Proposed Rule RIN 0648-AT94 pub 081406

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Robert Harman, NMFS PIR, 808–944–
2271.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

[Docket No. 060724200–6200–01;I.D.
071106G]
RIN 0648–AT94

Fisheries in the Western Pacific;
Western Pacific Bottomfish and
Seamount Groundfish Fisheries; Guam
Bottomfish Management Measures
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed Rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would
implement Amendment 9 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Bottomfish and
Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the
Western Pacific Region (FMP), which
would prohibit large vessels, i.e., those
50 ft (15.2 m) or longer, from fishing for
bottomfish in Federal waters within 50
nm (92.6 km) around Guam, and would
establish Federal permitting and
reporting requirements for these large
bottomfish fishing vessels. The
proposed rule is intended to maintain
viable bottomfish catch rates by small
vessels in the fishery, to sustain
participation by smaller vessels in the
fishery, to maintain traditional patterns
of the bottomfish supply to local Guam
markets, and to provide for the
collection of adequate fishery
information for effective management.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
must be received by September 22,
2006.

You may submit comments,
identified by 0648–AT94, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: [email protected].
Include 0648–AT94 in the subject line
of the message.
• Mail or Hand Delivery: William L.
Robinson, Administrator, NMFS Pacific
Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani
Boulevard, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI
96814–4700.
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this proposed
rule may be submitted to William L.
Robinson (see ADDRESSES), or by e-mail
to [email protected], or
faxed to 202–395–7285.

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL

ADDRESSES:

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:17 Aug 11, 2006

Jkt 208001

The
bottomfish fishery operating in Federal
waters around Guam is managed under
the Fishery Management Plan for the
Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish
Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region
(FMP). Aside from restrictions on the
use of certain destructive fishing
methods that apply to the bottomfish
fisheries throughout the western Pacific
region, the bottomfish fishery in Federal
waters around Guam is mostly
unregulated at this time. Potential
developments in the fishery, however,
led the WPFMC to recommend the
proposed management measures.
The Guam-based small-boat
bottomfish fishery is a mix of
subsistence, recreational, and limited
commercial fishing, particularly in the
summer months when weather
conditions are calm. There are currently
three primary sources of fisheriesdependent fisheries data for Guam: a
boat-based and shoreline-based creel
surveys conducted by staff of the
Division of Aquatic and Wildlife
Resources (DAWR), a voluntary fish
dealer trip ticket invoice system
coordinated by DAWR staff, and a
voluntary data collection system
established and coordinated by the
Guam Fishermen’s Cooperative with
data submitted to and processed by
DAWR staff.
The boat-based creel survey is a
systematic random sampling of boatbased participation island-wide and
creel intercept interviews at the three
most frequently-used access points,
namely Agana Boat Basin, Agat Marina,
and Merizo Pier. Vessel launching
ramps are available at each of these
sites, but marina slippage is only
available at the Agana and Agat sites.
The vast majority of fishing activity on
Guam occurs from vessels launched
from trailers for single day trips and the
vast majority of all charter fishing
occurs out of Agana and Agat marinas.
Creel survey sampling frequency and
methodology have fluctuated and have
been modified slightly over the years as
budgets, staff, and data requirements
have changed, but have been fairly
standard since the early 1980s.
Sampling typically has been done on at
least two week days and two weekend
days each month, at each of the three
listed ports, and interviews have been
conducted for all fishing methods
encountered. The charter fishery is
sampled simultaneously with the small
vessel fisheries, but the data are handled
as a separate stratum within the data

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

50 CFR Part 665

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

46441

processing and reporting systems.
Sampling does not include the primarily
foreign longline fleet operating out of
the Apra Harbor commercial port, or the
short-lived and now inactive larger
vessel commercial bottomfish fishing
ventures.
In general, data from the sampling
programs are expanded to annual or
quarterly estimates of catch, effort, and
species composition by method of
fishing. In recent years there have been
about 10,000–13,000 boat-based fishing
trips per year (CV <10%), with about
one third of those using the bottom
fishing method (shallow and deep
combined). Estimated catches fluctuate
even more, e.g., 400,000+ to 800,000+ lb
with bottomfish catches being about
60,000–85,000 lb (CV <20%). As with
all surveys, the more infrequent or rare
an event, the lower the sample size, and
the wider the estimated range of error.
The second type of data available for
the Guam fisheries is based on a
voluntary ‘‘trip ticket’’ invoice system
created by the NMFS Western Pacific
Fisheries Information Network
(WPacFIN), Guam Division of Aquatic
and Wildlife Resources (DAWR), and
the Guam Fishermen’s Cooperative
(Coop) in the early 1980s. This system
was designed to monitor the commercial
sales of fish (purchases made directly
from fishermen) by fish dealers, stores,
and markets. The number of vendors
participating in the program has
fluctuated over the years as new
vendors have come and gone, but the
Coop has maintained its participation
and dominance in volume of purchases
throughout the time series. Invoices
collected through this system record
only the purchase of fish offered for sale
to participating dealers, so do not reflect
the purchases made by nonparticipating dealers, stores, etc., or the
portions of catches retained by
fishermen for consumption or other
purposes. Over the years, the annual
estimated percentage coverage of the
total fish sales by Guam’s fishermen that
has been captured by the voluntary
dealer reporting system has ranged from
55% to 90%.
The third and newest (about one year
old) fisheries data collection system on
Guam is a voluntary data collection
system sponsored and primarily
conducted by the Guam Fishermen’s
Coop in conjunction with WPacFIN,
DAWR, and WPFMC staff. This project
consists of two main data collection
tools, one to collect vessel-level
background fisheries participation data,
and one to capture more detailed triplevel data on total catch, effort, species
composition, and disposition of catch.
All Coop members were asked to

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL

46442

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

participate. In addition, through a series
of outreach efforts, non-members were
also encouraged to participate whenever
possible. The trip-level form collects
very similar data to the DAWR creel
survey interviews, except for individual
fish lengths. When fishermen sell fish to
the Coop, the invoice number is
recorded on the trip form, as well as the
details of catch not sold. Two of the
main purposes of this data collection
process are to augment the DAWR creel
survey interviews and to better
document total catch and effort by
fishermen who sell portions of their
catch. This data collection system is still
in its infancy and should gain
acceptance by a greater percentage of
Guam’s fishermen, especially for the
non-Coop member fishing sector.
Based on the current FMP reporting
and management requirements, these
data collection programs can provide
adequate information about Guam’s
inshore bottomfish fisheries that are
conducted by smaller vessels. Thus, the
proposed rule does not intend to
establish additional data collection
requirements on smaller vessels.
There is a potential component of
Guam’s bottomfish fishery in which
fishermen in relatively large vessels
(i.e., greater than 50 ft or 15.2 m in
length) target deep-slope fish species,
particularly onaga (longtail red snapper,
or flame snapper, Etelis coruscans). This
fishery is currently non-existent, but
several vessels have operated in the
past. The fish were caught on offshore
banks in Federal waters, landed at
Guam’s commercial port, and rather
than entering the local market, exported
by air to foreign markets, especially
Japan. The activity occurred on some or
all of Guam’s southern banks, including
Galvez, 11–Mile, Santa Rosa, White
Tuna, and Baby Banks. Most of the
vessels fishing on these southern banks
targeted the shallow-water bottomfish
complex, but some targeted the deepwater complex. The banks to the north
of Guam, including Rota Bank, and far
to the west of Guam, including Bank A,
appear not to have been fished at this
time.
The potential for large-vessel
bottomfish fishing activity to resume on
the offshore banks prompted concerns
about fishery information being
inadequate for effective management,
the potential for small-vessel catch rates
to decline to non-viable levels, threats to
sustained participation by smaller
vessels in the fishery, and disruptions to
traditional patterns of supply of
bottomfish products to the local market.
This amendment has the following
objectives:

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:17 Aug 11, 2006

Jkt 208001

• To ensure that adequate
information is routinely collected for
the large-vessel export-oriented
bottomfish fishery taking place in
Federal waters around Guam;
• To maintain adequate opportunities
for small-scale commercial, recreational,
and subsistence bottomfish fishermen in
Federal waters around Guam;
• To provide for sustained
community participation by smaller
vessels in the Guam bottomfish fishery;
and
• To encourage consistent availability
of fresh, locally caught deepwater
bottomfish products to Guam
consumers.
After considering a wide range of
management options, including many
options suggested by the public during
a public scoping process, the WPFMC
analyzed the likely effects of four
management alternatives, as follows:
1. No action;
2. Federal permits and logbook
requirements for large vessels, i.e., 50 ft
(15.2 m) or longer, that land bottomfish
management unit species in Guam, and
a closure of all Federal waters within 50
nm (92.6 km) of Guam to bottomfish
fishing by large bottomfish vessels;
3. A landing limit for onaga of 250 lb
(113.4 kg) per trip for fishing trips in
Federal waters around Guam; and
4. A limited access program for the
bottomfish fishery in Federal waters
around Guam.
The WPFMC recommended to NMFS
to implement the measures in preferred
Alternative 2 (large vessel permits,
reporting, and closed area). Alternative
2 is expected to maintain the
opportunity for viable bottomfish catch
rates for smaller vessels, sustained
community participation by smaller
vessels, and local supply of fresh
bottomfish, but it would decrease the
opportunity for large-scale vessels to
harvest bottomfish at well-known banks
and require them to search elsewhere
for new bottomfish grounds. However,
taking no action could lead to greatly
reduced bottomfish populations and
catch rates within the fishing range of
Guam’s small-vessel fleet if the largevessel fishery and associated concerns
were to develop. Economic, social, and
cultural costs would be high for the
small-vessel fishery, which does not
have the range or capacity to travel to
more distant seamounts to obtain higher
bottomfish catch rates.The WPFMC
rejected Alternative 1 (no action)
because of the risks it brings in terms of
maintaining viable bottomfish catch
rates, providing for sustained
community participation by smaller
vessels in the fishery, and maintaining

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

a consistent availability of locally
caught fish to the Guam market.
The WPFMC did not recommend
Alternative 3 (250 lb or 113.4 kg trip
limit for onaga) because, although it
would likely help achieve the
management objectives, it would
encourage high-grading of onaga by fish
quality, resulting in greater onaga
bycatch than under other alternatives,
and it might needlessly inhibit fishery
efficiency in the waters beyond the
range of small vessels of the Guam
bottomfish fishery.
Alternative 4 (limited access program)
would provide more complete fishery
information than Alternative 2 (through
vessel logbooks for all participants) and
provide more finely-tuned and
adjustable control over total bottomfish
fishing effort and the distribution of
fishing effort by vessel size. The
WPFMC did not recommend Alternative
4, however, because its advantages
would come at greater cost than
Alternative 2, at least in the short term.
These greater costs would include those
associated with administration,
enforcement, and monitoring,
compliance on the part of fishery
participants, and a likelihood of
individuals being denied the
opportunity to participate in the fishery.
Given the problem being addressed, and
that existing data collection programs
can provide adequate information about
Guam’s inshore bottomfish fisheries that
are conducted by smaller vessels, these
costs do not appear to be justified at this
time.
While Alternative 2 is expected to
succeed in achieving the objectives of
the action, it is difficult to predict to
what extent. For example, it is possible
that the type of fishery development this
action is aimed at curbing (i.e., largescale, export-oriented fishing) would
take place on more or less the same
scale under Alternative 2 (e.g., using
vessels less than 50 ft or 15.2 m in
length) as it would under the no-action
scenario. In that case, further
management action might be needed in
the future if the large vessel fishery and
associated concerns were to develop.
Public comments are being solicited
on the FMP amendment through the end
of the comment period stated in the
Announcement of Availability. The
Announcement of Availability was
published on July 24, 2006 (71 FR
41770), and the comment period ends
on September 22, 2006. Public
comments on the proposed rule must be
received by the end of the comment
period on the FMP amendment, as
published in the Announcement of
Availability, to be considered in the
approval/disapproval decision on the

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL

amendment. All comments received by
the end of the comment period on the
amendment, whether specifically
directed to the amendment or to the
proposed rule, will be considered in the
approval/disapproval decision.
Comments received after that date will
not be considered in the approval/
disapproval decision on the
amendment. To be considered,
comments must be received by close of
business on the last day of the comment
period, not postmarked or otherwise
transmitted by that date.
An Environmental Assessment (EA)
was prepared for this amendment.
Copies of the FMP, Amendment 9, and
the EA, Regulatory Impact Review (RIR),
and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) may be obtained from
William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES).
Classification
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule contains
collection-of-information requirements
subject to review and approval by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA). These requirements will be
submitted to OMB for approval. The
public reporting burden for these
requirements is estimated to be 30 min
for a new permit application, and 5 min
for completing a fishing logbook each
day. Each estimate includes time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
Public comment is sought regarding
whether these proposed collections of
information are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility,
the accuracy of the burden estimate,
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected, and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information,
including through the use of automated
information technology. Written
comments regarding the burden-hour
estimates or other aspects of the
collection-of-information requirements
contained in this rule may be submitted
to William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES),
by e-mail to
[email protected], or fax
202–395–7285.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:17 Aug 11, 2006

Jkt 208001

to the requirement of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
An IRFA was prepared that describes
the economic impact that this proposed
rule, if adopted, would have on small
entities. A description of why the action
is being considered, the objectives and
legal basis for the action, and a
description of the action, may be found
at the beginning of this section.
The Small Business Administration
defines a commercial fishing business as
a small entity if annual gross receipts
are less than $4.0 million. All
bottomfish vessels impacted by this
rulemaking are considered to be small
entities under this definition. Therefore,
there are no economic impacts resulting
from disproportionality between large
and small vessels. A summary of the
analysis follows.
Number of Affected Small Entities
The proposed alternative is expected
to potentially impact as many as 1–3
bottomfish vessels of length greater than
50 ft (15.2 m) that have previously
operated, but are not currently
operating, in Federal waters within 50
nm (92.6 km) of Guam. Alternative 3,
which would implement a trip limit on
onaga, alternative 4, which would
implement limited access, and the noaction alternative 1 would impact 100–
300 bottomfish vessels operating in
Federal waters around Guam, regardless
of their size.
Duplicating, Overlapping, and
Conflicting Federal Rules
To the extent practicable, it has been
determined that there are no Federal
rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule.
Effects of the Proposed Rule on Small
Entities
All alternatives considered in this
action would implement permitting,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for vessels engaged in the
fishery. Costs associated with obtaining
permits and keeping and reporting
information in logbooks would be
minimal, as described below.
No-Action Alternative 1
The no-action alternative would be
economically preferable to large vessels
when compared to the proposed
alternative, and would be economically
preferable to all vessels when compared
to alternative 3. However, because of the
risks it brings in terms of maintaining
viable bottomfish catch rates, providing
for sustained participation by smaller
vessels in the fishery, and maintaining
a consistent availability of locally

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

46443

caught fish to the Guam market, this
alternative has been determined to not
be consistent with National Standards 1,
4, and 8 of the Magnuson- Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Fishery
Management Act and was not chosen.
Proposed Alternative 2
Because data on costs and revenues
for the large-vessel component of the
fishery are not available, impacts to the
profitability of the 1–3 vessels that
could potentially be impacted by this
rulemaking cannot be directly
estimated. Implementation of the rule
would require the affected vessels to
search elsewhere for new bottomfish
grounds, to relocate to the Northern
Mariana Islands (NMI) to engage in
deepwater trips for bottomfish at the
islands and banks north of Saipan, or to
change gear and enter another fishery.
Regardless of their choice, it is likely
that these vessels would experience
adverse economic impacts in the form of
reductions in potential profitability
under this proposed rule. The extent of
the impacts would depend on the
opportunity costs of each individual
vessel relative to the profits previously
earned in the bottomfish fishery off of
Guam.
Alternative 3
As in the case of the proposed
alternative, without comprehensive
information on vessel cost and
revenues, the effects on individual
vessel profitability from implementation
of a 250–lb trip limit for onaga cannot
be estimated with confidence.
According to the Expanded Offshore
Creel Survey in 2004, about 300–400
individual boats participated in the
Guam bottomfish fishery, catching about
7,000 lb of onaga, and fisherman
received an average price of just less
than $5.00/lb for onaga.
Trip limits would likely not have a
beneficial economic impact on vessels
engaged in this fishery, but the negative
impact would vary among individual
vessels depending upon their average
catch of onaga and their overall profit
margins from harvesting operations. If a
vessel typically caught less than the trip
limit, there would be no economic
impact. However, if a vessel typically
caught greater than the trip limit there
would be an economic loss exacerbated
by the added expense of culling and
discarding the overage catch of onaga.
Size of vessel is not an accurate basis to
measure profit margins, i.e., it would
not be correct to assume that smaller
vessels have smaller profit margins and
would be impacted to a greater extent
than larger vessels from implementation
of a trip limit.

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL

46444

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Although a large proportion of the
Guam bottomfish fishing fleet would be
subject to the 250–pound trip limit on
onaga, it would actually affect only a
small proportion of the fleet. It would
directly affect the fishing behavior of
only those fishery participants that have
both the capacity and the interest to
land more than 250 lb of onaga during
a single fishing trip. The precise number
of entities capable of landing this
amount of onaga is not known, but it is
probably less than half of the 300 to 400
vessels that have reported BMUS
landings in Guam in each of the last few
years. Based on anecdotal reports that
the members of the Guam Fishermen’s
Cooperative Association have agreed
among themselves to land no more than
250 pounds of onaga per trip, the
number of entities interested in landing
this amount of onaga is probably no
more than a few. These few ‘‘large
commercial enterprises’’ probably
overlap to a large extent with the ‘‘largevessel’’ small entities that would be
affected under Alternative 2.
Like Alternative 2, the 250–pound
trip limit on onaga of Alternative 3
would constrain the ability of large
commercial enterprises (rather than
large vessels, per se) to operate in the
Guam bottomfish fishery. The responses
of directly affected small entities to the
measure and the economic effects on
them would therefore be of the same
type as those described for Alternative
2. Which of the two alternatives would
be more constraining in terms of the
economic efficiency of fishing
operations is not possible to predict.
The trip limit would apply to fishing
anywhere in the EEZ around Guam, not
just within 50 nm of shore, so in that
sense it would be more constraining
than Alternative 2. It is not known
whether Alternative 3 would result in
the economic viability of any affected
entities being put at substantial risk.

permits have not been formulated, so it
is not possible to rigorously predict how
fishery participants would respond or
how they would be affected. The limited
access program would be designed in
such a way as to achieve specified
management objectives (success being
subject to the availability of information
needed for program design), presumably
including those objectives already
specified in the FMP. Given that FMP
Objective 5 is to ‘‘maintain existing
opportunities for rewarding experiences
by small-scale commercial, recreational,
and subsistence fishermen, including
native Pacific islanders,’’ the program
would presumably be designed so as to
minimize the adverse impacts on
existing participants, particularly smallscale participants, possibly at the
expense of large participants. Any shortterm adverse economic effects of
Alternative 4 would therefore probably
be felt by largely the same entities as
those that would be adversely affected
under Alternatives 2 and 3, and their
responses and the economic effects on
them would therefore be of the same
type as those described for Alternatives
2 and 3. Which of the three would be
more constraining in terms of the
economic efficiency of fishing
operations is not known. It is not known
whether Alternative 4 would result in
the economic viability of any affected
entities being put at substantial risk.

Alternative 4
For the reasons discussed above,
profitability measures cannot be
estimated for this alternative. Vessels
that would not qualify for a limited
access permit would face the same
adverse economic impacts as those
displaced from the fishery under the
proposed alternative. By avoiding the
adverse stock and crowding effects
associated overcapitalized fisheries,
those vessels that would qualify would
be expected to benefit economically
from this measure by maintaining or
improving profitability in a stable
economic environment.
The criteria that would be used to
determine who and how many
participants would be eligible for

For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 665 is proposed
to be amended as follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:17 Aug 11, 2006

Jkt 208001

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665
Administrative practice and
procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries,
Fishing, Guam, Hawaii, Hawaiian
natives, Northern Mariana Islands,
Pacific Remote Island Areas, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 8, 2006.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.

PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE
WESTERN PACIFIC
1. The authority citation for part 665
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

2. In § 665.12, add the definition of
‘‘Guam bottomfish permit’’ and revise
the definition of ‘‘Large vessel’’ as
follows:
§ 665.12

Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
Guam bottomfish permit means the
permit required by § 665.61(a)(4) to use
a large vessel to fish for, land, or

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

transship bottomfish management unit
species shoreward of the outer boundary
of the Guam subarea of the bottomfish
fishery management area.
*
*
*
*
*
Large vessel means, as used in
§§ 665.22, 665.37, 665.38, 665.61,
665.62, and 665.70, any vessel equal to
or greater than 50 ft (15.2 m) in length
overall.
*
*
*
*
*
3. In § 665.13, revise paragraph (f)(1)
to read as follows:
§ 665.13

Permits and fees.

*

*
*
*
*
(f) Fees. (1) PIRO will not charge a fee
for a permit issued under subpart D or
F of this part, for a Ho’omalu Zone
limited access permit, or for a Guam
bottomfish permit issued under
§ 665.61.
*
*
*
*
*
4. In § 665.14, revise paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
§ 650.14

Reporting and recordkeeping.

(a) Fishing record forms. The operator
of any fishing vessel subject to the
requirements of §§ 665.21, 665.41,
665.61(a)(4), 665.81, or 665.602 must
maintain on board the vessel an
accurate and complete record of catch,
effort, and other data on report forms
provided by the Regional Administrator.
All information specified on the forms
must be recorded on the forms within
24 hr after the completion of each
fishing day. The original logbook form
for each day of the fishing trip must be
submitted to the Regional Administrator
within 72 hr of each landing of
management unit species. Each form
must be signed and dated by the fishing
vessel operator.
*
*
*
*
*
5. In § 665.61, revise paragraph (a)(1)
and add paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
§ 665.61

Permits.

(a) Applicability. (1) The owner of any
vessel used to fish for bottomfish
management unit species in the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Subarea
or Guam Subarea must have a permit
issued under this section and the permit
must be registered for use with the
vessel.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) A fishing vessel of the United
States must be registered for use under
a Guam bottomfish permit if that vessel
is a large vessel and is used to fish for,
land, or transship bottomfish
management unit species shoreward of
the outer boundary of the Guam subarea

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 156 / Monday, August 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules
of the bottomfish fishery management
area.
*
*
*
*
*
6. In § 665.62, add paragraphs (f), (g),
and (h) to read as follows:
§ 665.62

Prohibitions.

*
*
*
*
(f) Use a large vessel that does not
have a valid Guam bottomfish permit
registered for use with that vessel to fish
for, land, or transship bottomfish
management unit species shoreward of
the outer boundary of the Guam subarea
of the bottomfish fishery management
area in violation of § 665.61(a).
(g) Use a large vessel to fish for
bottomfish management unit species
within the Guam large vessel bottomfish
prohibited area, as defined in
§ 665.70(b).

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL

*

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:17 Aug 11, 2006

Jkt 208001

(h) Land or transship, shoreward of
the outer boundary of the Guam subarea
of the bottomfish fishery management
area, bottomfish management unit
species that were harvested in violation
of § 665.62(g).
7. Under subpart E, add a new
§ 665.70 to read as follows:
§ 665.70 Bottomfish fishery area
management.

(a) Large vessel bottomfish prohibited
area. A large vessel of the United States
may not be used to fish for bottomfish
management unit species in any large
vessel bottomfish prohibited area as
defined in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Guam large vessel bottomfish
prohibited area (Area GU- 1). The large
vessel bottomfish prohibited area
around Guam means the waters of the
US EEZ surrounding Guam that are

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

46445

enclosed by straight lines connecting
the following coordinates in the order
listed:
Point

N. lat.

GU–1–A
GU–1–B
GU–1–C
GU–1–D
GU–1–E
GU–1–F
GU–1–G
GU–1–H
GU–1–I
GU–1–J
GU–1–K
GU–1–A

*

*

*

14°
14°
13°
13°
12°
12°
12°
12°
12°
13°
13°
14°

23′ 43″
10′
50′
17′
50′
30′
25′
35′
57′
12′
29′44″
23′ 43″

*

*

W. long.
144°
144°
143°
143°
143°
144°
144°
144°
145°
145°
145°
144°

27′ 36″
11′
52′
46′
54′
14′
51′
15′
33′
43′
48′ 27″
27′ 36″

[FR Doc. E6–13269 Filed 8–11–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1