Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 70549 

not, such as passengers. This policy 

does not apply to the following: 

Identities of air carriers, repair 

stations, or other organizational entities 

whether or not the air carrier, repair 

station or other organizational entity is 

owned or operated by an individual; 

records generated or maintained by 

entities other than the FAA such as 

electronic records of accidents and/or 

incidents maintained by the National 

Transportation Safety Board; this policy 

does not apply to written records of 

accidents or incidents because it is the 

FAA’s current policy to destroy those 

records pursuant to the retention 

guidelines contained in FAA Order 

1350.15C. 

This policy statement is published 

because the subject is a matter of general 

interest in the aviation community. 

FAA Recordkeeping 

The FAA maintains records of 

accidents and incidents in the Accident 

and Incident Data System (AIDS), and 

with paper documents. All records 

contain identifying information such as 

name, date of birth, and certificate 

number. The records also contain 

information about each accident or 

incident such as the date and place of 

the event as well as a description of 

what happened. 

AIDS is an automated data base 

system that contains summaries of all 

FAA accident and incident 

investigations. Copies of paper 

documents associated with an accident 

or incident are not included in AIDS 

records. AIDS is the primary source of 

summary information for the FAA and 

the public concerning any accident or 

incident investigated by the FAA. 

Expunction Policy 

Electronic accident and incident 

records identifying an individual will 

now be maintained for five years from 

the date of the accident or incident. In 

that regard, it is believed that after five 

years, any information about an 

individual’s identity will be of little, if 

any, value. Under this expunction 

policy, any information which identifies 

the individual will be removed from the 

AIDS record, including the individual’s 

name and FAA certificate number. The 

case report number will not be removed, 

nor will the rest of the information, such 

as the pilot’s experience, the description 

of the event, the N number and type of 

aircraft involved. This information will 

be maintained so that the FAA will be 

able to research the accident history of 

an aircraft or conduct statistical research 

of data. 

In all cases, if at the time an AIDS 

record is due to be expunged, a 

subsequent AIDS record has been 

opened, the first record will not be 

expunged unless and until the 

subsequent record is eligible for 

expungement. 

Implementation of the AIDS 

Expunction Policy 

The FAA currently has several 

decades of records which will be 

expunged under this policy. It is 

expected that the initial expunction of 

eligible AIDS records will be completed 

in stages. 

Changes will be made to the AIDS 

program so that AIDS data eligible to be 

expunged is identified and 

automatically expunged from the AIDS 

computer base. The FAA expects that 

the necessary hardware and software 

changes to the AIDS data base system 

will be completed by [November 1, 

2005]. 

Once this expunction system is fully 

functioning, the FAA intends to 

expunge identifying information from 

eligible AIDS records on a monthly 

basis. An individual may expect his or 

her AIDS records to be expunged during 

the month following the eligibility for 

expunction under this policy. The FAA 

maintains a large number of records in 

AIDS. Therefore, it is impossible for the 

Agency to assure the expunction of any 

particular record in strict accordance 

with this policy. If an individual 

becomes aware of any AIDS data eligible 

for expunction that has not been 

expunged, he or she may request 

amendment of the record under the 

Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(d). Any 

request to amend an individual’s AIDS 

record must be made in writing to the 

systems manager in accordance with the 

procedures prescribed in 49 CFR part 

10. 

Issued in Washington, DC on November 17, 

2005. 

Marion Blakey, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–23101 Filed 11–21–05; 8:45am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 050719189–5286–03; I.D. 

071405C] 

RIN 0648–AT33 

International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna 

Fisheries; Restrictions for 2005 and 

2006 Purse Seine and Longline 

Fisheries in the Eastern Tropical 

Pacific Ocean 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS publishes this final 

rule to implement the 2005 and 2006 

management measures to prevent 

overfishing of the eastern tropical 

Pacific Ocean (ETP) tuna stocks, 

consistent with recommendations by the 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna 

Commission (IATTC) that have been 

approved by the Department of State 

(DOS) under the Tuna Conventions Act. 

The purse seine fishery for tuna in the 

ETP will be closed for a 6–week period 

beginning November 20, 2005, through 

December 31, 2005, and beginning 

November 20, 2006, through December 

31, 2006. In this final rule, NMFS also 

announces that the longline fishery will 

close when a 150–mt limit has been 

reached. These actions are taken to limit 

fishing mortality on tuna stocks caused 

by purse seine fishing and longline 

fishing in the Convention Area and 

contribute to the long-term conservation 

of tuna stocks at levels that support 

healthy fisheries. 

DATES: The 2005 tuna purse seine 

fishery closure is effective November 20, 

2005, through December 31, 2005. The 

2006 tuna purse seine fishery closure is 

effective November 20, 2006, through 

December 31, 2006. For 2006, the bigeye 

longline fishery will close when the 

bigeye tuna catch reaches 150 mt. NMFS 

will publish a notification in the 

Federal Register announcing the 

effective date of that closure. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the regulatory 

impact review/final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (FRFA) may be 

obtained from the Southwest Regional 

Administrator, Southwest Region, 

NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, 

Long Beach, CA 90902–4213. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. 

Allison Routt, Sustainable Fisheries 

70550 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Division, Southwest Region, NMFS, 

(562) 980–4030. 

This Federal Register document is 

also accessible via the Internet at the 

Office of the Federal Register’s website 

at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

United States is a member of the IATTC, 

which was established under the 

Convention for the Establishment of an 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna 

Commission signed in 1949 

(Convention). The IATTC was 

established to provide an international 

arrangement to ensure the effective 

international conservation and 

management of highly migratory species 

of fish in the Convention Area. For the 

purposes of these closures, the 

Convention Area is defined to include 

the waters of the ETP bounded by the 

coast of the Americas, the 40° N. and 

40° S. parallels, and the 150° W. 

meridian. The IATTC has maintained a 

scientific research and fishery 

monitoring program for many years and 

annually assesses the status of stocks of 

tuna and the fisheries to determine 

appropriate harvest limits or other 

measures to prevent overexploitation of 

tuna stocks and promote viable 

fisheries. 

Under the Tuna Conventions Act, 16 

U.S.C. 951–962, NMFS must publish 

regulations to carry out IATTC 

recommendations and resolutions that 

have been approved by DOS. A 

proposed rule to carry out the IATTCrecommended and DOS-approved 

closures for the ETP purse seine and 

longline tuna fisheries for 2005 and 

2006 was published in the Federal 

Register on August 15, 2005 (70 FR 

47774). The Southwest Regional 

Administrator also is required by 

regulations at 50 CFR 300.25(b)(3) to 

issue a direct notice to the owners or 

agents of U.S. vessels that operate in the 

ETP of actions recommended by the 

IATTC and approved by the DOS. In 

May 2005 and September 2005, the 

Regional Administrator, Southwest 

Region, sent notices to owners and 

agents of U.S. fishing vessels describing 

the actions recommended by the IATTC 

June 2004 Resolution and approved by 

the DOS. 

At the June 2004 IATTC meeting, a 

new resolution was adopted by the 

Commission. The June 2004 resolution 

offers Parties a choice for closing the 

purse seine fishery in the Convention 

Area: either a 6–week closure beginning 

August 1, or a 6–week closure beginning 

November 20. The closure will target 

fishing activity that results in high 

catches of juvenile tuna. 

The June 2004 resolution also calls 

upon each Party and cooperating nonParty to take measures necessary to 

ensure that each nation’s longline catch 

of bigeye tuna in the Convention Area 

during 2005 and 2006 will not exceed 

the total longline catch by the nation in 

the Convention Area in 2001. The U.S. 

catch level for 2001 is estimated to have 

been 150 mt in the Convention Area. 

This final rule allows the United States 

to comply with the June 2004 

resolution. 

The IATTC action at the June 2004 

meeting came after considering a variety 

of measures, including the use of quotas 

and partial fishery closures as 

implemented in 1999 through 2002 and 

the full month purse seine closure used 

in 2003. The resolution of June 2004 

incorporated flexibility for nations to 

administer the purse seine closure in 

accordance with national legislation and 

national sovereignty. The selected 

measures should provide protection 

against overfishing of the stocks in a 

manner that is fair, equitable, and 

readily enforceable. The DOS has 

approved the IATTC recommendations. 

The conservation and management 

measures are based on 2004 assessments 

of the condition of the tuna stocks in the 

ETP and historic catch and effort data 

for different portions of the ETP, as well 

as records relating to implementation of 

quotas and closures in prior years. The 

measures are believed by the IATTC to 

be sufficient to reduce the risk of 

overfishing of tuna stocks. The IATTC 

met in June 2005 and reviewed new 

tuna stock assessments and fishery 

information and considered the new 

assessment and fishery stock assessment 

information. In evaluating possible 

management measures for 2004 and 

future years, the IATTC selected a 

multi-annual time/area approach to 

conserve and manage the tuna stocks in 

the Convention Area. 

This final rule implements the 6–

week closure to purse seining in the 

Convention Area beginning November 

20, 2005, and beginning November 20, 

2006. These closures were chosen in 

response to comment supportive of this 

closure period rather than the period 

beginning on August 1. This final rule 

also provides that the U.S. longline 

fishery for bigeye tuna in the 

Convention Area will close for the 

remainder of the calendar year 2006 if 

the catch reaches 150 mt, the catch level 

of 2001. If necessary, this closure will 

prohibit U.S. longline bigeye tuna 

vessels from retaining bigeye tuna in the 

Convention Area. Longline vessels will 

not be subjected to this closure if the 

permit holder declares to NMFS under 

the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for 

the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western 

Pacific Region that they intend to 

shallow-set to target swordfish (50 CFR 

660.23). NMFS will provide notice of 

closure of the longline fishery. These 

actions ensure that U.S. vessels fish in 

accordance with the conservation and 

management measures that the IATTC 

recommended in June 2004. 

On September 2, 2005, NMFS 

determined that the 150 mt-catch level 

had been reached for the 2005 season 

and closed the U.S. longline fishery for 

bigeye tuna in the IATTC Convention 

Area under an emergency rule (70 FR 

52324–52325). This closure prohibited 

U.S. longline bigeye tuna vessels from 

retaining bigeye tuna in the Convention 

Area. Longline vessels were not subject 

to the emergency rule if the permit 

holder declared to NMFS under the 

FMP for the Pelagic Fisheries of the 

Western Pacific Region that they intend 

to shallow-set to target swordfish (50 

CFR 660.23). 

Comments and Responses 

During the comment period for the 

proposed rule, NMFS received 

comments from tuna industry 

organizations, environmental 

organizations, members of the public, 

and the Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Western Pacific 

Council). Key issues and concerns are 

summarized below and responded to as 

follows: 

Timing of the Closures 

Comment 1: Comments were received 

that vessel owners support the closure 

period set forth in the proposed rule. 

The vessel owners have two specific 

reasons for preferring the year-end 

closure. First, the weather conditions on 

the high seas and in the Convention 

Area at year-end are normally more 

problematic than during the AugustSeptember period. Fishing conditions 

are affected by weather, and the vessel 

owners would prefer that the closure 

not take place during the period when 

the weather is least likely to adversely 

affect fishing. Second, there is currently 

a short supply of fish, and fish prices 

have finally begun to return to levels 

that support economically profitable 

fishing. A mid-year closure could 

prevent U.S. vessels from capitalizing 

on this opportunity. Finally, a later 

closure allows better opportunity for 

planning operations and scheduling 

repairs and maintenance during the 

closure. For these reasons U.S. vessel 

owners would prefer to delay the 

closure until later in the year. 

Response: NMFS has decided to 

implement the late closure supported by 

industry for the reasons presented. 

Comment 2: One commenter 

expressed a preference for the August 1 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 70551 

through September 11, 2005, closure. 

This commenter stated that his/her 

businesses would be economically 

disadvantaged by the later closure. 

Response: NMFS considered this 

closure. However, the overwhelming 

majority of commenters favored of the 

6–week closure beginning November 20. 

For the reasons stated in Comment 1, 

NMFS has chosen to implement the 

later closure. The impacts discussed in 

the RIR are the same under both closure 

options. 

2001 U.S. Longline Catch 

Comment 3: It is probably wrong to 

assume that the catch of bigeye in the 

ETP by U.S. flagged longline vessels is 

no more than 150 mt. 

Response: NMFS has concluded that 

the catch in 2001 was 150 mt. In 2004, 

NMFS scientists evaluated the U.S. 

longline catch of bigeye tuna for 2001. 

NMFS scientists estimated the longline 

bigeye tuna catch east of 150° W. 

meridian by multiplying the numbers of 

fish reported as retained in log books 

from the Hawaii and California based 

longline fleets times the mean weight of 

bigeye tuna from the Hawaii-based 

longline fishery. Three data sets were 

used to estimate bigeye catches east of 

150° W. meridian. These were the 

Hawaii-based longline logbook data 

(1999–2003), the Honolulu market 

sample data (1999), and the State of 

Hawaii Fish Dealer Data (2000–2003). In 

addition, U.S. flagged longline vessels 

operate out of California and catch 

bigeye tuna east of 150° W. These 

vessels are required to fill in either the 

NMFS Western Pacific Daily Longline 

Fishing Log or High Seas Pelagic 

Longline Logs and submit them to the 

NMFS Southwest Regional Office in 

Long Beach, California. These logbook 

data provide fishing location and catch 

by species. The estimated U.S. longline 

bigeye tuna catch was 150 mt in 2001. 

The relatively low yields in 2001 and 

2002 were probably caused by 

constrained fishing patterns that 

reflected regulatory initiatives to the 

U.S. longline fleet targeting swordfish in 

the ETP. 

Comment 4: Why were the 2001 levels 

used and not earlier years that may be 

more indicative of U.S. historical 

catches? 

Response: The IATTC Secretariat 

recommended and the IATTC chose the 

year 2001 for the bigeye longline 

benchmark because this was the most 

recent year that nations party to or 

cooperating with the IATTC were able 

to supply a complete annual data set 

and because this represented the last 

year before a substantial increase in 

eastern Pacific longline fishing. Parties 

to the IATTC wanted to limit longline 

effort to this lower level. 

Bigeye Longline Quota 

Comment 5: Several comments 

received stated that the longline bigeye 

tuna limit would be unfair to U.S. 

interests. 

Response: At the June 2005 IATTC 

annual meeting, the U.S. delegation 

lobbied for relief for our U.S. interests 

for the longline bigeye tuna fishery. The 

U.S. delegation was not successful in 

persuading all other IATTC member 

nations to amend the June 2004 

Resolution. NMFS and the DOS 

continue to hear from constituents that 

the current longline bigeye tuna limit is 

unfair to U.S. interests. NMFS 

appreciates these concerns and has 

taken these concerns to the U.S. 

delegation. The U.S. delegation will 

continue to work through the proper 

channels towards balanced treatment for 

the U.S. longline bigeye tuna fleet 

within the bounds of the IATTC 

consensus-based process. 

Comment 6: NMFS does not have a 

timely system for collection and 

processing of longline catch data so that 

the industry can be given an advance 

notification of a prospective closing date 

for the longline fishery in the ETP. 

Response: The NMFS Pacific Islands 

Regional Office will collaborate with the 

U.S. longline bigeye tuna industry in 

developing a more efficient monitoring 

program for 2006. 

Comment 7: NMFS is aware that the 

longline bigeye tuna quota of 150 mt 

was exceeded in both 2004 and 2005. 

This clearly indicates that there is 

additional demand beyond 150 mt. 

Response: NMFS is aware that the 

longline bigeye tuna quota of 150 mt 

was exceeded in both years. As a 

solution to exceeding the quota, NMFS 

Pacific Islands Regional Office will 

collaborate with the U.S. longline bigeye 

tuna industry in developing a more 

efficient monitoring program for 2006. 

While exceeding the quota could be 

indicative of additional demand beyond 

150 mt, the IATTC June 2004 Resolution 

did not give NMFS discretion to 

increase the U.S. quota beyond 150 mt. 

At the June 2005 annual meeting of the 

IATTC, the U.S. delegation was not 

successful in persuading all other 

IATTC member nations to amend the 

June 2004 Resolution. 

Comment 8: A commenter asked who 

conducted the analysis on which the 

initial estimate of 100 mt of bigeye tuna 

was based and questioned if it was 

based on the best available data. 

Further, the commenter wanted to know 

what protocols govern the monitoring of 

U.S. longline bigeye catches in the 

IATTC area, and which NMFS office is 

taking the lead on this issue. The 

commenter requested NMFS 

communicate better on issues within the 

Convention Area that may affect 

fisheries by vessels based different 

regions. 

Response: The initial estimate of 2001 

U.S. longline catch of bigeye tuna in the 

Convention Area was derived by the 

NMFS Southwest Region using landings 

and log book data from both Hawaii and 

California. While the preliminary 

estimate of the U.S. catch in 2001 was 

100 mt, after receiving public comments 

in 2004, NMFS reviewed the initial 

estimate and made adjustments based 

on a sound statistical basis. NMFS will 

implement a protocol for monitoring 

U.S. longline bigeye catches in the 

IATTC Convention Area so that the 

fishery can be closed if the U.S. catch 

limit for 2006 is reached before the end 

of the year. This protocol for monitoring 

includes direct notice to fishing vessel 

owners and operators. The Southwest 

Region has the lead for collaborating 

with the DOS and constituents in 

implementing conservation 

recommendations of the IATTC. The 

Southwest Region recognizes that 

longline vessels based in Hawaii may 

fish in the Convention Area and thus 

could be affected by measures 

recommended by the IATTC and 

approved by DOS. The Southwest 

Region will increase its efforts to 

communicate with all stakeholders 

including the relevant fishery 

management councils, the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Pacific 

Council) and the Western Pacific 

Council, prior to IATTC meetings to 

ensure that the interests of all U.S. 

fisheries are considered in development 

of U.S. positions at IATTC. (The Pacific 

Council and the Western Pacific Council 

are two of eight regional fishery 

management councils established by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) for the purpose 

of developing FMPs to govern fisheries 

off the coasts of the United States.) As 

soon after IATTC meetings as 

practicable, the Southwest Region will 

inform the Pacific and Western Pacific 

Councils of IATTC actions that affect 

fisheries in the Councils’ areas of 

concern. NMFS fully recognizes that the 

Pacific and Western Pacific Councils 

have roles as principals in highly 

migratory species fisheries management 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and is 

working to ensure that measures under 

international conventions are 

compatible and coordinated to the 

extent necessary. 

70552 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment 9: One commenter stated 

that the longline requirements of the 

June 2004 IATTC Resolution pertain 

only to large-scale tuna longline vessels 

(LSTLV’s)(greater than 24 meters in 

length). 

Response: The June 2004 IATTC 

Resolution applies to ‘‘longline vessels’’

of all sizes. As an additional 

requirement, the June 2004 IATTC 

Resolution requires that nations with 

LSTLV’s provide to the IATTC Director 

monthly catch reports of tuna harvested 

with longline gear. 

General Comments 

Comment 10: One organization stated 

that they had no opposition to the 

proposed closures and other elements of 

the proposed rule for restrictions on the 

tuna purse seine fishery or the longline 

fishery for bigeye tuna in the ETP for 

2005 and 2006. This organization 

expressed their continuing concerns 

regarding conservation of tunas in the 

ETP and asked that NMFS continue to 

work towards multilateral solutions to 

the multilateral fisheries of this 

proposed rule. This organization stated 

that the June 2004 IATTC resolution 

does not address the full problem and 

overfishing will continue, with 

subsequent depletion of the stocks. 

Response: NMFS thanks the 

organization for their support. NMFS 

agrees that the issues of conservation 

and management of the tuna stocks in 

the ETP need to be addressed 

multilaterally. Under the IATTC, NMFS 

and DOS will continue to work with the 

nations party to the IATTC to conserve 

and manage tuna stocks in the ETP. 

Comment 11: One commenter asked 

that NMFS shut down tuna fisheries in 

the Pacific Ocean for 6 months. The 

commenter stated that the current 

proposal steals our children’s heritage 

by commercial fishermen and greedy 

profiteers. 

Response: The tuna fishery closures 

in the Pacific Ocean were negotiated on 

a multilateral basis and strike a balance 

between many competing interests. The 

measures are believed by the IATTC to 

be sufficient to reduce the risk of 

overfishing of tuna stocks. 

Comment 12: NMFS received a 

comment regarding the number of 

current participants in the West Coast 

Longline Fishery. The commenter stated 

that our current number of participants 

was incorrect. 

Response: NMFS agrees and has 

corrected this participant number in the 

final analysis. NMFS recognizes that 

this number could increase in the future 

and is not a static number. 

Classification 

This action is consistent with the 

Tuna Conventions Act, 16 U.S.C. 51–

962. This action is consistent with the 

regulations governing the Pacific Tuna 

Fisheries at 50 CFR 300.25. 

A 30–day delay in effectiveness is 

generally required under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3) for rules with substantive 

impact on the public. For the following 

reasons, the Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries finds good cause to waive the 

30–day delay in effectiveness of this 

rule. First, delaying closure of the U.S. 

tuna purse seine fishery in the ETP 

beyond November 20 would contravene 

the U.S. obligations to adhere to a 

binding resolution of the IATTC, and its 

obligations to manage tuna stocks in a 

sustainable manner under the Tuna 

Conventions Act. Second, delaying the 

effectiveness of this rule may result in 

the U.S. purse seine vessels continuing 

to fish in the ETP after November 20, 

thereby placing further pressure on tuna 

stocks. That said, beginning in 2004, 

NMFS gave actual notice of this closure 

several times to each of the vessel 

owners and operators affected by this 

closure; NMFS will also provide each 

owner with a copy of this Federal 

Register document. 

On December 8, 1999, NMFS 

prepared a biological opinion (BO) 

assessing the impacts of the fisheries as 

they would operate under the interim 

final regulations implementing the 

International Dolphin Conservation 

Program Act (IDCPA)65 FR 47, January 

3, 2000). In this BO, NMFS concluded 

that the fishing activities conducted 

under those regulations are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered or threatened species 

under the jurisdiction of NMFS or result 

in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. Because 

this closure does not alter the scope of 

the fishery management regime 

analyzed in the IDCPA rule, or the scope 

of the impacts considered in that 

consultation, NMFS is relying on that 

analysis to conclude that this final rule 

will have no different effect than what 

was concluded in the BO. 

On October 4, 2005, NMFS concluded 

that the Hawaii-based pelagic, deep-set, 

tuna longline fishery managed under the 

Fishery Management Plan for the 

Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific 

Region is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species under the 

jurisdiction of NMFS or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. This final rule will not 

result in any changes in the fishery such 

that there would be impacts beyond 

those considered in that BO. Therefore, 

NMFS has determined that additional 

ESA consultation is not required for this 

action. 

Under its Consolidated Resolution on 

Bycatch, the IATTC has adopted 

conservation measures to reduce sea 

turtle injury and mortality from 

interactions in the purse seine fishery. 

As a result, impacts of the fisheries on 

sea turtle injury and mortality should be 

lower than in the past. NMFS has 

implemented the IATTC conservation 

measures to reduce sea turtle injury and 

mortality at 50 CFR 300.25(e). 

A FRFA was prepared that describes 

the economic impact of this final rule. 

A copy of this analysis is available from 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES). Comments were 

received on the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis for the proposed 

rule. The comments have been 

addressed and are reflected in the FRFA 

for this final rule and in the summary 

below. A summary of the analysis 

follows. 

A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule is provided in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

above. 

Small vessels, purse seine or longline, 

are categorized as small business 

entities (revenues below $3.5 million 

per year). 

This action would prohibit the use of 

purse seine gear to harvest tuna in the 

ETP for a 6–week period beginning 

November 20, through December 31, for 

both the 2005 and 2006 calendar years 

and limit the annual 2006 U.S. catch of 

bigeye tuna caught by longline in the 

ETP to 150 metric tons. 

The purse seine closure applies to the 

U.S. tuna purse seine fleet, which 

consists of 10–20 small vessels (carrying 

capacity below 400 short tons (363 

metric tons)) and 4–6 large vessels 

(carrying capacity 400 short tons (363 

metric tons) or greater). 

The small purse seine vessels fish out 

of California in the U.S. exclusive 

economic zone most of the year for 

small pelagic fish (Pacific sardine, 

Pacific mackerel) and for market squid 

in summer. Some small vessels harvest 

tuna seasonally when they are available. 

NMFS believes that the time/area 

closure will have no effect on small 

purse seine vessels because they do not 

have the endurance and markets to fish 

that far from their coastal home ports. 

The large purse seine vessels usually 

fish outside U.S. waters and deliver 

their catch to foreign ports or transship 

to processors outside the mainland 

United States. The large vessels are 

categorized as large business entities 

(revenues in excess of $3.5 million per 

year). A large purse seine vessel 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 70553 

typically generates 4,000 to 5,000 metric 

tons of tuna valued at between $4 and 

$5 million per year. The closure should 

not significantly affect their operations 

as they are capable of fishing in other 

areas that would remain open. 

The 2004 IATTC Tuna Convention 

Resolution offers each country a choice 

for closing the fishery for a 6–week 

period beginning either August 1 or 

November 20, of each of the years in 

2004, 2005, and 2006. NMFS considered 

the alternative of the 6–week closure 

beginning on August 1, but based on 

public comments on the proposed rule 

in 2005, NMFS chose the 6–week 

closures to begin on November 20, 2005 

and November 20, 2006. In particular, 

the U.S. purse seine fleet prefers a 

closure later in the fishing year because 

the winter weather is not conducive to 

fishing. Also, throughout the history of 

this fishery shipyards are prepared to 

accept vessels for scheduled repairs 

during the winter months. The fishery 

closure later in the year allows the 

industry to plan for and mitigate 

economic impacts while still providing 

the conservation benefits to the tuna 

resources in the ETP. NMFS also 

considered the ‘‘no action’’ alternative 

of not implementing a purse seine 

closure, which would have imposed no 

economic costs on small entities. 

However, failure to implement measures 

that have been agreed on pursuant to 

this Convention would violate the 

United States’ obligations under the 

Convention and the Tuna Conventions 

Act. 

The U.S. longline fishery for bigeye 

tuna in the ETP is relatively small. 

Vessels in the fishery are characterized 

as small business entities, the majority 

of which are based in Hawaii. The 

Hawaii fleet (approximately 120 active 

vessels) has pursued a mix of swordfish 

targeting, tuna targeting, and mixed trip 

fishing. While the fleet usually fishes 

west of the ETP, there have been trips 

into the ETP or in which a portion of the 

effort was deployed in the ETP. Based 

on logbook data analyses, NMFS has 

determined that the catch of bigeye in 

the ETP in 2001 was 150 mt. In 2003, 

a total of 49 Hawaii and California based 

longline vessels made 92 whole or 

partial trips east of 150° W. long. 

landing 232 mts of bigeye tuna. In 2004, 

52 longline vessels made 87 whole or 

partial trips landing 158 mts of bigeye 

tuna. NMFS recognizes that this closure 

places a hardship on this fishery. 

Overall, a closure should not 

significantly affect their operations as 

they are capable of fishing in other areas 

that would remain open, outside the 

boundaries of the IATTC Convention 

Area. NMFS recognizes that this closure 

places a further hardship on the West 

Coast fishery because of the difficulties 

involved in traveling outside the 

boundaries of the IATTC Convention 

Area for bigeye tuna. 

NMFS considered the ‘‘no action’’

alternative of not implementing the 

longline closure provided in the 2004 

IATTC Tuna Convention Resolution. 

This alternative would have imposed no 

economic costs on small entities. 

However, failure to implement measures 

that have been agreed on pursuant to 

this Convention would violate the 

United States’ obligations under the 

Convention, and would violate the Tuna 

Conventions Act. The IATTC did not 

provide for alternatives in setting the 

150 mt bigeye quota, which was 

approved by the DOS. As a result, 

NMFS has no discretion to refrain from 

promulgating the quota. Further, the 

Tuna Conventions Act does not provide 

authority for the Untied States to take 

independent action to conserve and 

manage fisheries subject to management 

under the IATTC Convention. 

For both the purse seine and the 

longline tuna fisheries, the closures will 

have a temporary impact as vessels can 

return to the fishery on January 1. 

This rule does not impose any new 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 951–962. and 971 et 

seq. 

Dated: November 15, 2005. 

James W. Balsiger, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–22991 Filed 11–17–05; 1:24 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 041126332–5039–02; I.D. 

111705A] 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by 

Catcher/Processor Vessels Using Pot 

Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Management Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for Pacific cod by catcher/ 

processor vessels using pot gear in the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

management area (BSAI). This action is 

necessary to prevent exceeding the 2005 

total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific 

cod specified for catcher/processor 

vessels using pot gear in the BSAI. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local 

time (A.l.t.), November 17, 2005, until 

2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh 

Keaton, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

BSAI according to the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area (FMP) prepared by 

the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council under authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. 

Regulations governing fishing by U.S. 

vessels in accordance with the FMP 

appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 

and 50 CFR part 679. 

The 2005 Pacific cod TAC allocated to 

catcher/processor vessels using pot gear 

in the BSAI is 3,352 metric tons as 

established by the 2005 and 2006 final 

harvest specifications for groundfish in 

the BSAI (70 FR 8979, February 24, 

2005) and the reallocation on October 5, 

2005 (70 FR 58983, October 11, 2005). 

See § 679.20(c)(3)(iii) and (c)(5), and 

(a)(7)(i)(C). 

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), 

the Administrator, Alaska Region, 

NMFS, has determined that the 2005 

Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher/ 

processor vessels using pot gear in the 

BSAI will soon be reached. 

Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting 

directed fishing for Pacific cod by 

catcher/processor vessels using pot gear 

in the BSAI. 

After the effective date of this closure 

the maximum retainable amounts at 

§ 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time 

during a trip. 

Classification 

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. This requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest as it would prevent NMFS from 

responding to the most recent fisheries