[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8489-8522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1451]



[[Page 8489]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 051014263-6028-03; I.D. 120805A]
RIN 0648-AU00


Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Specifications and Management 
Measures

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing revisions to the 2006 commercial and 
recreational groundfish fishery management measures for groundfish 
taken in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the coasts of 
Washington, Oregon, and California. Management measures that are new 
for 2006 are intended to: achieve but not exceed optimum yields (OYs); 
prevent overfishing; rebuild overfished species; and reduce and 
minimize the incidental catch and discard of overfished and depleted 
stocks. NMFS is also revising the 2006 darkblotched rockfish OY, at the 
request of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council), 
and under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). These actions, which are 
authorized by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 
(FMP) and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, are intended to allow fisheries to 
access more abundant groundfish stocks while protecting overfished and 
depleted stocks.

DATES: Effective Date: March 1, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact 
Review (EA/RIR) of Management Measures for Spiny Dogfish and Pacific 
Cod, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and the Small Entity Compliance Guide 
(SECG) are available from D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest 
Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, phone: 
206-526-6150.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamie Goen (Northwest Region, NMFS), 
phone: 206-526-6140; fax: 206-526-6736; and e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    This Federal Register document is available on the Government 
Printing Office's Web site at: www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    Background information and documents are available at the NMFS 
Northwest Region Web site at: www.nwr.noaa.gov and at the Pacific 
Council's Web site at: www.pcouncil.org.

Background

    The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and its implementing regulations 
at title 50 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 660, subpart 
G, regulate fishing for over 80 species of groundfish off the coasts of 
Washington, Oregon, and California. Groundfish specifications and 
management measures are developed by the Pacific Council, and are 
implemented by NMFS. The specifications and management measures for 
2005-2006 were codified in the CFR (50 CFR part 660, subpart G). They 
were published in the Federal Register as a proposed rule on September 
21, 2004 (69 FR 56550), and as a final rule on December 23, 2004 (69 FR 
77012). The final rule was subsequently amended on March 18, 2005 (70 
FR 13118); March 30, 2005 (70 FR 16145); April 19, 2005 (70 FR 20304); 
May 3, 2005 (70 FR 22808); May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23040); May 5, 2005 (70 
FR 23804); May 16, 2005 (70 FR 25789); May 19, 2005 (70 FR 28852); July 
5, 2005 (70 FR 38596); August 22, 2005 (70 FR 48897); August 31, 2005 
(70 FR 51682); October 5, 2005 (70 FR 58066); October 20, 2005 (70 FR 
61063); October 24, 2005 (70 FR 61393); November 1, 2005 (70 FR 65861); 
and December 5, 2005 (70 FR 72385). A proposed rule for the 
specifications and management measures for March through December 2006 
was published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 
75115).
    Acceptable biological catches (ABCs) and OYs are established for 
each year. Management measures are established at the start of the 
biennial period, and are adjusted throughout the biennial management 
period, to keep harvest within the OYs. At the Pacific Council's 
October 31 - November 4, 2005, meeting in San Diego, CA, the Pacific 
Council's Groundfish Management Team (GMT) considered 2005 catch data 
and new West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP) data and made 
recommendations to adjust groundfish management measures for December 
2005 and for all of 2006. The adjustments for December 2005 through 
February 2006 were implemented via an inseason action (70 FR 72385, 
December 5, 2005). The management measures for the remainder of 2006 
(March through December) were proposed on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 
75115), and are being implemented through this rule.
    The following changes to current groundfish management measures for 
March through December 2006 were recommended by the Pacific Council, in 
consultation with Pacific Coast Treaty Indian Tribes and the States of 
Washington, Oregon, and California, at its October 31-November 4, 2005, 
meeting in San Diego, CA. The changes recommended by the Pacific 
Council include: (1) Adjustments to the limited entry fixed gear and 
open access sablefish daily trip limit (DTL) fishery north of 36[deg] 
N. lat.; (2) adjustments to limited entry trawl cumulative limits for 
sablefish, thornyheads, Dover sole, other flatfish, petrale sole, 
arrowtooth flounder, slope rockfish, splitnose rockfish, and lingcod; 
(3) adjustments to limited entry fixed gear and open access cumulative 
limits for shelf, shortbelly, and widow rockfish south of 34[deg]27' N. 
lat. and minor nearshore and black rockfish between 42[deg] N. lat. and 
40[deg]10' N. lat.; (4) adjustments to the Rockfish Conservation Area 
(RCA) boundaries; (5) adjustments to Washington, Oregon and 
California's recreational groundfish fisheries; (6) establishment of 
limited entry trawl, limited entry fixed gear, and open access trip 
limits for Pacific cod and spiny dogfish; (7) adjustments to the tribal 
management 5measures for Pacific cod, spiny dogfish and thornyheads; 
(8) clarification of the non-groundfish trawl rockfish conservation 
area (RCA); and (9) reduction of the 2006 darkblotched rockfish OY to 
200 mt. Consistent with the FMP, Pacific Coast groundfish landings 
would be monitored throughout the year, and further adjustments to trip 
limits, RCAs, and other management measures would be made as necessary 
to allow achievement of, or to avoid exceeding, OYs.
    The 2006 darkblotched rockfish OY of 200 mt is an interim measure 
pursuant to section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in effect while 
the rebuilding plan (now referred to as Amendment 16-4) is being 
developed and implemented. Under the provisions of section 305(c)(3) of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, interim measures shall remain in effect for 
not more than 180 days after the date of publication, and may be 
extended by publication in the Federal Register for an additional 
period of not more than 180 days, provided the public has had an 
opportunity to comment on the interim measures, and the Council is 
actively

[[Page 8490]]

preparing a plan amendment to address rebuilding on a permanent basis. 
The public has been provided an opportunity to comment on the interim 
measures in the proposed rule (70 FR 75115, December 19, 2005), and the 
Council is actively working on an FMP amendment. In addition, the 
Court's Order in Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. NMFS, 421 
F.3d 872 (9\th\ Cir. 2005) dated December 8, 2005, requires NMFS to 
implement a darkblotch quota for the entire 2006 fishing year pursuant 
to section 305(c). Because the Council is unlikely to have completed 
work on Amendment 16-4 prior to expiration of this interim measure, 
NMFS will likely extend the darkblotched rockfish OY beyond the first 
180-day period. NMFS will confirm this extension by publishing notice 
of continuation of the measure in the Federal Register.

Comments and Responses

    During the comment period on the proposed rule to implement changes 
to the 2006 Pacific Coast groundfish fishery specifications and 
management measures, which ended on January 15, 2006, NMFS received 
four letters of comment. One letter was received from the Makah Tribe; 
one letter was received from an industry organization; one letter was 
received from a non-governmental organization representing 
environmental interests; and one letter was received from a member of 
the public. These comments are addressed here:
    Comment 1: Treaty Indian tribes, including the Makah Tribe, are 
entitled to 50 percent of the available harvest of groundfish species 
taken from their usual and accustomed (U&A) fishing grounds. The Makah 
Tribe analyzed Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN) Pacific 
cod landings data from the four Washington ports that commonly receive 
groundfish taken from the treaty U&A fishing grounds: Neah Bay, Port 
Angeles, Blaine, and Bellingham. In 2003 and 2004, total tribal and 
non-tribal Pacific cod landings into those ports were 953 and 827 mt, 
respectively. Therefore, the Makah Tribe supports the Pacific Council's 
recommendation and NMFS's proposal for a 400 mt Pacific cod tribal 
harvest guideline in 2006.
    Response: Taking into consideration the above information, the 
tribal proposal and the Pacific Council recommendation, NMFS has 
implemented a 400-mt tribal harvest guideline for Pacific cod in 2006 
with this action.
    Comment 2: One commenter supports the decrease in the darkblotched 
rockfish optimum yield (OY) for 2006 from 294 mt to 200 mt. The 
commenter notes that the latest stock assessment shows that 
darkblotched rockfish is rebuilding more quickly than originally 
projected and, therefore, the OY could be set higher without 
demonstrably slowing the rebuilding progress. However, the commenter 
supports NMFS effort to rebuild quicker than required by law, as was 
done with lingcod, while minimizing impacts on local coastal 
communities, including fishermen and processors.
    Another commenter believes that the rule proposes to set an OY that 
is higher than the lowest level possible and is thereby violating the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires overfished species to be rebuilt 
as quickly as possible. In the 2005-2006 Pacific Coast Groundfish 
Specifications and Management Measures Environmental Impact Statement 
(hereafter, 2005-2006 Specs EIS), NMFS projected total fishing 
mortality of less than 100 mt for darkblotched rockfish. The commenter 
believes that NMFS failed to consider the lowest possible fishing level 
for darkblotched rockfish because an OY at or below 100 mt was not 
adopted.
    A third commenter suggested that all species should have their 
quotas cut by 50 percent this year and 10 percent each succeeding year.
    Response: As stated in the proposed rule, this action to adjust the 
2006 darkblotched rockfish OY from 294 mt to 200 mt is an interim 
measure to decrease the OY within the current rebuilding plan until a 
revised rebuilding plan is developed. Revising the rebuilding plan 
requires extensive analysis to consider the interaction of the 
rebuilding plans for all overfished species, to determine the needs of 
the fishing communities, and to allow substantial public participation. 
Allowable harvest levels for all overfished groundfish species for 2007 
and beyond will be based on new rebuilding plans intended to meet the 
court's decision in NRDC v. NMFS, 421 F.3d 872 (9\th\ Cir. 2005). The 
Pacific Council intends to review, re-analyze, and revise rebuilding 
plans via Amendment 16-4 to the FMP, which will be developed 
concurrently with the 2007-2008 groundfish harvest specifications and 
management measures. These revised rebuilding plans in Amendment 16-4 
will determine the OYs selected for overfished groundfish species, 
including darkblotched rockfish, in 2007 and beyond.
    At the Pacific Council's October 30 - November 4, 2005, meeting, in 
order to determine if interim action is appropriate, NMFS and the 
Pacific Council analyzed the effects of a range of 2006 darkblotched 
rockfish OYs, from 0-696 mt, on the time to rebuild the darkblotched 
stock. The Pacific Council's Groundfish Management Team (GMT) 
estimated: with a darkblotched rockfish OY of zero, the stock would be 
rebuilt by July 2009; with an OY of 200 mt, the stock would be rebuilt 
by March 2010; and with the previously established OY of 294 mt, the 
stock would be rebuilt by July 2010. Since that meeting, NMFS analyzed 
the estimated gains in rebuilding time that could occur were the 2006 
OY set at 100 mt, and found that a 100 mt OY could result in the stock 
being rebuilt by 3-6 months prior to the March 2010 date associated 
with a 200 mt OY. As discussed below, this small gain in rebuilding 
time would result in large economic losses to the fishing industry and 
coastal communities. Therefore, NMFS concurs with the Pacific Council's 
recommendation of a 200 mt OY for darkblotched rockfish in 2006 as an 
appropriately conservative interim OY intended to accommodate some 
targeting of the more healthy groundfish stocks that co-occur with 
darkblotched rockfish.
    Populations of the overfished rockfish species are found along the 
entire length of the U.S. West Coast. Because of their varied 
biological characteristics, overfished rockfish are caught in a broad 
range of fisheries, tribal and non-tribal, commercial and recreational. 
NMFS, its partner state and tribal agencies, and the Pacific Council 
have focused their efforts to protect and rebuild overfished groundfish 
species on minimizing or eliminating directed harvest and minimizing 
incidental catch of overfished stocks. Overfished species are caught in 
all of the groundfish fisheries coastwide not because they are 
targeted, but because they co-occur with the more abundant stocks the 
fisheries do target. For example, yelloweye rockfish is often found at 
similar depths to and caught in common with Pacific halibut, an 
abundant flatfish targeted with hook-and-line gear in the recreational 
and commercial fisheries. Fisheries for target species must then be 
constrained in some way in order to rebuild the non-target overfished 
species, usually with: reductions in allowable landings levels of 
target species, reductions in allowable fishing area so as to minimize 
fishing in areas where overfished species commonly occur, reductions in 
allowable duration of fishing seasons, or alterations in fishing gear 
that either prevent overfished species from being caught by

[[Page 8491]]

the gear or expel overfished species from the gear. All of these tools 
are used either individually or in combination for West Coast fisheries 
that either target groundfish directly, or take groundfish incidentally 
to their non-groundfish fishing operations. Therefore, when NMFS 
analyzes revenues earned or sacrificed in order to rebuild overfished 
species at slower or faster rates, the agency is looking at revenues 
from the more healthy target stocks, not from the overfished species 
themselves.
    In setting the 2006 darkblotched rockfish OY, NMFS considered both 
the biological constraints of the stock in terms of its ability to 
rebuild by particular dates, and the economic impacts of rebuilding at 
different rates on coastal fishing communities. NMFS particularly 
considered the effect of reducing the 2006 darkblotched rockfish OY to 
100 mt.
    The majority of darkblotched rockfish landed are caught with 
limited entry bottom trawl gear (99.6 percent in 2004), incidentally to 
slope fisheries for groundfish. Because the groundfish fishery has been 
managed under rebuilding measures since 2000, NMFS reviewed the effect 
of a 100 mt darkblotched rockfish OY in 2006 both from the perspective 
of incremental changes to the fishery from current harvests and 
associated revenue, and from the perspective of cumulative changes that 
have been ongoing within the fishery from the past several years. In 
terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, since 2001, real ex-vessel 
revenues from bottom trawl vessels have been less than half of what 
they were in 1996. Many vessels, processors, shore-based 
infrastructure, and support businesses were built to service a fishery 
that generated revenues and landings that are larger than what the 
current fishery generates. This means that current annual revenues are 
less able to support the fixed costs of maintaining the structures 
built to support a more productive industry. Because revenues have 
declined substantially from this period of higher productivity, 
businesses are less able to withstand further declines in revenue. In 
other words, the effect upon fishers, processors, support businesses, 
and communities of reducing ex-vessel revenues is likely to be greater 
when the fishery annually generates $20 million compared to a reduction 
when the fishery annually generates $40 million.
    NMFS analyzed the effects of a 100-mt 2006 darkblotched rockfish OY 
from the base of management measures implemented in this rule, assuming 
available darkblotched rockfish incidental catch to be cut to that 100 
mt level. Using ex-vessel prices from 2005, 100 mt of darkblotched 
rockfish translates into roughly $94,000 to $100,000 in ex-vessel 
revenue from landings of darkblotched rockfish itself. However, 
reducing the catch of species that co-occur with darkblotched rockfish 
to stay within a 100 mt OY in 2006 would mean a reduction in ex-vessel 
revenues from co-occurring slope species by several million dollars. 
Exvessel revenues should only be viewed as an indicator of economic 
impacts to the vessels, their crew, and owners. Taking into account the 
additional impact to processors, support businesses, and West Coast 
communities means an additional effect that is roughly 20-40 percent 
higher than the ex-vessel revenue impact.
    For example, preliminary catch estimates from 2005 show that 100 mt 
of darkblotched rockfish had been caught incidentally to the slope 
trawl fishery by late August. Had the portion of the fishery that 
catches darkblotched rockfish closed upon attainment of 100 mt of 
darkblotched rockfish, the cost to the bottom trawl fleet would have 
been approximately $3.5 million in foregone ex-vessel revenue, or 
approximately 18 percent of total bottom trawl ex-vessel revenue in the 
area north of 40[deg]10' N. lat. in 2005. In comparison, approximately 
100 mt of darkblotched rockfish had been caught by mid-June in 2004, 
and had the portion of the bottom trawl fishery that catches 
darkblotched rockfish been closed upon attainment of 100 mt of 
darkblotched rockfish, approximately $6.5 million in ex-vessel revenues 
would have been lost, or approximately 38 percent of total bottom trawl 
ex-vessel revenues in the area north of 40[deg]10' N. lat. for that 
year.
    Limited entry bottom trawl regulations implemented in this final 
rule in place for 2006 are designed to distribute catch of target 
species more evenly throughout the year. In 2005, catch was distributed 
more heavily toward the early part of the year. Based on analysis 
applying regulations implemented by this rule to the fishery and 
incidental catch patterns, NMFS expects that the fishery will take 100 
mt of darkblotched rockfish by August 2006. If the slope trawl fishery 
were closed in August 2006, the bottom trawl fleet would lose 25-36 
percent of total bottom trawl ex-vessel revenues from the more abundant 
species that could be taken during the remaining months in the area 
north of 40[deg]10' N. lat. Based on total exvessel revenues in that 
area in the past several years, this is likely to mean a loss of $4.2 
to $6.5 million just in ex-vessel revenues in that area.
    If NMFS were to structure the 2006 season toward both maintaining a 
year round bottom trawl fishery and attaining the highest level of ex-
vessel revenues without exceeding 100 mt of darkblotched rockfish, we 
estimate the cost to the fleet would be a loss of $3.2 to $6.0 million 
in ex-vessel revenues. This somewhat lower loss is in comparison to the 
$4.2 to $6.5 million loss that we expect would occur if the bottom 
trawl fishery were to close on attainment of 100 mt of darkblotched 
rockfish. Achieving a year-round bottom trawl fishery with a 100 mt 
darkblotched OY for 2006 would require inseason changes to regulations 
in May 2006. For purposes of analysis, NMFS assumed that the regulatory 
changes under these conditions would be designed to keep the November-
December deepwater petrale sole fishery, to continue to allow harvest 
of thornyheads in waters deeper than where darkblotched rockfish occur, 
and to allow harvest of sablefish and Dover sole scheduled by 
management measures in this final rule during November-December in 
waters deeper than where darkblotched rockfish occur. These declines in 
landings of the more abundant stocks that co-occur with darkblotched 
rockfish and in associated ex-vessel revenue would most severely affect 
the vessels, processing plants, and ports with reliance upon and 
investment in the trawl slope groundfish fisheries north of 40[deg]10' 
N. lat. NMFS expects that the following ports would be most vulnerable 
to vessel bankruptcy and forfeitures and processing plant closures, 
were the darkblotched OY set to 100 mt in 2006: Blaine, Bellingham, 
Neah Bay, and Westport, Washington; Astoria, Newport, Coos Bay, and 
Brookings, Oregon; and Eureka, and Crescent City, California. Within 
these ports, the bottom trawl fishery would be most affected. In 2005 
the bottom trawl fishery in these ports generated approximately $18 
million in ex-vessel revenue compared with a combined $32 million for 
bottom and midwater trawl and $46 million for all groundfish in these 
ports.
    As stated above, NMFS and the Pacific Council intend to review and 
revise all of the rebuilding plans in advance of the 2007-2008 fishing 
period. For 2006, NMFS continues to support a darkblotched rockfish OY 
of 200 mt. The difference in rebuilding times between setting an OY for 
2006 at 200 mt versus 100 mt, and maintaining darkblotched mortality at 
the corresponding spawner per recruit harvest rate each year until the 
stock is

[[Page 8492]]

rebuilt, is less than half a year, while the estimated economic impacts 
from this reduction on the fishing industry and coastal communities is 
on the order of several millions of dollars lost each year until the 
stock is rebuilt. Therefore, NMFS does not support reducing the 
darkblotched OY below 200 mt in 2006.
    NMFS also disagrees with the second commenter's statement that the 
agency is violating the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This interim reduction in 
the OY will prevent potential mortality that could occur if the current 
OY of 294 mt remains in place. This interim measure is consistent with 
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in establishing interim 
measures until the revised long-term rebuilding plan is developed 
through the Council process and implemented by NMFS. This interim 
measure is not intended to be the long-term rebuilding OY; however, as 
explained above, this OY level provides for continued rebuilding 
through 2006.
    Finally, the third commenter suggested that harvest levels for all 
species be cut by one-half in 2006 and by 10 percent for each 
subsequent year. The darkblotched rockfish OY for 2006 has been cut via 
this action by approximately one-third from the 2006 OY NMFS had 
implemented on January 1, 2005 (69 FR 77012, December 23, 2004). The 
proposed rule for this action did not consider revisions to 2006 
harvest levels for species other than darkblotched rockfish. The 
Pacific Council and its collaborating agencies are developing harvest 
level and management measure recommendations for 2007-2008 via a public 
process during spring 2006. NMFS expects to propose a rule for public 
review and comment on the 2007-2008 harvest specifications and 
management measures and the new rebuilding plans for overfished species 
in early fall 2006.
    Comment 3: One commenter supports changes to 2006 management 
measures (trip limits and closed areas) between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 
38[deg] N. lat. for slope rockfish and splitnose rockfish, species that 
co-occur with darkblotched rockfish. The commenter acknowledges that 
management measures in this area have caused adverse economic impacts, 
especially in Fort Bragg, CA, but supports NMFS efforts to rebuild 
darkblotched as quickly as possible while minimizing impacts on local 
coastal communities.
    Another commenter believes that the rule proposes a significant 
increase in fishing pressure on species that co-occur with darkblotched 
rockfish. This commenter does not support liberalizing 2006 management 
measures between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 38[deg] N. lat. for slope 
rockfish and splitnose rockfish. This commenter requests information on 
the additional darkblotched rockfish mortality expected to occur 
between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 38[deg] N. lat. from changes to 
management measures in 2006, as well as the darkblotched rockfish 
mortality that was estimated to have occurred from changes to 
management measures in this area during 2005. This commenter believes 
the claims that darkblotched rockfish incidental catch rates are 
considerably lower between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 38[deg] N. lat. is 
unsupported. The commenter also states that these changes to management 
measures violate the bycatch requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
including the requirement to adopt all practicable measures to minimize 
bycatch (16 U.S.C. 1853 (a)(11)).
    Response: As stated in the proposed rule (70 FR 75115, December 19, 
2005), the harvest of slope and splitnose rockfish have been 
constrained in recent years in order to protect darkblotched rockfish, 
a co-occurring overfished species.
    Darkblotched rockfish are not distributed uniformly along the coast 
but instead are most concentrated in waters off Washington and northern 
Oregon, decreasing in density southward from northern Oregon. The most 
recent stock assessment for darkblotched rockfish (June 2005) reviews 
catch of darkblotched rockfish from observed fishing trips and from 
survey catches along a north-south gradient and by depth. The 
assessment shows that the majority of darkblotched rockfish are caught 
north of 40[deg]10' N. lat. Only about three percent of the NMFS 
triennial bottom trawl survey's cumulative catch-per-unit-of-effort of 
darkblotched rockfish occurs south of 38[deg] N. lat. NMFS and the 
Pacific Council commonly use separate management regimes north and 
south of 38[deg] N. lat., in order to allow slope management south of 
38[deg] N. lat. to be separated from management actions needed to 
rebuild darkblotched rockfish. Management measures between 40[deg]10' 
N. lat. and 38[deg] N. lat. are intended to be intermediate in severity 
to those for areas south of 38[deg] N. lat. and north of 40[deg]10' N. 
lat.
    Darkblotched rockfish incidental catch rates between 40[deg]10' N. 
lat. and 38[deg] N. lat. at depths of 150-fm (274-m) and greater are 
considerably lower than incidental catch rates at the same depth range 
north of 40[deg]10' N. lat. Because incidental catch rates for 
darkblotched rockfish are lower, population density of darkblotched 
rockfish is lower, and communities are more dependent on the deepwater 
trawl fishery in this area, the Pacific Council continues to recommend 
management measures for the area between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 38[deg] 
N. lat. that are intermediate in severity to those used in the areas 
north of 40[deg]10' N. lat. and south of 38[deg] N. lat.
    At the Pacific Council's November 2005 meeting, the GMT analyzed 
potential inseason adjustments for the 2006 calendar year. In 
particular, the GMT analyzed the effects on darkblotched rockfish of 
management measures to liberalize fishing opportunity between 
40[deg]10' N. lat. and 38[deg] N. lat. for the limited entry trawl 
slope fishery based on observed incidental catch rates. NMFS also 
considered the effects of management measures in 2005. Management 
measures affecting darkblotched rockfish in 2005 included: (1) limited 
entry trawl trip limits for slope rockfish and splitnose rockfish 
ranging from 0 to 20,000 lb (0 to 18,144 kg) per 2 months; and (2) 
seaward boundaries of the Trawl RCA ranging from 150 to 250-fm (274 to 
457-m). It is estimated that the changes to management measures in 2005 
in this area resulted in an additional 7 mt of darkblotched rockfish 
mortality compared to the mortality level expected from regulations in 
effect at the beginning of 2005.
    Because the liberalizing measures in this limited area for 2006 
will not dramatically increase the incidental take of darkblotched 
rockfish, the Pacific Council recommended making the offshore boundary 
of the Trawl RCA 150-fm (274-m) for the area between 40[deg]10' N. lat. 
and 38[deg] N. lat. during the entire 2006 fishing year. In addition, 
the trip limits in that area for slope rockfish and splitnose rockfish 
have been changed to 8,000 lb (3,629 kg) per 2 months for the entire 
year. NMFS estimates that these changes will result in an additional 13 
mt of darkblotched rockfish mortality compared to the mortality level 
expected from the regulations in effect at the end of 2005. NMFS 
anticipates that it will make inseason adjustments, if necessary, to 
constrain the slope trawl fishery so as to keep darkblotched rockfish 
mortality within the 200 mt OY.
    NMFS disagrees with the commenter's statement that these changes to 
management measures violate the bycatch requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. NMFS is implementing management measures for the Pacific 
Coast groundfish fishery that are intended to keep mortality within OY 
levels set for those species. Management measures for the groundfish 
fishery as a whole are intended to allow the fishery to have some 
access to more abundant species while minimizing the incidental

[[Page 8493]]

catch of overfished species to keep mortality within their OYs.
    Comment 4: The darkblotched rockfish projected fishing mortality 
for 2006 was initially estimated in the 2005-2006 Specs EIS as 84.1 mt 
or 92.5 mt and has since increased to 192 mt. NMFS fails to explain how 
the agency arrived at the 2006 catch estimate of 192 mt for 
darkblotched rockfish. Why has this estimate increased?
    Response: Estimates of fishing mortality for groundfish species 
change throughout the year as management measures change and as new 
information arises. Since the 2004 development of the 2005-2006 Specs 
EIS, NMFS has collected, analyzed and released another year of observer 
data, and inseason actions have been implemented that adjust groundfish 
management measures.
    The analysis for the 2005-2006 Specs EIS used observer data, fish 
ticket data, logbook data, and recreational catch data from 2003 and 
prior years. In 2002 and 2003, the bottom trawl fishery spent several 
months restricted to fishing only in depths seaward of 250-fm (457-m). 
Therefore, information on the fishery during these periods only 
reflected fishing that might typically occur in depths seaward of 250-
fm (457-m). Analyses using data from 2002-2003 showed that measures 
initially adopted for 2005 and 2006 could keep total mortality of 
darkblotched rockfish to within 100 mt. However, these projections were 
based on estimates of incidental mortality from areas shoreward of 250-
fm, (457-m,) waters that had been fished relatively lightly in 2002-
2003.
    In early 2005, NMFS modified the trawl bycatch model to include 
2004 observer data for modeling the 2005 fishing season. Through the 
use of this new observer data, the trawl bycatch model predicted an 
increase in the incidental catch of darkblotched rockfish over what was 
estimated in 2004. Although these new darkblotched rockfish incidental 
catch rates were higher than previously estimated, the 2005-2006 
management measures were still expected to constrain darkblotched 
rockfish total catch to levels lower than required by the rebuilding 
plan. This observer data showed both more observations in waters 
shoreward of 250-fm (457-m), or more data points for analysis, and 
higher than previously assumed darkblotched rockfish incidental catch 
rates. As the 2005 fishing season progressed, landed catch data showed 
a higher incidental take of darkblotched rockfish than predicted in 
2004, when the GMT had made estimates prior to the availability of the 
new observer data. Further, the model showed these higher darkblotched 
incidental catch levels even with more restrictive area closures 
implemented inseason in 2005.
    Updates to observer data, and subsequent changes to the bycatch 
model and to management measures all resulted in changes to the 
projected fishing mortality of darkblotched rockfish in 2005 from pre-
2005 estimates. NMFS must work with the best available science, which 
often means using new data for inseason management that had not been 
available when management measures were initially crafted. The earlier 
estimates from the 2005-2006 Specs EIS were based on then-current data. 
In November 2005, using the best available information, the GMT 
estimated that the total mortality for darkblotched rockfish in 2005 
would be 185 mt. NMFS estimated a 2006 darkblotched rockfish mortality 
rate by applying the 185 mt estimated total 2005 fishing mortality from 
the Pacific Council's bycatch scorecard to the estimated stock biomass 
in 2005 to find a harvest rate. NMFS then applied this harvest rate to 
the 2006 projected stock biomass to predict a total fishing mortality 
of 192 mt in 2006. In addition to using the updated observer data from 
the bycatch model revised in early and late 2005, these estimates 
relied on new scientific information about the status of the 
darkblotched rockfish stock. Both the 2005 and 2006 estimated stock 
biomasses came from the new 2005 darkblotched rockfish stock 
assessment, another scientific information update. A copy of the new 
darkblotched rockfish stock assessment is available online at: http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/gfstocks/darkblotched2005b_7-6-05_4SAFE.pdf.
    Comment 5: NMFS did not consider how changes to management measures 
for slope rockfish and splitnose rockfish would affect the incidental 
catch of co-occurring species, especially darkblotched rockfish. Thus, 
NMFS would violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) if 
these measures are implemented without fully analyzing the effects on 
species impacted by these changes.
    Response: This action is within the scope of the 2005-2006 Specs 
EIS, which analyzed the effects of alternative harvest levels 
(including OYs) and management measures for the Pacific Coast 
groundfish fishery. The FMP at section 6.2 and Federal regulations at 
Sec.  660.370 establish a process by which biennial specifications and 
management measures are set at the start of the biennium, in this case 
January 1, 2005, and adjusted during the year. Management measures may 
be adjusted during the year to either increase or decrease harvest 
opportunities so that the fisheries have access to, but do not exceed, 
allowable harvest levels. The 2005-2006 Specs EIS anticipated inseason 
adjustments to management measures in Section 1.2.1, The Proposed 
Action, ``...Management measures may be modified during the biennial 
period, so total fishing mortality is constrained to the OYs identified 
in the preferred alternative. The environmental impacts of any such 
changes in management measures are expected to fall within the range of 
impacts evaluated in this EIS.''
    The revisions to management measures implemented by this action 
were considered for their impacts on groundfish and other species at 
the Pacific Council's October 30-November 4, 2005, meeting and are 
within the scope of the 2005-2006 Specs EIS. Specifically, limited 
entry trawl trip limits for slope rockfish and splitnose rockfish 
ranging between 4,000 to 40,000 lb (1,814 to 18,144 kg) per 2 months 
were analyzed in the 2005-2006 Specs EIS. Seaward boundaries of the 
Trawl Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA) from 150 to 200-fm (274 to 366-
m) were also analyzed in the 2005-2006 Specs EIS. In addition, the 
2005-2006 Specs EIS described estimated impacts to overfished 
groundfish species, including darkblotched rockfish, and target species 
as a result of the different management measure alternatives. Each time 
the Pacific Council and NMFS consider inseason revisions to management 
measures, those considerations are supported by GMT analyses of the 
potential actions and their impacts on target and co-occurring species, 
including darkblotched rockfish.
    Therefore, NMFS did not violate NEPA because the management 
measures for slope and splitnose rockfish being implemented with this 
final rule are within the scope of alternatives analyzed in the 2005-
2006 Specs EIS and are not expected to exceed any of the OYs.
    Comment 6: NMFS did not consider an adequate range of alternatives 
to the 2006 darkblotched rockfish OY, violating NEPA.
    Response: As stated in the proposed rule for this action (70 FR 
75115, December 19, 2005), NMFS considered a variety of potential 2006 
OYs, ranging from 0-696 mt. In addition, a 200 mt OY for darkblotched 
rockfish is within the range of alternatives analyzed in the 2005-2006 
Specs EIS, the EIS for Amendment 16-2, within the parameters of the 
darkblotched rockfish

[[Page 8494]]

stock assessment and rebuilding analysis adopted by the Council in 
2005, and within the parameters of the rebuilding plan adopted under 
Amendment 16-2, which implemented rebuilding plans for darkblotched 
rockfish and other overfished species. NMFS took into account the most 
recent darkblotched rockfish stock assessment and rebuilding analysis, 
the rebuilding plan, and the darkblotched OYs analyzed in the 2005-2006 
Specs EIS. Therefore, NMFS did consider an adequate range of 
alternatives for darkblotched rockfish and did not violate NEPA. To 
reiterate what NMFS had stated in the proposed rule (70 FR 75115, 
December 19, 2005), the intent of the adjusted 2006 darkblotched OY 
(200 mt) is an interim measure while NMFS develops a revised rebuilding 
plan for darkblotched rockfish. The revised rebuilding plan and OYs for 
2007-2008, which will be based on a new stock assessment for 
darkblotched rockfish completed in 2005, will be analyzed in an EIS 
being drafted in 2006.
    Comment 7: A commenter stated that the estimates of fish to be 
caught are given from information from commercial fish profiteers.
    Response: The estimates of groundfish to be caught, the harvest 
specifications, come from species-specific stock assessments. Stock 
assessments are populated with both fishery-dependent, and fishery-
independent data. NMFS, the three West Coast states, and treaty Indian 
tribes conduct fishery-independent surveys of groundfish habitat and 
abundance. Information about NMFS's scientific activities on West Coast 
groundfish science conducted by our Northwest Fishery Science Center 
may be found online at: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisons/fram/index.cfm; and, for our Southwest Fishery Science Center: http://santacruz.nmfs.noaa.gov/fisheries_branch/groundfish_analysis/index.php. Stock assessments are vetted through an extensive peer 
review process prior to their final adoption by the Pacific Council. 
For a copy of the Pacific Council's Groundfish Stock Assessment Terms 
of Reference, please contact the Council (see ADDRESSES.)

Changes from the Proposed Rule

    There are no changes from the proposed rule.

Classification

    NMFS has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FMP 
and has determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and other applicable laws and is based on the best 
available information. The aggregate data upon which these actions are 
based are available for public inspection at the Office of the 
Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, (see ADDRESSES) during business 
hours.
    There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an 
effective date less than 30 days after date of publication. The data 
upon which these specifications and management measures were based was 
provided to the Pacific Council, which made its recommendations at its 
September and November 2005 meetings. A proposed rule for this action 
was published on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75115), with a comment period 
that ended on January 15, 2006. This action needs to implemented in a 
timely manner and no later than March 1, 2006, the start of the next 2-
month cumulative limit period for groundfish management. Management 
measures for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery, including trip 
limits and closed areas, are generally structured around 2-month 
cumulative limit periods (January-February, March-April, May-June, 
July-August, September-October, and November-December). The management 
measures being implemented in this final rule were developed to be in 
place for March through December 2006 in order to keep harvest of 
groundfish species within their OYs for the year. Inseason adjustments 
may be implemented, as necessary, during the year as new information 
becomes available. There is no harm to the fishermen and processors 
from waiving part of the 30-day delay in effectiveness of the rule. The 
Pacific Council works with the managers and the fishing industry to 
adjust the regulations to achieve but not exceed harvest levels each 
year. If these measures are not effective by March 1, 2006, the 
intended effect of these regulations will not be achieved, and may 
require additional, in many cases more restrictive, revisions, after 
the next Council meeting, increasing the complexity and uncertainty for 
the fishing industry and the Council. In addition, delaying the 
effectiveness of this rule may cause confusion for the fishing industry 
that is expecting these changes to be effective March 1, 2006, as 
announced at the November 2005 Council meeting and in NMFS public 
notices in December 2005 and January 2006 following the proposed rule. 
If this final rule is not implemented by March 1, 2006, management 
measures that were in place for March through December of 2005 would 
remain in place for 2006. Based on new information, management measures 
that were in place for 2005 may not keep all species within their OY 
for the year. For example, the petrale sole OY was exceeded in 2005 and 
would, therefore, likely be exceeded again in 2006 if the more liberal 
2005 management measures for petrale sole were implemented in 2006. 
Management measures for 2005 may also be unnecessarily restrictive for 
other species. All of these measures, except the trip limits for spiny 
dogfish and Pacific cod and the change in the darkblotched rockfish OY, 
are routine adjustments to management measures that occur throughout 
the year. Fishermen are used to routine changes to management measures, 
such as trip limits, and do not have to do anything to come into 
compliance with them.
    The adjustments to management measures in this document include 
changes to the commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries. 
Changes to the trawl RCA and the limited entry trawl trip limits for 
the DTS complex and flatfish must be implemented in a timely manner by 
March 1, 2006, so that harvest of groundfish, including overfished 
species, stays within the harvest levels projected for 2006 based on 
modeling and the most current catch projections available. Changes to 
the limited entry and open access daily trip limit fishery for 
sablefish must be implemented in a timely manner by March 1, 2006, so 
that the fishing industry does not lose opportunity to harvest 
additional fish from the increased weekly trip limits. Changes to 
recreational fishery management measures for seasons and recreational 
RCAs must be implemented as soon as possible and no later than March 1, 
2006, the next recreational fishery management month, in order to 
conform Federal and state recreational regulations and to allow an 
opportunity for anglers to harvest the available harvest guidelines. 
Changing the darkblotched rockfish OY must be filed with the Federal 
Register by February 15, 2006, and implemented by March 1, 2006, to 
comply with a district court order addressing the court of appeals 
ruling in NRDC v. NMFS, 421 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2005). Establishing trip 
limits for Pacific cod and spiny dogfish by March 1, 2006, is necessary 
to maintain historical harvest levels and discourage new participants 
in these fisheries that could result in excess harvest of overfished 
species. As previously mentioned, updates to observer data, and 
subsequent changes to the bycatch model and catch projections for 2006 
using 2005 catch data were used to structure these 2006 management

[[Page 8495]]

measures. NMFS must work with the best available science, which often 
means using new data for management that had not been available when 
management measures were initially crafted. Thus, delaying any of these 
changes would result in management measures that fail to use the best 
available science and, in some cases, could lead to early closures of 
the fishery if harvest of groundfish exceeds levels projected for 2006. 
This would be contrary to the public interest because it would impair 
achievement of one of the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP objectives of 
providing for year-round harvest opportunities or extending fishing 
opportunities as long as practicable during the fishing year. 
Therefore, allowing a full 30-day delay would impede the Agency's 
function of managing fisheries using the best available science to 
approach without exceeding the OYs for federally managed species. Also, 
delaying these changes in management measures for the full 30-days may 
allow fishermen to harvest the full 2-month cumulative limit. In cases 
where the trip limits are being reduced and the RCAs being made more 
restrictive beginning March 1, 2006, such as for the DTS complex and 
flatfish and the trawl RCA north of 40[deg]10' N. lat., this may result 
in more harvest of fish than projected for 2006. Potentially resulting 
in further reductions to trip limits and more restrictive RCAs than may 
have been necessary as the year progresses. These potential reductions 
may cause unnecessary economic hardship in lost opportunity for 
fishermen. Especially for those fishermen who did not race out to 
harvest the higher limits from the delay in effectiveness and were then 
penalized with lower limits later in the year.
    This action contains a variety of revisions to management measures 
and harvest specifications. With respect to the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (RFA), all of the revisions in this action, except trip limits for 
Pacific cod and spiny dogfish, are within the scope of the analysis 
conducted for the proposed and final rules to implement the 2005-2006 
groundfish harvest specifications and management measures. The Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the 2005-2006 specifications 
and management measures was summarized in the preamble to the proposed 
rule published on September 21, 2004 (69 FR 56550), at pages 56572-
56573, and concluded that the then proposed action would have 
intermediate effects between the different specifications and 
management measures alternatives considered. The FRFA was summarized in 
the final rule published on December 23, 2004 (69 FR 77012), at pages 
77025-77026, and confirmed the conclusions of the IRFA with regard to 
the effects of the action on small entities. A copy of this analysis is 
available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
    For the management measures that are new for 2006, trip limits for 
spiny dogfish and Pacific cod, NMFS prepared a FRFA which incorporates 
the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public 
comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to those comments 
(No public comments were received on the IRFA), and a summary of the 
analyses completed to support the action. A copy of this analysis is 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the analysis follows.
    The Pacific coast groundfish fisheries, which include fisheries for 
spiny dogfish and Pacific cod, are covered by the Pacific Coast 
Groundfish FMP and developed by the Pacific Council in collaboration 
with the NMFS. This rule will establish management measures to 
constrain total fishing mortality to within harvest specifications for 
spiny dogfish and Pacific cod, and co-occurring species. These 
management measures will be established for the calendar year 2006, 
although they are considered within the context of past management and 
long-term sustainability of managed fish stocks. Separate harvest 
specifications (ABC/OY) have already been established for each year, 
2005 and 2006; management measures are intended to keep total fishing 
mortality during each year within the ABC/OY established for that year.
    The management measures in this final rule are expected to 
constrain commercial harvests in 2006 to levels that will ensure the 
spiny dogfish and Pacific cod stocks, and co-occurring species, are 
maintained at, or restored to, sizes and structures that will produce 
the highest net benefit to the nation, while balancing environmental 
and social values. Currently, there are no specific effort controls on 
the Pacific cod and dogfish fisheries. Although there is a limited 
entry program for Pacific Coast groundfish, there is also an open 
access fishery and neither of these fisheries has specific trip limits 
for spiny dogfish and Pacific cod. In response to a potential increase 
in effort and capacity from new entrants in the open access portion of 
the fishery, NMFS implemented an emergency rule in 2005. This rule set 
bycatch limits in the directed open access groundfish fishery, which 
includes spiny dogfish and Pacific cod (70 FR 23804, May 5, 2005; 
revised at 70 FR 38596, July 5, 2005; renewed at 70 FR 65861, November 
1, 2005). These limits were set to specifically assure that an increase 
in effort in the spiny dogfish fishery would not lead to overfishing on 
co-occurring canary and yelloweye rockfish and thus lead to potential 
closures of economically important commercial and recreational 
groundfish fisheries off the West Coast. As described in the EA/RIR/
IRFA, there is not only a concern about the incidental catch of 
overfished species, but also about the spiny dogfish and Pacific cod 
resources as well. Neither of these resources has been formally 
assessed, and neighboring stocks are depressed (i.e., Puget sound spiny 
dogfish and Canadian Pacific cod). The management measures in this 
final rule will ensure spiny dogfish and Pacific cod are harvested 
within ABC/OY limits during 2006 and in a manner consistent with the 
Groundfish FMP and National Standards Guidelines (50 CFR 600, subpart 
D), using routine management tools available to the specifications and 
management measures process (FMP at 6.2.1, 50 CFR 660.370(c).
    The economic impact of these management measures for Pacific cod 
and spiny dogfish will be shared among groundfish buyers and commercial 
harvesters. It is estimated there are about 730 groundfish buyers and 
1,700 commercial vessels coastwide that may be affected by these 
actions. Most of these entities would likely qualify as small 
businesses under the Small Business Administration's criteria, with the 
exception of fewer than 5 buyers/processors. Under the Small Business 
Administration's criteria, a business involved in fish harvesting is a 
small business if it is independently owned and operated and not 
dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and if it 
has combined annual receipts not in excess of $3.5 million for all its 
affiliated operations worldwide. A seafood processor is a small 
business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its 
field of operation, and employs 500 or fewer persons on a full-time, 
part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations 
worldwide. A business involved in both the harvesting and processing of 
seafood products is a small business if it meets the $3.5 million 
criterion for fish harvesting operations. A wholesale business 
servicing the fishing industry is a small businesses if it employs 100 
or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, 
at all its affiliated operations worldwide. For marinas and charter/
party boats, a small

[[Page 8496]]

business is one with annual receipts not in excess of $6.0 million.
    The action would affect commercial fisheries primarily off the 
coasts of Washington and Oregon. The action is expected to result in 
either no impact at all, or a modest decrease in access to Pacific cod 
and spiny dogfish fishing for commercial fishermen and operators 
currently operating in the fishery. In some years landings and revenue 
may be unaffected, while the largest expected impact possible for any 
given year is a 22 percent reduction in Pacific cod landings and 
revenue. For dogfish, in some years landings and revenue may be 
unaffected, while in other years landings and revenue may be reduced by 
5 percent. However, it may foreclose opportunity for large vessels who 
could potentially enter the fishery, because the trip limits are based 
on the current smaller size structure of existing participants.
    The alternatives NMFS considered ranged from unlimited trip limits 
for spiny dogfish and Pacific cod to constraining trip limits. The trip 
limit levels vary only slightly among the alternatives and were 
generally structured to maintain current participation in the fishery 
without encouraging new participation. Alternative 1 for both spiny 
dogfish and Pacific cod was unlimited trip limits. Alternative 2 for 
spiny dogfish varied between 100,000 lb (45 mt) per two months and 
150,000 lb (68 mt) per two months for limited entry trawl, limited 
entry fixed gear and open access fisheries. Alternative 2a (preferred) 
for spiny dogfish varied between 100,000 lb (45 mt) per two months and 
200,000 lb (91 mt) per two months for all gears. Alternative 3 for 
spiny dogfish varied between 80,000 lb (36 mt) per two months and 
150,000 lb (68 mt) per two months for all gears. Alternative 2 
(preferred) for Pacific cod varied between 30,000 lb (14 mt) per two 
months and 70,000 lb (32 mt) per two months for limited entry trawl 
gear and was 1,000 lb (0.5 mt) per two months for limited entry fixed 
gear and open access fisheries. Alternative 3 for Pacific cod is the 
same as Alternative 2 for limited entry fixed gear and open access 
fisheries and for limited entry trawl fisheries except that the 
September-October cumulative limit period is 45,000 lb (20 mt) per two 
months instead of 70,000 lb (32 mt) per two months.
    NMFS is implementing intermediate trip limit levels for Pacific cod 
(Alternative 2) and for spiny dogfish (Alternative 2a) in order to 
accommodate current participation in the fishery. However, this action 
could foreclose opportunity for large vessels that may wish to enter 
the fishery in the future, since the trip limits implemented via this 
action are based on harvest levels commonly taken by the current 
smaller-sized participating vessels. The most constraining trip limits 
were rejected because they were unnecessarily constraining to some 
vessels. Alternately, having no trip limits was rejected because it 
poses a risk of over harvest of Pacific cod, spiny dogfish and co-
occurring overfished groundfish species. No significant economic 
impacts are expected for small entities from this action.
    There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements that are 
part of this action. No Federal rules have been identified that 
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the alternatives.
    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish 
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, 
and shall designate such publications as a ``small entity compliance 
guide.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is 
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of 
this rulemaking process, a public notice, that also serves as small 
entity compliance guide, was prepared. Copies of the public notice will 
be mailed to all limited entry permit holders, e-mailed to all 
recipients of the [email protected] listserv, faxed to 
recipients on our groundfish public notice fax list, and posted on our 
Web site at www.nwr.noaa.gov. The public notice and this final rule 
will be available upon request from the Northwest Regional Office (see 
ADDRESSES).
    All of the management measures in this final rule, except the spiny 
dogfish and Pacific cod trip limits, are within the scope of the 
Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the 2005-2006 Pacific Coast 
groundfish specifications and management measures. NMFS prepared an EA/
RIR/IRFA for the spiny dogfish and Pacific cod trip limits and the 
Assistant Administrator concluded that there will be no significant 
impact on the human environment as a result of this rule. The EA/RIR/
IRFA discussed a range of alternative trip limits. The alternatives 
ranged from Alternative 1, status quo or unlimited trip limits for 
spiny dogfish and Pacific cod, to Alternative 3, the most conservative 
or constraining trip limits. Alternatives 2 and 2a are intermediate 
trip limit levels. The preferred alternatives were Alternative 2 for 
Pacific cod and Alternative 2a for spiny dogfish. Alternatives 2, 2a 
and 3 vary only slightly in their trip limit levels and were structured 
to maintain current participation in the fishery without encouraging 
new participation. The alternatives accommodate most of the recent 
harvest levels in the fishery, with Alternative 3 being slightly 
constraining to some vessels. A copy of the EA is available from NMFS 
(see ADDRESSES).
    In accordance with Executive Order 13175, this final rule was 
developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with the 
tribal representative on the Pacific Council and tribal officials from 
the tribes affected by this action. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 
16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council 
must be a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized 
fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. The tribal 
representative on the Council made a motion to adopt the management 
measures in this final rule that would affect tribal fishery 
participants, which was passed by the Council.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.

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: February 10, 2006.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting 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.  660.370, paragraph (c)(1)(i) introductory text, (c)(1)(ii), 
and (d) are revised and paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), (c)(1)(iv) and (i) are 
removed to read as follows:


Sec.  660.370  Specifications and management measures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

[[Page 8497]]

    (1) * * *
    (i)Trip landing and frequency limits, size limits, all gear. Trip 
landing and frequency limits have been designated as routine for the 
following species or species groups: widow rockfish, canary rockfish, 
yellowtail rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, yelloweye rockfish, black 
rockfish, blue rockfish, splitnose rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, 
bocaccio, cowcod, minor nearshore rockfish or shallow and deeper minor 
nearshore rockfish, shelf or minor shelf rockfish, and minor slope 
rockfish; DTS complex which is composed of Dover sole, sablefish, 
shortspine thornyheads, and longspine thornyheads; petrale sole, rex 
sole, arrowtooth flounder, Pacific sanddabs, and the flatfish complex, 
which is composed of those species plus any other flatfish species 
listed at Sec.  660.302; Pacific whiting; lingcod; Pacific cod; spiny 
dogfish; and ``other fish'' as a complex consisting of all groundfish 
species listed at Sec.  660.302 and not otherwise listed as a distinct 
species or species group. Size limits have been designated as routine 
for sablefish and lingcod. Trip landing and frequency limits and size 
limits for species with those limits designated as routine may be 
imposed or adjusted on a biennial or more frequent basis for the 
purpose of keeping landings within the harvest levels announced by 
NMFS, and for the other purposes given in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) and 
(B) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) Differential trip landing limits and frequency limits based on 
gear type, closed seasons. Trip landing and frequency limits that 
differ by gear type and closed seasons may be imposed or adjusted on a 
biennial or more frequent basis for the purpose of rebuilding and 
protecting overfished or depleted stocks. To achieve the rebuilding of 
an overfished or depleted stock, the Pacific whiting primary seasons 
described at Sec.  660.373(b), may be closed for any or all of the 
fishery sectors identified at Sec.  660.373(a) before the sector 
allocation is reached if any of the bycatch limits identified at Sec.  
660.373(b)(4) are reached.
* * * * *
    (d) Automatic actions. Automatic management actions may be 
initiated by the NMFS Regional Administrator without prior public 
notice, opportunity to comment, or a Council meeting. These actions are 
nondiscretionary, and the impacts must have been taken into account 
prior to the action. Unless otherwise stated, a single notice will be 
published in the Federal Register making the action effective if good 
cause exists under the Administrative Procedure Act to waive notice and 
comment. Automatic actions are used in the Pacific whiting fishery to 
close the fishery or reinstate trip limits when a whiting harvest 
guideline, commercial harvest guideline, or a sector's allocation is 
reached, or is projected to be reached; or to reapportion unused 
allocation to other sectors of the fishery.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  660.383, paragraph (c)(4) is revised and paragraph (f) is 
removed to read as follows:


Sec.  660.383  Open access fishery management measures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Non-groundfish Trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas for the open 
access non-groundfish trawl fisheries. (i) Fishing with any non-
groundfish trawl gear in the open access fisheries is prohibited within 
the non-groundfish trawl RCA coastwide, except as authorized in this 
paragraph. Trawlers operating in the open access fisheries with legal 
groundfish trawl gear are considered to be operating in the non-
groundfish trawl fishery and are, therefore, prohibited from fishing in 
the non-groundfish trawl RCA. Coastwide, it is unlawful to take and 
retain, possess, or land any species of fish taken with non-groundfish 
trawl gear within the non-groundfish trawl RCA, except as permitted in 
this paragraph for vessels participating in the pink shrimp and 
ridgeback prawn trawl fisheries. Boundaries for the non-groundfish 
trawl RCA throughout the year in the open access fishery are provided 
in Table 5 (North) and Table 5 (South) of this subpart and may be 
modified by NMFS inseason pursuant to Sec.  660.370(c). Non-groundfish 
trawl RCA boundaries are defined by specific latitude and longitude 
coordinates which are specified below at Sec. Sec.  660.390 through 
660.394. The non-groundfish trawl RCA is closed coastwide to open 
access non-groundfish trawl fishing, except as follows:
    (A) Pink shrimp trawling is permitted in the non-groundfish trawl 
RCA, and
    (B) When the shoreward line of the non-groundfish trawl RCA is 
shallower than 100-fm (183-m), the ridgeback prawn trawl fishery south 
of 34[deg]27.00' N. lat. may operate out to the 100-fm (183-m) boundary 
line specified at Sec.  660.393 (i.e., the shoreward boundary of the 
non-groundfish trawl RCA is at the 100-fm (183-m) boundary line all 
year for the ridgeback prawn trawl fishery in this area).
    (ii) For the non-groundfish trawl gear fisheries, non-groundfish 
trawl RCAs, if applicable, are generally described in the non-
groundfish trawl gear sections at the bottom of Tables 5 (North) and 5 
(South) of this subpart. Retention of groundfish caught by non-
groundfish trawl gear is prohibited in the designated RCAs, except 
that:
    (A) pink shrimp trawl may retain groundfish caught both within and 
shoreward and seaward of the non-groundfish trawl RCA subject to the 
limits in Tables 5 (North) and 5 (South) of this subpart, and
    (B) South of 34 27' N. lat., ridgeback prawn trawl may retain 
groundfish caught both within the non-groundfish trawl RCA out to 100-
fm (183-m) when the shoreward boundary of the non-groundfish trawl RCA 
is shallower than 100-fm (183-m) (i.e., the shoreward boundary of the 
non-groundfish trawl RCA is at the 100-fm (183-m) boundary line all 
year for the ridgeback prawn trawl fishery in this area) and shoreward 
and seaward of the non-groundfish trawl RCA subject to the limits in 
Tables 5 (North) and 5 (South) of this subpart.
    (iii) If a vessel fishes in the non-groundfish trawl RCA, it may 
not participate in any fishing on that trip that is prohibited by the 
restrictions that apply within the non-groundfish trawl RCA. [For 
example, if a vessel participates in the pink shrimp fishery within the 
RCA, the vessel cannot on the same trip participate in the DTS fishery 
seaward of the RCA.] Nothing in these Federal regulations supercedes 
any state regulations that may prohibit trawling shoreward of the 3-nm 
state waters boundary line.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  660.384, paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(B), (c)(2)(i) and (iii), 
(c)(3)(i)(A)(2) and (4) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.384  Recreational fishery management measures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Recreational Rockfish Conservation Area. Fishing for groundfish 
with recreational gear is prohibited within the recreational RCA. It is 
unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with 
recreational gear within the recreational RCA. A vessel fishing in the 
recreational RCA may not be in possession of any groundfish. [For 
example, if a vessel participates in the recreational salmon fishery 
within the RCA, the vessel cannot be in possession of groundfish while 
in the RCA. The vessel may, however, on the same trip fish for and 
retain groundfish shoreward of the RCA on the return trip to port.] Off

[[Page 8498]]

Washington, if recreational fishing for all groundfish is prohibited 
seaward of a boundary line approximating the 30-fm (55-m) depth 
contour, a document will be published in the Federal Register inseason 
pursuant to Sec.  660.370(c). Coordinates for the boundary line 
approximating the 30-fm (55-m) depth contour are listed in Sec.  
660.391.
    (2) * * *
    (i) Recreational Groundfish Conservation Areas off Oregon. Fishing 
for groundfish with recreational gear is prohibited within the 
recreational RCA, a type of closed area or GCA. It is unlawful to take 
and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with recreational gear 
within the recreational RCA. A vessel fishing in the recreational RCA 
may not be in possession of any groundfish. [For example, if a vessel 
participates in the recreational salmon fishery within the RCA, the 
vessel cannot be in possession of groundfish while in the RCA. The 
vessel may, however, on the same trip fish for and retain groundfish 
shoreward of the RCA on the return trip to port.] Off Oregon, from June 
1 through September 30, recreational fishing for groundfish is 
prohibited seaward of a recreational RCA boundary line approximating 
the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour. Coordinates for the boundary line 
approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour are listed at Sec.  
660.391. Recreational fishing for all groundfish may be prohibited 
inseason seaward of the 20-fm (37-m) depth contour or seaward of a 
boundary line approximating the 30-fm (55-m) depth contour. If the 
closure seaward of the 20-fm (37-m) depth contour or a boundary line 
approximating the 30-fm (55-m) depth contour is implemented inseason, a 
document will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to Sec.  
660.370(c). Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 30-fm 
(55-m) depth contour are listed at Sec.  660.391.
* * * * *
    (iii) Bag limits, size limits. The bag limits for each person 
engaged in recreational fishing in the EEZ seaward of Oregon are two 
lingcod per day, which may be no smaller than 24 in (61 cm) total 
length; and 10 marine fish per day, which excludes Pacific halibut, 
salmonids, tuna, perch species, sturgeon, sanddabs, lingcod, striped 
bass, hybrid bass, offshore pelagic species and baitfish (herring, 
smelt, anchovies and sardines), but which includes rockfish, greenling, 
cabezon and other groundfish species. The minimum size limit for 
cabezon retained in the recreational fishery is 16 in (41 cm) and for 
greenling is 10 in (26 cm). Taking and retaining canary rockfish and 
yelloweye rockfish is prohibited.
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 36[deg] N. lat., recreational 
fishing for all groundfish (except ``other flatfish'') is prohibited 
seaward of the 20-fm (37-m) depth contour along the mainland coast and 
along islands and offshore seamounts from July 1 through December 31; 
and is closed entirely from January 1 through June 30 (i.e., prohibited 
seaward of the shoreline). Closures around the Farallon Islands (see 
paragraph (c)(3)(i)(c)of this section) and Cordell Banks (see paragraph 
(c)(3)(i)(D) of this section) also apply in this area.
* * * * *
    (4) South of 34[deg]27.00' N. latitude, recreational fishing for 
all groundfish (except California scorpionfish as specified below in 
this paragraph and in paragraph (v) and ``other flatfish'' as specified 
in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section) is prohibited seaward of a 
boundary line approximating the 60-fm (110-m) depth contour from March 
1 through August 30 and November 1 through December 31 along the 
mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts; and is 
prohibited seaward of a boundary line approximating the 30-fm (55-m) 
depth contour from September 1 through October 31; except in the CCAs 
where fishing is prohibited seaward of the 20-fm (37-m) depth contour 
when the fishing season is open (see paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) of this 
section). Recreational fishing for all groundfish (except ``other 
flatfish'') is closed entirely from January 1 through February 28 
(i.e., prohibited seaward of the shoreline). Recreational fishing for 
California scorpionfish south of 34[deg]27.00' N. latitude is 
prohibited seaward of a boundary line approximating the 30-fm (55-m) 
depth contour from October 1 through October 31, and seaward of the 60-
fm (110-m) depth contour from November 1 through December 31, except in 
the CCAs where fishing is prohibited seaward of the 20-fm (37-m) depth 
contour when the fishing season is open. Recreational fishing for 
California scorpionfish south of 34[deg]27.00' N. latitude is closed 
entirely from January 1 through September 30 (i.e., prohibited seaward 
of the shoreline). Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 
30-fm (55-m) and 60-fm (110-m) depth contours are specified in 
Sec. Sec.  660.391 and 660.392.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  660.385, paragraphs (b)(2) and (d) are revised and 
paragraphs (f) and (g) are added to read as follows:


Sec.  660.385  Washington coastal tribal fisheries management measures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The tribe will manage their fisheries so that fishermen are 
either subject to a 300-lb (136-kg) trip limit for thornyheads or 
subject to the limited entry trip limits for thornyheads.
* * * * *
    (d) Flatfish and other fish. Treaty fishing vessels using bottom 
trawl gear are subject to the limits applicable to the non-tribal 
limited entry trawl fishery for English sole, rex sole, arrowtooth 
flounder, and other flatfish that are published at the beginning of the 
year. Treaty fishing vessels are restricted to a 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) 
per 2-month limit for petrale sole for the entire year.
* * * * *
    (f) There is a tribal harvest guideline of 400 mt of Pacific cod. 
The tribes will manage their fisheries within this harvest guideline.
    (g) The tribes will manage their spiny dogfish fishery within the 
trip limits for the non-tribal fisheries.

0
6. In Sec.  660.391, paragraph (e) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.391  Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 27 fm(49 m) 
through 40 fm (73 m) depth contours.

* * * * *
    (e) The 30 fm (55-m) depth contour around the northern Channel 
Islands of the state of California is defined by straight lines 
connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
    (1) 34[deg]00.98' N. lat., 119[deg]20.46' W. long.;
    (2) 34[deg]00.53' N. lat., 119[deg]20.98' W. long.;
    (3) 34[deg]00.17' N. lat., 119[deg]21.83' W. long.;
    (4) 33[deg]59.65' N. lat., 119[deg]24.45' W. long.;
    (5) 33[deg]59.68' N. lat., 119[deg]25.20' W. long.;
    (6) 33[deg]59.95' N. lat., 119[deg]26.25' W. long.;
    (7) 33[deg]59.87' N. lat., 119[deg]27.27' W. long.;

[[Page 8499]]

    (8) 33[deg]59.55' N. lat., 119[deg]28.02' W. long.;
    (9) 33[deg]58.63' N. lat., 119[deg]36.48' W. long.;
    (10) 33[deg]57.62' N. lat., 119[deg]41.13' W. long.;
    (11) 33[deg]57.00' N. lat., 119[deg]42.20' W. long.;
    (12) 33[deg]56.93' N. lat., 119[deg]48.00' W. long.;
    (13) 33[deg]56.45' N. lat., 119[deg]49.12' W. long.;
    (14) 33[deg]58.54' N. lat., 119[deg]52.80' W. long.;
    (15) 33[deg]59.95' N. lat., 119[deg]54.49' W. long.;
    (16) 33[deg]59.83' N. lat., 119[deg]56.00' W. long.;
    (17) 33[deg]59.18' N. lat., 119[deg]57.17' W. long.;
    (18) 33[deg]57.83' N. lat., 119[deg]56.74' W. long.;
    (19) 33[deg]55.71' N. lat., 119[deg]56.89' W. long.;
    (20) 33[deg]53.89' N. lat., 119[deg]57.68' W. long.;
    (21) 33[deg]52.93' N. lat., 119[deg]59.80' W. long.;
    (22) 33[deg]52.79' N. lat., 120[deg]01.81' W. long.;
    (23) 33[deg]52.51' N. lat., 120[deg]03.08' W. long.;
    (24) 33[deg]53.12' N. lat., 120[deg]04.88' W. long.;
    (25) 33[deg]53.12' N. lat., 120[deg]05.80' W. long.;
    (26) 33[deg]52.94' N. lat., 120[deg]06.50' W. long.;
    (27) 33[deg]54.03' N. lat., 120[deg]10.00' W. long.;
    (28) 33[deg]54.58' N. lat., 120[deg]11.82' W. long.;
    (29) 33[deg]57.08' N. lat., 120[deg]14.58' W. long.;
    (30) 33[deg]59.50' N. lat., 120[deg]16.72' W. long.;
    (31) 33[deg]59.63' N. lat., 120[deg]17.88' W. long.;
    (32) 34[deg]00.30' N. lat., 120[deg]19.14' W. long.;
    (33) 34[deg]00.02' N. lat., 120[deg]19.68' W. long.;
    (34) 34[deg]00.08' N. lat., 120[deg]21.73' W. long.;
    (35) 34[deg]00.94' N. lat., 120[deg]24.82' W. long.;
    (36) 34[deg]01.09' N. lat., 120[deg]27.29' W. long.;
    (37) 34[deg]00.96' N. lat., 120[deg]28.09' W. long.;
    (38) 34[deg]01.56' N. lat., 120[deg]28.71' W. long.;
    (39) 34[deg]01.80' N. lat., 120[deg]28.31' W. long.;
    (40) 34[deg]03.60' N. lat., 120[deg]28.87' W. long.;
    (41) 34[deg]05.20' N. lat., 120[deg]29.38' W. long.;
    (42) 34[deg]05.35' N. lat., 120[deg]28.20' W. long.;
    (43) 34[deg]05.30' N. lat., 120[deg]27.33' W. long.;
    (44) 34[deg]05.65' N. lat., 120[deg]26.79' W. long.;
    (45) 34[deg]05.69' N. lat., 120[deg]25.82' W. long.;
    (46) 34[deg]07.24' N. lat., 120[deg]24.98' W. long.;
    (47) 34[deg]06.00' N. lat., 120[deg]23.30' W. long.;
    (48) 34[deg]05.64' N. lat., 120[deg]21.44' W. long.;
    (49) 34[deg]03.61' N. lat., 120[deg]18.40' W. long.;
    (50) 34[deg]03.25' N. lat., 120[deg]16.64' W. long.;
    (51) 34[deg]04.33' N. lat., 120[deg]14.22' W. long.;
    (52) 34[deg]04.11' N. lat., 120[deg]11.17' W. long.;
    (53) 34[deg]03.72' N. lat., 120[deg]09.93' W. long.;
    (54) 34[deg]03.81' N. lat., 120[deg]08.96' W. long.;
    (55) 34[deg]03.36' N. lat., 120[deg]06.52' W. long.;
    (56) 34[deg]04.80' N. lat., 120[deg]04.00' W. long.;
    (57) 34[deg]03.48' N. lat., 120[deg]01.75' W. long.;
    (58) 34[deg]04.00' N. lat., 120[deg]01.00' W. long.;
    (59) 34[deg]03.99' N. lat., 120[deg]00.15' W. long.;
    (60) 34[deg]03.51' N. lat., 119[deg]59.42' W. long.;
    (61) 34[deg]03.79' N. lat., 119[deg]58.15' W. long.;
    (62) 34[deg]04.72' N. lat., 119[deg]57.61' W. long.;
    (63) 34[deg]05.14' N. lat., 119[deg]55.17' W. long.;
    (64) 34[deg]04.66' N. lat., 119[deg]51.60' W. long.;
    (65) 34[deg]03.79' N. lat., 119[deg]48.86' W. long.;
    (66) 34[deg]03.79' N. lat., 119[deg]45.46' W. long.;
    (67) 34[deg]03.27' N. lat., 119[deg]44.17' W. long.;
    (68) 34[deg]03.29' N. lat., 119[deg]43.30' W. long.;
    (69) 34[deg]01.71' N. lat., 119[deg]40.83' W. long.;
    (70) 34[deg]01.74' N. lat., 119[deg]37.92' W. long.;
    (71) 34[deg]02.07' N. lat., 119[deg]37.17' W. long.;
    (72) 34[deg]02.93' N. lat., 119[deg]36.52' W. long.;
    (73) 34[deg]03.48' N. lat., 119[deg]35.50' W. long.;
    (74) 34[deg]03.56' N. lat., 119[deg]32.80' W. long.;
    (75) 34[deg]02.72' N. lat., 119[deg]31.84' W. long.;
    (76) 34[deg]02.20' N. lat., 119[deg]30.53' W. long.;

[[Page 8500]]

    (77) 34[deg]01.49' N. lat., 119[deg]30.20' W. long.;
    (78) 34[deg]00.66' N. lat., 119[deg]28.62' W. long.;
    (79) 34[deg]00.66' N. lat., 119[deg]27.57' W. long.;
    (80) 34[deg]01.41' N. lat., 119[deg]26.91' W. long.;
    (81) 34[deg]00.91' N. lat., 119[deg]24.28' W. long.;
    (82) 34[deg]01.51' N. lat., 119[deg]22.06' W. long.;
    (83) 34[deg]01.41' N. lat., 119[deg]20.61' W. long.; and
    (84) 34[deg]00.98' N. lat., 119[deg]20.46' W. long.
* * * * *

0
7. In Sec.  660.392, paragraph (g) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.392  Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 50 fm (91 m) 
through 75 fm (137 m) depth contours.

* * * * *
    (g) The 60 fm (110 m) depth contour around the northern Channel 
Islands off the State of California is defined by straight lines 
connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
    (1) 34[deg]09.16' N. lat., 120[deg]26.31' W. long.;
    (2) 34[deg]06.69' N. lat., 120[deg]16.43' W. long.;
    (3) 34[deg]06.38' N. lat., 120[deg]04.00' W. long.;
    (4) 34[deg]07.36' N. lat., 119[deg]52.06' W. long.;
    (5) 34[deg]04.84' N. lat., 119[deg]36.94' W. long.;
    (6) 34[deg]04.84' N. lat., 119[deg]35.50' W. long.;
    (7) 34[deg]05.04' N. lat., 119[deg]32.80' W. long.;
    (8) 34[deg]04.00' N. lat., 119[deg]26.70' W. long.;
    (9) 34[deg]02.80' N. lat., 119[deg]21.40' W. long.;
    (10) 34[deg]02.36' N. lat., 119[deg]18.97' W. long.;
    (11) 34[deg]00.65' N. lat., 119[deg]19.42' W. long.;
    (12) 33[deg]59.45' N. lat., 119[deg]22.38' W. long.;
    (13) 33[deg]58.68' N. lat., 119[deg]32.36' W. long.;
    (14) 33[deg]56.14' N. lat., 119[deg]41.09' W. long.;
    (15) 33[deg]55.84' N. lat., 119[deg]48.00' W. long.;
    (16) 33[deg]57.22' N. lat., 119[deg]52.09' W. long.;
    (17) 33[deg]59.32' N. lat., 119[deg]55.59' W. long.;
    (18) 33[deg]57.52' N. lat., 119[deg]55.19' W. long.;
    (19) 33[deg]56.10' N. lat., 119[deg]54.25' W. long.;
    (20) 33[deg]50.28' N. lat., 119[deg]56.02' W. long.;
    (21) 33[deg]48.51' N. lat., 119[deg]59.67' W. long.;
    (22) 33[deg]49.14' N. lat., 120[deg]03.58' W. long.;
    (23) 33[deg]51.93' N. lat., 120[deg]06.50' W. long.;
    (24) 33[deg]54.36' N. lat., 120[deg]13.06' W. long.;
    (25) 33[deg]58.53' N. lat., 120[deg]20.46' W. long.;
    (26) 34[deg]00.12' N. lat., 120[deg]28.12' W. long.;
    (27) 34[deg]08.09' N. lat., 120[deg]35.85' W. long.;
    (28) 34[deg]08.80' N. lat., 120[deg]34.58' W. long.; and
    (29) 34[deg]09.16' N. lat., 120[deg]26.31' W. long.
* * * * *

0
8. In Sec.  660.393, paragraph (h)(157) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660. 393  Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 100 fm (183 
m) through 150 fm (274 m) depth contours.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (157) 40[deg]21.90' N. lat., 124[deg]25.18' W. long.;
* * * * *

0
9. In part 660, subpart G, Table 2a is revised and Table 2B is added to 
read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

[[Page 8501]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.005


[[Page 8502]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.006


[[Page 8503]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.007


[[Page 8504]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.008


[[Page 8505]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.009


[[Page 8506]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.010


[[Page 8507]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.011


[[Page 8508]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.012


[[Page 8509]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.013


[[Page 8510]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.014


[[Page 8511]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.015


[[Page 8512]]



0
10. In part 660, subpart G, Tables 3 (both North and South), Tables 4 
(both North and South) and Tables 5 (both North and South) are revised 
to read as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.017


[[Page 8513]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.018


[[Page 8514]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.019


[[Page 8515]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.020


[[Page 8516]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.021


[[Page 8517]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.022


[[Page 8518]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.023


[[Page 8519]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.024


[[Page 8520]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.025


[[Page 8521]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.026


[[Page 8522]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17FE06.027

[FR Doc. 06-1451 Filed 2-14-06; 2:08 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C