52984 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Notices 

1Celanese, Ltd. and E.I. du Pont de Nemours & 

Co. (collectively ‘‘petitioners’’). 

2We note that the beginning date (i.e., March 20, 

2003) of the announced period of review (‘‘POR’’) 

was not correct. The Department inadvertently 

published an incorrect beginning date which was 

the date of the preliminary determination of the 

investigation. Because the only respondent in this 

proceeding had a de minimis rate in the preliminary 

determination, the correct beginning date for the 

POR should have been the date of the final 

determination in the investigation. Thus, the 

Department corrected the beginning date of the POR 

to reflect the correct POR which is August 11, 2003, 

through September 30, 2004. See Memorandum to 

the File from Lilit Astvatsatrian, Case Analyst, 

through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, dated 

May 9, 2005. 

importer identified on the list of entries 

that we had attached to the April 19, 

2005, supplemental questionnaire. The 

Department subsequently requested, 

and received from Customs, 

documentation regarding certain of 

those entries. We placed these 

documents on the record of this review 

on June 22, 2005, and gave parties an 

opportunity to comment. We received 

no comments. Based upon Siderca’s 

explanation and the evidence on the 

record, we are satisfied that Siderca did 

not make any consumption entries, 

exports, or sales of subject merchandise 

during the POR. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the 

Department may rescind an 

administrative review, in whole or with 

respect to a particular exporter or 

producer, if the Secretary concludes 

that, during the period covered by the 

review, there were no entries, exports, 

or sales of the subject merchandise. 

Because the evidence shows that there 

were no entries of OCTG made by 

Siderca during the POR, the Department 

is rescinding this review in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: August 30, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E5–4843 Filed 9–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–879] 

Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polyvinyl Alcohol from the 

People’s Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 6, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit 

Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 8, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–6412. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published an 

antidumping duty order on polyvinyl 

alcohol (‘‘PVA’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) on October 

1, 2003. See Antidumping Duty Order: 

Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People’s 

Republic of China, 68 FR 56620 

(October 1, 2003). On October 29, 2004, 

the petitioners1 requested that the 

Department conduct an antidumping 

duty administrative review of Sinopec 

Sichuan Vinylon Works. 

On November 19, 2004, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of the initiation of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of PVA from the PRC for the period 

March 20, 2003, through September 30, 

2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 69 FR 67701 (November 19, 

2004).2 On June 23, 2005, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice extending the time 

limit for the preliminary results of the 

administrative review from July 3, 2005, 

to August 2, 2005. See Extension of 

Time Limit for the Preliminary Results 

of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polyvinyl Alcohol from the 

People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 36375 

(June 23, 2005). On July 22, 2005, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice extending the time 

limit for the preliminary results of the 

administrative review from August 2, 

2005, to September 16, 2005. See 

Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Polyvinyl 

Alcohol from the People’s Republic of 

China, 70 FR 42309 (July 22, 2005). The 

preliminary results of review are 

currently due no later than September 

16, 2005. 

Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary 

Results 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), the Department shall issue 

preliminary results in an antidumping 

administrative review of an 

antidumping duty order within 245 

days after the last day of the anniversary 

month of the date of publication of the 

order. 

The Act further provides, however, 

that the Department may extend the 

deadline for completion of the 

preliminary results of review from 245 

days to 365 days if it determines that it 

is not practicable to complete the 

preliminary results within the 245-day 

period. Completion of the preliminary 

results of this review within the 245-day 

period is not practicable because the 

Department needs additional time to 

research and analyze a significant 

amount of information pertaining to the 

respondent company’s large number of 

factors of production, surrogate values, 

and to evaluate certain issues raised by 

the petitioners and the respondent 

company. 

Because it is not practicable to 

complete this review within the time 

specified under the Act, we are 

extending the time period for issuing 

the preliminary results of review by an 

additional 45 days until October 31, 

2005, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final results 

continue to be due 120 days after the 

publication of the preliminary results. 

Dated: August 30, 2005. 

Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E5–4844 Filed 9–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 080205A] 

Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit 

(1528) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Commerce 

ACTION: Notice of permit issuance. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

NMFS issued on August 26, 2005, an 

incidental take permit (Permit 1528) to 

the North Carolina Division of Marine 

Fisheries (NCDMF) pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 

as amended. As required by the ESA, 

NCDMF’s Permit 1528 includes a 

conservation plan designed to minimize 

and mitigate any such take of 

endangered or threatened species. 

Permit 1528 is for the incidental take of 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Notices 52985 

ESA-listed adult and juvenile sea turtles 

associated with otherwise lawful 

commercial fall gill net fisheries for 

flounder operating in Pamlico Sound, 

NC. The duration of Permit 1528 is for 

6 years. 

ADDRESSES: The application, permit, 

and related documents are available in 

the following office by appointment: 

Marine Mammal and Turtle Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910. 

The application and permit are also 

available for download athttp:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/protlres/PR3/ 

Permits/ESAPermit.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Therese Conant (ph. 301–713–1401, fax 

301–427–2522, e-mail 

Therese.Conant@noaa.gov; Dennis 

Klemm (ph. 727–824–5312, fax 727–

824–5309, e-mail 

Dennis.Klemm@noaa.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Issuance 

of permits and permit modifications, as 

required by the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531–

1543), is based on a finding that such 

permits/modifications: (1) are applied 

for in good faith; (2) would not operate 

to the disadvantage of the listed species 

which are the subject of the permits; 

and (3) are consistent with the purposes 

and policies set forth in section 2 of the 

ESA. Incidental take permits are issued 

under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. 

Authority to take listed species is 

subject to conditions set forth in the 

permits. NMFS regulations governing 

permits for threatened and endangered 

species are promulgated at 50 CFR 

222.307. 

Species and Geographic Area Covered 

The following species are included in 

Permit 1528 conservation plan: 

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green 

(Chelonia mydas), leatherback 

(Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill 

(Eretmochelys imbricata), and Kemp’s 

ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) sea turtles. 

The conservation plan includes 

managing the shallow water large and 

small mesh gill net fisheries operating 

from September through mid-December 

in areas adjacent to the Outer Banks and 

along the western shore of the 

continental mainland in Pamlico Sound. 

Seven gill net restricted areas (GNRAs) 

will be designated for the eastern 

Pamlico Sound and one GNRA in the 

western Pamlico Sound along the 

mainland in Hyde and Pamlico 

Counties. 

Conservation Plan 

Permit 1528 includes measures to 

limit the commercial fall gill net fishery 

for flounder such that the impacts on 

ESA-listed sea turtles will be 

minimized. NCDMF would use a variety 

of adaptive fishery management 

measures and restrictions through their 

state proclamation authority to reduce 

lethal and non-lethal sea turtle 

incidental capture. 

Specific measures to be implemented 

each year include: (1) tending for 

gillnets less than 5–inch (12.7–cm) 

stretched mesh from September 1 

through October 31; (2) prohibiting 

gillnets ≥5 -inch ≥12.7–cm) stretched 

mesh in areas adjacent to Ocracoke, 

Hatteras, and Oregon Inlets from 

September 1 through December 15 

(note: Although the restrictions 

specified in Permit 1528 apply through 

December 15 each year, NCDMF is 

closing the entire shallow water 

flounder fishery on December 1 each 

year to prevent overfishing): (3) 

restricting the maximum net length per 

fishing operation to 2,000 yards (1,828 

m); (4) requiring NCDMF-issued permits 

for active fishing operations employing 

large mesh gillnets in restricted areas 

between September 1 and December 15; 

(5) requiring reporting, safe-handling, 

and resuscitation for sea turtles caught 

incidental to fishing; and (6) monitoring 

gear interactions in large and small 

mesh gillnets through a mandatory 

observer program as well as through 

reports from fishermen and NCDMF 

Marine Patrol. 

Comments 

NMFS published a notice of 

availability on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 

16803), and requested comments on the 

NCDMF application. NMFS received 

comments from the States of North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and 

Florida, as well as comments from 4 

non-governmental organizations. 

NMFS received eight comment letters 

from individual citizens, of which seven 

were from communities located on the 

North Carolina coast. After the comment 

period closed, NMFS received a petition 

with nearly 1,800 signatures recognizing 

that the ocean, sounds, and estuaries 

belong to all citizens and protesting the 

issuance of the permit to allow lethal 

take of 100 sea turtles each year. NMFS 

also received over 1,300 e-mails 

protesting the permit’s issuance. 

Comment 1: All individual citizens, 

as well as the petition signers, were 

concerned about the take levels 

identified in the application and were 

opposed to issuing the permit. Several 

respondents raised the concern that the 

benefits of ongoing conservation efforts 

on the nesting beaches to protect eggs as 

well as efforts to rehabilitate and release 

injured or diseased turtles would be 

negated by the loss of turtles through 

the issuance of this permit. One 

respondent cited other state’s 

prohibitions on gillnets and questioned 

North Carolina’s management of sea 

turtle bycatch. 

Response. The annual anticipated 

lethal and nonlethal incidental take of 

sea turtles has been 100 and 320, 

respectively, and represented the upper 

95–percent confidence limit in the 

estimates derived from the at-sea 

observer program conducted from 1999 

through 2001. Thus, the take level was 

a worse-case scenario and did not 

necessarily represent what occurred 

each year. Based on the point estimate, 

take each year has been much lower 

than what was anticipated in the 

previous permit: 2001 = 16 lethal and 46 

nonlethal; 2002 = 8 lethal and 162 

nonlethal; 2003 = 15 lethal and 19 

nonlethal; and 2004 = 26 lethal and 40 

nonlethal. Indeed, analyses of the data 

collected in more recent years indicate 

take levels are at least 43 percent lower 

than previously estimated. Based on the 

new data, NMFS anticipates the new 

take level for Permit 1528 to be 65 lethal 

and 185 nonlethal. This take level is 

based on the upper 95 percent 

confidence limit of the estimate for 2002 

which represented the worst year for 

estimated take. NMFS analyzes the 

highest impact to the protected species 

(see response to Comment 14), but, as 

stated earlier, it is more likely that the 

annual take level will be much lower 

than the level specified in Permit 1528. 

NCDMF will monitor its activities on a 

weekly basis, and should take levels 

exceed those specified in the permit, 

NCDMF will, in concurrence with 

NMFS, take necessary action to ensure 

no further takes occur. 

NMFS has determined that each sea 

turtle species has the capacity to replace 

the lethal take levels specified in Permit 

1528 without jeopardizing the 

continued existence of each species. A 

prerequisite to issuing the permit is that 

NMFS must consult under ESA section 

7 to determine whether the permitted 

activities would jeopardize the 

continued existence of the listed sea 

turtles. NMFS considered the status and 

trends of the sea turtle populations 

affected by the southern flounder 

fishery. The analysis included all 

factors, including conservation efforts, 

that have led to the species status. 

NMFS concluded in its section 7 

consultation that the permit would not 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

sea turtles by appreciably reducing the 

likelihood of both the survival and 

recovery of these species. Further, 

NMFS has determined that NCDMF 

Permit 1528 meets the issuance criteria 

52986 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Notices 

at 50 CFR 222.307(c) in that the 

southern flounder fishery is a legal 

operation, the ’take’ is incidental to the 

legal activity, and the NCDMF has 

developed and implemented a 

conservation plan that reduces and 

minimizes the impacts of the take. 

NCDMF Permit 1528 proscribes specific 

measures to reduce sea turtle incidental 

take in the southern flounder fishery 

and provides specific monitoring and 

evaluation measures. 

NMFS recognizes that several states 

have prohibited gillnets to prevent 

interactions with sea turtles. In 2002, 

NMFS closed Pamlico Sound to fishing 

with large mesh gillnets from September 

1 through December 15 in order to 

protect sea turtles. NMFS subsequently 

issued NCDMF a permit to allow the 

more traditional shallow water fishery 

to operate in the closed area. This 

earlier permit, as well as NCDMF Permit 

1528, includes closures around the inlet 

areas where sea turtle interactions were 

documented to be more frequent. The 

deepwater closure along with the 

management measures identified in the 

NCDMF permits have greatly reduced 

sea turtle interactions in the southern 

flounder gillnet fishery. As stated 

earlier, NCDMF will closely monitor the 

fishery to ensure that sea turtle 

interactions do not exceed those 

anticipated in the permit. 

Comment 2: The 6–year permit 

duration was a concern for several 

commenters. They felt the long duration 

period would hinder timely changes to 

management and weaken evaluation of 

management measures. They also 

wanted assurances that the management 

program would be evaluated annually 

and adjusted accordingly. 

Response. Although Permit 1528 is for 

a 6–year period, it must be renewed on 

an annual basis. Renewal of this permit 

is not automatic. Yearly evaluation of 

this permit by NMFS will include reanalyses of all data. Data include at-sea 

monitoring, NC Trip Ticket Program, 

fish house checks, enforcement, 

strandings and other relevant 

information. The permit requires 

weekly, monthly, and yearly reporting. 

This requirement is unchanged from the 

previous 3–year permit issued to 

NCDMF. Based on the ongoing reports, 

weekly, monthly and yearly evaluations, 

NMFS and NCDMF will make adaptive 

management (see Permit 1528 IV.A.10. 

Adaptive Management Protocols) 

changes to ensure conservation of sea 

turtles. Should a potential problem 

occur, the Adaptive Management 

Protocols establish a decision making 

process for changing management based 

on ongoing events and evaluation of 

data collected. 

Comment 3: Additional research 

should focus on gear modifications (e.g., 

reduced mesh size) or changes to fishing 

practices (e.g., more frequent nettending) to determine methods to 

further reduce lethal take in the 

southern flounder fishery 

Response. The goal of NCDMF Permit 

1528 is to reduce sea turtle take levels 

by 50 percent from the level recorded in 

1999. In tandem with the deepwater 

closure, this goal has been realized each 

year, and take levels have remained well 

below authorized thresholds for the last 

three years. The majority (70 percent) of 

all interactions have been with live 

individuals that have been subsequently 

sampled, and released in good condition 

at or near inlets. NCDMF Permit 1528 

stipulates measures to reduce 

interactions including yardage limits, 

attendance requirements on small mesh, 

and area closures. NCDMF Permit 1528 

also provides for adaptive management 

should data and events indicate that 

additional changes to management are 

necessary to reduce lethal take. NCDMF 

is currently focusing research on 

modifications to gillnets in the 

deepwater fishery. However, NCDMF 

will consider testing modifications to 

the shallow water fishery to reduce 

lethal take of sea turtles, while 

maintaining a viable target catch, should 

funds become available. Additional 

testing would be done through a 

modification of Permit 1528 or through 

a separate permit. 

Comment 4: Only one adaptive 

management measure should be 

implemented at any one time. Should 

sea turtle mortality rates increase, 

NCDMF must be able to determine 

which measures may have caused the 

increase. 

Response. Management changes from 

previous permits specified in the new 

NCDMF Permit 1528 include shifting 

observer effort to better direct resources 

to time and areas with increased fishing 

effort and where turtle interactions are 

known to occur. Specifically, there will 

be a goal of 2 percent observer coverage 

for the first two weeks and the last four 

weeks of the season, while maintaining 

a goal of 10 percent during the rest of 

the season. Second, fishermen along the 

mainland side of Pamlico Sound will 

not be required to obtain a permit. 

Finally, only active fishermen need to 

report each week. These management 

shifts are designed to better direct 

resources where most necessary for the 

continued protection of sea turtle 

populations and will be expedited 

through adaptive management and 

increased enforcement capabilities as 

described below. 

NCDMF anticipates that actual 

percent coverage may be higher than the 

2–percent coverage goal for the first two 

and last four weeks of the season. 

Should an interaction occur during 

these times, NCDMF will increase 

monitoring in the area in order to 

characterize and identify potential ’hot 

spots’ for turtle interactions. This also 

facilitates the ability to implement 

management alternatives, such as partial 

area closures, in a timely manner. 

Concerning the mainland side of 

Pamlico Sound, elimination of the 

permit requirement is warranted due to 

the lack of observed turtle interactions 

and reduced effort in this area. While 

fishermen in this area will not need a 

permit, all other stipulations will 

remain: maximum yardage limit, 

mandatory observer coverage, fishing 

within 200 yards (0.18 km) of shore only 

(shallow water), and proper sea turtle 

reporting, handling, and resuscitation 

protocols. 

Reporting requirements will be 

limited to active fishermen as opposed 

to requiring all permitted fishermen to 

report. This will eliminate the staff 

hours generated in the past in tracking 

fishermen down only to find out they 

have not fished. For example, in 2004, 

a total of 153 permits were issued from 

September 1 December 15. The highest 

number of active participants in any 

week was 61, which occurred during the 

fourth week of the season. Prior to, and 

after that, the mean number of 

participants each week was 47 and 36, 

respectively. Therefore, the elimination 

of non-active reporting requirements 

will decrease the amount of resources 

that NCDMF expends, and the added 

burden to the industry. 

NCDMF Permit 1528 includes 

Adaptive Management Protocols which 

describe the decision process that will 

be undertaken to facilitate timely 

(within 48hrs by State proclamation) 

response to potential problems. This 

will allow for weekly, monthly, and 

annual changes to be made in the 

management program to protect and 

conserve sea turtles while maintaining 

an economically viable fishery. 

NCDMF also intends to establish a 

state closure on top of the NMFS closure 

throughout the Pamlico Sound from 

December 1 - December 15. This will 

allow increased enforcement 

capabilities. NCDMF will conduct 

weekly boat patrols, spot checks, and 

flight surveys. NCDMF anticipates a 

minimum of 30 boat patrols, 15 spot 

checks and 10 aerial surveys, depending 

on weather. NCDMF observers will also 

conduct weekly fish house visits to 

obtain names, numbers and landings 

information that can be cross referenced 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Notices 52987 

to weekly standardized reporting forms 

from the commercial fishing industry, 

enforcement patrols, and the trip ticket 

database. 

The changes to management and 

monitoring measures are designed to 

increase compliance and ensure that the 

management changes remain effective in 

protecting and conserving sea turtles. 

The additional monitoring through fish 

house checks, increased enforcement, 

and at-sea observer coverage in areas of 

concern, provide adequate monitoring 

to ensure that NCDMF can evaluate a 

suite of changes to management rather 

than implementing each change 

individually. These changes are 

anticipated to enhance, not decrease, 

NCDMF’s ability to respond to and 

evaluate increases in sea turtle mortality 

rates as a result of the Pamlico Sound 

shallow water gillnet fishery. 

Comment 5: A commenter requested 

that each gillnet set should be reduced, 

at a minimum, to 1,000 yards (914.4 m). 

They estimated that, currently, nearly 

150 miles (241.4 km) of net would be in 

the water each day during a 3–month 

period in the fall. 

Response. NCDMF estimated 

approximately 3.7 to 7.1 miles (5.9 to 

11.4 km) of net are in the water each day 

from September 1 through December 15. 

Although fishermen are allowed to set 

2,000 yards (1.8 km), many deploy less 

net than the maximum allowed due to 

safety, weather, and equipment 

considerations. However, some 

fishermen rely on the maximum 

allowable yardage to limit adverse 

economic impacts. The existing 

management measures (e.g., closures 

around the inlets, tending requirements) 

including the 2,000 yard (1.8 km) limit 

on sets have been shown to be 

successful at reducing sea turtle 

interactions. NCDMF and NMFS will 

continue to monitor the effectiveness of 

the yard limits through the Adaptive 

Management Protocols specified in 

Permit 1528. 

Comment 6: The conservation plan 

should include development of other 

ways to harvest flounder in Pamlico 

Sound without the use of gill nets. 

Response: The NCDMF gear 

development program is committed to 

working with the commercial industry 

to develop better fishing gears that 

decrease finfish and protected species 

bycatch, while maintaining target 

catches. In the Pamlico Sound deepwater region, there have been two 

experimental gillnet configurations 

tested in 2002 and 2004, and a third and 

final project is scheduled for 2006. 

These projects have tested gillnets 

designed to reduce sea turtle 

interactions, while maintaining flounder 

catches. The technology from this 

research will offer fishery managers the 

knowledge to discuss the potential use 

of this gear in the deep-water region of 

Pamlico Sound, as well as the potential 

use of this gear in other fisheries 

throughout the Atlantic States. NCDMF 

will continue working with the 

commercial fishing industries to 

identify fishing gear that is more 

efficient and decreases bycatch. 

Comment 7: The conservation plan 

states that if takes exceed the threshold, 

NCDMF will selectively close fisheries 

to reduce interactions between sea 

turtles and commercial fishing gear. 

However, if take is exceeded, all gillnet 

fisheries must be closed. 

Response: NMFS will maintain the 

provisions of previous permits in that if 

estimated or observed sea turtle 

interactions or mortalities under the 

permit exceed thresholds within the 

GNRAs specified in the permit, NCDMF 

must immediately close the GNRA to 

fishing with gillnets. NCDMF must then 

analyze the available observer data and 

consult with NMFS to determine the 

appropriate next steps. 

Comment 8: Attendance should be 

required of all gill nets to ensure that 

sea turtles are removed as soon as 

possible from the gear. 

Response: Attendance of large mesh 

gillnets during the fall months 

throughout Pamlico Sound could pose a 

serious threat to commercial fishermen 

operating at that time. Prevailing wind 

directions and speed, and subsequent 

shifting water currents throughout 

Pamlico Sound during the fall can be 

unpredictable and changing in a short 

amount of time. Fishermen who use 

large mesh gillnets for southern 

flounder deploy their gear typically in 

the evenings and retrieve in the 

mornings. Because this is a shallowwater fall fishery where nets are 

generally soaked 12 hours or less, and 

waters are cooler, the mortality of 

finfish bycatch and protected species 

bycatch is lower. The majority (70 

percent) of all sea turtles observed 

captured in this gear to date have been 

alive, examined, and released. 

Comment 9: NCDMF should increase 

observer coverage to greater than 10 

percent to ensure statistically valid 

monitoring of endangered and 

threatened sea turtles. 

Response: A goal of 10–percent 

observer coverage has been the protocol 

since the inception of the first permit 

issued in 2000. This coverage level has 

resulted in statistically valid bycatch 

estimates for 2000 through 2004. The 

relatively small area fished, number of 

vessels, access to vessels, and excellent 

observer training program, limit the 

degree of bias in the estimates. Although 

we agree that increasing coverage will 

result in better estimates, NCDMF’s 

resources are finite and the 10 percent 

coverage has been sufficient to ensure 

monitoring and evaluating sea turtle 

interactions in the Pamlico Sound 

shallow water gillnet fishery. NCDMF 

will also redirect observer coverage 

when and where needed through the 

Adaptive Management Protocols 

established in Permit 1528. 

Comment 10: Observer coverage 

should be maintained at 10 percent 

during September 1–15 and in 

November because of annual variability 

and the possibility of a clumped 

distribution of turtles. 

Response: While a minimum goal of 

2–percent coverage will be established 

during these times, if a sea turtle 

interaction is observed or reported, the 

coverage will increase significantly. 

Monitoring efforts have always been 

increased when sea turtle interactions 

occur to accurately characterize 

interactions and identify potential 

‘‘hotspots’’. Therefore, if sea turtle 

interactions are reported (by the 

fishermen) or observed between 

September 1 - September 15, and 

November 1 November 30, increased 

monitoring will occur. Characterizing 

the fishery in this way has allowed 

NCDMF the opportunity to implement 

management alternatives (i.e., area 

closures) in a timely manner. 

Comment 11: At-sea observer 

programs should not be supplanted by 

self-reporting. 

Response: Permit 1528 will not 

supplant at-sea monitoring with reports 

from fishermen. Data have been 

collected from both sources since the 

inception of the management program 

in 2000. To ensure proper coverage is 

maintained and industry compliance 

continues, NCDMF will implement 

increased enforcement efforts (see 

responses to Comments 2 and 4). 

Comment 12: Several commenters 

were unclear on how compliance of 

non-active fishermen will be monitored, 

given fishermen are no longer required 

to report during weeks they are not 

fishing. 

Response: In previous years, only onehalf of permitted fishermen actually 

fished, yet all were required to submit 

weekly reports. Maintaining this 

reporting requirement was costly and 

burdensome to NCDMF and to those 

individuals who were not actively 

fishing. Although Permit 1528 removes 

this requirement, NCDMF has 

developed a monitoring program that 

will ensure compliance (see response to 

Comments 2 and 4). 

52988 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Notices 

Comment 13: The application lacks 

detail on how estimates are derived. 

This information is important in order 

to assess the effectiveness of the 

conservation plan. 

Response: The sampling area has been 

stratified by area and week for sea turtle 

bycatch estimates. Observed point 

estimates are made each week for each 

area. A stratified ratio method will be 

used to estimate the number of sea 

turtles caught per unit of fishing effort 

(fishing effort is measured by yards of 

gillnet multiplied by soak days reported 

through logbooks). These observed takes 

are extrapolated by the total reported 

effort each week in each area to obtain 

an estimate. These weekly estimates are 

cumulative such that reaching the 

estimated threshold would result in 

revocation of Permit 1528. 

Comment 14: Take levels are meant to 

represent expectations and, therefore, a 

mean estimated take derived from the 

previous years estimates would be a 

more appropriate take level for the new 

permit. 

Response: Take levels are based on 

the anticipated take that may occur as 

a result of the action. However, because 

of natural variability in sea turtle 

abundance, environmental conditions, 

and chance events, annual variability in 

sea turtle interactions can be quite high. 

It is more appropriate to utilize a 

reasonable worst-case scenario. We used 

the upper one-sided 95–percent 

confidence limit calculated from 

observer program and effort data, from 

the year with the highest estimated take. 

Similarly, we used a worst-case scenario 

in order to determine whether issuance 

of Permit 1528 would result in 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

listed species. This is a conservative 

approach that considers the impacts to 

the species at a higher take level than 

what is likely to occur in any given year. 

Every year since the shallow-water 

Pamlico Sound flounder gillnet fishery 

has been opened under a section 10 

permit, the estimated take levels have 

been significantly lower than the levels 

specified in the permits (see response to 

Comment 1). 

Comment 15: NCDMF should 

complete an analysis of the impact of 

the pre–1999 mortality rate on the larger 

sea turtle populations, with a special 

emphasis on juvenile and sub-adult 

mortality. Permit 1528’s 50–percent take 

reduction goal is based on the 1999 

levels of strandings, which did not 

represent normal stranding years. 

Permit 1528 should have reduced take 

levels which more closely track 

previous inshore strandings from all 

sources. 

Response: The 50–percent take 

reduction goal based on the 1999 levels 

of strandings in the original permit was 

a result of a lack of fishery data to 

estimate the expected take levels from 

the gillnet fishery. It was expected that 

the measures enacted would be 

sufficient to result in a 50–percent 

reduction in strandings, which was 

being used as a proxy for take in the 

fishery because of a lack of observer 

data. The results were as expected, and 

strandings dropped below 50 percent of 

1999 levels. As a result of observer 

coverage in the large-mesh Pamlico 

Sound flounder gillnet fishery required 

by the previous ESA section 10 permits, 

Permit 1528 is now established based on 

the expected take levels in the fishery as 

calculated from observer and effort data. 

Using observer and effort data provides 

the most appropriate reflection of the 

expected fishery impacts. Under the 

original strandings-based permit issued 

in 2000, loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley 

turtles were the predominant species 

expected to be taken, because strandings 

from other sources, including the now 

closed deep water gillnet component of 

the fishery, were included. With the 

more accurate and fishery-specific data 

from the observers, it is evident that the 

shallow water flounder gillnet fishery 

predominantly takes green sea turtles, 

with loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley 

turtles taken more sporadically and in 

lesser numbers. 

Section 7 biological opinions related 

to this and previous permits for this 

fishery have determined that the 

expected take levels as a result of a 

deep-water closure and issuance of a 

permit to allow a managed, shallow 

water fishery do not jeopardize the 

continued existence of any of the sea 

turtle species. This analysis is based on 

the anticipated take level of the 

proposed action, the status and trends 

on the sea turtle populations, and any 

past, present, or future impacts that may 

occur in the action area. Because this 

expected take level does not jeopardize 

the continued existence of any sea turtle 

species, the biological reduction goal 

which is based on a reduction from the 

higher stranding levels in 1999 has been 

determined to be adequate under the 

issuance criteria of 50 CFR 222.307(c). 

It is also important to note that since 

the inception of the deep-water closure 

(66 FR 50350, October 3, 2001) and the 

management restrictions specified 

under the ESA section 10 permits, 

stranding levels in Pamlico Sound have 

remained substantially lower than in 

previous years. 

Comment 16: The application does 

not specify whether takes of 

leatherbacks and hawksbills are live or 

lethal. The takes should include live or 

lethal take. 

Response: As in previous permits, 

Permit 1528 includes two hawksbills 

and two leatherbacks, observed, not 

extrapolated, live or dead. 

Comment 17: NMFS must conduct an 

ESA section 7 consultation which 

accounts for baseline information and 

cumulative impacts as specified under 

50 CFR 402.02. 

Response: As with previous permits, 

NMFS conducted a section 7 analysis 

which assessed baseline information 

and considered cumulative effects and 

concluded on August 19, 2005, that the 

issuance of Permit 1528 would not 

likely jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed sea turtles. See 

ADDRESSES for a copy of the biological 

opinion. 

Comment 18: The application 

qualifies as a major Federal action and 

thus must be analyzed through an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

Response: NMFS has determined that 

the issuance of Permit 1528 does not 

constitute a major Federal action that 

may significantly affect the quality of 

the human environment. The 

management of the shallow water gillnet 

fishery in Pamlico Sound does not pose 

a public health or safety concern, and 

the effects can be sufficiently analyzed 

under an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) (NOA 216–6 section 6.03.e.2(d)). 

The shallow water fishery is 

composed of less than 100 active 

participants operating in a limited 

geographic area next to the barrier 

islands in Pamlico Sound. The 

fishermen are all local, with home ports 

in the surrounding counties of Carteret, 

Pamlico, Hyde, and Dare. The 

economies in these fishing communities 

are heavily dependent on the seafood 

industry, and many of these fishermen 

have diversified into other fisheries, 

particularly blue crab or ocean gillnet 

fisheries, and some have other income 

from shoreline work. Pamlico Sound is 

a complex estuarine system and is 

highly productive. The area supports a 

diverse array of submerged aquatic 

vegetation, shorebird species, and 

marine organisms such as shrimp, crabs, 

oysters, clams, and finfish. NMFS 

analyzed the impacts to society, both 

beneficial and adverse, that may result 

by issuing Permit 1528 and determined 

the impact to be not significant. See 

ADDRESSES for a copy of the EA. 

Comment 19: NMFS should make its 

analyses on the issuance of Permit 1528 

available to the public and solicit 

another round of comments prior to 

issuance of the permit. 

Response: While a second round of 

public comments may be beneficial to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2005 / Notices 52989 

the public at large, the Pamlico Sound 

shallow water fishery begins September 

1. A second round of public comments 

would likely result in issuing Permit 

1528 well past the September start date. 

NMFS will accept, at any time, 

comments and additional data on 

Permit 1528. This information will be 

considered in annual reauthorization of 

Permit 1528. 

Comment 20: Observer coverage must 

be mandatory and adequate, and 

funding must be assured. One 

commenter felt that NMFS should fund 

at least 50 percent or more of the 

observer program. 

Response: Observer coverage will be a 

mandatory requirement of the permit. 

NCDMF is expected to have adequate 

funds to provide the mandatory 

observer coverage. The permit requires 

the stipulated levels of observer 

coverage, and therefore if the required 

levels cannot be met, management 

actions would be undertaken to address 

the issue. 

As to NMFS funding some level of the 

observer program, ESA section 10(a)(2) 

clearly specifies that the applicant is 

responsible for identifying available 

funds for conservation plans under 

section 10(a)(1)(B). However, NMFS 

works closely with NCDMF to help 

identify appropriate funding sources, as 

well as provide funding support when 

appropriate and when funds are 

available. 

Comment 21: NMFS needs to 

expeditiously address the problem of 

the cumulative impact of Atlantic 

gillnets, not just the impacts from the 

Pamlico Sound gillnet fisheries. 

Response: NMFS recognizes the need 

to take a broader, gear-based approach 

to dealing with fishery impacts on sea 

turtles. NMFS has devoted staff to 

gather information on a coastwide gearbasis, however, assimilation and 

evaluation of this information is a longterm process that is still in its early 

stages. In managing impacts to sea 

turtles, however, cumulative impacts 

from both fishery and non-fishery 

sources are always considered and are 

taken into account when we analyze 

actions in pursuant to ESA section 7 

jeopardy determinations. 

Comment 22: NMFS should continue 

to support research on the seasonal 

abundance and distribution of sea 

turtles in North Carolina waters to 

determine which inshore, nearshore, 

and offshore habitats and migratory 

routes are used by turtles. 

Response: NMFS, along with NCDMF, 

has continuing programs that provide 

valuable information to help determine 

migratory routes and important sea 

turtle habitats. Various sources of 

information including observer 

programs and directed research 

conducted and/or funded by NMFS and 

NCDMF are providing information 

leading to a better understanding of sea 

turtles in North Carolina waters. 

Comment 23: Pound net interactions 

data need to be made available to help 

develop future management efforts. 

Response: Interaction data from 

various fishery observer programs, and 

directed research, including the pound 

net fisheries, are always used where 

appropriate to get a better 

understanding of sea turtle abundance, 

distribution, behavior, and habitat use 

in order to aid future management 

efforts. When pound net data are fully 

analyzed and available, NMFS will 

review the data to determine whether 

changes are necessary to future 

management efforts. 

Upon a review of the application, 

relevant documents, public comments, 

and further discussions with NCDMF, 

NMFS found that the application met 

the criteria for issuance of 50 CFR 

222.307(c). Permit 1528 was issued on 

August 26, 2005, and expires on 

December 31, 2010. 

Dated: August 30, 2005. 

Thomas C. Eagle, 

Acting Chief, Marine Mammal and Turtle 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–17638 Filed 9–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 081905A] 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting; Correction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting notice; 

correction. 

DATES: The New England Fishery 

Management Council has changed the 

location of its 3-day Council meeting 

which will be held on September 13, 14, 

and 15, 2005. The meeting was initially 

announced in the Federal Register on 

August 24, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting, previously 

scheduled at the Holiday Inn Express, 

Fairhaven, MA will now be held at the 

Providence Biltmore Hotel, 11 Dorrance 

Street, Providence, Rhode Island; 

telephone:(401) 421–0700. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978)465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The initial 

meeting notice published on 

Wednesday, August 24, 2005. This 

document replaces the information 

regarding the location of the meeting. 

All other details remain unchanged. 

Dated: August 31, 2005. 

Emily Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E5–4841 Filed 9–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 083005B] 

South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

hold a meeting of its Snapper Grouper 

Committee, Controlled Access 

Committee, Joint Executive and Finance 

Committees, Advisory Panel Selection 

Committee, Scientific and Statistical 

Selection Committee, and a meeting of 

the full Council. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

September 19, 2005 through September 

23, 2005. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for specific dates and 

times. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Town and Country Inn, 2008 

Savannah Highway, Charleston, SC 

29407; telephone: (1–800) 334–6660 or 

(843) 571–1000, fax: (843) 766–9444. 

Copies of documents are available 

from Kim Iverson, Public Information 

Officer, South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, One Southpark 

Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407- 

4699. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Iverson, Public Information Officer; 

telephone: (843) 571–4366 or toll free at 

(866) SAFMC–10; fax: (843) 769–4520; 

e-mail: kim.iverson@safmc.net. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: