited species catch 

(PSC), that may be taken while non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processors are fishing for 

groundfish in the BSAI. These measures 

would consider efficiency in utilization 

of fishery resources, minimize costs, 

and further minimize bycatch to the 

extent practicable, thereby meeting the 

objectives of National Standards 5, 7, 

and 9 of the MSA. 

Amendment 80 would facilitate this 

and other bycatch reductions through 

specific economic incentives provided 

by a limited access privilege program 

(LAPP). This LAPP would encourage 

improved retention and utilization of 

fishery resources by allocating specific 

amounts of certain species of nonpollock groundfish, and halibut and 

crab PSC, to non-AFA trawl catcher 

processors; and authorize the formation 

of cooperatives that would receive 

exclusive harvest privileges for a 

portion of these fishery resources. 

One of the primary reasons for the 

relatively high discard rates of 

groundfish by non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors is the nature of the fisheries 

in which those vessels participate. The 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector 

primarily participates in non-pollock 

groundfish fisheries. The non-pollock 

groundfish fisheries are primarily 

comprised of groups of species that 

share similar habitat (e.g., flatfish 

fisheries such as rock sole, flathead sole, 

and yellowfin sole). Because these 

species occur together, they are 

typically harvested together. When a 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 

retrieves its net, very often multiple 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 21199 

species of fish are present. If a vessel 

operator is targeting only one species of 

fish, and other species are retrieved 

along with the desired catch, the vessel 

operator may have an incentive to 

discard the less valuable species and 

retain only the higher value species. The 

multi-species nature of these fisheries 

makes it difficult for vessel operators to 

target only one species, and an 

economic incentive exits to discard less 

valuable fish. 

NMFS establishes a total allowable 

catch (TAC) for each groundfish species 

based on the species’s annual biomass 

with the goal of providing a 

conservatively managed sustainable 

yield. In the non-pollock groundfish 

fisheries, harvesters compete for the 

TAC, resulting in a ‘‘race for fish,’’

wherein vessels attempt to maximize 

their harvest in as little time as possible, 

in order to claim a larger share of the 

available TAC. This race for fish only 

increases the economic incentive to 

discard less valuable species in a multispecies harvest, and accelerate the 

harvest rate for the more valuable 

species. 

Because vessel operators are 

competing with each other for shares of 

a common quota, a vessel operator has 

little economic incentive to undertake 

actions to reduce unwanted incidental 

catch, such as searching for fishing 

grounds with lower incidental catch 

rates, or use gear modifications that may 

reduce bycatch but have a lower harvest 

rate, if those actions would limit the 

ability of that vessel to effectively 

compete with other vessels. 

Additionally, a vessel operator has little 

incentive to process and store less 

valuable species if by doing so, he loses 

an opportunity to use that processing or 

storage capacity for more valuable catch. 

Therefore, an individual vessel operator 

has strong incentives to harvest fish as 

quickly as possible, and discard less 

valuable species, before the TAC limit is 

reached because all vessel operators are 

competing for a limited TAC. 

Additionally, non-pollock groundfish 

fisheries are constrained by catch limits 

for non-target species, such as halibut, 

red king crab, Chinocetes bairdi crab, 

and C. opilio crab. Halibut and crab are 

harvested in other fisheries and cannot 

be retained by vessels using trawl gear. 

NMFS establishes prohibited species 

catch (PSC) limits for halibut in the 

entire BSAI, and red king crab, C. opilio 

crab, and C. bairdi crab in specific areas 

of the BSAI to limit the adverse impact 

of harvesting operations on the longterm productivity of those species. 

NMFS monitors these PSC limits, and 

may close or otherwise restrict trawl 

harvests if PSC limits are projected to be 

reached. Fishery closures due to 

reaching PSC limits can limit harvest of 

the groundfish TAC and reduce overall 

revenue to vessel operators and crew. 

As vessel operators seek to maximize 

harvest of TAC, they may accelerate 

fishing operations to maximize harvest 

before a crab or halibut PSC limit is 

reached. A ‘‘race for PSC’’ further 

exacerbates competition and the 

incentives to harvest rapidly, resulting 

in greater potential waste and higher 

discard rates of less valuable groundfish 

species. 

The multi-species nature of nonpollock groundfish fisheries further 

limits the ability of a fisherman to 

specifically target valuable groundfish 

species as they race with their 

competitors. Vessel operators may 

discard considerable portions of their 

catch to maximize harvests of more 

valuable species even though the 

discarded species may have 

considerable market value if 

competition did not create such a strong 

incentive to maximize harvests of the 

more valuable species in as short a time 

as possible. 

LAPP Management 

The primary method to offset the 

economic incentives that lead to a race 

for fish and relatively high discard rates 

is to reduce the impact of those 

incentives through a LAPP. LAPPs have 

been used extensively in the North 

Pacific as a means to encourage 

economic efficiency and less wasteful 

harvest methods, and to resolve 

allocation disputes among harvesters by 

providing a group of harvesters with 

exclusive harvest privileges that can be 

traded. North Pacific LAPPs include (1) 

the halibut and sablefish individual 

fishing quota (IFQ) Program (November 

9, 1993, 58 FR 59375); (2) the AFA 

(December 30, 2002, 67 FR 69692); (3) 

the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program 

(March 2, 2005; 70 FR 10174); and (4) 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program 

(November 20, 2006; 71 FR 67210). An 

extensive discussion of LAPPs can be 

found in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for 

this action (see ADDRESSES). 

Based on experience with past LAPPs, 

and after weighing potential advantages 

and disadvantages, the Council adopted 

Amendment 80 to create economic 

incentives that provide additional 

opportunities to reduce bycatch while 

increasing the potential for greater 

economic returns to persons holding the 

harvest privileges. Amendment 80 

would provide an incentive for nonAFA trawl catcher/processors to harvest 

non-pollock groundfish in a less 

wasteful manner by granting an 

exclusive harvest privilege to a limited 

number of harvesters. Amendment 80 

would encourage participants to harvest 

more efficiently and less wastefully by 

allowing them to choose to (1) form one 

or more harvesting cooperatives with 

other harvesters that would receive an 

exclusive annual harvest privilege of 

specific groundfish species and PSC; or 

(2) fish in a limited access fishery 

comprised of fishery participants that 

choose not to join a cooperative. The 

principal benefits from Amendment 80 

would be realized by harvesters that 

choose to join a cooperative. 

Overview of Amendment 80 

The Council adopted Amendment 80 

to meet the broad goals of: (1) improving 

retention and utilization of fishery 

resources by the non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processor fleet; (2) allocating fishery 

resources among BSAI trawl harvesters 

in consideration of historic and present 

harvest patterns and future harvest 

needs; (3) authorizing the allocation of 

groundfish species to harvesting 

cooperatives and establishing a LAPP 

for the non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors to reduce potential bycatch 

reduction costs, encourage fishing 

practices with lower discard rates, and 

improve the opportunity for increasing 

the value of harvested species; and (4) 

limiting the ability of non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors to expand their 

harvesting capacity into other fisheries 

not managed under a LAPP. 

As with all other LAPPs in the North 

Pacific, the extensive changes to 

existing management of BSAI nonpollock trawl fisheries proposed by 

Amendment 80 would affect a wide 

range of fishing practices and 

regulations. Amendment 80 would 

affect management of the non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processors, and all other 

BSAI trawl fishery participants. As 

such, Amendment 80 proposes a 

complex suite of measures to ensure the 

goals of Amendment 80 are met and to 

minimize potential adverse impacts on 

other affected fishery participants. 

The following section provides an 

overview of the suite of measures 

Amendment 80 proposes to implement. 

1. Community Development Quota 

(CDQ) Program 

Amendment 80 would incorporate 

statutory mandates in the MSA as 

amended by Section 416 of the Coast 

Guard and Maritime Transportation Act 

of 2006 (Public Law 109–241; July 11, 

2006), and the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act (Public Law 109–

479, January 12, 2007). The proposed 

rule would modify the percentage of the 

total allowable catch (TAC) for directed 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
21200 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

fisheries that are allocated to the CDQ 

Program, and the percentage of halibut, 

crab, and salmon prohibited species 

catch (PSC) allocated to the CDQ 

Program as prohibited species quota. 

Also proposed are other provisions 

necessary to bring Amendment 80 and 

the CDQ Program into compliance with 

applicable law. 

2. Amendment 80 Sector and 

Amendment 80 Vessels 

Eligible Amendment 80 sector 

participants would be defined by 

applicable legislation and the 

implementing regulations. Amendment 

80 would incorporate statutory 

mandates in section 219 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2005 (Public Law 108–447; December 8, 

2004) which defines who is eligible to 

harvest fish in the non-AFA catcher/ 

processor sector for a defined list of 

non-pollock groundfish species. 

Amendment 80 would define the 

‘‘Amendment 80 sector’’ as non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processor harvesters 

eligible to fish under this statutory 

mandate. The list of non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processor vessels that may be 

used to fish in the Amendment 80 sector 

are called ‘‘Amendment 80 vessels.’’

3. Amendment 80 Species 

Amendment 80 would allocate a 

specific portion of six non-pollock 

groundfish species among trawl fishery 

sectors. These six species would be the 

‘‘Amendment 80 species,’’ and include 

Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch, 

BSAI Atka mackerel, BSAI flathead sole, 

BSAI Pacific cod, BSAI rock sole, and 

BSAI yellowfin sole. These Amendment 

80 species would be allocated between 

the Amendment 80 sector and all other 

BSAI trawl fishery participants. These 

other trawl fishery participants include 

AFA catcher/processors, AFA catcher 

vessels, and non-AFA catcher vessels. 

Collectively, this group of trawl fishery 

participants comprises the ‘‘BSAI trawl 

limited access sector.’’ These six species 

are economically valuable and have 

historically been targeted by non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processors, but fisheries 

associated with these species have high 

rates of discard of other groundfish 

species. 

4. Allocations of TAC and PSC in the 

BSAI Trawl Fisheries 

Each year, NMFS would allocate an 

amount of Amendment 80 species 

available for harvest, and crab and 

halibut PSC to two defined groups of 

trawl fishery participants: (1) the 

Amendment 80 sector; and (2) the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector. The amount 

of Amendment 80 species TAC assigned 

to each sector would be based on the 

amount of TAC remaining after 

allocation to the CDQ Program and for 

incidental catch allowance requirements 

in other fisheries as necessary. This 

allocation amount is termed the initial 

TAC (ITAC). Allocations made to one 

sector would not be subject to harvest 

by participants in the other fishery 

sector except under a specific condition. 

Fish that are allocated to the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector and projected to be 

unharvested could be reallocated to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives. 

Amendment 80 would further address 

the Council’s goals of reducing bycatch 

and discard of groundfish species by 

reducing the total amount of crab and 

halibut PSC allocated to the 

Amendment 80 sector. 

5. BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector 

Amendment 80 would provide a 

specific allocation of Amendment 80 

species and crab and halibut PSC to this 

sector. Amendment 80 would modify 

the calculation of AFA sideboard limits 

for Amendment 80 species and crab and 

halibut PSC limits as necessary to allow 

the efficient operation of AFA vessels. 

6. Amendment 80 Quota Share 

Amendment 80 would assign 

Amendment 80 quota share (QS) for 

Amendment 80 species to the owners of 

Amendment 80 vessels. Amendment 80 

QS could be used to yield an exclusive 

harvest privilege for a portion of the 

Amendment 80 sector ITAC. 

Amendment 80 would establish criteria 

for harvesters in the Amendment 80 

sector to apply for and receive QS, 

criteria for initially allocating QS, and 

criteria for the transfer of QS. 

Amendment 80 would assign 

Amendment 80 QS based on historic 

catch patterns of an Amendment 80 

vessel during 1998 through 2004. 

Amendment 80 would assign QS based 

on the relative proportion of an 

Amendment 80 species harvested by an 

Amendment 80 vessel compared to all 

other Amendment 80 vessels. 

Amendment 80 would assign 

Amendment 80 QS only to members of 

the Amendment 80 sector who submit a 

complete application for Amendment 80 

QS. In most cases, Amendment 80 

would assign the Amendment 80 QS to 

an Amendment 80 vessel owner. In 

specific cases where an Amendment 80 

vessel has been lost or is otherwise 

permanently ineligible to fish in U.S. 

waters, the Amendment 80 QS would be 

assigned to the holder of the license 

limitation Amendment 80 (LLP) license 

originally assigned to that Amendment 

80 vessel. Once Amendment 80 QS is 

assigned based on the historic catch 

patterns of an Amendment 80 vessel, it 

could not be divided or transferred 

separately from that Amendment 80 

vessel. If Amendment 80 QS is assigned 

to the LLP license originally issued for 

that Amendment 80 vessel, it could not 

be transferred separately from that LLP 

license. 

7. Amendment 80 Cooperatives 

Persons who receive Amendment 80 

QS would be able to join a cooperative 

to receive an exclusive harvest privilege 

for a portion of the ITAC. Amendment 

80 QS holders would be able to form a 

cooperative with other Amendment 80 

QS holders on an annual basis, provided 

they meet specific criteria. Each 

Amendment 80 cooperative would 

receive an annual cooperative quota 

(CQ), an amount of Amendment 80 

species ITAC that would be for the 

exclusive use by that cooperative for 

harvest in a given year. Amendment 80 

would establish requirements for 

forming an Amendment 80 cooperative 

with other Amendment 80 QS holders, 

the allocation of annual CQ to a 

cooperative, and transfers of CQ among 

cooperatives. A cooperative would 

receive an amount of CQ equivalent to 

the proportion of QS held by all of the 

members of the cooperative relative to 

the total QS held by all Amendment 80 

QS holders. 

Each Amendment 80 cooperative 

would receive an annual CQ with an 

exclusive limit on the amount of crab 

and halibut PSC the cooperative can use 

while harvesting in the BSAI. This 

halibut and crab PSC CQ would be 

assigned to a cooperative proportional 

to the amount of Amendment 80 QS 

held by the members, and would not be 

based on the amount of crab or halibut 

PSC historically used by the cooperative 

members. 

Amendment 80 would provide 

opportunities for Amendment 80 sector 

participants to trade harvest privileges 

among cooperatives to further encourage 

efficient fishing operations. An 

Amendment 80 cooperative would not 

be able to transfer CQ to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery, 

or to the BSAI trawl limited access 

sector. 

A cooperative structure may allow 

Amendment 80 vessel operators to 

manage PSC rates more efficiently than 

vessels who must race to harvest fish as 

quickly as possible before a PSC limit is 

reached and a fishery is subject to 

closure. By reducing PSC through more 

efficient cooperative operations, such as 

through gear modifications that reduce 

PSC use, Amendment 80 vessel 

operators may also increase the harvest 

of valuable targeted groundfish species 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 82 / Monday, April 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 21201 

and improve revenues that would 

otherwise be foregone if a fishery were 

closed due to reaching PSC limits. 

Amendment 80 would allow 

Amendment 80 cooperatives to receive 

a rollover of an additional amount of 

CQ, if a portion of the Amendment 80 

species or crab or halibut PSC allocated 

to the BSAI trawl limited access sector 

is projected to go unharvested. This 

rollover to the Amendment 80 

cooperatives would be at the discretion 

of NMFS based on projected harvest 

rates in the BSAI trawl limited access 

sector and other criteria. Each 

Amendment 80 cooperative would 

receive an additional amount of CQ that 

is based on the proportion of the 

Amendment 80 QS held by that 

Amendment 80 cooperative compared 

to all other Amendment 80 

cooperatives. 

Fishery participants in a cooperative 

could consolidate fishing operations on 

a specific Amendment 80 vessel or 

subset of Amendment 80 vessels, 

thereby reducing monitoring and 

enforcement (M&E) and other 

operational costs, and harvest fish in a 

manner more likely to be economically 

efficient and less wasteful. 

8. Amendment 80 Limited Access 

Fishery 

Amendment 80 QS holders that 

choose not to join an Amendment 80 

cooperative would be able to participate 

in the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. Amendment 80 would assign 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery the amount of the Amendment 

80 sector’s allocation of Amendment 80 

species ITAC and halibut and crab PSC 

that remains after allocation to all of the 

Amendment 80 cooperatives. 

Participants fishing in the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery would 

continue to compete with each other; 

would not realize the same potential 

benefits from consolidation and 

coordination; and would not receive an 

exclusive harvest privilege that accrues 

to members of an Amendment 80 

cooperative. 

9. Use Caps 

The Council considered the effect of 

consolidation with the allocation of an 

excessive share of harvest privileges to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives. In 

response, Amendment 80 would 

implement use caps to limit the amount 

of Amendment 80 QS a person could 

hold, the amount of CQ they could use, 

and the amount of ITAC an Amendment 

80 vessel could harvest. These use caps 

would moderate some of the potentially 

adverse effects of excessive 

consolidation of fishing operations on 

fishery participants, such as lost 

employment opportunities for fishing 

crew while providing economic 

efficiencies to Amendment 80 QS 

holders. 

10. Gulf of Alaska Sideboard Limits 

Catch limits, commonly known as 

sideboards, would limit the ability of 

Amendment 80 vessel operators to 

expand their harvest efforts in the Gulf 

of Alaska (GOA). Amendment 80 is 

designed to provide certain economic 

advantages to participants. Amendment 

80 participants could use this economic 

advantage to increase their participation 

in other fisheries, primarily in the GOA 

fisheries, adversely affecting the 

participants in those fisheries. GOA 

groundfish and halibut PSC sideboards 

would limit the catch by Amendment 80 

vessels to historic levels in the GOA. 

11. Economic Data Report (EDR) 

Amendment 80 would implement an 

economic data collection program to 

assess the impacts of Amendment 80 on 

various components of the fishery, 

including skippers and crew. 

Amendment 80 would establish a 

process for collecting and reviewing 

economic data generated under 

Amendment 80 by requiring the annual 

submission of an EDR from each 

Amendment 80 QS holder. 

Other management measures 

necessary to implement Amendment 80 

would be provided in the proposed rule 

that accompanies Amendment 80. These 

measures include an expansion of the 

groundfish retention standard to all 

vessels in the Amendment 80 sector and 

monitoring and enforcement provisions 

necessary to support Amendment 80 

and its implementing regulations. 

Public comments are being solicited 

on proposed Amendment 80 through 

the end of the comment period stated 

(see DATES). A proposed rule to 

implement Amendment 80 will be 

published in the Federal Register for 

public comment, following NMFS’

evaluation under MSA procedures. 

Public comments on the proposed rule 

must be received by the end of the 

comment period on Amendment 80 to 

be considered in the approval/ 

disapproval decision on the 

amendment. All comments received by 

the end of the comment period on 

Amendment 80, whether specifically 

directed to the amendment or the 

proposed rule, will be considered in the 

decision to approve, partially approve, 

or disapprove the proposed amendment. 

Comments received after the comment 

period for the amendment will not be 

considered in that decision. To be 

considered, written comments must be 

received by NMFS, not just postmarked 

or otherwise transmitted, by the close of 

business on the last day of the comment 

period. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1540(f); 

1801 et seq.; 1851 note; 3631 et seq. 

Dated: April 24, 2007. 

James P. Burgess 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–8190 Filed 4–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL