55010 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

foreign governments or international 

organizations. 

(B) When a particular foreign 

government or international 

organization has funded the acquisition 

of specific production and research 

property, do not assess the foreign 

government or international 

organization rental charges or 

nonrecurring recoupments for the use of 

such property. 

(2) Special tooling and special test 

equipment. 

(i) DoD normally recovers a fair share 

of nonrecurring costs of special tooling 

and special test equipment by including 

these costs in its calculation of the 

nonrecurring cost recoupment charge 

when major defense equipment is sold 

by foreign military sales or direct 

commercial sales to foreign 

governments or international 

organizations. ‘‘Major defense 

equipment’’ is defined in DoD Directive 

2140.2, Recoupment of Nonrecurring 

Costs on Sales of U.S. Items, as any item 

of significant military equipment on the 

United States Munitions List having a 

nonrecurring research, development, 

test, and evaluation cost of more than 

$50 million or a total production cost of 

more than $200 million. 

(ii) When the cost thresholds in 

paragraph (2)(i) of this section are not 

met, the contracting officer shall assess 

rental charges for use of special tooling 

and special test equipment pursuant to 

the Use and Charges clause if 

administratively practicable. 

(3) Waivers. 

(i) Rental charges for use of U.S. 

production and research property on 

commercial sales transactions to the 

Government of Canada are waived for 

all commercial contracts. This waiver is 

based on an understanding wherein the 

Government of Canada has agreed to 

waive its rental charges. 

(ii) Requests for waiver or reduction 

of charges for the use of Government 

property on work for foreign 

governments or international 

organizations shall be submitted to the 

contracting officer, who shall refer the 

matter through contracting channels. In 

response to these requests, approvals 

may be granted only by the Director, 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency, 

for particular sales that are consistent 

with paragraph (1)(i)(C) of this section. 

Subparts 245.4 and 245.5 [Removed] 

6. Subparts 245.4 and 245.5 are 

removed. 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

252.217–7005 [Amended] 

7. Section 252.217–7005 is amended 

as follows: 

a. By revising the clause date to read 

‘‘(XXX 2008)’’; and 

b. In paragraph (e)(7) by removing 

‘‘(Fixed-Price Contracts)’’. 

252.217–7010 [Amended] 

8. Section 252.217–7010 is amended 

as follows: 

a. By revising the clause date to read 

‘‘(XXX 2008)’’; and 

b. In paragraph (c)(3) by removing 

‘‘(Fixed Price Contracts)’’. 

252.242–7004 [Amended] 

9. Section 252.242–7004 is amended 

as follows: 

a. By revising the clause date to read 

‘‘(XXX 2008)’’; and 

b. In paragraph (e)(9) introductory 

text, in the first sentence, by removing 

‘‘Regardless of the provisions of FAR 

45.505–3(f)(1)(ii), have’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘Have’’. 

252.245–7000 [Amended] 

10. Section 252.245–7000 is amended 

as follows: 

a. By revising the clause date to read 

‘‘(XXX 2008)’’; and 

b. In the introductory text by 

removing ‘‘245.310–70’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘245.107–70’’. 

[FR Doc. E8–22419 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 080226310–81205–01] 

RIN 0648–AU20 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Revised Management 

Authority for Dark Rockfish in the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area and the Gulf of 

Alaska 

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 implement Amendment 73 

to the Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area and 

Amendment 77 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Gulf of Alaska (collectively, 

Amendments 73/77). If approved, 

Amendments 73/77 would remove dark 

rockfish (Sebastes ciliatus) from both 

fishery management plans (FMPs). The 

State of Alaska (State) would then 

assume management of dark rockfish 

catch by State–permitted vessels in the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area and the Gulf of 

Alaska. This action is necessary to allow 

the State of Alaska to implement more 

responsive, regionally based 

management of dark rockfish than is 

currently possible under the FMPs. This 

action would improve conservation and 

management of dark rockfish and is 

intended to promote the goals and 

objectives of the Magnuson–Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, the FMPs, and other applicable 

laws. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than November 17, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. You may submit 

comments, identified by RIN 0648– 

AU20, 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, etc.) 

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 Amendments 73/77 and the 

Environmental Assessment/Regulatory 

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55011 

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) 

prepared for this action are available 

from the Alaska Region NMFS at the 

address above or from the Alaska Region 

NMFS website at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/regs/ 

summary.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Hogan, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone of the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands Management 

Area (BSAI) and the Gulf of Alaska 

(GOA) under their respective 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 

governing U.S. fisheries and 

implementing the FMP appear at 50 

CFR parts 600 and 679. 

The Council has submitted 

Amendments 73/77 for review by the 

Secretary of Commerce, and a Notice of 

Availability (NOA) of the FMP 

amendments was published in the 

Federal Register on September 17, 2008 

(73 FR 53816) with comments on the 

FMP amendments invited through 

November 17, 2008. All written 

comments received by November 17, 

2008, whether specifically directed to 

the FMP amendments, this proposed 

rule, or both, will be considered in the 

approval/disapproval decision on the 

FMP amendments. 

Management Background and Need for 

Action 

Dark rockfish (Sebastes ciliatus) 

currently are managed as part of the 

‘‘other rockfish’’ complex in the BSAI 

and as part of the pelagic shelf rockfish 

(PSR) complex in the GOA. Dusky 

rockfish (Sebastes variabilis) and 

thornyhead rockfish (Sebastolobus 

species) comprise the majority of the 

biomass of the BSAI ‘‘other rockfish’’ 

complex. The biomass of the GOA PSR 

complex is dominated by dusky 

rockfish. 

The proposed action would remove 

dark rockfish from the FMPs to allow 

the State of Alaska (State) to assume 

management authority for dark rockfish 

catch by State–permitted vessels in 

Federal waters off Alaska, in addition to 

its existing authority in State waters. 

The Council recommended removal of 

dark rockfish from the FMPs in April 

2007 for the following reasons: (1) in 

2004, dark rockfish was identified as a 

separate rockfish species, (2) data in the 

stock assessments for the PSR complex 

in the GOA and the ‘‘other rockfish’’ 

complex in the BSAI are predominantly 

from dusky rockfish, not dark rockfish, 

(3) dark rockfish are distributed in 

nearshore habitats that are not 

specifically assessed by the NMFS trawl 

surveys, and (4) the possibility of 

overfishing dark rockfish in local areas 

given the relatively high total allowable 

catch (TAC) for the PSR and ‘‘other 

rockfish’’ complexes as a whole. 

Two types of dusky rockfish 

previously recognized as ‘‘light dusky 

rockfish’’ and ‘‘dark dusky rockfish’’ are 

now recognized by fishery scientists as 

two species. Sebastes variabilis, or 

dusky rockfish, is the variably colored 

deeper–water species, and Sebastes 

ciliatus, or dark rockfish, is the dark 

colored shallow–water species. Dark 

rockfish is the focus of Amendments 73/ 

77 and this proposed rule. 

The TAC for all PSR species is based 

on a NMFS biannual or triennial trawl 

survey. Based on NMFS surveys 

conducted from 1997 through 2006, 

dark rockfish averaged 2 percent of the 

total biomass of the ‘‘other rockfish’’ 

complex in the Aleutian Islands (AI) 

and less than 1 percent in the Eastern 

Bering Sea (EBS). Based on observer 

data from 1997 through 2006, the 

average catch of dark rockfish was 1.6 

percent of the total ‘‘other rockfish’’ 

catch in the AI and 0.7 percent in the 

EBS. Based on NMFS surveys 

conducted from 1996 through 2005, 

dark rockfish constituted an average of 

3.5 percent of the total biomass of the 

PSR complex in the GOA. Based on 

observer data from 1996 though 2005, 

the average catch of dark rockfish was 

0.6 percent of the total PSR catch in the 

GOA. However, the trawl surveys used 

to estimate the abundance of rockfish in 

the GOA and BSAI only sample fish that 

are on or near a smooth bottom. Most 

dark rockfish occur in rocky nearshore 

reef habitats that are not sampled in 

these surveys. Therefore, the NMFS 

surveys are not the most satisfactory 

means to assess dark rockfish 

abundance. In addition, including dark 

rockfish in the TAC for a group of 

rockfish (the ‘‘other rockfish’’ complex 

in the BSAI and the PSR complex in the 

GOA) is not appropriate for less 

abundant stocks such as dark rockfish 

because it could lead to overfishing of 

the less abundant species in the species 

groups. 

Section 306(a)(3)(A) of the 

Magnuson–Stevens Act allows a state to 

regulate a fishing vessel outside the 

boundaries of the state if the fishing 

vessel is registered under the law of that 

state, and no fishery management plan 

or other applicable Federal fishing 

regulations exist for the fishery in which 

the vessel is operating. Removing dark 

rockfish from the FMPs and regulations 

at 50 CFR part 679 would provide the 

necessary conditions for the State to 

manage dark rockfish in Federal waters 

off Alaska. 

Management by the State would better 

address localized assessment and 

harvest requirements for this nearshore 

species than is currently provided by 

Federal management under the larger 

PSR complex in the GOA and the ‘‘other 

rockfish’’ complex in the BSAI. 

Assessment of dark rockfish is difficult 

under either Federal or State 

management. As stated earlier, the 

Federal trawl surveys do not adequately 

assess dark rockfish. And, as noted in 

the EA, the State does not have the 

resources to conduct large scale stock 

assessment surveys for rockfish. 

However, the State’s management of this 

species in Federal waters would provide 

several benefits. First, the State would 

develop a fishery management plan for 

dark rockfish that would specify 

guideline harvest levels, allowable gear 

types, seasons, and locations for the 

directed fishery. Also, the State can 

manage dark rockfish in smaller area 

fisheries than can be managed by 

NMFS. In addition, the State would be 

able to conduct periodic and localized 

stock assessment surveys when budgets 

allow and monitor fishing effort data 

available from fish tickets and logbooks. 

State port sampling would continue to 

be used to collect biological data on 

rockfish and to improve species 

identification by fishermen and 

processing plant workers. The State also 

would continue to evaluate data on dark 

rockfish from the NMFS surveys and 

data collected by observers onboard 

vessels catching dark rockfish. These 

efforts by the State would provide 

stronger protection of dark rockfish from 

overfishing than Federal management of 

dark rockfish as part of a larger rockfish 

species complex. 

If Amendments 73/77 are approved, 

the State would be authorized to 

regulate State–permitted vessels fishing 

for dark rockfish in both State and 

Federal waters. The directed fishery for 

dark rockfish under the PSR complex 

quota category currently occurs in State 

waters. This fishery is relatively small 

and all vessels directly participating in 

it are permitted under the laws of the 

State. Typically, the vessels also are 

small and participants land their catch 

at shoreside processing plants in Alaska. 

Dark rockfish also are taken as 

incidental catch in other federally 

managed fisheries, including trawl and 

jig gear fisheries targeting pelagic shelf 

rockfish in the GOA, the trawl Atka 

mackerel fishery in the Aleutian Islands, 

and the hook–and–line and trawl gear 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
55012 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

fisheries for Pacific cod in the Bering 

Sea. Under Amendments 73/77, the 

State would develop management plans 

and regulations for dark rockfish similar 

to those that currently exist for black 

rockfish (Sebastes melanops) and blue 

rockfish (Sebastes mystinus), which 

were removed from NMFS’ GOA 

groundfish FMP in 1998 under 

Amendment 46 (63 FR 11167, March 6, 

1998). Notably, no adverse impacts or 

difficulties managing the groundfish 

fisheries off Alaska have occurred as a 

result of removing these two rockfish 

species from the GOA FMP. 

In managing black rockfish and blue 

rockfish, the State limits the gear types 

and areas open for directed fishing. It 

also limits the retention of black 

rockfish and blue rockfish to 5 percent 

of the retained catch of other groundfish 

species open for directed fishing. 

Similar gear, area, and incidental catch 

limits likely would be implemented by 

the State for dark rockfish. The retention 

of dark rockfish by a vessel permitted by 

the State in either State or Federal 

waters would be limited by State 

regulation. 

In 2007, all catcher vessels and 123 

catcher/processors with Federal Fishery 

Permits (FFPs) participating in the 

groundfish fisheries off Alaska also held 

permits issued by the State. However, 

21 additional catcher/processors with 

FFPs that participated in the Alaska 

groundfish fisheries did not hold State 

permits in 2007. These 21 catcher/ 

processors would not be subject to State 

regulations governing dark rockfish 

caught in Federal waters off Alaska, and 

no Federal regulations governing the 

retention of dark rockfish would exist if 

dark rockfish were removed from the 

FMPs and Federal regulations. However, 

none of the catcher/processors has 

targeted dark rockfish and their 

incidental catch of this species is 

historically much lower (less than 1 

percent) than the incidental catch limit 

the State would likely establish. NMFS 

does not expect these catcher/processors 

to target dark rockfish in the EEZ in the 

future because of the low abundance of 

these species in the EEZ. However, if 

concerns develop about the 

conservation of dark rockfish as a result 

of unregulated targeting on dark 

rockfish in the EEZ, NMFS would 

evaluate the circumstances to determine 

if emergency action were warranted. 

This situation, however, has not 

occurred with the removal of black 

rockfish and blue rockfish from the 

GOA FMP. 

To implement Amendments 73/77, 

NMFS proposes to revise the definition 

of ‘‘rockfish’’ under § 679.2 to exclude 

dark rockfish in both the GOA and 

BSAI. The definition for ‘‘other 

rockfish’’ would be amended to add a 

reference to Table 11 to part 679 

because the quota category for ‘‘other 

rockfish’’ exists in both the BSAI and 

GOA and is referred to in the maximum 

retainable amounts tables for both areas 

(Tables 10 and 11). In addition, the 

definition of ‘‘other red rockfish’’ would 

be removed from § 679.2 because this 

rockfish quota category would no longer 

exist and the term is not used anywhere 

else in 50 CFR part 679. 

NMFS also proposes to correct the 

Latin name of dusky rockfish (Sebastes 

variabilis), species code 172, in Table 2a 

to part 679, and to add dark rockfish 

(Sebastes ciliatus), species code 173, to 

the non–FMP species listed in Table 2d 

to part 679. 

In Table 10 to part 679 (Gulf of Alaska 

Retainable Percentages), footnote 5 

would be revised to correct the Latin 

name for dusky rockfish (Sebastes 

variabilis). Footnote 8 would be revised 

to remove reference to Sebastes and 

Sebastolobus and to refer to the 

definition of ‘‘rockfish’’ at § 679.2. 

The proposed rule also would make 

minor editorial revisions to Table 10. 

The words ‘‘shallow water’’ and ‘‘deep 

water’’ would be revised to ‘‘shallow– 

water’’ and ‘‘deep–water’’ to standardize 

the preferred spelling of these terms. In 

note 1 to Table 10, the term ‘‘shortraker/ 

rougheye’’ (171) would be removed 

because NMFS no longer has a species 

category or code in Table 2a to part 679 

for the combination of shortraker and 

rougheye rockfish. Note 10 to Table 10 

lists the species included in the 

aggregated forage fish category. The 

word ‘‘families’’ in the parentheses 

following the term ‘‘Aggregated forage 

fish’’ would be replaced with the word 

‘‘taxa’’ because all species of the order 

Euphausiacea (krill) also are included in 

the list of aggregated forage fish. The 

word ‘‘taxa’’ refers to more general 

groupings of similar organisms and 

includes taxonomic families and orders. 

In Table 11 to part 679 (BSAI 

Retainable Percentages), footnotes 3 and 

6 would be revised to remove reference 

to Sebastes and Sebastolobus and to 

refer to the definition of ‘‘rockfish’’ at 

§ 679.2. This revision would exclude 

dark rockfish from these rockfish 

categories in the BSAI because dark 

rockfish are excluded from the 

definition of rockfish in § 679.2. 

Classification 

Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 

305(d) of the Magnuson–Stevens Act, 

the NMFS Assistant Administrator has 

determined that this proposed rule is 

consistent with Amendment 73 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area, 

Amendment 77 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Gulf of Alaska, other provisions of the 

Magnuson–Stevens Act, and other 

applicable law, subject to further 

consideration after public comment. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined not to be a significant 

regulatory action for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

An initial regulatory review 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 were contained earlier in this 

preamble to this proposed rule. A 

summary of the analysis follows. A copy 

of this analysis is available from NMFS 

(see ADDRESSES). 

In 2006, one year immediately 

preceding the Council action 

recommending the removal of dark 

rockfish from the FMPs, there were 81 

small catcher vessels that made landings 

of pelagic shelf rockfish from the GOA, 

taken as either targeted or incidental 

catch fish. No small catcher/processors 

made such landings. The 81 small 

catcher vessels included 74 that used 

hook–and–line, pot, or jig gear, and 

seven that used pelagic or non–pelagic 

trawl gear. The 81 small catcher vessels 

averaged about $400,000, in gross ex– 

vessel revenues from all sources. 

In 2006, one small catcher/processor 

and 36 small catcher vessels made 

incidental catch landings of pelagic 

shelf rockfish in the BSAI. All together, 

35 vessels used hook–and–line, pot, or 

jig gear, and two used trawl gear. The 37 

small vessels averaged about $1.4 

million in gross revenues from all 

sources. 

The RFA requires that an IRFA 

contain a description of any significant 

alternatives to the proposed rule that 

would accomplish the stated objectives 

of the proposed action, consistent with 

applicable statutes, and that would 

minimize any significant economic 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities. 

Two alternatives were analyzed: the 

status quo and the preferred alternative 

presented in this proposed rule. The 

preferred alternatives may have adverse 

impacts on operations targeting pelagic 

shelf rockfish in the Central GOA and in 

the West Yakutat District. However 

these impacts, if any, are expected to be 

small. The reductions in TACs will be 

modest; the preliminary specifications 

for 2009 suggest a drop of about 6% in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55013 

the Central GOA and about 7% in the 

West Yakutat District for the pelagic 

shelf rockfish complex as a result of 

removing dark rockfish from the 

complex. NMFS does not expect the 

action to have adverse impacts on 

operations targeting rockfish in the 

Southeast Outside and Western regions 

of the GOA, or in the BSAI because 

targeting does not appear to have been 

significant in these two areas. NMFS 

does not expect the action to have 

adverse impacts on operations taking 

dark rockfish as incidental catch 

because so few dark rockfish has been 

taken as incidental catch historically 

and because the State likely will 

continue to allow some retention of dark 

rockfish. In the Central GOA, most of 

the adverse impact would fall on 

participants in the Central GOA 

Rockfish Pilot Project. Because of the 

affiliations these operations have with 

cooperatives or large business entities 

through the quota management and 

allocation features of the pilot project, 

NMFS does not believe these operations 

can be considered small entities for the 

purpose of the RFA. However, it is 

possible that they would experience 

some adverse impact as described in the 

RIR because of the reduction in the TAC 

for pelagic shelf rockfish as a result of 

removing dark rockfish from the 

complex. For example, the ex–vessel 

price for dusky rockfish is currently 

about $0.25 per pound, and the 

potential loss of gross revenue in the 

Central GOA could range from $19,000 

up to $171,000 as a result of removing 

dark rockfish from the complex. 

The primary alternative considered 

here, Alternative 1 – No Action, would 

not have these adverse impacts, but 

would not remove dark rockfish from 

the FMPs and, thus, does not 

accomplish the stated objective for the 

action to allow the State to assume 

management authority for dark rockfish 

catch by State–permitted vessels in 

State and Federal waters. 

The Council also considered a third 

alternative to the proposed action, but it 

was not carried forward for analysis. 

This alternative was to transfer 

management authority of dark rockfish 

to the State of Alaska while retaining 

the species under the Federal FMPs. 

Demersal shelf rockfish in Southeast 

Alaska is under a similarly delegated 

management program with the State of 

Alaska. A similar alternative was 

considered and rejected for black 

rockfish and blue rockfish under 

Amendment 46 to the GOA groundfish 

FMP. This alternative was not carried 

forward for dark rockfish because (1) 

State personnel would be required to 

comply with additional Federal 

management processes that may not be 

consistent with State procedures; (2) the 

State would need to meet both State and 

Federal requirements, which often 

prescribe different time–frames for 

management actions (e.g., notice, public 

meetings, and reports); and (3) the State 

did not believe it could meet the costly 

assessment requirements for managing a 

nearshore species, mandated under a 

Federal management plan. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 

Alaska, Fisheries. 

Dated: September 18, 2008. 

Samuel D. Rauch III 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the 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 50 CFR 

part 679 continues to read as follows: 

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

seq., 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108–447. 

2. In § 679.2, remove the definition for 

‘‘Other red rockfish’’ and revise the 

definitions for ‘‘Other rockfish’’ and 

‘‘Rockfish’’ to read as follows: 

§ 679.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Other rockfish (see Tables 10 and 11 

to this part pursuant to § 679.20(c); see 

also ‘‘rockfish’’ in this section.) 

* * * * * 

Rockfish means: 

(1) For the Gulf of Alaska: Any 

species of the genera Sebastes or 

Sebastolobus except Sebastes ciliatus 

(dark rockfish); Sebastes melanops 

(black rockfish); and Sebastes mystinus 

(blue rockfish). 

(2) For the Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Management Area: Any species 

of the genera Sebastes or Sebastolobus 

except Sebastes ciliatus (dark rockfish). 

* * * * * 

3. Table 2a to part 679 is revised to 

read as follows: 

TABLE 2A TO PART 679 — SPECIES

CODES: FMP GROUNDFISH

Species Description Code 

Atka mackerel 

(greenling) 

193 

Flatfish, miscellaneous (flatfish species without separate codes) 120 

TABLE 2A TO PART 679 — SPECIES

CODES: FMP GROUNDFISH—Continued 

Species Description Code 

FLOUNDER 

Alaska plaice 133 

Arrowtooth and/or 

Kamchatka 

121 

Starry 129 

Octopus 870 

Pacific cod 110 

Pollock 270 

ROCKFISH 

Aurora (S. aurora) 185 

Black (BSAI) (S. 

melanops) 

142 

Blackgill (S. 

melanostomus) 

177 

Blue (BSAI) (S. 

mystinus) 

167 

Bocaccio (S. 

paucispinis) 

137 

Canary (S. 

pinniger) 

146 

Chilipepper (S. 

goodei) 

178 

China (S. 

nebulosus) 

149 

Copper (S. 

caurinus) 

138 

Darkblotched (S. 

crameri) 

159 

Dusky (S. 

variabilis) 

172 

Greenstriped (S. 

elongatus) 

135 

Harlequin (S. 

variegatus) 

176 

Northern (S. 

polyspinis) 

136 

Pacific Ocean 

Perch (S. alutus) 

141 

Pygmy (S. wilsoni) 179 

Quillback (S. 

maliger) 

147 

Redbanded (S. 

babcocki) 

153 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
55014 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2A TO PART 679 — SPECIES

CODES: FMP GROUNDFISH—Continued 

Species Description Code 

Redstripe (S. 

proriger) 

158 

Rosethorn (S. 

helvomaculatus) 

150 

Rougheye (S. 

aleutianus) 

151 

Sharpchin (S. 

zacentrus) 

166 

Shortbelly (S. 

jordani) 

181 

Shortraker (S. borealis) 152 

Silvergray (S. 

brevispinis) 

157 

Splitnose (S. 

diploproa) 

182 

Stripetail (S. 

saxicola) 

183 

Thornyhead (all 

Sebastolobus species) 

143 

Tiger (S. 

nigrocinctus) 

148 

Vermilion (S. 

miniatus) 

184 

Widow (S. 

entomelas) 

156 

Yelloweye (S. 

ruberrimus) 

145 

Yellowmouth (S. 

reedi) 

175 

Yellowtail (S. 

flavidus) 

155 

Sablefish (blackcod) 710 

Sculpins 160 

SHARKS 

Other (if salmon, 

spiny dogfish or Pacific sleeper shark – 

use specific species 

code) 

689 

Pacific sleeper 692 

Salmon 690 

Spiny dogfish 691 

SKATES 

Big 702 

TABLE 2A TO PART 679 — SPECIES

CODES: FMP GROUNDFISH—Continued 

Species Description Code 

Longnose 701 

Other (If longnose 

or big skate – use 

specific species 

code) 

700 

SOLE 

Butter 126 

Dover 124 

English 128 

Flathead 122 

Petrale 131 

Rex 125 

Rock 123 

Sand 132 

Yellowfin 127 

Squid 875 

Turbot, Greenland 134 

4. Table 2d to part 679 is revised to 

read as follows: 

TABLE 2D TO PART 679 — SPECIES

CODES: NON–FMP SPECIES

Species Description Code 

Abalone 860 

Albacore 720 

Arctic char, anadromous 521 

CLAMS 

Butter 810 

Cockle 820 

Eastern softshell 842 

Geoduck 815 

Little–neck 840 

Razor 830 

Surf 812 

Coral 899 

CRAB 

Box 900 

Dungeness 910 

TABLE 2D TO PART 679 — SPECIES

CODES: NON–FMP SPECIES—Continued 

Species Description Code 

Korean horsehair 940 

Multispina (Paralomis 

multispina) 

951 

Verrilli (Paralomis verilli) 953 

Dolly varden, anadromous 531 

Eels or eel–like fish 210 

Giant grenadier 214 

GREENLING 

Kelp 194 

Rock 191 

Whitespot 192 

Grenadier (rattail) 213 

Jellyfish 625 

Lamprey, pacific 600 

Lingcod 130 

Lumpsucker 216 

Mussel, blue 855 

Pacific flatnose 260 

Pacific hagfish 212 

Pacific hake 112 

Pacific saury 220 

Pacific tomcod 250 

Prowfish 215 

Rockfish, black (GOA) 142 

Rockfish, blue (GOA) 167 

Rockfish, dark 173 

Sardine, Pacific (pilchard) 170 

Scallop, weathervane 850 

Scallop, pink (or calico) 851 

Sea cucumber 895 

Sea urchin, green 893 

Sea urchin, red 892 

Shad 180 

SHRIMP 

Coonstripe 964 

Humpy 963 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55015 

TABLE 2D TO PART 679 — SPECIES

CODES: NON–FMP SPECIES—Continued 

Species Description Code 

Northern (pink) 961 

Sidestripe 962 

Spot 965 

Skilfish 715 

Smelt, surf 515 

TABLE 2D TO PART 679 — SPECIES

CODES: NON–FMP SPECIES—Continued 

Species Description Code 

Snails 890 

Sturgeon, general 680 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
55016 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

5. Tables 10 and 11 to part 679 are 

revised to read as follows: 

Table 10 to Part 679—Gulf of Alaska 

Retainable Percentages 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALSEP24SE08.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55017 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALSEP24SE08.014</GPH>
55018 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALSEP24SE08.015</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55019 

Table 11 to Part 679—BSAI Retainable 

Percentages 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALSEP24SE08.016</GPH>
55020 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

[FR Doc. E8–22441 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALSEP24SE08.017</GPH>