51004 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

mirror. As stated in the Request for 

Comments, although convex mirrors are 

permitted on the passenger side of light 

vehicles, the agency still receives 

complaints from consumers about these 

mirrors. ‘‘There have been other 

problems associated with the use of 

convex mirrors that include double 

vision, eyestrain, and nausea.’’ (68 FR 

2993, 2994 (January 22, 2003)) 

In response to the Request for 

Comments, most commenters stated that 

length should be the only relevant factor 

in determining the use of a mirror of 

unit magnification or a convex mirror in 

a vehicle and that NHTSA should 

undertake further study to determine 

the maximum allowable length for a 

given mirror type. However, the 

Alliance and Ford stated that an outside 

passenger-side mirror of unit 

magnification may be needed for certain 

loading dock and other off-road backing 

maneuvers. Thus, if a vehicle such as 

the Hummer H1 were to tow a long 

object such as a trailer, the view 

provided by the interior mirror of unit 

magnification may be obstructed. In 

such situations, an outside passengerside mirror of unit magnification would 

be beneficial during lane change and 

backing maneuvers. 

As to the argument that certain 

foreign jurisdictions permit use of 

passenger-side convex mirrors on 

vehicles with similar weights, we do not 

find that argument compelling, because 

the existence of such regulations does 

not resolve our previously-discussed 

concerns regarding the efficacy of such 

mirrors in judging speed and distance of 

approaching vehicles. As noted above, 

we have concerns that the Hummer H1’s 

interior mirror of unit magnification 

may be obstructed during certain 

applications. The agency has long held 

the position that in general MPVs, 

trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 

kg (10,000 pounds) or more must be 

equipped with exterior mirrors of unit 

magnification with a reflective surface 

of not less than 323 cm2. Our analysis 

of the available information does not 

support a change to that requirement for 

the exterior mirror on the side of the 

vehicle opposite of the driver. Some 

vehicles of similar size to the Hummer 

H1 have no rear windows, are not 

equipped with an interior mirror, but 

are equipped to tow a trailer. Therefore, 

it would be beneficial for these vehicles 

to have a flat exterior mirror on the side 

of the vehicle opposite the driver for use 

during lane change and backing 

maneuvers. 

In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, 

this completes the agency’s technical 

review of the petition for rulemaking. 

For the reasons discussed above, 

NHTSA has concluded that there is no 

reasonable possibility that the 

amendment requested by the petitioner 

would be issued at the conclusion of the 

rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, the 

agency has decided to terminate the 

present rulemaking action. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

Issued on: August 23, 2005. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 05–17066 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 050819225–5225–01; I.D. 

080505A] 

RIN 0648–AS59 

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in 

the Western Pacific; Coastal Pelagic 

Species Fisheries; Annual 

Specifications 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a regulation 

to implement the annual harvest 

guideline for Pacific mackerel in the 

U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off 

the Pacific coast. The Coastal Pelagic 

Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) and its implementing regulations 

require NMFS to set an annual harvest 

guideline for Pacific mackerel based on 

the formula in the FMP. The intended 

effect of this action is to propose 

allowable harvest levels for Pacific 

mackerel off the Pacific coast. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

September 13, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this proposed rule identified by I.D. 

080505A by any of the following 

methods: 

• E-mail: 0648–AS59.SWR@noaa.gov. 

Include I.D. 080505A in the subject line 

of the message. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (562) 980–4047. 

• Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional 

Administrator, Southwest Region, 

NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, 

Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. 

The report Assessment of the Pacific 

Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) Stock for 

U.S. Management in the 2005–2006 

Season, and an economic analysis may 

be obtained at the address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tonya L. Wick, Southwest Region, 

NMFS, (562) 980–4036. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FMP, 

which was implemented by publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register 

on December 15, 1999 (64 FR 69888), 

divides management unit species into 

the categories of actively managed and 

monitored. Harvest guidelines of 

actively managed species (Pacific 

sardine and Pacific mackerel) are based 

on formulas applied to current biomass 

estimates. Biomass estimates are not 

calculated for species that are only 

monitored (jack mackerel, northern 

anchovy, and market squid). 

At a public meeting each year, the 

biomass for each actively managed 

species is reviewed by the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council’s 

(Council) CPS Management Team 

(Team). The biomass, harvest guideline, 

and status of the fisheries are then 

reviewed at a public meeting of the 

Council’s CPS Advisory Subpanel 

(Subpanel). This information is also 

reviewed by the Council’s Scientific and 

Statistical Committee (SSC). The 

Council reviews reports from the Team, 

Subpanel, and SSC, then, after 

providing time for public comment, 

makes its recommendation to NMFS. 

The annual harvest guideline and 

season structure are published by NMFS 

in the Federal Register as soon as 

practicable before the beginning of the 

appropriate fishing season. The Pacific 

mackerel season begins on July 1 of each 

year and ends on June 30 of the 

following year. 

The Team meeting took place at the 

office of the NMFS, Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center, in La Jolla, California, 

on May 18, 2005. The Subpanel and 

SSC meetings took place in conjunction 

with the June 13–18, 2005, Council 

meeting in Foster City, California. 

The size of the Pacific mackerel 

population was estimated using a newly 

modified version of the integrated stock 

assessment model called Age-structured 

Assessment Program (ASAP). Using this 

new ASAP model was recommended by 

the Coastal Pelagic Species Stock 

Assessment Review panel meeting held 

on June 16, 2004, in La Jolla, California. 

This new ASAP model replaces the old 

modified virtual population analysis 

stock assessment model used in 

previous years. ASAP is a flexible 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51005 

forward-simulation that allows for the 

efficient and reliable estimation of a 

large number of parameters. ASAP uses 

parameters such as fishery dependent 

(commercial and recreational landings) 

and fishery independent (e.g., aerial 

spotter survey index, commercial 

passenger fishing vessel logbook catch 

per unit effort, and California 

Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries 

Investigations surveys) data to obtain 

annual estimates of Pacific mackerel 

abundance, year-class strength, and agespecific fishing mortality for 1983 

through 2004. The biomass was 

calculated through the end of 2004, then 

estimated for the fishing season that 

begins July 1, 2005, based on (1) the 

number of Pacific mackerel estimated to 

comprise each year class at the 

beginning of 2005, (2) modeled 

estimates of fishing mortality during 

2004, (3) assumptions for natural and 

fishing mortality through the first half of 

2005, and (4) estimates of age-specific 

growth. Based on this approach, the 

biomass for July 1, 2005, would be 

101,147 metric tons (mt). Applying the 

formula in the FMP results in a harvest 

guideline of 17,419 mt, which is 32 

percent greater than last year but similar 

to low harvest guidelines of recent 

years. 

The formula in the FMP uses the 

following factors to determine the 

harvest guideline: 

1. The biomass of Pacific mackerel. 

For 2005, this estimate is 101,147 mt. 

2. The cutoff. This is the biomass 

level below which no commercial 

fishery is allowed. The FMP established 

the cutoff level at 18,200 mt. The cutoff 

is subtracted from the biomass, leaving 

82,947 mt. 

3. The portion of the Pacific mackerel 

biomass that is in U.S. waters. This 

estimate is 70 percent, based on the 

historical average of larval distribution 

obtained from scientific cruises and the 

distribution of the resource obtained 

from logbooks of fish-spotters. 

Therefore, the harvestable biomass in 

U.S. waters is 70 percent of 82,947 mt, 

that is, 58,063 mt. 

4. The harvest fraction. This is the 

percentage of the biomass above 18,200 

mt that may be harvested. The FMP 

established the harvest fraction at 30 

percent. The harvest fraction is 

multiplied by the harvestable biomass 

in U.S. waters (58,063 mt), which 

results in 17,419 mt. 

Information on the fishery and the 

stock assessment are found in the report 

Assessment of the Pacific Mackerel 

(Scomber japonicus) Stock for U.S. 

Management in the 2005–2006 Season, 

which may be obtained at the address 

above (see ADDRESSES). 

For the last three years, the fishing 

industry has recommended dividing the 

harvest guideline into a directed fishery 

and an incidental fishery, reserving a 

portion of the harvest guideline for 

incidental harvest in the Pacific sardine 

fishery so that the Pacific sardine 

fishery is not hindered by a prohibition 

on the harvest of Pacific mackerel. At its 

meeting on June 15, 2005, the Subpanel 

recommended for the 2005–2006 fishing 

season that a directed fishery of 13,419 

mt and an incidental fishery of 4,000 mt 

be implemented. An incidental 

allowance of 40 percent of Pacific 

mackerel in landings of any CPS would 

become effective if the 13,419 mt of the 

directed fishery is harvested. The 

Subpanel also recommended to allow 

up to 1 mt of Pacific mackerel to be 

landed during the incidental fishery 

without the requirement to land any 

other CPS. This provision provides 

Pacific mackerel for small specialty 

markets. The Subpanel recommended 

that an inseason review of the Pacific 

mackerel season be completed for the 

March 2006 Council meeting, with the 

possibility of reopening the directed 

fishery as an automatic action if 

sufficient amount of the harvest 

guideline reserved for the incidental 

fishery remains unharvested. At that 

time the NMFS Southwest Regional 

Administrator will review the fishery to 

assess whether there is a sufficient 

amount of the unharvested portion of 

the harvest guideline (i.e., anything in 

excess of the amount needed to support 

incidental harvest) to warrant a 

reopening of the directed fishery. As of 

June 7, 2005, approximately 4,808 mt of 

Pacific mackerel had been landed; 

therefore, an incidental fishery was not 

necessary. 

Classification 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration that this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities as 

follows: 

The purpose of the proposed rule is to 

implement the 2005–2006 harvest guideline 

for Pacific mackerel in the U.S. EEZ off the 

Pacific coast. The CPS FMP and its 

implementing regulations require NMFS to 

set an annual harvest guideline for Pacific 

mackerel based on the formula in the FMP. 

The harvest guideline is derived by a formula 

applied to the current biomass estimate. The 

formula leaves little latitude for discretion 

except when errors are found in the 

calculations or in the data. There is no 

alternative to the harvest guideline as 

specified; there is no discretion to use an 

adjusted formula. Further, there is only one 

stock assessment method recommended for 

use to establish the adult biomass used to 

derive the harvest guideline. No changes are 

proposed in the regulations governing the 

fishery. 

The harvest guideline would apply to 

approximately 90 small fishing vessels 

coastwide that fish for Pacific mackerel 

within U.S. waters. This proposed rule has 

an equal effect on all of these small entities 

and therefore will impact a substantial 

number of these small entities in the same 

manner. These vessels fish for small pelagic 

fish (Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel) all 

year and for market squid in the winter, and 

may harvest tuna in the U.S. EEZ seasonally 

when they are available, usually late in the 

summer and early fall. These vessels are 

considered small business entities by the 

U.S. Small Business Administration since the 

vessels do not have annual receipts in excess 

of $3.5 million. Therefore, there would be no 

economic impacts resulting from 

disproportionality between small and large 

vessels under the proposed action. 

There is no limit on the amount of catch 

that any single vessel can take; the harvest 

guideline is available until fully utilized by 

the entire CPS fleet. The small entities that 

would be affected by the proposed action are 

the vessels that compose the West Coast CPS 

finish fleet. The profitability of these vessels 

as a result of this proposed rule is based on 

the average Pacific mackerel ex-vessel price 

per mt. NMFS used average Pacific mackerel 

average ex-vessel price per mt to conduct a 

profitability analysis because it lacked cost 

data for the harvesting operations of CPS 

finfish vessels. 

For the July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, 

fishing year, the harvest guideline was set at 

13,268 mt with an estimated ex-vessel value 

of $2.1 million based. As of June 7, 2005, 

only 4,808 mt had been harvested, valued at 

an estimated $741 thousand, reflecting the 

relatively poor market conditions for Pacific 

mackerel relative to other species of interest 

(e.g., Pacific sardine, market squid) and the 

lack of market orders. 

The 2005–2006 Pacific mackerel season 

began on July 1, 2005, and ends on June 30, 

2006, or when the harvest guideline is caught 

and the fishery is closed. The proposed 

harvest guideline for the 2005–2006 fishing 

season is 17,419 mt, which is higher than the 

13,268 mt harvest guideline for the prior 

year. If the fleet were to take the entire 2005–

2006 harvest guideline, and assuming no 

change in the coastwide average ex-vessel 

price per mt of $154.35, the potential revenue 

to the fleet could be approximately $2.69 

million. However, if there is no change in 

market conditions (i.e., a lack in demand for 

Pacific mackerel product), it is not likely that 

the full harvest guideline will be taken in the 

2005–2006 fishing year in which case profits 

may be lower than if the entire harvest 

guideline were to be landed. Additionally, 

the full harvest guideline may not be taken 

because of the lack of availability of the 

Pacific mackerel resource in the area of the 

fishery. The potential lack of availability of 

51006 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

the resource to the fishing fleet could also 

cause reduction in the amount of Pacific 

mackerel that could be harvested in which 

case would reduce total revenue to the fleet. 

NMFS does not anticipate a drop in 

profitability based on this rule as, if anything, 

it allows fishermen to harvest more than last 

year. Based on the disproportionality and 

profitability analysis above, NMFS does not 

believe that there will be a significant 

economic impact to a substantial number of 

these small entities. As a result, an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not 

required and none has been prepared. 

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

Dated: August 24, 2005. 

James W. Balsiger, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–17142 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S