[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 28, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57874-57882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21691]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 040618188-4265-02; I.D. 061404A]
RIN 0648-AS26


Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Amendment 16-3; Corrections

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 16-3 to the 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 16-3 
amended the FMP to include overfished species rebuilding plans for 
bocaccio, cowcod, widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish within the 
FMP. This final rule adds two rebuilding parameters to the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) for each overfished stock, the target year 
for rebuilding and the harvest control rule. Amendment 16-3 addressed 
the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to protect and rebuild overfished 
species managed under a Federal FMP. Amendment 16-3 also responded to a 
Court order in which NMFS was ordered to provide Pacific Coast 
groundfish rebuilding plans as FMPs, FMP amendments, or regulations, 
per the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This rule also updates the list of 
rockfish species defined in the CFR to match those listed in the FMP 
and contains corrections to 50 CFR part 660, subpart G.

DATES: Effective October 28, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 16-3 and the final environmental impact 
statement/regulatory impact review/initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (FEIS/RIR/IRFA) and the Record of Decision (ROD) are available 
from Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management 
Council (Council), 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 
503-820-2280. These documents are also available online at the 
Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamie Goen (Northwest Region, NMFS), 
phone: 206-526-4646; fax: 206-526-6736 or; e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    The proposed and final rules for this action are accessible via the 
Internet at the Office of the Federal Register's website at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. Background information and documents 
are available at the NMFS Northwest Region website at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/gdfsh01.htm and at the Council's website at 
http://www.pcouncil.org.

Background

    Amendment 16-3 revised the FMP to include overfished species 
rebuilding plans for bocaccio, cowcod, widow rockfish, and yelloweye 
rockfish. This final rule implements Amendment 16-3 by adding two 
rebuilding parameters, the target year in which the stock would be 
rebuilt under the adopted rebuilding plan (TTARGET) and the 
harvest control rule, to the CFR at 50 CFR 660.365 for each overfished 
stock.
    Amendment 16-3 addressed the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act to protect and rebuild overfished species managed under a Federal 
FMP. Amendment 16-3 also responded to a Court order in Natural 
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Evans, 168 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (N.D. 
Cal 2001,), in which NMFS was ordered to provide Pacific Coast 
groundfish rebuilding plans as FMPs, FMP amendments, or regulations, 
per the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    A Notice of Availability for Amendment 16-3 was published on June 
18, 2004 (69 FR 34116). NMFS requested comments on the amendment under 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act FMP amendment review provisions for a 60-day 
comment period, ending August 17, 2004. A proposed rule was published 
on July 7, 2004 (69 FR 40851), requesting public comment through August 
17, 2004. During the Amendment 16-3 and proposed rule comment period, 
NMFS received three letters of comment. These letters are addressed 
later in the preamble to this final rule. The preamble to the proposed 
rule for this action provides additional background information on the 
fishery and on this final rule. Further detail on Amendment 16-3 also 
appears in the FEIS/RIR/IRFA for this action, which was prepared by the 
Council.
    After consideration of the public comments received on the 
amendment, NMFS approved Amendment 16-3 on September 2004. As required 
by the standards established by Amendment 16-1, the rebuilding plans 
adopted under Amendment 16-3 for bocaccio, cowcod, widow rockfish, and 
yelloweye

[[Page 57875]]

rockfish specified the following rebuilding parameters in the FMP: 
unfished biomass (B0) and target biomass (BMSY), 
the year the stock would be rebuilt in the absence of fishing 
(TMIN), the year the stock would be rebuilt if the maximum 
time period permissible under national standard guidelines were applied 
(TMAX), the target year in which the stock would be rebuilt 
under the adopted rebuilding plan (TTARGET), and the harvest 
control rule. Other information relevant to rebuilding was also 
included, including the probability of the stock attaining BMSY 
by TMAX (PMAX). The estimated rebuilding 
parameters will serve as management benchmarks in the FMP and the FMP 
will not be amended if the values for these parameters change after new 
stock assessments and rebuilding analyses are completed, as is likely 
to happen.
    Amendment 16-1 specified two rebuilding parameters, TTARGET 
and the harvest control rule for the rebuilding period, that are to be 
codified in Federal regulations for each individual species rebuilding 
plan. This final rule adds these rebuilding parameters to the CFR at 50 
CFR 660.365 for bocaccio, cowcod, widow rockfish, and yelloweye 
rockfish. TTARGET is the year in which there is a 50-percent 
likelihood that the stock will have been rebuilt with a given fishing 
mortality rate. The harvest control rule expresses a given fishing 
mortality rate that is to be used over the course of rebuilding. These 
parameters will be used to establish the optimum yields (OYs) for 
species with rebuilding plans. Conservation and management goals 
defined in the FMP require the Council and NMFS to manage to the 
appropriate OY for each species or species groups, including those OYs 
established for rebuilding overfished species. The OYs and management 
measures will be set on a biennial basis, and will address the 
fisheries as a whole. Regulations implemented through the harvest 
specifications and management measures are based on the most recently 
available scientific information and are intended to address all of the 
fisheries that take groundfish and to keep the total catch of 
groundfish, including overfished species, within their respective OYs. 
The FMP addresses how the fisheries as a whole are to be managed, 
whereas rebuilding plans are species-specific and define the parameters 
that govern the rebuilding of a particular species.
    If, after a new stock assessment, the Council and NMFS conclude 
that either or both of the parameters defined in regulation should be 
revised, the revision will be implemented through the Federal notice-
and-comment rulemaking process, and the updated values codified in the 
Federal regulations. NMFS believes that the FMP with the newly added 
rebuilding plans will be sufficient ``to end overfishing in the fishery 
and to rebuild affected stocks of fish'' (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(3)(A).

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received three letters of comment on the proposed rule to 
implement Amendment 16-3: one letter was received from an environmental 
advocacy organization, and two letters were received from one member of 
the public. These comments are addressed here:
    Comment 1: The proposed target dates for rebuilding Amendment 16-3 
species are inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act because the 
rebuilding periods are longer than the statute allows.
    Response: The specified rebuilding time periods for the four 
overfished species are consistent with the legal requirements of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and with the national standard guidelines. The 
Magnuson-Stevens Act states that rebuilding ``shall not exceed 10 
years, except in cases where the biology of the stock of fish, or other 
environmental conditions,...dictate otherwise.'' The Magnuson-Stevens 
Act also states that the time for rebuilding shall be as short as 
possible, taking into account certain factors. The Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, section 304 (e)(4)(A), and the national standard guidelines at 50 
CFR 600.310 (e)(4)(A) recognize the following factors that enter into 
the specification of a time period for rebuilding: the status and 
biology of the stock or stock complex; interactions between stocks or 
stock complexes and the marine ecosystem; the needs of fishing 
communities; recommendations of international organizations in which 
the U.S. is a participant, and; management measures under an 
international agreement in which the U.S. participates.
    According to the national standard guidelines at 50 CFR 
600.310(e)(4)(ii)(B)(3), if the time period for rebuilding is 10 years 
or greater, then the specified time period for rebuilding 
(TTARGET) may be adjusted upward to the extent warranted by 
the needs of fishing communities and recommendations by international 
organizations in which the U.S. participates, except that no such 
upward adjustment can exceed the rebuilding period calculated in the 
absence of fishing mortality (TMIN), plus one mean 
generation time or equivalent period based on the species' life-history 
characteristics (TMAX). All of the rebuilding periods for 
bocaccio, cowcod, widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish are less than 
TMAX.
    The rebuilding probabilities (PMAX, which are estimated 
probabilities of rebuilding the stock by TMAX) range between 
60 percent and 80 percent. This represents a better than 50 percent 
likelihood that each of these stocks will be rebuilt (reach the 
BMSY biomass) by TMAX, while allowing sufficient 
access to overfished stocks, so that healthy groundfish stocks that co-
occur with overfished species can be harvested. The Council chose a 
TTARGET closer to TMAX for cowcod and widow 
rockfish (reflected in the relatively lower 60-percent rebuilding 
probability). For cowcod, this was the most conservative alternative 
available under the current stock assessment. A new stock assessment is 
planned for cowcod in 2005. For widow rockfish, the lower probability 
of rebuilding was chosen to allow some bycatch in all of the various 
fisheries that take widow rockfish incidentally, particularly fisheries 
for Pacific whiting. The FEIS for this amendment has further 
information on the reasons for the adopted rebuilding periods.
    Comment 2: The proposed rebuilding periods should be consistent 
with NMFS's ``Technical Guidance On the Use of Precautionary Approaches 
to Implementing National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act'' (Technical Guidance), which 
recommends rebuilding periods not exceed the midpoint (TMID) 
between the minimum and maximum times to rebuild the species.
    Response: As explained above in the response to comment 1, if 
TMIN is 10 years or greater, the national standard 
guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310(e)(4)(ii)(B)(3), allow TTARGET 
to be adjusted upward to the extent warranted by the needs of fishing 
communities and recommendations by international organizations in which 
the U.S. participates, except that no such upward adjustment can exceed 
TMAX. The Technical Guidance recommends that TTARGET 
be set no higher than the midpoint between TMIN and 
TMAX.
    Adopting the midpoint as a binding criterion in all cases would not 
be consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act because it would not allow 
the factors in the Act at section 304(e)(4) and the national standard 
guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310(e)(4)(ii), which include the needs of 
fishing communities, to be taken into account. The Technical Guidance 
is not a binding regulation

[[Page 57876]]

that must be followed; the Technical Guidance itself acknowledges that 
it deals only with biological issues, and not with socioeconomic 
issues, which fishery management councils must consider, per the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    The Council has not recommended for the Amendment 16-3 species any 
TTARGET values that exceed TMAX. For bocaccio, 
the Council recommended a TTARGET of 2023 which is lower 
than the TMID of 2025. The Council set TTARGET 
dates to rebuild overfished species within the time allowed, yet 
recognizes the socio-economic importance of these species to the 
fishing industry and fishing communities. Each of the Amendment 16-3 
species co-occurs with more abundant groundfish stocks. Rebuilding 
harvest levels allow some targeting of more abundant stocks that co-
occur with Amendment 16-3 species. The Council's recommended rebuilding 
goals comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the national standard 
guidelines.
    Comment 3: NMFS's Technical Guidance recommends that rebuilding 
plans have at least a 90-percent probability of achieving rebuilding 
within the maximum allowable time to rebuild (PMAX) under 
NMFS's national standard guidelines. None of these rebuilding plans 
result in a 90-percent or greater likelihood of successfully rebuilding 
by PMAX.
    Response: The Technical Guidance has been provided by NMFS ``for 
those aspects of scientific fishery management advice that have 
biological underpinnings, such as the response of fish to exploitation. 
The drafting team recognizes that there are many other important 
aspects to managing fisheries, such as socioeconomic factors, which are 
key to defining optimum yield, and which Fishery Management Councils 
must consider.'' As such, the Technical Guidance does not direct NMFS, 
but rather makes suggestions on how to use scientific information to 
implement the policy guidance of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 
national standard guidelines to achieve the biological goals of 
national standard 1.
    The Technical Guidance at page 38 suggests addressing uncertainty 
with the guideline that ``rebuilding plans be designed to possess a 50-
percent or higher chance of achieving BMSY within 
TTARGET years, and a 90-percent or higher chance of 
achieving BMSY within TMAX years.'' Harvest levels finalized 
by this action have been set such that overfished species would have a 
50-percent chance of achieving BMSY within TTARGET 
years. However, none of harvest levels for the overfished species in 
Amendment 16-3 have been set such that their rebuilding plans would 
have a greater than 90-percent chance of achieving BMSY 
within TMAX years. Each species was considered individually 
in its species-specific rebuilding analysis.
    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule for this action 
(69 FR 40851, July 7, 2004), the rebuilding measures for the overfished 
West Coast groundfish species in Amendment 16-3 have the following 
probabilities of achieving BMSY within TMAX 
years: bocaccio, 70 percent; cowcod, 60 percent; widow rockfish, 60 
percent; and yelloweye rockfish, 80 percent. These probabilities of 
rebuilding and the harvest levels associated with them were set to 
achieve rebuilding, but also to acknowledge that these species are 
usually taken with other, co-occurring and more abundant species. OY 
levels for overfished species are set to allow some level of fishing 
for the more abundant stocks that co-occur with overfished species. At 
the same time, management measures such as conservation areas and 
cumulative trip limits are set to minimize opportunities for the 
vessels targeting more abundant stocks to intercept overfished species. 
This approach to multi-species management is consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and meets the criteria in the Act at section 
304(e)(4) and the national standard guidelines at 600.310(e)(4)(ii).
    As discussed in the response to comment 1, according to the 
national standard guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310(e)(4)(ii)(B)(3), if 
TMIN is 10 years or greater, ``then the specified time 
period for rebuilding [TTARGET] may be adjusted upward to 
the extent warranted by the needs of fishing communities and 
recommendations by international organizations in which the United 
States participates, except that no such upward adjustment can exceed 
the rebuilding period calculated in the absence of fishing mortality, 
plus one mean generation time or equivalent period based on the 
species' life-history characteristics [TMAX].'' While the 
Technical Guidance suggests that rebuilding plans be designed to 
possess a 90-percent or higher chance of achieving BMSY 
within TMAX years (PMAX), adopting that as a 
binding criterion in all cases would not be consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and the national standard guidelines. It would not 
be consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act because it would not allow 
the criteria in the Act at section 304(e)(4) and the national standard 
guidelines at 600.310(e)(4)(ii) to be taken into account. For further 
discussion on this issue, see the preamble to the Amendment 16-1 final 
rule (69 FR 8861, February 26, 2004.)
    Comment 4: The target rebuilding periods proposed in the rebuilding 
plans all have only a 50-percent chance of actually being achieved 
under the plans. This low probability of rebuilding success by the 
rebuilding dates specified in the plans violates the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act's requirement to rebuild as quickly as possible and conflicts with 
NMFS's own guidance to adopt a precautionary approach to rebuilding and 
species protection. NMFS's response to this comment in the FEIS ignores 
the fact that this is the result of policy choices that are neither 
scientifically mandated nor protective of the overfished species. A 
higher probability of rebuilding success, by both target and maximum 
periods, would be more precautionary and would accord much better with 
the statute and NMFS's own guidance.
    Response: As stated in the response to comments in the FEIS 
(Chapter 12), in a rebuilding analysis that uses the probability 
calculations described by the Council's Scientific and Statistical 
Committee (SSC) Terms of Reference for Rebuilding Analyses, the target 
year is defined as the median rebuilding year for a given fishing 
mortality rate. As described in Section 4.5.2 of the groundfish FMP 
(and in more detail in Section 1.1.1.2 of Appendix A to the FEIS for 
this action), the rebuilding analysis methodology uses a Monte Carlo 
simulation technique in which many simulations project the change in 
biomass over time for a given fishing mortality rate (F), based on the 
biological characteristics of the species and known recruitment 
variability. The target year, or median year, is defined as the year in 
which half of these simulations show that the population has rebuilt to 
the target biomass. In this sense, the target year (TTARGET) 
is the statistically most likely year in which the population will 
achieve the target biomass for a given F. Similarly, PMAX, 
the probability of rebuilding in the maximum allowable time period 
(TMAX), represents the proportion of simulations within 
which the population has rebuilt to the target biomass by 
TMAX. Even TMIN, the rebuilding period in the 
absence of fishing, is defined probabilistically as the year in which 
half of all simulations achieve rebuilding when F is set to zero. These 
three strategic rebuilding parameters (TTARGET, 
PMAX, and F) cannot be chosen independently of each other 
because the choice of one parameter determines the value of the other 
two parameters. The alternatives in the FEIS are structured around 
PMAX

[[Page 57877]]

values. Therefore, in choosing a PMAX as part of the 
rebuilding strategy for an overfished stock, the Council also chose the 
values for TTARGET and F for each stock, with TTARGET 
being defined by the median probability of achieving rebuilding. 
Although the Council could have chosen the target year directly (as 
long as it fell between TMIN and TMAX), within the model it 
would still be defined as the year with 50-percent probability of stock 
recovery, and that choice would determine the corresponding values for 
PMAX and F.
    As stated in the response to comment 3, the Technical Guidance at 
page 38 suggests addressing uncertainty with the guideline that 
``rebuilding plans be designed to possess a 50-percent or higher chance 
of achieving BMSY within TTARGET years, ...'' 
Harvest levels finalized by this action have been set such that 
overfished species would have a 50-percent chance of achieving 
BMSY within TTARGET years. Therefore, NMFS is 
following its guidance for setting TTARGET when considering 
uncertainty in stock dynamics, current stock status and recruitment 
variability. This approach is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
and national standard guidelines on protecting and rebuilding 
overfished species while taking into account the socio-economic needs 
of the fishing industry and fishing communities.
    Comment 5: Because the rebuilding plans lack any management 
requirements designed to achieve a rebuilt fishery, they violate the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. To ensure rebuilding goals are met, rebuilding 
plans need to include management measures to (1) ensure rebuilding 
targets are met, (2) account for and reduce bycatch, (3) reduce impacts 
of current fishing on habitats that are important to the overfished 
stocks and their prey species, and (4) aid in the enforcement of the 
management measures.
    Response: This comment poses two issues: first, the commenter 
states that rebuilding plans must include management measures to be 
adequate; second, the commenter provides a list of the types of 
management measures that the commenter believes are needed within a 
rebuilding plan. Amendments 16-2 and 16-3 incorporated the overfished 
species rebuilding plans into the FMP. Rebuilding plans are no longer 
stand-alone documents. Rebuilding plans are species-specific and list 
the parameters that govern the rebuilding of a particular species. Most 
importantly, a rebuilding plan sets the harvest parameters for an 
overfished species. The primary management measure that is governed by 
and comes out of a rebuilding plan is the OY, which is implemented 
through the biennial specifications and management measures process.
    In contrast to the species-specific rebuilding plans, the FMP sets 
policies and principles for the management of the groundfish fisheries 
as a whole. The FMP must guide the management of over 80 groundfish 
species, integrating rebuilding policies for overfished species, and 
harvest policies for species at precautionary harvest levels 
(B25%-B40%) and more abundant stocks 
(>B40%.) The FMP provides this guidance in section 4.6.1.5., 
which states that ``OY recommendations will be consistent with 
established rebuilding plans and achievement of their goals and 
objectives. . . . (b) In cases where a stock or stock complex is 
overfished, Council action will specify OY in a manner that complies 
with rebuilding plans developed in accordance with Section 4.5.2.'' The 
FMP further states at 5.1.4 ``For any stock the Secretary has declared 
overfished or approaching the overfished condition, or for any stock 
the Council determines is in need of rebuilding, the Council will 
implement such periodic management measures as are necessary to rebuild 
the stock by controlling harvest mortality, habitat impacts, or other 
effects of fishing activities that are subject to regulation under the 
biennial process. These management measures will be consistent with any 
approved rebuilding plan.'' Most management measures used in the 
fishery to rebuild overfished stocks and to allow harvest on more 
abundant stocks are described in section 6 of the FMP. The FMP, which 
includes rebuilding plans for the eight overfished groundfish species, 
is sufficient ``to end overfishing in the fishery and to rebuild 
affected stocks of fish'' (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(3)(A).
    The 2004 specifications and management measures, (69 FR 11064, 
March 9, 2004) implemented the first four rebuilding plans (lingcod, 
canary rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, and Pacific ocean perch (POP)) 
with revisions to the harvest control rules for POP and darkblotched 
rockfish, and the interim rebuilding strategies for the remaining 
overfished species (bocaccio, cowcod, widow rockfish, and yelloweye 
rockfish). The proposed rule for groundfish harvest specifications and 
management measures for 2005-2006, to be published in September 2004, 
will propose OYs and management measures that implement the remaining 
rebuilding plans. The Council developed its recommendations for the 
2005-2006 fisheries based on and within the constraints of its FMP's 
policies.
    In addition to suggesting that the rebuilding plans are not 
adequate unless they contain management measures separate from those 
already provided in the FMP, the commenter listed several types of 
management measures that the commenter believes are needed within a 
rebuilding plan. Because the commenter's letter on the Amendment 16-3 
proposed rule included more extensive comments on essential fish 
habitat (EFH) issues, NMFS will respond to those issues below in the 
responses to Comments 6-8. In addition to requesting that NMFS include 
measures to protect EFH within the rebuilding plans rather than within 
the FMP, the commenter suggested that NMFS include within the 
rebuilding plans measures to: limit fishing effort via capacity 
reduction, set time/area closures, set a network of no-take marine 
protected areas, set trip or bag limits, set caps on total mortality, 
adjust harvest levels in response to the fisheries exceeding OYs, gear 
modifications to reduce bycatch, implement an observer program, set 
Federal vessel licensing requirements, and implement enforcement 
devices and measures such as vessel monitoring systems.
    As stated earlier in this response, overfished species rebuilding 
plans are not stand-alone documents and it is the FMP as a whole that 
will be used to rebuild overfished species. The FMP and Federal 
regulations implementing the FMP already include mechanisms to 
implement, or requirements for, most of the management measures 
mentioned by the commenter. Chapter 6 of the FMP sets management 
measures and regulatory programs the Council uses and intends to use to 
meet its varied fishery management responsibilities, including 
rebuilding overfished species. Section 6.1 describes a series of 
management measures that the Council uses to control fishing mortality, 
including but not limited to: permits, licenses and endorsements; 
restrictions on trawl mesh size; landing limits and trip frequency 
limits; quotas, including individual transferable quotas; escape panels 
or ports for pot gear or trawl or other net gear; size limits; bag 
limits; time/area closures; other forms of effort control including 
input controls on fishing gear such as restrictions on trawl size or 
longline length or number of hooks or pots; allocation of species or 
species groups between fishing sectors; and a requirement for a Federal 
observer program. Section 6.2 among other things, authorizes the 
Council to close fishing seasons or areas, in order to

[[Page 57878]]

protect overfished species. Section 6.3 of the FMP deals with bycatch 
management and measures the Council has taken in recent years to reduce 
bycatch. EFH is addressed in section 6.6. of the FMP. Federal 
regulations implementing the FMP provide fishery management 
requirements as follows: gear restrictions at Sec.  660.310; vessel 
monitoring system requirements at Sec.  660.312; observer program 
requirements at Sec.  660.314; allocations at Sec. Sec.  660.320 
through 660.324; vessel licensing/permitting requirements (including 
capacity reduction measures) at Sec. Sec.  660.331 through 660.341; 
overfished species rebuilding parameters at Sec.  660.365; general 
catch restrictions at Sec.  660.370; and Groundfish Conservation Area 
regulations at Sec.  660.390. In addition to these regulatory programs, 
NMFS also implemented a trawl permit/vessel buyback program in 2003 
that reduced participation in that fleet by 35 percent. Further 
discussion of management measures used to implement the FMP in order to 
provide adequate protection of overfished species is provided in the 
final rule to implement the 2004 specifications and management measures 
(69 FR 11064, March 9, 2004) and in the proposed rule to implement the 
2005-2006 specifications and management measures which will be 
published in the Federal Register in September 2004.
    Comment 6: Scientific evidence confirms that repeated bottom 
trawling can damage habitat of species such as overfished rockfish. 
Impacts identified in the few studies conducted on the West Coast and 
in studies of comparable gears from other areas should inform 
consideration of habitat protection measures in the rebuilding plans. 
None of the measures adopted through the biennial specifications and 
management measures process are designed to address habitat impacts. 
Management measures, such as gear restrictions and closed areas, are 
designed and managed for the purpose of reducing bycatch.
    Response: As mentioned in the response to comment 5, management 
measures, including habitat protection measures, are generally not 
included in rebuilding plans. The groundfish fishery is managed as a 
whole under the FMP and implementing regulations (50 CFR part 660, 
subpart G), including the harvest specifications and management 
measures. [Note: Beginning in 2005, the 2005 through 2006 harvest 
specification and management measures will be codified as part of 50 
CFR part 660, subpart G, after first being published in the Federal 
Register.]
    NMFS agrees that the Groundfish Conservation Areas implemented at 
50 CFR 660.390 and through the specifications and management measures 
process are designed and managed for the purpose of reducing the 
bycatch of overfished species. The boundaries of these closed areas are 
based on current information about where overfished species commonly 
occur. Fishing by different gear types is prohibited within the closed 
areas, thus, groundfish habitat within these closed areas is protected 
from groundfish fishing gear impacts. The cowcod rebuilding plan 
provides protection measures specific to adult cowcod habitat by 
stating that the Cowcod Conservation Areas (CCAs), first implemented in 
2001, will be a primary management measure used for protecting cowcod 
and cowcod habitat.
    In addition to closed areas, Federal regulations at Sec.  660.310 
and in the 2004 specifications and management measures provide gear 
restrictions intended to reduce overfished species bycatch, which may 
provide some habitat protection. Large footrope gear, which is more 
likely to damage high relief bottom habitat, is prohibited shoreward of 
closed areas, in areas that tend to have more rocky relief habitat.
    NMFS agrees that the agency needs to review available scientific 
information to determine whether its closed areas should be revised to 
provide better targeted protection for overfished species and their 
habitats. NMFS does not agree, however, that this review needs to occur 
before the agency approves Amendment 16-3 or the rebuilding plans 
therein. NMFS is developing an environmental impact statement (EIS) on 
groundfish EFH. On August 16-18, 2004, the agency held a public meeting 
to draft alternatives for the EFH EIS. The draft alternatives, which 
will be reviewed at the Council's September 13-17, 2004, meeting in San 
Diego, CA address groundfish species habitat needs, including 
overfished species needs, in three categories of alternatives: 
alternatives for the designation of EFH, alternatives for the 
designation of habitat areas of particular concern, and alternatives to 
minimize adverse impacts on habitat. A draft of the EFH EIS is 
scheduled for release in February 2005. NMFS expects that the Council 
will use that EIS to amend its FMP to update its EFH provisions, 
including management measures for overfished species habitat 
protection. The agency further expects that scientific information on 
overfished species and their habitats will continue to improve over 
time. NMFS and the Council will review that information as it becomes 
available, and through a public process, to ensure that the FMP 
continues to provide protection for overfished species based on the 
best available scientific information.
    Comment 7: NMFS has not done the analysis needed to determine 
whether current measures are adequate to rebuild overfished species 
because the agency has not analyzed the degree to which closed areas 
protect critical habitat of overfished species. Further, NMFS has not 
determined what modifications would be needed in the timing and extent 
of the closures or gear restrictions to address habitat issues for 
rebuilding species. The fact that the EFH EIS has not been completed is 
no excuse for omitting habitat protection measures from rebuilding 
plans.
    Response:As NMFS has stated in its response to Comment 6, the 
agency is developing a draft EIS on West Coast groundfish EFH. That EIS 
is intended to provide much needed information on species-specific EFH 
identification. The EIS will also be used to develop the FMP's overall 
approach to identifying and reducing the effects of fishing gear on 
groundfish EFH. Some of the EFH EIS draft alternatives address whether 
overfished species EFH needs particular protection different from that 
afforded to EFH of other groundfish species.
    Since the first three groundfish species were declared overfished 
in 1999, NMFS has been revising its various West Coast groundfish 
management policies and measures to provide better protections for 
overfished species. Protective fishery management measures vary by 
species and by the gear types and fisheries known to affect particular 
species. Adult cowcod, the most sedentary and site-specific of the 
overfished species, is protected in key habitat with large all-gear 
area closures off southern California. Lingcod, a shelf species 
vulnerable to hook-and-line gear during its winter spawning/nesting 
season, is protected through season closures. The universal policy that 
guides overfished species rebuilding plans is reducing opportunities 
for direct and incidental take of overfished species. The rebuilding 
plans themselves provide parameters for harvest levels that will allow 
rebuilding. The FMP provides guidance on how to constrain harvest to 
those levels through reduced landings limits, gear restrictions, season 
closures, area closures, and/or size limits depending on which measures 
are most appropriate to each overfished species.
    Overfished species allowable total catch (directed and incidental) 
levels are based on scientific stock assessments. OYs for overfished 
species

[[Page 57879]]

are set based on those stock assessments, through the harvest 
specifications and management measures process. The rebuilding plans 
dictate each overfished species' rebuilding fishing mortality rate (F), 
which may only be revised following review via a new stock assessment. 
NMFS sets management measures intended to constrain the fisheries so 
that total catch stays within overfished species' OYs. NMFS and the 
Council review and adjust management measures to ensure that rebuilding 
harvest goals are met.
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary of Commerce 
(Secretary) to review the adequacy of rebuilding plans at intervals 
that may not exceed 2 years. The rebuilding plans for all eight 
overfished species will be reviewed following their 2005 stock 
assessments. This fall, the Council's SSC is drafting revisions to its 
Rebuilding Analyses Terms of Reference to incorporate rebuilding plan 
adequacy reviews. These reviews will aid NMFS and the Council in 
determining how and whether harvest targets and management measures 
need to be revised for the 2007-2008 fishing period. Also during 2005-
2006, NMFS will complete its EFH EIS. The completion of that EIS and 
its implementation through an FMP amendment, if appropriate, and 
potential Federal regulations will guide how EFH management contributes 
to overfished species rebuilding measures.
    Comment 8: NMFS should evaluate steps like the following to protect 
vulnerable habitat for overfished species: (1) Close bottom trawling 
and other damaging bottom gears to all or part of the CCA, Soquel 
Canyon, and other canyon heads, rocky outcrops, banks and pinnacles 
that shelter cowcod, (2) close bottom trawling in all or part of 
sensitive habitats that support or have supported a high abundance of 
big, old bocaccio, and (3) fine-tune the Rockfish Conservation Area 
(RCA) and add other areas as needed to take into account sensitive 
habitat for overfished species.
    Response: NMFS will consider steps like those recommended in the 
EFH EIS process, which will examine habitat for all groundfish species, 
as described in the response to Comments 6 and 7. Currently bottom 
trawling for groundfish is prohibited in the CCA and in the trawl RCA, 
which effectively protects many other rocky relief habitats.
    Comment 9: The rebuilding plans contained in Amendment 16-3 lack 
adequate standards for gauging whether sufficient progress is being 
made toward rebuilding during the life of the rebuilding plan in 
compliance with 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(7). The rebuilding plans also lack 
requirements for enforcement and data collection. These accountability 
mechanisms are critical if NMFS is to track accurately its own progress 
in rebuilding and be able to intervene in order to correct any 
deficiencies that may develop during the course of rebuilding.
    Response: NMFS believes that the rebuilding plans under Amendment 
16-3 are consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary to review rebuilding 
plans at intervals that may not exceed 2 years. During the Amendment 
16-1 process, for the purpose of clarity, NMFS worked with the Council 
staff to add a sentence to the FMP at the end of section 4.5.3.6 to 
read, ``Regardless of the Council's schedule for reviewing overfished 
species rebuilding plans, the Secretary, through NMFS, is required to 
review the progress of overfished species rebuilding plans toward 
rebuilding goals every 2 years, per the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 
U.S.C. 304(e)(7).'' NMFS's review of the adequacy of progress on 
rebuilding plans will primarily be done through stock assessment 
updates and is expected to follow the schedule defined by the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
    As noted in the response to Comment 7, the Council's SSC is 
currently developing rebuilding plan adequacy review standards to be 
included in their Terms of Reference for Rebuilding Analyses. A draft 
set of standards are to be provided to the Council for review in 
September 2004 with final adoption in November 2004. By including the 
setting of rebuilding plan progress standards in the stock assessment 
development and review process for overfished species, the NMFS/Council 
process for developing and reviewing stock assessments would continue 
the link between stock assessments and rebuilding plans for overfished 
species. NMFS expects that these standards will be defined before the 
Secretary's review of Amendment 16-2 species in January 2006.
    As mentioned previously in the response to comment 5, management 
measures to ensure species are rebuilding are included in the harvest 
specifications and management measures. Accountability mechanisms, like 
enforcement and data collection, are included as part of the management 
of the groundfish fishery as a whole, through the FMP and implementing 
policies and regulations. These programs are designed for multi-species 
fisheries, wherein overfished species and abundant species co-occur. 
Therefore, it is not necessary for these measures to be included in 
rebuilding plans.

New Rockfish Species in Regulations

    With this action, NMFS is updating the list of rockfish species 
defined in the CFR at Sec.  660.302 to match the list of rockfish 
species included in the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. The FMP and CFR 
state that, ``Rockfish includes all genera and species of the family 
Scorpaenidae, even if not listed, that occur in the Washington, Oregon, 
and California area.'' These species are already specifically listed in 
the FMP and will be added to the CFR. The following seven new rockfish 
species in the family Scorpaenidae will be listed in the CFR as species 
managed under the FMP: chameleon rockfish, dwarf-red rockfish, freckled 
rockfish, half-banded rockfish, pinkrose rockfish, pygmy rockfish, and 
swordspine rockfish. In addition, dusty rockfish is corrected to read 
dusky rockfish.

Corrections

    NMFS re-arranged the Pacific Coast Groundfish regulations on July 
15, 2004 (69 FR 42345) so that they read in a more logical order. This 
reorganization did not make substantive changes to the existing 
regulations; rather, it reorganized regulatory measures into a more 
logical and cohesive order. In publishing the rule on July 15, 2004, 
NMFS neglected to remove Sec.  660.321, specifications and management 
measures, which was also added at Sec.  660.370. Therefore, this final 
rule removes the duplicative and outdated specifications and management 
measures section at Sec.  660.321. In addition, Sec.  660.334(d)(1)(i) 
and (ii) were inadvertently removed and are added with this rule.
    The observer rule for the whiting at-sea processing fleet (69 FR 
31751, June 7, 2004) is corrected so that the paragraphs are numbered 
according to the proper format. Since the observer rule was published, 
regulations for the groundfish observer program have moved from Sec.  
660.360 to Sec.  660.314 via the re-arranging rule (69 FR 42345, July 
15, 2004). Therefore, paragraphs (f)(3)(ii)(B)(i)-(iii) of Sec.  
660.314, groundfish observer program, are corrected to read 
(f)(3)(ii)(B)(1)-(3).
    Finally, a reference to the limited entry permit renewal process in 
Sec.  660.373(h)(3) erroneously refers to Sec.  660.333 and is 
corrected to refer to Sec.  660.335. These revisions are all 
housekeeping changes to the regulations

[[Page 57880]]

and do not alter the effect of Federal groundfish regulations.

Classification

    The Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, has determined that 
Amendment 16-3 is necessary for the conservation and management of the 
Pacific Coast groundfish fishery and that it is consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
    The Council prepared an FEIS that discusses the effects on the 
environment as a result of this action. The FEIS was filed with the 
Environmental Protection Agency on July 23, 2004. A notice of 
availability for this FEIS was published on July 30, 2004 (69 FR 
45707). In approving Amendment 16-3, on September 13, 2004, NMFS issued 
a ROD identifying the selected alternative. A copy of the ROD is 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) as 
part of the regulatory impact review. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, 
the comments and responses to the proposed rule, and a summary of the 
analyses completed to support the action. A copy of the FRFA is 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and a summary of the FRFA follows:
    During the comment period for the proposed rule, NMFS received 
three letters of comment, but none of these comments addressed the IRFA 
or economic impacts of the rule on small businesses. There are no 
recordkeeping, reporting, or other compliance issues forthcoming from 
the proposed rule. This final rule does not duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with other Federal rules.
    The purpose of this action is to implement rebuilding plans for 
four overfished species, bocaccio, cowcod, widow rockfish and yelloweye 
rockfish. This action is needed because the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 304 
(e)(3) requires rebuilding plans to be implemented as FMPs, FMP 
amendments, or regulations. The objective of this final rule is to 
implement rebuilding parameters that are intended to result in 
bocaccio, cowcod, widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish stocks 
rebuilding to their MSY biomass levels.
    Amendment 16-3 responds to a Court order in Natural Resources 
Defense Council, Inc. v. Evans, 168 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (N.D. Cal 2001,), 
in which NMFS was ordered to provide Pacific Coast groundfish 
rebuilding plans as FMPs, FMP amendments, or regulations, per the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. On October 27, 2003, the Court ordered NMFS to 
approve rebuilding plans for bocaccio, cowcod, widow rockfish, and 
yelloweye rockfish by September 15, 2004.
    Amendment 16-3 follows the framework established by Amendment 16-1 
and amends the FMP to include rebuilding plans for bocaccio, cowcod, 
widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. For each overfished species 
rebuilding plan, the following parameters would be specified in the 
FMP: estimates of unfished biomass (B0) and target biomass 
(BMSY), the year the stock would be rebuilt in the absence 
of fishing (TMIN), the year the stock would be rebuilt if 
the maximum time period permissible under national standard guidelines 
were applied (TMAX), the target year in which the stock 
would be rebuilt under the rebuilding plan (TTARGET), and 
the harvest control rule. No new management measures are proposed in 
Amendment 16-3. Amendment 16-1 described and authorized the use of 
numerous types of management measures intended to achieve rebuilding. 
These management measures will be implemented through the biennial 
harvest specifications and management measures process and will be used 
to constrain fishing to the targets identified in the rebuilding plans.
    The FEIS/RIR/IRFA for this final rule defines six alternative 
actions that were considered for each of the four overfished species. 
The alternatives present a range of rebuilding strategies in terms of 
rebuilding probabilities for each species. The no action alternative is 
based on the ``40-10 harvest policy'', which is the default rebuilding 
policy for setting OYs. Under the 40-10 harvest policy, stocks with 
biomass levels below B40% (40 percent of the unfished 
biomass, a proxy for BMSY) have OYs set in relation to the 
biomass level. At B40% and greater, an OY may be set equal 
to the ABC. However, if a stock's spawning biomass declines below 
B40%, the OY is scaled downward until at 10 percent 
(B10%), the harvest OY is set at zero unless modified for a 
species-specific rebuilding plan. In comparison to the other 
alternatives, the 40-10 harvest policy generally results in lower OYs 
in the short term, when a stock is at a low biomass level, but allows 
greater harvests when a stock is at higher biomass levels. For further 
information on the 40-10 harvest policy, see the preamble to the final 
rule for Amendment 16-1 (February 26, 2004, 69 FR 8861) or Section 5.3 
of the FMP. The 40-10 harvest policy alternative would not result in 
rebuilding for three of the four overfished species (i.e., only 
bocaccio would be rebuilt within TMAX) within the maximum 
allowable rebuilding time. Lack of rebuilding for these species makes 
this alternative not a legally-viable alternative and increases the 
risk to long-term productivity of the stock.
    The maximum conservation alternative, Alternative 4, specifies the 
most conservative harvests that would allow these four species to 
rebuild and has the highest probability, 90 percent, of rebuilding 
within TMAX (except for cowcod which has a 60-percent 
probability). Each stock is expected to rebuild fastest under this 
alternative, but at considerable socioeconomic cost. Short-term 
socioeconomic costs would be highest under this alternative due to 
severe restrictions on fishing opportunity to allow the stock to 
rebuild faster.
    The maximum harvest alternative, Alternative 1, for each overfished 
species was based on a 60 percent probability of rebuilding the stocks 
to their MSY biomass levels by TMAX, except for cowcod which 
was based on a 55 percent probability. This alternative would delay 
rebuilding for the longest period of time with the intent of keeping 
harvests at the highest allowable levels for the duration of 
rebuilding. Because this alternative would allow fishermen an 
opportunity to harvest higher levels in the short-term, this 
alternative would have the least socioeconomic impact. However, 
allowing higher harvest levels in the short-term would slow down 
rebuilding and, thus, have the highest risk among the action 
alternatives of not rebuilding within TMAX.
    Intermediate alternatives, Alternatives 2 and 3, were defined for 
each overfished species and were based on 70-and 80- percent 
probabilities of rebuilding the stocks to their MSY biomass by 
TMAX (except that cowcod was based on a 60-percent 
probability for Alternatives 2 and 3). The socio-economic impacts of 
the intermediate alternatives fall within the range of the other 
alternatives that were fully analyzed in the FEIS. Alternative 2 would 
have more socio-economic impacts than Alternative 1, but less than 
Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would have more socio-economic impacts 
than Alternative 2, but less than Alternative 4. Alternative 2 would 
have a lower risk of not rebuilding within TMAX than 
Alternative 1, but higher than Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would have 
a lower risk of not rebuilding within TMAX than Alternative 
2, but higher than Alternative 4.
    After the draft EIS was made available by EPA for public review (69 
FR 18897, April 9, 2004), the Council selected

[[Page 57881]]

their preferred alternatives at their April 2004 meeting. The Council-
preferred alternative for each species, as analyzed in the FEIS, is as 
follows: bocaccio, Alternative 2 (using the STATc Model) - 70-percent 
probability of rebuilding the stock to its MSY biomass by TMAX 
with a TTARGET of 2023 and a harvest rate of 0.0498; cowcod, 
Alternatives 2 through 4 (all the same) - 60-percent probability of 
rebuilding the stock to its MSY biomass by TMAX with a 
TTARGET of 2090 and a harvest rate of 0.009; widow rockfish, 
Alternative 1 (using Model 8) - 60-percent probability of rebuilding 
the stock to its MSY biomass by TMAX with a TTARGET 
of 2038 and a harvest rate of 0.0093; and yelloweye rockfish, 
Alternative 3 - 80-percent probability of rebuilding the stock to its 
MSY biomass by TMAX with a TTARGET of 2058 and a 
harvest rate of 0.0153. The Council-preferred alternative for each 
species was chosen by balancing biological and economic risks, 
maximizing the likelihood of rebuilding the stock while minimizing the 
socio-economic impacts on the industry.
    A fish-harvesting business, including commercial harvesters and 
charter/party boat operators, is considered a ``small'' business by the 
Small Business Administration if it has annual receipts not in excess 
of $3.5 million. For wholesale businesses, a small business is one that 
employs not more than 100 people. The economic impact of implementing 
these rebuilding plans will be shared among commercial harvesters and 
recreational operators. More detailed information on the groundfish 
catch in these sectors is provided in the FEIS/IRFA.
    There are approximately 4,600 commercial vessels fishing from West 
Coast ports. Of these, 1,709 vessels had some involvement in West Coast 
groundfish fisheries, 421 of those held groundfish limited entry 
permits, and an additional 771 participated in open access groundfish 
fisheries (if vessels derive more than 5 percent of total revenue from 
groundfish and do not have a limited entry permit, then they are 
considered to be participating in open access fisheries). After the 
buyback program in the fall of 2003, 91 limited entry trawl vessels and 
their permits were permanently retired, representing a 35 percent 
reduction in the capacity of the limited entry trawl fleet in terms of 
permits.
    In 2001, there were an estimated 753 recreational fishing charter 
vessels operating in ocean fisheries on the West Coast: 106 in 
Washington, 232 in Oregon and 415 in California.
    There are about 1,700 commercial vessels and 750 recreational 
charter operators that may be affected by these actions. Although there 
is some double counting, most of these entities would probably qualify 
as small businesses under SBA criteria. No alternatives, other than 
those considered in the FEIS, have been identified that would reduce 
the impact on small entities. In addition to an opportunity for public 
comment on the proposed rule, DEIS and IRFA, the Council process for 
developing a preferred alternative is conducted in an open forum with 
industry advisory groups that assist the Council in developing options 
that meet regulatory objectives and conservation goals, in particular, 
with the least possible impact on fishing businesses. This rule is not 
expected to yield disproportionate economic impacts between those small 
and large entities.
    Implementation of specific rebuilding plans may entail substantial 
economic impacts on some groundfish buyers, commercial harvesters, and 
in the case of bocaccio, cowcod, and yelloweye rockfish, recreational 
operators. The economic impact will vary according to their dependency 
on groundfish-related income, the frequency of overfished species in 
their area of the coast, and the severity of those species overfished 
status. The Council-preferred alternative specifies annual OY levels 
for the overfished species that are sufficient to mitigate some of the 
adverse economic impacts on these entities, while not compromising the 
statutory requirement for timely rebuilding. NMFS will implement the 
Council-preferred alternative.
    This action was developed after meaningful consultation and 
collaboration with tribal representatives on the Council, who have 
agreed with the provisions that apply to tribal vessels. This action 
is, therefore, compliant with Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
coordination with Indian tribal governments).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, 
Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 22, 2004.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as 
follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN 
PACIFIC

0
1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  660.302, in the definition of ``Groundfish,'' under 
``Rockfish:'' remove ``dusky rockfish, S. ciliatus,'' and add 
``chameleon rockfish, S. phillipsi,'' ``dwarf-red rockfish, S. 
rufinanus,'' ``dusky rockfish, S. ciliatus,'' ``freckled rockfish, S. 
lentiginosus,'' ``half-banded rockfish, S. semicinctus,'' ``pinkrose 
rockfish, S. simulator,'' ``pygmy rockfish, S. wilsoni,'' and 
``swordspine rockfish, S. ensifer'' in alphabetical order to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.302  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Groundfish * * *
    Rockfish:
* * * * *
    chameleon rockfish, S. phillipsi
* * * * *
    dwarf-red rockfish, S. rufinanus
    dusky rockfish, S. ciliatus
* * * * *
    freckled rockfish, S. lentiginosus
* * * * *
    half-banded rockfish, S. semicinctus,
* * * * *
    pinkrose rockfish, S. simulator
    pygmy rockfish, S. wilsoni
* * * * *
    swordspine rockfish, S. ensifer
* * * * *


Sec.  660.314  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  660.314, paragraphs (f)(3)(ii)(B)(i) through (iii) are 
redesignated to read (paragraphs f)(3)(ii)(B)(1) through (3).


Sec.  660.321  [Removed and reserved]

0
4. Remove and reserve Sec.  660.321.

0
5. In Sec.  660.334, paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) are added to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.334  Limited entry permits - endorsements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) A sablefish endorsement with a tier assignment will be affixed 
to the permit and will remain valid when the permit is transferred.
    (ii) A sablefish endorsement and its associated tier assignment are 
not separable from the limited entry permit, and therefore may not be 
transferred

[[Page 57882]]

separately from the limited entry permit.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  660.365, the introductory paragraph and paragraphs (e) 
through (h) are added to read as follows:


Sec.  660.365  Overfished species rebuilding plans.

    For each overfished groundfish stock with an approved rebuilding 
plan, this section contains the standards to be used to establish 
annual or biennial OYs, specifically the target date for rebuilding the 
stock to its MSY level and the harvest control rule to be used to 
rebuild the stock.
* * * * *
    (e) Bocaccio. The target date for rebuilding the southern bocaccio 
stock to BMSY is 2023. The harvest control rule to be used 
to rebuild the southern bocaccio stock is an annual harvest rate of 
F=0.0498.
    (f) Cowcod. The target year for rebuilding the cowcod stock south 
of Point Conception to BMSY is 2090. The harvest control 
rule to be used to rebuild the cowcod stock is an annual harvest rate 
of F=0.009.
    (g) Widow rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the widow 
rockfish stock to BMSY is 2038. The harvest control rule to 
be used to rebuild the widow rockfish stock is an annual harvest rate 
of F=0.0093.
    (h) Yelloweye rockfish. The target year for rebuilding the 
yelloweye rockfish stock to BMSY is 2058. The harvest 
control rule to be used to rebuild the yelloweye rockfish stock is an 
annual harvest rate of F=0.0153.

0
7. In Sec.  660.373, paragraph (h)(3) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.373  Pacific whiting (whiting) fishery management.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (3) When renewing its limited entry permit each year under Sec.  
660.335, the owner of a catcher/processor used to take and retain 
whiting must declare if the vessel will operate solely as a mothership 
in the whiting fishery during the calendar year to which its limited 
entry permit applies. Any such declaration is binding on the vessel for 
the calendar year, even if the permit is transferred during the year, 
unless it is rescinded in response to a written request from the permit 
holder. Any request to rescind a declaration must be made by the permit 
holder and granted in writing by the Regional Administrator before any 
unprocessed whiting has been taken on board the vessel that calendar 
year.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-21691 Filed 9-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S