27276 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4). This 

proposed rule also does not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor 

will it have substantial direct effects on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal requirement, 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997), because it 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this 

context, in the absence of a prior 

existing requirement for the State to use 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS), 

EPA has no authority to disapprove a 

SIP submission for failure to use VCS. 

It would thus be inconsistent with 

applicable law for EPA, when it reviews 

a SIP submission, to use VCS in place 

of a SIP submission that otherwise 

satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air 

Act. Redesignation is an action that 

affects the status of a geographical area 

and does not impose any new 

requirements on sources. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA 

has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the executive 

order. 

This rule, proposing to approve the 

redesignation of the Lancaster Area to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the associated maintenance 

plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, and 

the MVEB identified in the maintenance 

plan, does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: May 4, 2007. 

James W. Newsom, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. E7–9296 Filed 5–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 061219338–6338–01; I.D. 

120806A] 

RIN 0648–AU69 

Fisheries off West Coast States and in 

the Western Pacific; Amendment 15 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) requests public comments on 

a proposed rule to implement 

Amendment 15 to the Pacific Coast 

Salmon Fisheries Management Plan 

(Plan) in accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). This 

Amendment was approved by NMFS on 

March 22, 2007, and in accordance with 

the notification procedures of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (PFMC) 

was notified of this approval. This 

action is intended to provide 

management flexibility in times of low 

Klamath River fall-run Chinook (KRFC) 

abundance, while preserving the longterm productive capacity of the stock 

and thereby ensuring it continues to 

contribute meaningfully to ocean and 

river fisheries in the future. 

DATES: A notice of availability (NOA) of 

Amendment 15 was published on 

December 20, 2006 under the RIN 0648–

AV07. Written comments on the 

amendment’s NOA were due February 

20, 2007. Written comments on this 

proposed rule must be received by June 

28, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ‘‘I.D. 120806A’’ by an of 

the following methods: 

• Email: 

salmon2006amend15@noaa.gov 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments, 

and include ‘‘I.D. 120806A’’ in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, 

Northwest Region, NMFS, Sand Point 

Way NE, BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 

98115–0070; or to Rodney R. McInnis, 

Administrator, Southwest Region, 

NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, 

Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–

4213. 

• Fax: 206–526–6426 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah McAvinchey by phone at 206- 

526–6140, fax 206–526–6736 and email 

at sarah.mcavinchey@noaa.gov, or Eric 

Chavez by phone at 508–980–4064, 

email at eric.chavez@noaa.gov, fax 508–

908–4047 or contact Pacific Fishery 

Management Council by phone at 503–

820–2290 or by fax at 503–820–2299. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) was developed 

by the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (PFMC or Council) under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq., and approved by the Secretary 

in 1978. Since then, the FMP has been 

amended 14 times, with implementing 

regulations codified at 50 CFR part 660, 

subpart H. From 1979 to 1983, the FMP 

was amended annually. In 1984, a 

framework amendment was 

implemented that provided the 

mechanism for making preseason and 

inseason adjustments in the regulations 

without annual amendments. 

Amendment 9 to the FMP was 

approved in 1988 and implemented in 

ocean fishing regulations effective May 

1, 1989. This Salmon FMP amendment 

codified the harvest rate management 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 27277 

approach developed by the Klamath 

River Salmon Management Group 

(KRSMG)and approved by the Klamath 

Fishery Management Council and the 

Council. It called for the regulation of 

ocean fisheries to meet a spawner 

reduction rate of up to 65 percent (later 

increased to 67 percent) of each brood 

of KRFC except that 35,000 naturally 

spawning adults would be protected in 

all years, creating a conservation floor. 

In the Klamath Basin, ‘‘natural’’

spawners refers to spawning location, 

not to parental origin; i.e., hatchery 

origin fish spawning in a natural stream 

are counted as natural spawners. 

Various allowable ocean and river 

harvest rate combinations were 

specified in the Salmon FMP. The tribal 

and non-tribal harvest sharing 

agreement in effect at the time allowed 

for ocean and river harvest rates of up 

to 35 percent and 50 percent, 

respectively, based on age–4 fish. The 

harvest rate approach was adopted 

because of uncertainty in the capacity of 

the Basin for fall-run Chinook salmon. 

The harvest rate plan recommended by 

the Klamath River Technical Team was 

subsequently adopted as part of Salmon 

Plan Amendment 9. The Council 

concluded that inclusion of the 

conservation floor protected the stock 

by reducing the risk of prolonged 

depressed production, provided greater 

long term yield, and resulted in a high 

probability of attaining sufficient 

escapement for hatchery production. 

When the escapement floor was adopted 

into the Salmon FMP through 

Amendment 9, the Council required that 

modification of the floor could only 

occur by Plan amendment. 

Under the FMP a conservation alert is 

triggered when the projected stock 

abundance is less than 35,000 natural 

spawners. When a conservation alert is 

triggered, the FMP requires closure of 

all salmon fisheries within the Council’s 

jurisdiction that impact the stock. 

The Council prepared Amendment 15 

to the FMP under the provisions of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and submitted it 

for review by the Secretary. A NOA for 

Amendment 15 was filed with the 

Office of the Federal Register on 

December 19, 2006, announcing a 

public comment period. 

The impetus for this initiative began 

in 2005 because management measures 

adopted to protect Klamath River fallrun Chinook salmon (KRFC) reduced 

access to a projected high ocean 

abundance of Sacramento River fall-run 

Chinook salmon. The need was elevated 

in 2006 when projected low abundance 

of KRFC led the Council and NMFS to 

conclude that even more restrictive 

management measures were needed. 

NMFS’ implementing rules do not allow 

for any level of minimal or limited catch 

of KRFC when the projected stock 

abundance is less than 35,000 natural 

spawners (Conservation Alert Standard); 

the only option to allow for such fishing 

is to amend the FMP following the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures or to 

implement an emergency rule. 

In 2006, the status of KRFC included 

a failure to meet the 35,000 natural 

spawner escapement floor for the stock 

for the past two years, and a projected 

natural spawner escapement of less than 

35,000 natural spawners. After 

reviewing the available data on the 

stock during its March and April 

meetings, and in collaboration with 

NMFS, the states, tribes, and ocean 

fishermen, the Council determined that 

conditions in 2006 met the criteria to 

temporarily amend the Salmon FMP 

KRFC conservation objective to allow a 

limited fishery that would allow a 

projected natural escapement of 21,100 

natural adult spawners. This increase in 

impacts to KRFC was determined to be 

acceptable in terms of maintaining the 

long-term productivity of the stock 

while minimizing to the extent 

practicable the economic impacts on the 

fishing community and states. NMFS 

concurred with the Council assessment 

and implemented emergency 

regulations effective May 1, 2006. 

Emergency action was taken to allow 

minimal impact on KRFC in directed 

ocean salmon fisheries between Cape 

Falcon, Oregon and Point Sur, 

California in 2006 (71 FR 26254, May 4, 

2006). 

The purpose of Amendment 15 is 

two-fold: (1) to give more flexibility to 

the management process when the 

escapement floor of 35,000 natural 

spawners for KRFC is projected not to 

be met; and (2) to provide for 

appropriate opportunities to access 

more robust Chinook salmon stocks that 

are typically available in the Council 

managed area. This amendment would, 

in appropriate circumstances, allow for 

the Council to develop and recommend 

fisheries, and NMFS to implement 

fisheries without the need for an 

emergency rule in years when the 

abundance of KRFC are low. 

The Council identified a preferred 

alternative at the November 2006 

Council meeting. Under the preferred 

alternative Amendment 15 would allow 

the Council to recommend and NMFS to 

implement in the case of Klamath River 

fall Chinook, to implement de minimis 

fisheries, which would: permit an ocean 

impact rate of no more than 10 percent 

on age–4 Klamath River fall Chinook, if 

the projected natural spawning 

escapement associated with a 10 percent 

age–4 ocean impact rate, including river 

recreational and tribal impacts, is 

between 22,000 and 35,000. If the 

projected natural escapement associated 

with a 10 percent age–4 ocean impact 

rate is less than 22,000, the allowable 

age–4 ocean impact rate shall be 

reduced to reflect the status of the stock. 

During the preseason planning process 

to set an allowable age–4 ocean impact 

rate the Council shall consider the 

following: 

a. Critically low natural spawner 

abundance, including the risk of 

Klamath Basin substocks dropping 

below crucial genetic thresholds; 

b. A series of low spawner abundance 

in recent years; 

c. The status of co-mingled stocks; 

d. El Nino or other adverse 

environmental conditions; 

e. Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

considerations; and 

f. Other considerations as appropriate. 

When considering these items, the 

Council shall determine that the final 

ocean impact rate will not jeopardize 

the capacity of the fishery to produce 

the maximum sustainable yield on a 

continuing basis. Implementation of de 

minimis fisheries will depend on year 

specific estimates of ocean abundance 

and age composition, which will be 

determined by the STT prior to the 

March Council meeting. Ocean fishery 

impacts to the returning brood incurred 

during the previous fall/winter fisheries 

will be counted against the allowable 

age–4 ocean impact rate. Amendment 15 

does not require that a de minimis 

fishery be implemented if the natural 

spawner floor is not met. The provisions 

of Amendment 15 allow the Council to 

consider implementing a de minimis 

fishery that would be limited to no more 

than 10 percent age–4 ocean impact rate 

based on the above described criteria. 

Allowing limited opportunity for 

harvest when fisheries would otherwise 

be closed should lessen severe 

economic consequences to local 

communities and states. Historically, 

KRFC was a primary contributor to 

marine fisheries off the coasts of Oregon 

and California. While this amendment 

seeks to provide additional management 

flexibility in times of low KRFC 

abundance, the overriding purpose of 

the FMP remains to preserve the longterm productive capacity of the stock 

and thereby ensure it continues to 

contribute meaningfully to ocean and 

river fisheries in the future. This 

amendment does not change the 35,000 

natural spawner conservation floor. 

Annual estimates of fishery catches, 

spawner escapements, spawner age 

composition and coded wire tag 

contributions are usually available by 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
27278 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

early to mid-January each year for use 

by the Salmon Technical Team (STT) 

and the KRTAT in updating KRFC 

fishery resource estimates, models, and 

forecasts. 

Amendment 15 Approval 

Approval of this amendment by 

NMFS is conditioned upon its 

understanding of the particular meaning 

and intention of the amendment. In its 

March 22, 2007 letter to the PFMC, 

NMFS expressed the following 

understanding, which will be used by 

NMFS in applying Amendment 15: 

As you know, the purpose of Amendment 

15 is to provide limited opportunity for 

harvest when fisheries would otherwise be 

closed to mitigate, to the degree possible, 

severe economic consequences to local 

communities and states. Historically, 

Klamath River fall Chinook (KRFC) was a 

primary contributor to marine fisheries off 

the coasts of Oregon and California. While 

this amendment seeks to provide additional 

management flexibility in times of low KRFC 

abundance, the overriding purpose remains 

to preserve the long-term productive capacity 

of the stock and thereby ensure it continues 

to contribute meaningfully to ocean and river 

fisheries in the future. 

The Council prepared Amendment 15 to 

the FMP under the provisions of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and submitted it for 

review by the Secretary on December 13, 

2006. A notice of availability for Amendment 

15 was published in the Federal Register on 

December 20, 2006 announcing a public 

comment period, this comment period closed 

on February 20, 2007. A proposed rule to 

implement Amendment 15 is currently under 

review, and we expect to have the final rule 

effective for the 2008 fishing season. 

Regulations implementing Amendment 15 

will include an amended Federal regulation 

at 50 CFR 660.410. 

It should be clearly understood that we do 

not interpret Amendment 15 to set a fixed 

schedule of allowable salmon harvest 

whenever the forecasted abundance of 

natural spawners falls within the range of 

35,000 to 12,000. Rather, we understand 

Amendment 15 to allow the Council to 

entertain, without emergency rulemaking, the 

possibility of some de minimis harvest of 

KRFC in order to allow mixed stock ocean 

fisheries to occur when the preseason 

forecast of naturally-spawning KRFC falls 

below 35,000. 

Nothing in this Amendment automatically 

predetermines that a particular level of 

harvest of Klamath fall Chinook will be 

acceptable or allowed. The extent of the 

harvest actually allowed in a particular year 

will be limited by the general requirements 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to maintain 

maximum sustainable fisheries on a 

continuing basis, by the specific factors listed 

in Amendment 15, and by the requirement to 

meet our trust responsibilities to affected 

Indian tribes. 

The factors for consideration listed in the 

Amendment are important and need to be 

weighed based on the specific circumstances 

of each applicable future harvest season, and 

using the best available scientific 

information, which will continue to develop 

in the future. We anticipate that the 

maximum allowable 10 percent ocean impact 

rate will be implemented only when the 

anticipated escapement is near the 35,000 

natural spawner floor. As escapement falls 

below approximately 30,000 the impact rate 

will need to decline substantially. 

There may be some opportunity for harvest 

when projected escapements are in the range 

of 12,000 to 22,000, but the opportunity 

would be limited at best, and justified only 

to the degree that there are mitigating year 

specific circumstances. We acknowledge 

that, in 2006, Klamath fall Chinook harvests 

were approved down to a projected 

escapement of 22,000. However, this 

determination was based on the unique 

circumstances of that year and should not be 

understood as a precedent that harvest at that 

level will be regularly acceptable. In 

addition, although the Amendment allows 

for harvest if escapement is projected below 

12,000, when we take into account the 

considerations stated in Amendment 15, we 

see little or no prospect for harvest when 

projected escapement is at that level. 

We will continue to work with the Council 

to support the best possible fishery 

management decisions. While we hope that 

the Klamath runs will rebuild to the point 

that it will not be necessary to even consider 

harvest questions at the levels described in 

Amendment 15, should it become necessary 

to do so, we will work closely with you to 

develop an appropriate evaluation and sound 

decision based on what we know at that time. 

Classification 

NMFS has determined that this 

proposed rule is consistent with the 

FMP amendment and preliminarily 

determined that the rule is consistent 

with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 

other applicable laws, details of each are 

as follows. 

The Council prepared an 

environmental assessment for this FMP 

amendment that discusses the impact 

on the environment as a result of this 

rule. A copy of the environmental 

assessment is available from the Council 

(see ADDRESSES). 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

An initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 

required by section 603 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 

summary of the analysis follows. 

Commercial salmon harvesting 

vessels buyers/processors, and charter/ 

party boats are expected to be the only 

type of small entities directly impacted 

by the proposed action. Section 603 

(b)(1)-(5) of the RFA identifies the 

elements that should be included in the 

IRFA. These elements are bulleted 

below, followed by information that 

addresses each element. 

• Description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered: 

This action is needed to prevent 

fishery restrictions that impose severe 

economic consequences to local 

communities and states. Historically, 

KRFC was a primary contributor to 

marine fisheries off the coasts of Oregon 

and California. While the FMP 

amendment seeks to provide 

management flexibility in times of 

scarcity, there is an overriding purpose 

to preserve the long-term productive 

capacity of the stock to ensure 

meaningful contributions to ocean and 

river fisheries in the future. 

• Statement of the objectives of, and 

legal basis for, the proposed rule: 

The Salmon FMP directs ocean 

salmon fishery management actions 

relative to the exclusive economic 

zone(EEZ) off the coasts of Washington, 

Oregon, and California. Under the 

existing Salmon FMP, a preseason 

projection that the conservation floor for 

KRFC will not be met triggers a 

Conservation Alert, which provides the 

Council and NMFS only one option: to 

close all salmon fisheries within its 

jurisdiction that impact the stock. These 

fisheries include ocean salmon fisheries 

between Cape Falcon, Oregon and Point 

Sur, California. Currently, any other 

option can only be addressed through 

the emergency regulation process as 

provided in the Magnuson-Steven Act 

and implemented by NMFS. 

The purpose of Amendment 15 is 

two-fold: (1) to give more flexibility to 

the management process when the 

escapement floor of 35,000 natural 

spawners for KRFC is projected not to 

be met; and (2) to provide for 

appropriate opportunities to access 

more robust Chinook salmon stocks that 

are typically available in the Council 

managed area. This amendment would, 

in appropriate circumstances, allow for 

the Council to develop and recommend 

fisheries, and NMFS to implement 

fisheries without the need for an 

emergency rule in years when the 

abundance of KRFC are low. 

• Description of and an estimate of the 

number of small entities to which the 

proposed rule would apply: 

The small entities that would be 

affected by the proposed action are the 

vessels that compose the California and 

Oregon commercial salmon troll fleet 

and buyers/processors, the charter/party 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 27279 

boat fleet between Cape Falcon, Oregon, 

and Point Sur, California, and other 

fishery dependent businesses. In years 

with sufficient surplus, the Yurok and 

Hoopa Valley tribes sell salmon in 

excess of their subsistence needs. The 

generally acknowledged minimum tribal 

subsistence need is about 12,000 KRFC. 

In years that a Conservation Alert is 

triggered, it is unlikely the tribal share 

would exceed 12,000 KRFC; therefore 

there would be no difference in 

economic impact to tribal businesses 

between the Status Quo and Preferred 

alternative. Therefore, no analysis of the 

tribal fishery in included in the IRFA. 

Salmon Troll Fleet 

The financial impacts analysis focuses 

on the ex-vessel revenue effects of each 

alternative on salmon troll vessels. 

Financial impacts were evaluated based 

only on changes in salmon ex-vessel 

revenues relative to the Status Quo 

Alternative. Vessel counts are based on 

unique vessel identifiers. However, it is 

known that in many cases a single firm 

may own more than one vessel; 

therefore, the counts should be 

considered upper bound estimates. 

Additionally, businesses owning vessels 

may have revenue from fisheries in 

other geographic areas, such as Alaska, 

or from non-salmon fishing activities. 

Therefore, it is likely that when all 

operations of a firm are aggregated, 

some of the small entities identified 

here are actually larger than indicated. 

Approximately 2,718 vessels were 

permitted to operate in the commercial 

salmon troll fisheries in Oregon and/or 

California in 2005, although the active 

fleet was considerably smaller, with an 

average of approximately 1,068 vessels 

participating in 2003–2005. In addition, 

only about 13–19 percent of the active 

fleet landed 50 percent of the catch, and 

52–55 percent of the fleet landed 90 

percent of the catch in those years (STT 

2006a). Of the 1,068 vessels, 40 percent 

participated only in salmon fisheries, 

while the other 60 percent participated 

in multiple fisheries. All of these vessels 

would be considered small businesses 

under the SBA standards. The active 

fleet participation is dynamic with 

respect to annual opportunity in the 

salmon fishery. In years with less 

opportunity, some salmon vessels 

choose not to participate, and either 

engage in other fisheries or sell out. In 

years with more opportunity, previously 

inactive vessels may choose to 

participate, or may be sold to more 

active fishermen. Under the Status Quo 

Alternative, there would be no 

participation in the commercial salmon 

fishery between Cape Falcon, Oregon 

and Point Sur, California during years 

that a Conservation Alert was triggered. 

Under the fixed cap alternatives, the 

active fleet was projected to be 

approximately 268 to 354. The 2003–

2005 average salmon related revenue 

per troll vessel was estimated at 

$20,900. For salmon only troll vessels 

the average was $14,300 and for 

multiple species troll vessels the 

average was $25,200. Under the fixed 

cap alternatives, the average salmonrelated revenue was projected at $1.6 

million to 3.1 million in a Conservation 

Alert Year and applying a medium 

troller success rate scenario. 

Processors/Buyers 

A relatively small number of large 

processor/buyer firms handle most of 

the ocean salmon catch on the West 

Coast. There were 464 firms with state 

processor/buyer licenses that sold 

salmon in Oregon and California in 

2004 (PFMC and NMFS 2006). These 

firms include both operators of 

processing plants and buyers that may 

do little more than hold the fish prior 

to their shipment to a processor or 

market. In some cases, the buyers may 

be owners of vessels who also own 

licenses allowing them to sell fish 

directly to the public or retail markets. 

Most larger salmon buying firms acquire 

fish from sites in more than one port. 

The largest salmon buyers tend to buy 

salmon from many vessels landing and 

buy fish in several ports. The top ocean 

caught salmon buying firms include 

some firms that are not among the top 

fish buyers when all species are 

counted. Larger processing firms are 

more likely to handle ocean caught 

salmon than smaller firms. However, 

there are many small buyers that 

specialize in salmon, only handle small 

amounts of product, and receive 

product from one or two vessels. It is 

likely that most of these buyers are 

vessels that also have licenses allowing 

them to sell directly to the public or 

other retail outlets(e.g., restaurants). A 

thorough analysis of the effects of the 

Preferred Alternative would include 

estimates of the numbers of vessels 

acting as buyers/processors, as well as 

other buyer/processor sectors, the recent 

history of revenue generated by the 

various classes of buyer/processors, and 

a projection of revenue generated under 

the Status Quo and Preferred 

alternatives in Conservation Alert years. 

However, because many of the small 

business buyer/processors include 

vessel ownership, and because most 

buyer/processors deal in multiple 

fisheries, it is likely the effects of the 

Preferred Alternative are proportional to 

those estimated and projected for the 

salmon troll fleet above. 

Charter/Party Boats 

Approximately 103 charter boats 

participated in California recreational 

ocean salmon fisheries in 2003–2005 

(STT 2006a). In Oregon, there was an 

average of 211 licensed charter vessels 

during these same years. An estimated 

6 percent of the Oregon charter effort 

occurred in the Astoria area during 

2003–2005 (STT 2006a). In Oregon there 

was an average of 211 licensed charter 

vessels. There was no information 

available for port of operation for 

Oregon charter vessels, but an average of 

18 percent of Oregon charter based 

salmon trips originated in the Astoria 

area. There was also no information 

available on fishery participation for 

Oregon vessels, and some may not have 

engaged in salmon fishing. Conversely, 

it is likely that most of the Charter fleet 

in both states participated in fisheries 

other than salmon, such as California 

halibut, Pacific Halibut, bottomfish, and 

albacore. 

Separate economic impact estimates 

were not available for charter and 

private boat salmon fishing sectors; 

however during 2003–2005, Oregon and 

California recreational salmon fishing 

effort averaged 297,200 angler trips for 

both boat types, with charter boat 

fishing averaging 31 percent of the total 

during. Based on this assumption the 

projected state level income impact of 

the de minimis fishery alternatives 

under the fixed cap alternatives in a 

Conservation Alert Year ranged from 

$6.2 million to $6.8 million dollars. For 

the Status Quo Alternative the economic 

impact was about $322,000. Based on an 

assumed fleet of 314 vessels, the average 

economic impact per vessel was about 

$3,200 for the Status Quo Alternative 

and $19,700 to $21,700 annually for the 

fixed cap alternatives. 

Other Small Businesses 

In addition to commercial fishing 

vessels, other fishery-dependent 

businesses that may be affected include 

suppliers, buyers who act as 

intermediaries between vessels and 

consumers, processors who purchase 

raw materials from commercial vessels 

to produce seafood products, and 

charter or party vessels that provide 

recreational fishing experience for 

paying customers, among others. A 

thorough accounting of net benefits 

would include measurement of 

producer surpluses accruing to these 

business sectors as well as to fishing 

vessels. 

• A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
27280 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the classes of small entities that will be 

subject to the requirements of the report 

or record: 

There were no new reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements that are 

proposed as part of this action. 

• An identification, to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules, 

which may duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule: 

No Federal rules have been identified 

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

the alternatives. Public comment is 

hereby solicited, identifying such rules. 

• A description of any significant 

alternatives to the proposed rule that 

accomplish the stated objectives that 

would minimize any significant 

economic impact of the proposed rule 

on small entities: 

The decision to set the de minimis 

harvest rate cap at 10 percent was 

determined through the consideration of 

ecological, fishery, and economic effects 

of each alternative. It should be noted 

that modification of the current 35,000 

naturally spawning adult floor to some 

other value would not address the issue 

of de minimis fishing opportunity in 

low abundance years, which is a 

primary reason for the current FMP 

amendment effort. The Council was 

presented with modeling results from 

the Salmon Amendment Committee 

(SAC) at its September meeting which 

examined each of the alternatives. These 

results showed little difference in long 

term effects on the stock size between 

each of the proposed alternatives. 

Differences among the de minimis 

alternatives (status quo, 5 percent, 10 

percent, 13 percent) in terms of 

aggregate salmon troll revenues and 

associated income impacts indicated 

little difference among the alternatives 

in terms of long-term economic effects. 

The alternatives, however, indicated 

more substantial differences when the 

analysis focused on fishery outcomes in 

Conservation Alert years. The 13 

percent alternative showed a higher 

probability of the age–4 ocean harvest 

rate going above 16 percent, which is 

the ESA Consultation Standard for 

threatened California Coastal Chinook. 

The 13 percent alternative also showed 

a higher probability of reducing the 

tributary spawning escapement below 

720, which is considered to be a crucial 

genetic threshold. The 5 percent and the 

status quo alternatives were also 

examined and while they would both be 

a lower catch limit than the 10 percent 

and 13 percent alternatives they would 

provide little in the way of economic 

benefit to the fishery. The 10 percent 

alternative was chosen because it will 

not impact the long term productivity of 

the stock, especially when provisions 

are set to reduce the cap as needed and 

it provides some economic relief to the 

fishery. The model projections showed 

that the 10 percent alternative would 

allow for more fishing days, a higher 

catch of KRFC and a higher revenue 

than the 5 percent alternative. 

This rule provides authority under 

certain circumstances for de minimis 

fisheries. The specific impacts of annual 

measures will be assessed annually 

during the development of annual 

measures. Additionally, the specific 

impacts of any de minimis fisheries 

pursuant to the authority of Amendment 

15 will be assessed at that time. 

Since 1989, NMFS has listed 27 ESUs 

of salmonids on the West Coast. As the 

listings have occurred, NMFS has 

conducted formal ESA section 7 

consultations and issued biological 

opinions, and made determinations 

under section 4(d) of the ESA, that 

consider the impacts to listed salmonid 

species resulting from proposed 

implementation of the Salmon FMP, or 

in some cases, from proposed 

implementation of the annual 

management measures. Associated with 

the biological opinions are incidental 

take statements that specify the level of 

take that is expected. Some of the 

biological opinions have concluded that 

implementation of the Salmon FMP is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of certain listed salmonid 

ESUs and provide incidental take 

statements. Other biological opinions 

have found that implementation of the 

Salmon FMP is likely to jeopardize 

certain listed ESUs and have identified 

reasonable and prudent alternatives 

(consultation standards) that would 

avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the 

continued existence of the ESU under 

consideration, and provided an 

incidental take statement for the 

reasonable and prudent alternative. 

NMFS has determined that fishing 

activities conducted pursuant to this 

rule will affect endangered and 

threatened species and critical habitat 

under the ESA but will not jeopardize 

the continued existence of those 

species. NMFS will continue to assess 

the impact of the fishery each year 

during the development of annual 

measures. All alternatives would meet 

NMFS ESA consultation standards for 

listed salmon stocks. 

The West Coast ocean salmon 

fisheries are considered a Category III 

fishery under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, indicating a remote 

likelihood of or no known serious 

injuries or mortalities to marine 

mammals, in the annual list of fisheries 

published in the Federal Register. 

Based on its Category III status, the 

incidental take of marine mammals in 

the West Coast salmon fisheries does 

not significantly impact marine 

mammal stocks. 

Klamath River tribes with federally 

recognized fishing rights may be 

impacted by Council-area fisheries. 

Accordingly the FMP amendment was 

developed with consideration of tribal 

fishing rights. The Hoopa Valley Tribe 

and the Yurok Tribe were both 

represented on the Council’s Ad Hoc 

Salmon Amendment Committee, which 

was responsible for development of this 

FMP amendment. In accordance with 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act there is a 

tribal representative on the Council. A 

copy of the Environmental Assessment 

is available from the Council. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 9, 2007. 

William T. Hogarth, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

For the reason set out in the preamble, 

NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 

660 as follows: 

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST 

COAST STATES 

1. The authority for part 660 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2.In § 660.410 revise paragraph (b)(1) 

to read as follows: 

§ 660.410 Conservation objectives. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) A comprehensive technical review 

of the best scientific information 

available provides conclusive evidence 

that, in the view of the Council, the 

Scientific and Statistical Committee, 

and the Salmon Technical Team, 

justifies modification of a conservation 

objective: except that the 35,000 natural 

spawner floor and the de minimis 

fishing provisions for Klamath River fall 

Chinook may be changed only by 

amendment. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–9329 Filed 5–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS