2984 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

SNE/MA winter flounder may transit 

this area, provided all bait and hooks 

are removed from fishing rods and any 

winter flounder on board has been 

stored. 

[FR Doc. E9–846 Filed 1–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 080612764–8801–01] 

RIN 0648–AW94 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Fisheries 

of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area and Gulf of Alaska, 

Seabird Avoidance Requirements 

Revisions for International Pacific 

Halibut Commission Regulatory Area 

4E 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule 

that would revise the seabird avoidance 

requirements for the hook–and–line 

groundfish and halibut fisheries in 

International Pacific Halibut 

Commission Area 4E. The proposed rule 

would eliminate seabird avoidance 

requirements for hook–and–line vessels 

less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) 

length overall in portions of Area 4E in 

the eastern Bering Sea. This action is 

necessary to revise seabird avoidance 

measures based on the latest scientific 

information and to reduce unnecessary 

regulatory burdens and associated costs. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by February 17, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. You may submit 

comments, identified by 0648–AW94, 

by any one of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal website at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802. 

• Fax: (907) 586–7557. 

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, AK. 

All comments received are a part of 

the public record and will generally be 

posted to http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

portable document file (pdf) formats 

only. 

Copies of the map of the seabird 

avoidance measures in Area 4E, and the 

Environmental Assessment/Regulatory 

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for 

this action may be obtained from the 

Alaska Region NMFS address above or 

from the Alaska Region NMFS website 

at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melanie Brown, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

groundfish fisheries in the exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ) off Alaska are 

managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area and the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Gulf of Alaska (FMPs). The North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) prepared the FMPs under the 

authority of the Magnuson–Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson–Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 

1801, et seq. Regulations implementing 

the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. 

General regulations governing U.S. 

fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600. 

Management of the Pacific halibut 

fisheries in and off Alaska is governed 

by an international agreement between 

Canada and the United States. This 

agreement, entitled the ‘‘Convention 

Between the United States of America 

and Canada for the Preservation of the 

Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific 

Ocean and Bering Sea’’ (Convention), 

was signed at Ottawa, Canada, on March 

2, 1953, and was amended by the 

‘‘Protocol Amending the Convention,’’ 

signed at Washington, D.C., March 29, 

1979. The Convention is implemented 

in the United States by the Northern 

Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut 

Act). The directed commercial Pacific 

halibut fishery in Alaska is managed 

under an individual fishing quota (IFQ) 

program, as is the fixed gear sablefish 

fishery. The IFQ Program is a limited 

access management system. This 

program is codified at 50 CFR part 679. 

Background 

The purpose of this proposed action 

is to revise the seabird avoidance 

measures currently implemented for the 

hook–and–line groundfish and halibut 

fisheries based on the best available 

information regarding seabird 

occurrence and potential fishing vessel 

interactions. Seabird avoidance 

measures reduce the incidental 

mortality of seabirds in the hook–and– 

line fisheries off Alaska. Since 1997, 

NMFS has implemented and revised 

seabird avoidance measures to mitigate 

interactions between the federal hook– 

and–line fisheries and seabirds (62 FR 

23176, April 29, 1997; 63 FR 11161, 

March 6, 1998; 69 FR 1930, January 13, 

2004; and 72 FR 71601, December 18, 

2007). 

NMFS compiled seabird sightings 

data from the following sources: from 

1988–2004 records from seabird 

observers on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s (FWS) research vessel M/V 

TIGLAX; from incidental sightings by 

biologists, fishermen, seamen, fisheries 

observers, and birdwatchers provided to 

the FWS; from the International Pacific 

Halibut Commission (IPHC); from the 

Alaska Natural Heritage Program; from 

historical sightings documented in 

published literature; from satellite 

tagging data; and from the North Pacific 

Pelagic Seabird Database. The EA/RIR/ 

IRFA for this action describes this 

information (see ADDRESSES). This 

information showed that seabird species 

of concern are not likely to occur in 

portions of Area 4E where fishing 

vessels using hook–and–line gear may 

operate; and therefore, it is not likely 

that interactions between the fishing 

vessels and these seabird species of 

concern would occur in those portions 

of Area 4E. Thus, the Council 

recommended revisions to the seabird 

avoidance measures in a portion of Area 

4E. These revisions would eliminate 

seabird avoidance measures in the 

portion of Area 4E where seabird 

species of concern are not likely to 

occur. The revisions would apply to 

vessels greater than 26 ft (7.9 m) to less 

than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) length 

overall (LOA) fishing in the EEZ. 

Vessels less than or equal to 26 ft (7.9 

m) LOA are not required to use seabird 

avoidance measures. Vessels greater 

than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA would continue 

to be required to use seabird avoidance 

measures in all of Area 4E. Vessels this 

size and larger are more likely to 

interact with other seabirds because of 

the greater amount of offal discharge 

and greater number of hooks fished 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 2985 

compared to smaller vessels. Vessels 

greater than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA are 

capable of efficiently deploying seabird 

avoidance gear, as further discussed in 

the Classification section. 

Species of concern of pelagic seabirds 

(particularly the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA)–listed short–tailed albatross) 

are rarely observed in most of Area 4E; 

and therefore, are not likely to interact 

with hook–and–line fisheries in most of 

this area (Figure 1). Pelagic seabird 

species of concern that may interact 

with hook–and–line vessels have been 

observed and documented in the 

southern portion of Area 4E west of 

Bristol Bay. The seabird avoidance 

measures would continue to be required 

in this area for all hook–and–line 

vessels greater than 26 feet (7.9 m) LOA. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
2986 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALSEP16ja09.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 2987 

Eliminating unnecessary seabird 

avoidance measures is intended to 

remove associated economic burdens on 

affected vessels. These revisions are the 

result of adaptive management using the 

best available information to focus 

regulatory requirements where they are 

needed. Research results and the 

environmental and economic 

considerations of the proposed action 

are summarized in the EA/RIR/IRFA for 

this action (see ADDRESSES). 

Proposed Regulatory Amendments 

In June 2008, the Council 

unanimously recommended revisions to 

the seabird avoidance measures in a 

portion of Area 4E. These measures 

would apply to operators of vessels 

fishing for Pacific halibut in the IFQ and 

Community Development Quota (CDQ) 

management programs in waters from 0 

nm to 200 nm; for IFQ sablefish in 

waters from 0 nm to 200 nm; and for 

groundfish with hook–and–line gear in 

the EEZ. 

The proposed rule to implement the 

Council’s recommendations would 

reorganize and revise § 679.24(e)(3) and 

Table 20 to part 679 to clarify existing 

regulatory text and to eliminate 

unnecessary seabird avoidance gear 

requirements for all hook–and–line 

vessels less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 

m) LOA fishing in Area 4E, except in 

the southern portion of Area 4E as 

shown in Figure 1. Hook–and–line 

vessels fishing in the portion of Area 4E 

south of 60 degrees N latitude and west 

of 160 degrees W longitude would 

continue to be required to use seabird 

avoidance measures. The best available 

scientific information regarding seabird 

observations in the Area 4E indicates 

that ESA–listed seabirds and other 

seabird species of concern are not likely 

to occur in Area 4E, except for the 

southern portion where seabird 

avoidance measures would continue to 

be required. Therefore, the proposed 

rule would eliminate seabird avoidance 

measures where interactions with 

seabird species of concern is not likely 

to occur and ensure that such measures 

are used in waters where interactions 

with seabird species of concern are 

likely to occur. 

Table 19 to part 679 also would be 

revised to correct cross references. 

Under the descriptions for the seabird 

avoidance gear and other methods, the 

reference to § 679.24(e)(5) would be 

corrected to read § 679.24(e)(4). 

Classification 

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the 

Magnuson–Stevens Act, the NMFS 

Assistant Administrator has determined 

that this proposed rule is consistent 

with the FMPs, other provisions of the 

Magnuson–Stevens Act, the Halibut Act, 

and other applicable law, subject to 

further consideration after public 

comment. 

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 (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. A copy of this analysis 

is available from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). 

The vessels that fish for groundfish or 

halibut with hook–and–line gear in the 

waters off Alaska would be directly 

regulated by the proposed action. The 

seabird avoidance measures presently in 

place, and the alternatives and options 

considered, apply directly to the 

operator of a vessel deploying hook– 

and–line gear in the waters off Alaska. 

These regulations apply to the operation 

of a vessel and not directly to the 

halibut or sablefish IFQ–holder unless 

the holder is also the owner/operator of 

a vessel. Multiple IFQs may be used on 

a single vessel. Thus, the IRFA analysis 

of large and small entities is conducted 

at the vessel level and not the IFQ level. 

This analysis is complicated by the fact 

that the halibut fishery is managed 

somewhat separately from the Federal 

groundfish fisheries, resulting in 

multiple data sources being synthesized 

for the analysis. Thus, data from 

multiple sources and years have been 

used to estimate the numbers of large 

and small entities. 

Approximately 70 vessels ranging 

between 26 ft (7.9 m) and 55 ft (16.8 m) 

LOA, participated in the CDQ Pacific 

halibut fishery in Area 4E. The 70 

vessels that fished in the CDQ halibut 

fishery in Area 4E are mostly small 

vessels, 66 are less than 33 ft (10.1 m) 

LOA. These small vessels fish in the 

salmon and herring fisheries in the 

Bristol Bay and Togiak Bay areas of 

Alaska. None of the 70 vessels harvest 

groundfish in other Federal fisheries; 

thus, comprehensive annual revenue 

data are not available for these vessels 

in the way that they are for vessels that 

participate in Federal groundfish 

fisheries. However, given the small size 

of these vessels and the small scale of 

the fisheries they participate in, it is not 

expected that any of these vessels would 

earn more than $4 million in annual 

revenue. Thus, these 70 vessels are 

believed to be small entities, as defined 

by Small Business Administration 

criteria. 

Comprehensive annual revenue data, 

from all sources, are available for the 92 

vessels that participated in the Federal 

hook–and–line groundfish fisheries in 

the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

management area in 2006. In 2006, 52 

hook and line catcher vessels (CVs) and 

6 hook–and–line catcher processors 

(CPs) reported that they caught and 

processed less than $4 million in gross 

ex–vessel or gross first wholesale 

product value. Thus, these 58 vessels 

are considered small entities. 

In total, this analysis has identified 

128 vessels that are believed to be 

directly regulated small entities. A 

review of American Fisheries Act (AFA) 

permit data revealed that none of the 

128 vessels with gross revenue less than 

$4 million in 2006 are AFA–permitted 

vessels. Because AFA affiliations are 

relatively stable across years, none of 

these vessels are large because of AFA 

affiliations. 

The IRFA indicates that this proposed 

action is not likely to impose significant 

costs on directly regulated small 

entities. The action reduces the 

regulatory burden on hook–and–line 

vessels 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA or less by 

eliminating all seabird avoidance 

requirements for these vessels operating 

in portions of Area 4E. The reduced 

regulatory burden under the proposed 

action would tend to reduce the costs 

for the directly regulated vessels. Vessel 

operational cost of production data are 

not presently collected, making it 

impossible to quantify the net effect on 

operational costs that might occur under 

each alternative and option. 

Since the initial adoption of seabird 

avoidance regulations, research has 

been conducted to more precisely 

identify the geographical distribution 

and range of seabirds of concern, and on 

the efficacy of required seabird 

avoidance devices. Recent research has 

shown the likely locations of interaction 

between seabirds of concern and fishing 

vessels in Area 4E and has provided the 

information necessary to identify waters 

where seabird avoidance measures may 

not be necessary. The proposed action, 

which is intended to reduce the 

economic burden placed on small 

entities operating in these fisheries, is a 

direct result of this research. 

An IRFA must describe any 

significant alternatives to the proposed 

rule that accomplish the stated 

objectives of the proposed action, 

consistent with applicable statutes, and 

that would minimize any significant 

economic impact of the proposed rule 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
2988 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

on small entities. Including status quo, 

this proposed action has four 

alternatives and two options. 

Alternative 1 is the status quo, which 

would require the continued use of 

seabird avoidance measures for all 

hook–and–line vessels fishing for 

groundfish or halibut in the federal 

waters of Area 4E. This alternative 

would not provide economic relief; and 

therefore, does not meet the objectives 

of this action. 

Alternative 2 would exempt hook– 

and–line vessels 26 ft (7.9 m) to 32 ft 

(9.8 m) LOA from seabird avoidance 

measures while fishing for groundfish or 

halibut in Area 4E. This alternative 

would provide economic relief to only 

vessels in this size class, partially 

meeting the objectives of the action for 

the hook–and–line fleet. 

Alternative 3 (preferred) would 

exempt hook–and–line vessels 26 ft (7.9 

m) to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA from seabird 

avoidance measures while fishing for 

groundfish or halibut in Area 4E. This 

alternative would provide more 

economic relief to the hook–and–line 

fleet than Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Alternative 4 would exempt all hook– 

and–line vessels from seabird avoidance 

measures while fishing for groundfish or 

halibut in Area 4E. This alternative 

would provide the most economic relief 

to the hook–and–line fleet compared to 

the other alternatives, but the economic 

relief in comparison to Alternative 3 is 

not likely a large difference. Very few 

vessels over 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA 

participate in the hook–and–line fishery 

in Area 4E, and the larger vessels have 

the capability to use seabird avoidance 

gear based on larger deck space, 

adequate superstructure, and available 

crew. 

Two options were also considered for 

this action. Option 1 (preferred) would 

require full compliance with the seabird 

avoidance measures inside the shaded 

portion of Area 4E, as shown in Figure 

1, while option 2 would require only the 

use of a buoy bag in the shaded area. 

Option 1 would require more costs to 

deploy seabird avoidance gear that 

meets the streamer standards than 

option 2, which required a buoy bag 

with no standards and no supporting 

superstructure for streamer lines. 

Because the buoy bag is not likely as 

effective as the streamer lines, option 1 

is more protective of short–tailed 

albatross and other seabirds that may 

occur in the shaded area shown in 

Figure 1. 

The preferred action is Alternative 3 

with option 1, which provides more 

economic relief than Alternatives 1 or 2 

with option 1. Alternative 3 and option 

1 were selected because most of the 

vessels participating in the hook–and– 

line fishery in Area 4E are less than 55 

ft (16.8 m) LOA. The use of seabird 

avoidance gear on these vessels can be 

difficult because of limited deck space 

for the gear or the lack of superstructure 

to support the streamer lines. Smaller 

vessels also are likely to have fewer 

crew members available to handle the 

gear. Only Alternative 4 has smaller 

economic impacts on the directly 

regulated small entities than Alternative 

3. Because very few large vessels 

participate in the Area 4E fishery, 

Alternative 4 is not likely to provide 

much more economic relief than 

Alternative 3. Alternative 4 was not 

chosen because larger vessels are more 

likely to have adequate deck space, 

superstructure, and crew available to 

allow for safe and effective use of 

seabird avoidance gear. Because of the 

presence of short–tailed albatross in the 

shaded area of Figure 1, the Council 

recommended option 1 for vessels 

fishing in this area to ensure the 

continued protection of short–tailed 

albatross from potential incidental takes 

by any hook–and–line vessel. Option 1 

has a marginally greater potential 

adverse economic impact on directly 

regulated small entities than does 

option 2, but option 1 more fully 

achieves the objectives of the proposed 

action and is necessary for the 

protection of short–tailed albatross and 

other seabirds that may occur in the 

shaded area of Figure 1, making it more 

compliant with other applicable law 

(e.g., ESA). 

No Federal rules duplicate, overlap, 

or conflict with the proposed action. 

An informal consultation with the 

FWS under the Endangered Species Act 

was concluded for this proposed action 

on September 15, 2008. As a result of 

the informal consultation, NMFS 

determined that fishing activities under 

this rule are not likely to adversely 

affect endangered or threatened species 

or their designated critical habitat. The 

FWS concurred with this determination. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 

Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

Dated: January 12, 2009. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For reasons set out 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 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108 447. 

2. In § 679.24, redesignate paragraphs 

(e)(3)(i) and (e)(3)(ii) as paragraphs 

(e)(3)(ii) and (e)(3)(iii), respectively; add 

new paragraph (e)(3)(i); and revise 

paragraph (e)(3) introductory text to 

read as follows: 

§ 679.24 Gear limitations. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) Seabird avoidance gear 

requirements. (See also Table 20 to this 

part.) 

(i) The operator of a vessel identified 

in paragraph (e)(1) of this section must 

comply with paragraph (e)(3)(ii) or 

(e)(3)(iii) of this section while fishing 

with hook–and–line gear for groundfish, 

IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ 

sablefish in Federal waters (EEZ) and for 

IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ 

sablefish in the State of Alaska waters, 

excluding fishing in 

(A) NMFS Reporting Area 649 (Prince 

William Sound); 

(B) State waters of Cook Inlet; 

(C) NMFS Reporting Area 659 

(Eastern GOA Regulatory Area; 

Southeast Inside District), but including 

waters in the areas south of a straight 

line at 56°17.25 N. lat. between Point 

Harris and Port Armstrong in Chatham 

Strait, State statistical areas 325431 and 

325401, and west of a straight line at 

136°21.17 E. long. from Point 

Wimbledon extending south through the 

Inian Islands to Point Lavinia; and 

(D) Area 4E with a vessel less than or 

equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA, but 

including fishing in waters south of 

60°00.00 N. lat. and west of 160°00.00 

W. long. 

* * * * * 

3. Tables 19 and 20 to part 679 are 

revised to read as follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 2989 

TABLE 19 TO PART 679––SEABIRD

AVOIDANCE GEAR CODES

VESSEL LOGBOOK 

CODE SEABIRD AVOIDANCE GEAR 

OR METHOD. 

1 Paired Streamer Lines: Used during deployment of hook–and–line 

gear to prevent birds from taking 

hooks. Two streamer lines used, 

one on each side of the main 

groundline. Each streamer line 

consists of three components: a 

length of line, streamers attached 

along a portion of the length and 

one or more float devices at the 

terminal end. See performance 

and material standards at 

§ 679.24(e)(4)(iii). 

2 Single Streamer Line: Used during 

deployment of hook–and–line gear 

to prevent birds from taking 

hooks. The streamer line consists 

of three components: a length of 

line, streamers attached along a 

portion of the length and one or 

more float devices at the terminal 

end. See performance and material standards at § 679.24(e)(4)(ii). 

3 Single Streamer Line, used with 

Snap Gear: Used during the deployment of snap gear to prevent 

birds from taking hooks. The 

streamer line consists of three 

components: a length of line, 

streamers attached along a portion of the length and one or more 

float devices at the terminal end. 

See performance and material 

standards at § 679.24(e)(4)(iv). 

4 Buoy Bag Line: Used during the 

deployment of hook–and–line gear 

to prevent birds from taking 

hooks. A buoy bag line consists of 

two components: a length of line 

(without streamers attached) and 

one or more float devices at the 

terminal end. See performance 

and material standards at 

§ 679.24(e)(4)(i). 

Other Device used in conjunction with Single Streamer Line or Buoy Bag Line 

5 Add weights to groundline: Applying weights to the groundline for 

the purpose of sinking the hook– 

and–line gear more quickly and 

preventing seabirds from accessing the baited hooks. 

6 Additional Buoy Bag Line or Single Streamer Line: Using a second buoy bag line or streamer line 

for the purpose of enhancing the 

effectiveness of these deterrent 

devices at preventing seabirds 

from accessing baited hooks. 

TABLE 19 TO PART 679––SEABIRD

AVOIDANCE GEAR CODES—Continued 

VESSEL LOGBOOK 

CODE SEABIRD AVOIDANCE GEAR 

OR METHOD. 

7 Strategic Offal Discharge: Discharging fish, fish parts (i.e., offal) 

or spent bait for the purpose of 

distracting seabirds away from the 

main groundline while setting 

gear. 

Additional Device Used 

8 Night Fishing: Setting hook–and– 

line gear during dark (night time 

hours). 

Line Shooter: A hydraulic device 

designed to deploy hook–and–line 

gear at a speed slightly faster 

than the vessel’s speed during 

setting. 

Lining Tube: A device used to deploy hook–and–line gear through 

an underwater–setting device. 

Other (Describe) 

9 No Deterrent Used Due to Weather. [See weather exceptions at 

§ 679.24(e)(4)(i), (e)(4)(ii)(B), 

(e)(4)(iii)(B), (e)(4)(iv)(B), and 

(e)(4)(v).] 

0 No Deterrent Used. 

TABLE 20 TO PART 679—SEABIRD

AVOIDANCE GEAR REQUIREMENTS

FOR VESSELS, BASED ON AREA, 

GEAR, AND VESSEL TYPE

(See § 679.24(e) for complete seabird avoidance program requirements; see 

§ 679.24(e)(1) for applicable fisheries.) 

If you operate a 

vessel deploying 

hook–and–line 

gear, other than 

snap gear, in 

waters specified 

at § 679.24(e)(3), 

and your vessel 

is... 

then you must use 

this seabird avoidance gear in conjunction with requirements at § 679.24(e)... 

>26 ft to 55 ft 

LOA and without 

masts, poles, or 

rigging 

minimum of one buoy 

bag line 

>26 ft to 55 ft 

LOA and with 

masts, poles, or 

rigging 

minimum of a single 

streamer line of a 

standard specified at 

§ 679.24(e)(4)(ii) 

>55 ft LOA minimum of paired 

streamer lines of a 

standard specified at 

§ 679.24(e)(4)(iii) 

TABLE 20 TO PART 679—SEABIRD

AVOIDANCE GEAR REQUIREMENTS

FOR VESSELS, BASED ON AREA, 

GEAR, AND VESSEL TYPE—Continued 

(See § 679.24(e) for complete seabird avoidance program requirements; see 

§ 679.24(e)(1) for applicable fisheries.) 

If you operate a 

vessel deploying 

hook–and–line 

gear and use 

snap gear in waters specified at 

§ 679.24(e)(3), 

and your vessel 

is... 

then you must use 

this seabird avoidance gear in conjunction with requirements at § 679.24(e)... 

>26 ft to 55 ft 

LOA and without 

masts, poles, or 

rigging 

minimum of one buoy 

bag line 

>26 ft to 55 ft and 

with masts, poles, 

or rigging 

minimum of a single 

streamer line of a 

standard specified at 

§ 679.24(e)(4)(iv) 

>55 ft LOA minimum of a single 

streamer line of a 

standard specified at 

§ 679.24(e)(4)(iv) 

If you operate 

any of the following hook– 

and–line vessels... 

then... 

< 32 ft in the 

State waters of 

IPHC Area 4E 

you are exempt from 

seabird avoidance 

measures. 

in NMFS Reporting Area 649 

(Prince William 

Sound) 

in State waters of 

Cook Inlet 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
2990 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 20 TO PART 679—SEABIRD

AVOIDANCE GEAR REQUIREMENTS

FOR VESSELS, BASED ON AREA, 

GEAR, AND VESSEL TYPE—Continued 

(See § 679.24(e) for complete seabird avoidance program requirements; see 

§ 679.24(e)(1) for applicable fisheries.) 

in NMFS Reporting Area 659 

(Eastern GOA 

Regulatory Area, 

Southeast Inside 

District), but not 

including waters 

in the areas south 

of a straight line 

at 56°17.25 N. 

lat. between Point 

Harris and Port 

Armstrong in 

Chatham Strait, 

State statistical 

areas 325431 

and 325401, and 

west of a straight 

line at 136°21.17 

E. long. from 

Point Wimbledon 

extending south 

through the Inian 

Islands to Point 

Lavinia 

TABLE 20 TO PART 679—SEABIRD

AVOIDANCE GEAR REQUIREMENTS

FOR VESSELS, BASED ON AREA, 

GEAR, AND VESSEL TYPE—Continued 

(See § 679.24(e) for complete seabird avoidance program requirements; see 

§ 679.24(e)(1) for applicable fisheries.) 

≤ 55 ft in IPHC 

Area 4E but not 

including waters 

south of 60°00.00 

N. lat. and west 

of 160°00.00 W. 

long. 

[FR Doc. E9–974 Filed 1–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS