Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69505 

percent loss in each vessel’s projected 

revenues. For the preferred alternative 

under the low harvest guideline case, 

vessels in the southern subarea fishery 

stand to lose $50,497 each, a 15.3–

percent decrease from the status quo, 

and under the high harvest guideline 

case there would be no change in vessel 

earnings from the status quo. These 

estimates may understate the actual 

earnings impacts per vessel since only 

61 vessels participated in the southern 

subarea fishery during 2004. 

For the 41 vessels that could 

participate in the northern subarea 

fishery each would stand to gain 

$93,173 in ex-vessel revenues over the 

period under the base case, preferred 

alternative, a 10.6–percent increase from 

the status quo alternative. For the 

preferred alternative under the low 

harvest guideline case, vessels in the 

northern subarea fishery gain $114,533 

each, a 26.4–percent increase from the 

status quo, and under the high harvest 

guideline case there would be no change 

from the status quo. These estimates 

may understate the actual earnings 

impacts per vessel since only 34 vessels 

recorded landings in the northern 

subarea fishery during 2004. 

The Council considered six 

alternatives to the preferred alternative 

in addition to the status quo alternative. 

All alternatives resulted in ex-vessel 

revenue gains of various magnitudes for 

the fishery as a whole except the ‘‘No 

Action’’ alternative in all cases, and 

alternative 4.b under the low harvest 

guideline case. Although the proposed 

alternative did not yield the greatest 

overall gain, with the least negative 

impacts to individual vessels from any 

one region, it was deemed most 

equitable by industry members when 

considered relative to the full range of 

conservation and management 

objectives constituting optimum yield 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, 

Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, 

Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 9, 2005. 

James W. Balsiger, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 

CFR part 660 as follows: 

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST 

COAST STATES AND IN THE 

WESTERN PACIFIC 

1. The authority citation for part 660 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. In § 660.502, the definition for 

‘‘Initial annual harvest guideline’’ is 

added, in alphabetical order, to read as 

follows: 

§ 660.502 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Initial harvest guideline means a 

specified numerical harvest objective set 

at the beginning of the fishing season. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 660.509 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 660.509 Closure of directed fishery. 

* * * * * 

(a) When the annual harvest guideline 

for either Pacific sardine or Pacific 

mackerel is reached, the directed fishery 

for Pacific sardine or Pacific mackerel 

shall be closed until the beginning of 

the next fishing season as stated in 

§ 660.510 (a) and (b). The Regional 

Administrator shall announce in the 

Federal Register the date of closure of 

the directed fishery for Pacific sardine 

or Pacific mackerel. Upon such closure, 

Pacific mackerel may be harvested 

incidental to the directed fishery for 

Pacific sardine to the extent permitted 

by the annual harvest guideline. The 

Regional Administrator shall announce 

in the Federal Register the amount of 

the incidental trip limit, if any, that was 

recommended by the Council and 

approved by NMFS. 

(b) When the allocation and 

reallocation levels for Pacific sardine in 

§ 660.511 (f)-(h) are reached, the Pacific 

sardine fishery shall be closed until 

either it re-opens per the allocation 

scheme in § 660.511 (g) and (h) or the 

beginning of the next fishing season as 

stated in § 660.510 (a). The Regional 

Administrator shall announce in the 

Federal Register the date of the closure 

of the directed fishery for Pacific 

sardine. 

4. In § 660.511 paragraph (f) is 

revised, and paragraphs (g), and (h) are 

added to read as follows: 

§ 660.511 Catch restrictions. 

* * * * * 

(f) On January 1, 35 percent of the 

initial harvest guideline for Pacific 

sardine is allocated coastwide within 

the fishery management area. 

(g) On July 1, 40 percent of the initial 

harvest guideline for Pacific sardine 

plus the remaining unharvested portion 

of the January 1 allocation in (f) is 

allocated coastwide within the fishery 

management area. 

(h) On September 15, 25 percent of 

the initial harvest guideline for Pacific 

sardine plus the remaining unharvested 

portion of the July 1 allocation is 

allocated coastwide within the fishery 

management area. 

[FR Doc. 05–22729 Filed 11–15–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[I.D. 110805A] 

RIN 0648–AT92 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Total Allowable Catch 

Amounts for ‘‘Other Species’’ in the 

Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of 

Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) has 

submitted Amendment 69 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Gulf of Alaska (FMP). If approved, 

Amendment 69 would amend the 

manner in which the total allowable 

catch (TAC) for the ‘‘other species’’

complex is annually determined in the 

Gulf of Alaska (GOA). As part of the 

annual harvest specifications, the 

Council would recommend a TAC 

amount for the ‘‘other species’’ complex 

at a level less than or equal to 5 percent 

of the sum of the TACs for the 

remaining groundfish species and 

complexes in the GOA. This action 

would allow conservation and 

management of species within the 

‘‘other species’’ category and is intended 

to promote the goals and objectives of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and 

other applicable laws. Comments from 

the public are welcome. 

DATES: Comments on the amendment 

must be received on or before January 

17, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

69506 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Lori Durall. Comments may be 

submitted by: 

• E-mail: 0648–AT92–NOAGOA69@noaa.gov. Include in the 

subject line the following document 

identifier: GOA 69 NOA. E-mail 

comments, with or without attachments, 

are limited to 5 megabytes. 

• Webform at the Federal eRulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802. 

• Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, 

Room 420A, Juneau, AK. 

• Fax: 907–586–7557. 

Copies of Amendment 69 and the 

Environmental Assessment/Regulatory 

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for 

the amendment may be obtained from 

the mailing address specified above or 

from the Alaska Region NMFS website 

at www.fakr.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Pearson, 907–481–1780 or 

tom.pearson@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that 

each Regional Fishery Management 

Council submit any FMP amendment it 

prepares to NMFS for review and 

approval, disapproval, or partial 

approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 

also requires that NMFS, upon receiving 

an FMP amendment, immediately 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

that the amendment is available for 

public review and comment. 

Amendment 69 was unanimously 

adopted by the Council in June 2005. If 

approved by NMFS, this amendment 

would allow the Council, as part of its 

annual harvest specifications process, to 

recommend a TAC amount for the 

‘‘other species’’ complex at a level less 

than or equal to 5 percent of the sum of 

TACs for the remaining groundfish 

species and complexes in the GOA. This 

amendment is an interim step to 

conserve and manage the ‘‘other 

species’’ resource in the GOA until the 

Council develops a more comprehensive 

plan to modify the management of target 

and non-target species in the GOA. 

Background on ‘‘Other Species’’

Management 

The ‘‘other species’’ complex has 

evolved via a series of amendments to 

the GOA FMP. Amendment 15 to the 

FMP was implemented in 1987 (52 FR 

7868, March 13, 1987); this amendment 

continued to define ‘‘other species’’ as 

species that have ‘‘only slight economic 

value and are not generally targeted 

upon, but which are either significant 

components of the ecosystem or have 

economic potential.’’ The TAC for the 

‘‘other species’’ complex was 

established as 5 percent of the TACs for 

all target species. At this time the ‘‘other 

species’’ complex included sculpins, 

sharks, skates, eulachon, smelts, 

capelin, and octopi. In 1988, Atka 

mackerel and squid were added to the 

complex. 

In 1992 the entire TAC of ‘‘other 

species’’ was harvested by GOA vessels 

targeting a single species, Atka 

mackerel. Because the Council believed 

that harvests of Atka mackerel could not 

be sustained at that level, the Council 

removed Atka mackerel from the ‘‘other 

species’’ complex in 1993 so that they 

could be conserved and managed as a 

separate target species. 

In 1998, Amendment 39 defined a 

forage fish category in the FMP (63 FR 

13798, March 23, 1998). Important prey 

species were included in this category. 

The forage fish category contains 

species that were formerly included in 

the ‘‘other species’’ complex, including 

species of eulachon, capelin, and 

smelts. NMFS implemented regulations 

that prohibited directed fishing on 

forage fish and established a maximum 

retainable amount (MRA) of 2 percent. 

In 2003, conservation concerns were 

again raised regarding a developing 

skate fishery. The primary concern was 

the inability of inseason management to 

allow for some directed fishing, and still 

adequately protect skate stocks while 

these species were within the larger 

‘‘other species’’ complex. In 2004, 

Amendment 63 to the GOA FMP 

removed skates from the ‘‘other species’’

complex and placed them in a target 

category (69 FR 26313, May 12, 2004). 

The ‘‘other species’’ complex 

currently contains the following species 

groups: squids, sculpins, sharks, and 

octopi. As currently configured, the 

‘‘other species’’ complex is open to 

directed fishing after the anticipated 

amount of incidental catch needs in 

other directed groundfish fisheries has 

been subtracted, up to the TAC for the 

complex. From 1997 to 2002, the TAC 

for ‘‘other species’’ has ranged from 

11,330 mt to 15,570 mt, while the 

incidental catch of ‘‘other species’’ in 

other directed groundfish fisheries 

averaged 2,124 mt. 

Conservation concerns have 

developed with the removal of several 

species over time from the ‘‘other 

species’’ complex. The primary basis of 

these concerns is the way the ‘‘other 

species’’ TAC is calculated. As species 

(e.g., Atka mackerel and skates) are 

removed from the ‘‘other species’’

complex and included in the targeted 

fisheries TACs, the ‘‘other species’’ TAC 

increases. This means that a larger 

allowable harvest amount is spread over 

fewer species groups in the ‘‘other 

species’’ complex. Additionally, given 

the configuration of the complex, it is 

possible to target one member of the 

complex close to the full complex-level 

TAC, which inhibits in-season 

management’s ability to control directed 

fishing within the complex and raises 

concerns given the lack of available 

stock information on most species 

groups in the complex. 

If approved, Amendment 69 would 

allow the Council to recommend a TAC 

for ‘‘other species’’ at an amount 

sufficient to meet anticipated incidental 

catch needs in other directed groundfish 

fisheries or at a higher level that allows 

for directed fishing targeting one or 

more ‘‘other species’’ to develop at a 

modest, sustainable level. 

A proposed rule is also expected to be 

published that would allow for 

incidental catch management under the 

proposed amendment. A MRA is 

established for each groundfish fisheries 

species, species group, or complex to 

manage incidental catch. The MRA for 

‘‘other species’’ in all directed fisheries 

is 20 percent, except for arrowtooth 

flounder which is presently at 0 percent. 

The MRAs applied to the arrowtooth 

flounder directed fishery are 5 percent 

for pollock and Pacific cod, 2 percent 

for the forage fish category, and 0 

percent for all other groundfish. 

Previously, arrowtooth flounder had 

been used as a basis for retaining MRA 

amounts of more valuable groundfish, 

such as sablefish. Once landed, the 

arrowtooth flounder was discarded and 

the incidental catch was retained. With 

the development of the fishery in recent 

years, arrowtooth flounder are now 

targeted for retention and processing. 

Because arrowtooth flounder catch is 

more desirable than ‘‘other species,’’

arrowtooth flounder is unlikely to be 

harvested for the purpose of retaining 

‘‘other species’’ incidental catch. 

Therefore, zero retention of ‘‘other 

species’’ is not necessary to control 

incidental harvest of ‘‘other species’’ in 

the arrowtooth flounder fishery. Some 

incidental catch of ‘‘other species’’ in 

the arrowtooth flounder fishery is 

inevitable. Raising the ‘‘other species’’

MRA from 0 to 20 percent in the 

arrowtooth flounder fishery would 

eliminate the requirement to discard all 

‘‘other species.’’

Public comments are being solicited 

on proposed Amendment 69 through 

the end of the comment period stated 

(see DATES). A proposed rule that would 

implement the amendment may be 

published in the Federal Register for 

public comment at a later date. Public 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69507 

comments on the proposed rule must be 

received by the end of the comment 

period on the amendment in order to be 

considered in the approval/disapproval 

decision on the 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 

not just postmarked or otherwise 

transmitted by close of business on the 

last day of the comment period. 

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

Dated: November 9, 2005. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–22728 Filed 11–15–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S