![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries; Guam Bottomfish Management Measures
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 156)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46441-46445]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14au06-34]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 665
[Docket No. 060724200-6200-01;I.D. 071106G]
RIN 0648-AT94
Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Bottomfish and
Seamount Groundfish Fisheries; Guam Bottomfish Management Measures
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed Rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would implement Amendment 9 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the
Western Pacific Region (FMP), which would prohibit large vessels, i.e.,
those 50 ft (15.2 m) or longer, from fishing for bottomfish in Federal
waters within 50 nm (92.6 km) around Guam, and would establish Federal
permitting and reporting requirements for these large bottomfish
fishing vessels. The proposed rule is intended to maintain viable
bottomfish catch rates by small vessels in the fishery, to sustain
participation by smaller vessels in the fishery, to maintain
traditional patterns of the bottomfish supply to local Guam markets,
and to provide for the collection of adequate fishery information for
effective management.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received by September 22,
2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AT94, by any of
the following methods:
? Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
? E-mail: AT94Guam@noaa.gov. Include 0648-AT94 in the
subject line of the message.
? Mail or Hand Delivery: William L. Robinson, Administrator,
NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite
1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
proposed rule may be submitted to William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES),
or by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or faxed to 202-395-7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Harman, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The bottomfish fishery operating in Federal
waters around Guam is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the
Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific
Region (FMP). Aside from restrictions on the use of certain destructive
fishing methods that apply to the bottomfish fisheries throughout the
western Pacific region, the bottomfish fishery in Federal waters around
Guam is mostly unregulated at this time. Potential developments in the
fishery, however, led the WPFMC to recommend the proposed management
measures.
The Guam-based small-boat bottomfish fishery is a mix of
subsistence, recreational, and limited commercial fishing, particularly
in the summer months when weather conditions are calm. There are
currently three primary sources of fisheries-dependent fisheries data
for Guam: a boat-based and shoreline-based creel surveys conducted by
staff of the Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR), a
voluntary fish dealer trip ticket invoice system coordinated by DAWR
staff, and a voluntary data collection system established and
coordinated by the Guam Fishermen's Cooperative with data submitted to
and processed by DAWR staff.
The boat-based creel survey is a systematic random sampling of
boat-based participation island-wide and creel intercept interviews at
the three most frequently-used access points, namely Agana Boat Basin,
Agat Marina, and Merizo Pier. Vessel launching ramps are available at
each of these sites, but marina slippage is only available at the Agana
and Agat sites. The vast majority of fishing activity on Guam occurs
from vessels launched from trailers for single day trips and the vast
majority of all charter fishing occurs out of Agana and Agat marinas.
Creel survey sampling frequency and methodology have fluctuated and
have been modified slightly over the years as budgets, staff, and data
requirements have changed, but have been fairly standard since the
early 1980s. Sampling typically has been done on at least two week days
and two weekend days each month, at each of the three listed ports, and
interviews have been conducted for all fishing methods encountered. The
charter fishery is sampled simultaneously with the small vessel
fisheries, but the data are handled as a separate stratum within the
data processing and reporting systems. Sampling does not include the
primarily foreign longline fleet operating out of the Apra Harbor
commercial port, or the short-lived and now inactive larger vessel
commercial bottomfish fishing ventures.
In general, data from the sampling programs are expanded to annual
or quarterly estimates of catch, effort, and species composition by
method of fishing. In recent years there have been about 10,000-13,000
boat-based fishing trips per year (CV < 10%), with about one third of
those using the bottom fishing method (shallow and deep combined).
Estimated catches fluctuate even more, e.g., 400,000+ to 800,000+ lb
with bottomfish catches being about 60,000-85,000 lb (CV < 20%). As with
all surveys, the more infrequent or rare an event, the lower the sample
size, and the wider the estimated range of error.
The second type of data available for the Guam fisheries is based
on a voluntary ``trip ticket'' invoice system created by the NMFS
Western Pacific Fisheries Information Network (WPacFIN), Guam Division
of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR), and the Guam Fishermen's
Cooperative (Coop) in the early 1980s. This system was designed to
monitor the commercial sales of fish (purchases made directly from
fishermen) by fish dealers, stores, and markets. The number of vendors
participating in the program has fluctuated over the years as new
vendors have come and gone, but the Coop has maintained its
participation and dominance in volume of purchases throughout the time
series. Invoices collected through this system record only the purchase
of fish offered for sale to participating dealers, so do not reflect
the purchases made by non-participating dealers, stores, etc., or the
portions of catches retained by fishermen for consumption or other
purposes. Over the years, the annual estimated percentage coverage of
the total fish sales by Guam's fishermen that has been captured by the
voluntary dealer reporting system has ranged from 55% to 90%.
The third and newest (about one year old) fisheries data collection
system on Guam is a voluntary data collection system sponsored and
primarily conducted by the Guam Fishermen's Coop in conjunction with
WPacFIN, DAWR, and WPFMC staff. This project consists of two main data
collection tools, one to collect vessel-level background fisheries
participation data, and one to capture more detailed trip-level data on
total catch, effort, species composition, and disposition of catch. All
Coop members were asked to
[[Page 46442]]
participate. In addition, through a series of outreach efforts, non-
members were also encouraged to participate whenever possible. The
trip-level form collects very similar data to the DAWR creel survey
interviews, except for individual fish lengths. When fishermen sell
fish to the Coop, the invoice number is recorded on the trip form, as
well as the details of catch not sold. Two of the main purposes of this
data collection process are to augment the DAWR creel survey interviews
and to better document total catch and effort by fishermen who sell
portions of their catch. This data collection system is still in its
infancy and should gain acceptance by a greater percentage of Guam's
fishermen, especially for the non-Coop member fishing sector.
Based on the current FMP reporting and management requirements,
these data collection programs can provide adequate information about
Guam's inshore bottomfish fisheries that are conducted by smaller
vessels. Thus, the proposed rule does not intend to establish
additional data collection requirements on smaller vessels.
There is a potential component of Guam's bottomfish fishery in
which fishermen in relatively large vessels (i.e., greater than 50 ft
or 15.2 m in length) target deep-slope fish species, particularly onaga
(longtail red snapper, or flame snapper, Etelis coruscans). This
fishery is currently non-existent, but several vessels have operated in
the past. The fish were caught on offshore banks in Federal waters,
landed at Guam's commercial port, and rather than entering the local
market, exported by air to foreign markets, especially Japan. The
activity occurred on some or all of Guam's southern banks, including
Galvez, 11-Mile, Santa Rosa, White Tuna, and Baby Banks. Most of the
vessels fishing on these southern banks targeted the shallow-water
bottomfish complex, but some targeted the deep-water complex. The banks
to the north of Guam, including Rota Bank, and far to the west of Guam,
including Bank A, appear not to have been fished at this time.
The potential for large-vessel bottomfish fishing activity to
resume on the offshore banks prompted concerns about fishery
information being inadequate for effective management, the potential
for small-vessel catch rates to decline to non-viable levels, threats
to sustained participation by smaller vessels in the fishery, and
disruptions to traditional patterns of supply of bottomfish products to
the local market.
This amendment has the following objectives:
? To ensure that adequate information is routinely collected
for the large-vessel export-oriented bottomfish fishery taking place in
Federal waters around Guam;
? To maintain adequate opportunities for small-scale
commercial, recreational, and subsistence bottomfish fishermen in
Federal waters around Guam;
? To provide for sustained community participation by
smaller vessels in the Guam bottomfish fishery; and
? To encourage consistent availability of fresh, locally
caught deepwater bottomfish products to Guam consumers.
After considering a wide range of management options, including
many options suggested by the public during a public scoping process,
the WPFMC analyzed the likely effects of four management alternatives,
as follows:
1. No action;
2. Federal permits and logbook requirements for large vessels,
i.e., 50 ft (15.2 m) or longer, that land bottomfish management unit
species in Guam, and a closure of all Federal waters within 50 nm (92.6
km) of Guam to bottomfish fishing by large bottomfish vessels;
3. A landing limit for onaga of 250 lb (113.4 kg) per trip for
fishing trips in Federal waters around Guam; and
4. A limited access program for the bottomfish fishery in Federal
waters around Guam.
The WPFMC recommended to NMFS to implement the measures in
preferred Alternative 2 (large vessel permits, reporting, and closed
area). Alternative 2 is expected to maintain the opportunity for viable
bottomfish catch rates for smaller vessels, sustained community
participation by smaller vessels, and local supply of fresh bottomfish,
but it would decrease the opportunity for large-scale vessels to
harvest bottomfish at well-known banks and require them to search
elsewhere for new bottomfish grounds. However, taking no action could
lead to greatly reduced bottomfish populations and catch rates within
the fishing range of Guam's small-vessel fleet if the large-vessel
fishery and associated concerns were to develop. Economic, social, and
cultural costs would be high for the small-vessel fishery, which does
not have the range or capacity to travel to more distant seamounts to
obtain higher bottomfish catch rates.The WPFMC rejected Alternative 1
(no action) because of the risks it brings in terms of maintaining
viable bottomfish catch rates, providing for sustained community
participation by smaller vessels in the fishery, and maintaining a
consistent availability of locally caught fish to the Guam market.
The WPFMC did not recommend Alternative 3 (250 lb or 113.4 kg trip
limit for onaga) because, although it would likely help achieve the
management objectives, it would encourage high-grading of onaga by fish
quality, resulting in greater onaga bycatch than under other
alternatives, and it might needlessly inhibit fishery efficiency in the
waters beyond the range of small vessels of the Guam bottomfish fishery.
Alternative 4 (limited access program) would provide more complete
fishery information than Alternative 2 (through vessel logbooks for all
participants) and provide more finely-tuned and adjustable control over
total bottomfish fishing effort and the distribution of fishing effort
by vessel size. The WPFMC did not recommend Alternative 4, however,
because its advantages would come at greater cost than Alternative 2,
at least in the short term. These greater costs would include those
associated with administration, enforcement, and monitoring, compliance
on the part of fishery participants, and a likelihood of individuals
being denied the opportunity to participate in the fishery. Given the
problem being addressed, and that existing data collection programs can
provide adequate information about Guam's inshore bottomfish fisheries
that are conducted by smaller vessels, these costs do not appear to be
justified at this time.
While Alternative 2 is expected to succeed in achieving the
objectives of the action, it is difficult to predict to what extent.
For example, it is possible that the type of fishery development this
action is aimed at curbing (i.e., large-scale, export-oriented fishing)
would take place on more or less the same scale under Alternative 2
(e.g., using vessels less than 50 ft or 15.2 m in length) as it would
under the no-action scenario. In that case, further management action
might be needed in the future if the large vessel fishery and
associated concerns were to develop.
Public comments are being solicited on the FMP amendment through
the end of the comment period stated in the Announcement of
Availability. The Announcement of Availability was published on July
24, 2006 (71 FR 41770), and the comment period ends on September 22,
2006. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end
of the comment period on the FMP amendment, as published in the
Announcement of Availability, to be considered in the approval/
disapproval decision on the
[[Page 46443]]
amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period on
the amendment, whether specifically directed to the amendment or to the
proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision.
Comments received after that date will not be considered in the
approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. To be considered,
comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the
comment period, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for this amendment.
Copies of the FMP, Amendment 9, and the EA, Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR), and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) may be
obtained from William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES).
Classification
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These requirements will
be submitted to OMB for approval. The public reporting burden for these
requirements is estimated to be 30 min for a new permit application,
and 5 min for completing a fishing logbook each day. Each estimate
includes time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Public comment is sought regarding whether these proposed
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimate, ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected, and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information, including through the use of automated information
technology. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or
other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained
in this rule may be submitted to William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES),
by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax 202-395-7285.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirement of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
An IRFA was prepared that describes the economic impact that this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description
of why the action is being considered, the objectives and legal basis
for the action, and a description of the action, may be found at the
beginning of this section.
The Small Business Administration defines a commercial fishing
business as a small entity if annual gross receipts are less than $4.0
million. All bottomfish vessels impacted by this rulemaking are
considered to be small entities under this definition. Therefore, there
are no economic impacts resulting from disproportionality between large
and small vessels. A summary of the analysis follows.
Number of Affected Small Entities
The proposed alternative is expected to potentially impact as many
as 1-3 bottomfish vessels of length greater than 50 ft (15.2 m) that
have previously operated, but are not currently operating, in Federal
waters within 50 nm (92.6 km) of Guam. Alternative 3, which would
implement a trip limit on onaga, alternative 4, which would implement
limited access, and the no- action alternative 1 would impact 100-300
bottomfish vessels operating in Federal waters around Guam, regardless
of their size.
Duplicating, Overlapping, and Conflicting Federal Rules
To the extent practicable, it has been determined that there are no
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule.
Effects of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities
All alternatives considered in this action would implement
permitting, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for vessels
engaged in the fishery. Costs associated with obtaining permits and
keeping and reporting information in logbooks would be minimal, as
described below.
No-Action Alternative 1
The no-action alternative would be economically preferable to large
vessels when compared to the proposed alternative, and would be
economically preferable to all vessels when compared to alternative 3.
However, because of the risks it brings in terms of maintaining viable
bottomfish catch rates, providing for sustained participation by
smaller vessels in the fishery, and maintaining a consistent
availability of locally caught fish to the Guam market, this
alternative has been determined to not be consistent with National
Standards 1, 4, and 8 of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Fishery Management Act and was not chosen.
Proposed Alternative 2
Because data on costs and revenues for the large-vessel component
of the fishery are not available, impacts to the profitability of the
1-3 vessels that could potentially be impacted by this rulemaking
cannot be directly estimated. Implementation of the rule would require
the affected vessels to search elsewhere for new bottomfish grounds, to
relocate to the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI) to engage in deepwater
trips for bottomfish at the islands and banks north of Saipan, or to
change gear and enter another fishery. Regardless of their choice, it
is likely that these vessels would experience adverse economic impacts
in the form of reductions in potential profitability under this
proposed rule. The extent of the impacts would depend on the
opportunity costs of each individual vessel relative to the profits
previously earned in the bottomfish fishery off of Guam.
Alternative 3
As in the case of the proposed alternative, without comprehensive
information on vessel cost and revenues, the effects on individual
vessel profitability from implementation of a 250-lb trip limit for
onaga cannot be estimated with confidence. According to the Expanded
Offshore Creel Survey in 2004, about 300-400 individual boats
participated in the Guam bottomfish fishery, catching about 7,000 lb of
onaga, and fisherman received an average price of just less than $5.00/
lb for onaga.
Trip limits would likely not have a beneficial economic impact on
vessels engaged in this fishery, but the negative impact would vary
among individual vessels depending upon their average catch of onaga
and their overall profit margins from harvesting operations. If a
vessel typically caught less than the trip limit, there would be no
economic impact. However, if a vessel typically caught greater than the
trip limit there would be an economic loss exacerbated by the added
expense of culling and discarding the overage catch of onaga. Size of
vessel is not an accurate basis to measure profit margins, i.e., it
would not be correct to assume that smaller vessels have smaller profit
margins and would be impacted to a greater extent than larger vessels
from implementation of a trip limit.
[[Page 46444]]
Although a large proportion of the Guam bottomfish fishing fleet
would be subject to the 250-pound trip limit on onaga, it would
actually affect only a small proportion of the fleet. It would directly
affect the fishing behavior of only those fishery participants that
have both the capacity and the interest to land more than 250 lb of
onaga during a single fishing trip. The precise number of entities
capable of landing this amount of onaga is not known, but it is
probably less than half of the 300 to 400 vessels that have reported
BMUS landings in Guam in each of the last few years. Based on anecdotal
reports that the members of the Guam Fishermen's Cooperative
Association have agreed among themselves to land no more than 250
pounds of onaga per trip, the number of entities interested in landing
this amount of onaga is probably no more than a few. These few ``large
commercial enterprises'' probably overlap to a large extent with the
``large-vessel'' small entities that would be affected under Alternative 2.
Like Alternative 2, the 250-pound trip limit on onaga of
Alternative 3 would constrain the ability of large commercial
enterprises (rather than large vessels, per se) to operate in the Guam
bottomfish fishery. The responses of directly affected small entities
to the measure and the economic effects on them would therefore be of
the same type as those described for Alternative 2. Which of the two
alternatives would be more constraining in terms of the economic
efficiency of fishing operations is not possible to predict. The trip
limit would apply to fishing anywhere in the EEZ around Guam, not just
within 50 nm of shore, so in that sense it would be more constraining
than Alternative 2. It is not known whether Alternative 3 would result
in the economic viability of any affected entities being put at
substantial risk.
Alternative 4
For the reasons discussed above, profitability measures cannot be
estimated for this alternative. Vessels that would not qualify for a
limited access permit would face the same adverse economic impacts as
those displaced from the fishery under the proposed alternative. By
avoiding the adverse stock and crowding effects associated
overcapitalized fisheries, those vessels that would qualify would be
expected to benefit economically from this measure by maintaining or
improving profitability in a stable economic environment.
The criteria that would be used to determine who and how many
participants would be eligible for permits have not been formulated, so
it is not possible to rigorously predict how fishery participants would
respond or how they would be affected. The limited access program would
be designed in such a way as to achieve specified management objectives
(success being subject to the availability of information needed for
program design), presumably including those objectives already
specified in the FMP. Given that FMP Objective 5 is to ``maintain
existing opportunities for rewarding experiences by small-scale
commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishermen, including native
Pacific islanders,'' the program would presumably be designed so as to
minimize the adverse impacts on existing participants, particularly
small-scale participants, possibly at the expense of large
participants. Any short-term adverse economic effects of Alternative 4
would therefore probably be felt by largely the same entities as those
that would be adversely affected under Alternatives 2 and 3, and their
responses and the economic effects on them would therefore be of the
same type as those described for Alternatives 2 and 3. Which of the
three would be more constraining in terms of the economic efficiency of
fishing operations is not known. It is not known whether Alternative 4
would result in the economic viability of any affected entities being
put at substantial risk.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665
Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries,
Fishing, Guam, Hawaii, Hawaiian natives, Northern Mariana Islands,
Pacific Remote Island Areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 8, 2006.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 665 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 665--FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC
1. The authority citation for part 665 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 665.12, add the definition of ``Guam bottomfish
permit'' and revise the definition of ``Large vessel'' as follows:
Sec. 665.12 Definitions.
* * * * *
Guam bottomfish permit means the permit required by Sec.
665.61(a)(4) to use a large vessel to fish for, land, or transship
bottomfish management unit species shoreward of the outer boundary of
the Guam subarea of the bottomfish fishery management area.
* * * * *
Large vessel means, as used in Sec. Sec. 665.22, 665.37, 665.38,
665.61, 665.62, and 665.70, any vessel equal to or greater than 50 ft
(15.2 m) in length overall.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 665.13, revise paragraph (f)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 665.13 Permits and fees.
* * * * *
(f) Fees. (1) PIRO will not charge a fee for a permit issued under
subpart D or F of this part, for a Ho'omalu Zone limited access permit,
or for a Guam bottomfish permit issued under Sec. 665.61.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 665.14, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 650.14 Reporting and recordkeeping.
(a) Fishing record forms. The operator of any fishing vessel
subject to the requirements of Sec. Sec. 665.21, 665.41, 665.61(a)(4),
665.81, or 665.602 must maintain on board the vessel an accurate and
complete record of catch, effort, and other data on report forms
provided by the Regional Administrator. All information specified on
the forms must be recorded on the forms within 24 hr after the
completion of each fishing day. The original logbook form for each day
of the fishing trip must be submitted to the Regional Administrator
within 72 hr of each landing of management unit species. Each form must
be signed and dated by the fishing vessel operator.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 665.61, revise paragraph (a)(1) and add paragraph
(a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 665.61 Permits.
(a) Applicability. (1) The owner of any vessel used to fish for
bottomfish management unit species in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
Subarea or Guam Subarea must have a permit issued under this section
and the permit must be registered for use with the vessel.
* * * * *
(4) A fishing vessel of the United States must be registered for
use under a Guam bottomfish permit if that vessel is a large vessel and
is used to fish for, land, or transship bottomfish management unit
species shoreward of the outer boundary of the Guam subarea
[[Page 46445]]
of the bottomfish fishery management area.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 665.62, add paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 665.62 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(f) Use a large vessel that does not have a valid Guam bottomfish
permit registered for use with that vessel to fish for, land, or
transship bottomfish management unit species shoreward of the outer
boundary of the Guam subarea of the bottomfish fishery management area
in violation of Sec. 665.61(a).
(g) Use a large vessel to fish for bottomfish management unit
species within the Guam large vessel bottomfish prohibited area, as
defined in Sec. 665.70(b).
(h) Land or transship, shoreward of the outer boundary of the Guam
subarea of the bottomfish fishery management area, bottomfish management
unit species that were harvested in violation of Sec. 665.62(g).
7. Under subpart E, add a new Sec. 665.70 to read as follows:
Sec. 665.70 Bottomfish fishery area management.
(a) Large vessel bottomfish prohibited area. A large vessel of the
United States may not be used to fish for bottomfish management unit
species in any large vessel bottomfish prohibited area as defined in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Guam large vessel bottomfish prohibited area (Area GU- 1). The
large vessel bottomfish prohibited area around Guam means the waters of
the US EEZ surrounding Guam that are enclosed by straight lines
connecting the following coordinates in the order listed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point N. lat. W. long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GU-1-A 14[deg] 23' 43'' 144[deg] 27'
36''
GU-1-B 14[deg] 10' 144[deg] 11'
GU-1-C 13[deg] 50' 143[deg] 52'
GU-1-D 13[deg] 17' 143[deg] 46'
GU-1-E 12[deg] 50' 143[deg] 54'
GU-1-F 12[deg] 30' 144[deg] 14'
GU-1-G 12[deg] 25' 144[deg] 51'
GU-1-H 12[deg] 35' 144[deg] 15'
GU-1-I 12[deg] 57' 145[deg] 33'
GU-1-J 13[deg] 12' 145[deg] 43'
GU-1-K 13[deg] 29'44'' 145[deg] 48'
27''
GU-1-A 14[deg] 23' 43'' 144[deg] 27'
36''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6-13269 Filed 8-11-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S