69502 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

E.O. 12866 requires agencies to 

regulate in the ‘‘most cost-effective 

manner,’’ to make a ‘‘reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs,’’

and to develop regulations that ‘‘impose 

the least burden on society.’’ We 

therefore request comments, including 

specific data if possible, concerning the 

costs and benefits of incorporating 

requirements for the storage of 

explosives and other high-hazard 

materials during transportation into the 

HMR. 

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. The RIN number contained in the 

heading of this document may be used 

to cross-reference this action with the 

Unified Agenda. 

I. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form for all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comments (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477) of you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

10, 2005, under authority delegated in 49 

CFR part 106. 

Robert McGuire, 

Associate Administrator for Hazardous 

Materials Safety. 

[FR Doc. 05–22751 Filed 11–15–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 051028280–5280–01; I.D. 

102105A] 

RIN 0648–AT11 

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in 

the Western Pacific; Coastal Pelagic 

Species Fisheries; Amendment 11 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed 

rule to implement Amendment 11 to the 

Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) which would 

change the framework for the annual 

apportionment of the Pacific sardine 

harvest guideline along the U.S. Pacific 

coast. The purpose of the proposed rule 

is to achieve optimal utilization of the 

Pacific sardine resource and equitable 

allocation of the harvest opportunity for 

Pacific sardine. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

December 16, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this proposed rule identified by I.D. 

102105A by any of the following 

methods: 

• E-mail: 0648–AT11.SWR@noaa.gov. 

Include I.D. 102105A in the subject line 

of the message. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking portal:http:// 

www.regulations.gov Follow the 

instruction for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (562) 980–4047. 

• Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional 

Administrator, Southwest Region, 

NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, 

Suite 4200, Long Beach, California 

90802. 

For copies of Amendment 11 entitled 

Allocation of the Pacific Sardine 

Harvest Guideline Amendment 11 to the 

Coastal Pelagic Species fishery 

Management Plan, and the 

accompanying environmental 

assessment/initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis/regulatory impact review (EA/ 

IRFA/RIR) may be obtained at the 

address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua Lindsay, Southwest Region, 

NMFS, (562) 980–4034. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pacific 

sardines are managed pursuant to the 

CPS FMP, which was implemented by 

regulations published at 64 FR 69893, 

December 15, 1999. According to the 

original allocation scheme in the CPS 

FMP, the annual harvest guideline for 

Pacific sardine was allocated two-thirds 

south of Pt. Piedras Blancas, California 

(35° 40′ N. lat.) (a point south of 

Monterey, California, which included 

the fishery in Southern California) and 

one-third north (included fisheries in 

Monterey, California, Oregon, and 

Washington), beginning annually on 

January 1. On October 1, the harvest 

guideline remaining in each subarea 

was added together, then divided 

equally between the two areas. 

In 2002, the northern allocation was 

reached before October 1, which 

required closure of the fishery while 

significant amounts of Pacific sardine 

remained unharvested in the south (67 

FR 58733, September 18, 2002). Rough 

ocean conditions in the Pacific 

Northwest beginning in October makes 

fishing for Pacific sardine with a purse 

seine gear difficult or impossible. Thus, 

even if the harvest of Pacific sardine 

were provided to fisheries in the Pacific 

Northwest after October 1, it would not 

likely be obtained because the rough 

ocean conditions along the coast during 

that time would preclude fishing for 

Pacific sardine. Because the Pacific 

sardine fisheries off Oregon and 

Washington would be virtually over by 

October, the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

requested an emergency rule to make 

the required allocation in 2002 earlier 

than October 1, to avoid losses in jobs 

and revenue. An emergency rule was 

implemented on September 26, 2002 (67 

FR 60601), that reallocated the harvest 

guideline and reopened the fishery. 

The CPS FMP established a limited 

entry fishery south of Pt. Arena, 

California (39° N. lat.), which was a 

point north of San Francisco, California. 

An open access fishery existed north of 

Pt. Arena, California made up of Pacific 

sardine fisheries off Northern California, 

Oregon, and Washington. 

When the CPS FMP was implemented 

no Pacific sardine fishery in Oregon and 

Washington existed. The Council 

adopted the allocation procedure 

included in the CPS FMP to protect the 

Monterey, California fishery (in the 

northern subarea or Subarea A) from the 

possibility of the fishery in Southern 

California (in the southern subarea or 

Subarea B) catching the entire harvest 

guideline before Pacific sardine became 

available in Monterey. As a result of the 

FMP’s allocation procedure, a fishing 

pattern developed whereby Pacific 

sardine was caught by the Southern 

California fleet at the beginning of the 

year, by the Pacific Northwest fleet in 

the summer, and by the Monterey fleet 

in the fall. The fishing pattern led to the 

possibility that the fishery in the 

northern subarea might preempt the 

fishery in the southern subarea. If 

Pacific sardine remained unharvested in 

either subarea following the reallocation 

on October 1, the FMP did not provide 

a procedure to make further 

reallocations to any subarea to increase 

the likelihood of achieving optimum 

yield (OY) in the Pacific sardine fishery. 

The Council recognized that a process 

with more flexibility for making 

allocation decisions was needed. 

Therefore, the Council considered 

amending the framework process for 

implementing the CPS FMP found at 50 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69503 

CFR 660.517. At its November 2002 

meeting in Foster City, CA, the Council 

adopted a set of management 

alternatives to address the allocation 

issue and directed its Coastal Pelagic 

Species Management Team (Team) to 

analyze these alternatives. The primary 

goal was to avoid closing any sector of 

the Pacific sardine fishery while a 

portion of the harvest guideline remain 

unharvested. 

At its meeting in Vancouver, 

Washington, on April 10, 2003, the 

Council received reports from the CPS 

Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel), Team, 

and public comments, and adopted an 

interim allocation framework that: (1) 

changed the definition of subarea A and 

subarea B by moving the geographic 

boundary between the two areas from 

Pt. Piedras Blancas at 35° 40′ 00′′ N. lat. 

to Pt. Arena at 39° 00′ 00′′ N. lat., (2) 

moved the date when Pacific sardine 

that remain unharvested are reallocated 

to Subarea A and Subarea B from 

October 1 to September 1, (3) changed 

the percentage of the unharvested 

Pacific sardine that is reallocated to 

Subarea A and Subarea B from 50 

percent to both subareas to 20 percent 

to Subarea A and 80 percent to Subarea 

B, and (4) reallocated all unharvested 

Pacific sardine that remained on 

December 1 coastwide. This procedure 

was proposed to be in effect for 2003 

and 2004, and for 2005 if the 2005 

harvest guideline is at least 90 percent 

of the 2003 harvest guideline. 

Using the best available information, 

the interim allocation framework was 

developed to address concerns for the 

short-term until NMFS and the Council 

had sufficient time to develop a more 

comprehensive, longer-term allocation 

framework. In order to achieve optimal 

utilization and equitable allocation 

between the different sectors of the 

Pacific sardine fishery, the Council 

tasked the Subpanel to develop an 

initial range of allocation alternatives 

for a longer-term allocation framework. 

The Subpanel adopted a range of 

alternatives for the allocation of Pacific 

sardine at their meetings in August and 

September 2004. At the November 2004 

meeting the Council reviewed the range 

of alternatives, and with some 

modification and additions, forwarded 

nine alternatives to the Team for 

preliminary analysis. When adopting a 

range of alternatives for long-term 

allocation in April 2005, the Council 

expressed an interest in having the 

flexibility to revisit the proposed action 

in the near-term as the Pacific sardine 

resource and the fisheries and markets 

that rely on it are dynamic and difficult 

to predict. 

At the April 2005 Council meeting the 

Council adopted seven of the nine 

alternatives and sent those to the Team 

for further analysis. Below is a summary 

of the seven forwarded alternatives 

given to the Team for analysis including 

both a no action alternative and a status 

quo alternative. If the Council chose to 

take no action, the allocation framework 

would revert to original FMP (64 FR 

69888, December 15, 1999) formula that 

was in place before the regulatory 

amendment (69 FR 8572, February 25, 

2003) was implemented in 2003. Under 

status quo the Council would have 

chosen to take action to extend the 

interim allocation. The order of 

alternatives does not indicate rank or 

priority. All alternatives (except No 

Action) used Point Arena, California 

(39° N. lat.) as the dividing line between 

the allocation subareas. In order to 

present the alternatives in a clear and 

comparable fashion the descriptions 

bullet the fishing season, the initial 

allocation, and reallocations made at 

different points during the fishing 

season. 

No Action: FMP Allocation Framework 

The allocation subareas are divided at 

Point Piedras Blancas, California (35° 

40′ N. lat.). 

Season: January 1 – December 31 

Initial allocation: On January 1, 33 

percent of the harvest guideline is 

allocated to the Subarea A (north, which 

includes Monterey) and 66 percent to 

the Subarea B (Southern California). 

Reallocation: On October 1, remaining 

unharvested portion of the harvest 

guideline is pooled and reallocated 50 

percent to Subarea A (north) and 50 

percent to Subarea B (south). 

Status Quo: Interim Allocation 

Framework 

Season: January 1 – December 31 

Initial allocation: On January 1, 33 

percent of the harvest guideline is 

allocated to the Subarea A (north) and 

66 percent to Subarea B (south). 

Reallocation: On September 1, 20 

percent of the remaining unharvested 

portion of the harvest guideline is 

reallocated to the Subarea A (north) and 

80 percent to Subarea B (south). 

Second reallocation: On December 1, 

the remaining unharvested portion of 

the harvest guideline is reallocated 

coastwide. 

Alternative 1: Coastwide Allocation In 

Two Periods 

Season: January 1 – December 31 

Initial allocation: On January 1, 50 

percent of the harvest guideline is 

allocated coastwide. 

Reallocation: On July 1, the remaining 

harvest guideline (50 percent plus any 

unharvested portion from the initial 

allocation) is allocated coastwide. 

Alternative 2: Rejected by the Council 

Alternative 3: Coastwide Allocation In 

Three Periods 

Season: January 1 – December 31 

Initial allocation: On January 1, 40 

percent of the harvest guideline is 

allocated coastwide. 

Reallocation: On July 1, 40 percent of 

the harvest guideline (plus any 

unharvested portion from the initial 

allocation) is allocated coastwide. 

Second reallocation: On October 1, 20 

percent of the harvest guideline (plus 

any unharvested portion from the first 

reallocation) is reallocated coastwide. 

Alternative 4: Allocation Formula 

Depends on the Size of the Harvest 

Guideline 

Season: January 1 – December 31 

(a) The coastwide harvest guideline is 

greater than 100,000 mt: 

Initial allocation: On January 1, 40 

percent of the coastwide harvest 

guideline is allocated to the Subarea A 

(north) and 60 percent to the Subarea B 

(south). 

Reallocation: On September 1, the 

remaining unharvested portion of the 

harvest guideline is pooled and 

allocated coastwide. 

(b) The coastwide harvest guideline is 

less than 100,000 mt: 

Initial allocation: On January 1, 33 

percent of the coastwide harvest 

guideline is allocated to Subarea A 

(north) and 66 percent to the Subarea B 

(south). 

Reallocation: On September 1, the 

remaining unharvested portion of the 

coastwide harvest guideline is pooled 

and 20 percent is allocated to Subarea 

A (north) and 80 percent to the Subarea 

B (south). 

Second reallocation: On November 1, 

any remaining unharvested portion of 

the harvest guideline is again pooled 

and reallocated coastwide. 

Alternative 5: Rejected by the Council 

Alternative 6: Transfer of Unused 

Allocations Between Subareas 

Season: January 1 – December 31 

Initial allocation (for 2006 only): On 

January 1, 40 percent of the harvest 

guideline is allocated to the Subarea A 

(north) and 60 percent to the Subarea B 

(south). 

Reallocation: On September 1, the 

remaining harvest guideline is pooled 

and allocated coastwide. 

Transfer Rules For Computing 

Subsequent-Year Allocations After the 

69504 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

initial year (2006) these rules dictate the 

allocations to each subarea in each 

subsequent year: 

Rule 1: The transfer of a portion of the 

harvest guideline from one subarea to 

the other, for the purpose of 

recomputing allocation percentages for 

the next year, occurs if the portion of a 

subarea’s allocation remaining uncaught 

at the end of the year is greater than the 

transfer limits described in Rule 2. 

Rule 2: If the harvest guideline is 

greater than 100,000 mt, the transfer 

amount will be equal to 10 percent of 

the coastwide harvest guideline for that 

year. When the coastwide harvest 

guideline is 100,000 mt or less, the 

transfer amount will be 5,000 mt. 

Rule 3: The transfer amount is applied 

to the current-year allocation for each 

subarea. The resulting numerical values 

are then converted to percentages of the 

current-year coastwide harvest 

guideline and used to determine the 

initial allocation for the following year. 

Rule 4: No subarea may initially be 

allocated more than 75 percent of the 

coastwide harvest guideline. 

Rule 5: The September 1 coastwide 

reallocation always applies. 

Alternative 7: Equal Reallocation 

Season: January 1 – December 31 

Initial allocation: On January 1, 33 

percent of the harvest guideline is 

allocated to the Subarea A (north) and 

66 percent to the Subarea B (south). 

Reallocation: On September 1, 

remaining harvest guideline is pooled 

and 50 percent of the harvest guideline 

is allocated to the Subarea A (north) and 

50 percent to the Subarea B (south). 

Second Reallocation: On November 1, 

any remaining unharvested portion of 

the harvest guideline is again pooled 

and reallocated coastwide. 

At the June 2005 Council meeting in 

Foster City, CA, the Council adopted a 

preferred option for the allocation of 

Pacific sardine that creates a seasonal, 

coastwide allocation scheme. This 

preferred alternative is a modified 

version of Alternative 3, which provides 

the following allocation formula for the 

non-tribal share of the harvest guideline: 

Coastwide Allocation In Three Periods 

Season: January 1 – December 31 

Initial allocation: On January 1, 35 

percent of the harvest guideline is 

allocated coastwide. 

Reallocation: On July 1, 40 percent of 

the harvest guideline (plus any 

unharvested portion from the initial 

allocation) is allocated coastwide. 

Second reallocation: On September 

15, 25 percent of the harvest guideline 

(plus any unharvested portion from the 

first reallocation) is reallocated 

coastwide. 

The Council also recommended a 

review of the allocation formula in 

2008. 

Classification 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

At this time, NMFS has not 

determined that Amendment 11 that 

this proposed rule would implement is 

consistent with the national standards 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act and 

other applicable laws. NMFS, in making 

that determination, will take into 

account the data, views, and comments 

received during the comment period. 

An IRFA was prepared that describes 

the economic impact this proposed rule, 

if adopted, would have on small 

entities. The IRFA is available from 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of 

the IRFA follows: 

A description of the action, why it is 

being considered, and the legal basis for 

this action are contained in the SUMMARY

and in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

sections of this proposed rule. This 

proposed rule does not duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with other Federal 

rules. There are no reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance 

requirements of the proposed rule. 

Approximately 104 vessels were 

permitted to operate in the Pacific 

sardine fisheries off the U.S. West Coast 

in 2004; 63 vessels were permitted in 

the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off 

California (south of 39° N. lat.), while 41 

vessels were permitted in Oregon and 

Washington’s state Pacific sardine 

fisheries. All of these vessels would be 

considered small businesses under the 

Small Business Administration 

standards since the vessels do not have 

annual receipts in excess of $3.5 

million. Therefore, NMFS does not 

anticipate any disproportionate 

economic impacts resulting between 

small and large vessels under the 

proposed action. Additionally, this 

proposed action is not likely to 

significantly affect (both positive and 

negative effects) these small entities. 

The purpose of the action is to achieve 

optimal utilization of the available 

harvest by all entities through an 

equitable coastwide allocation. 

Therefore vessels in all regions should 

have an equal opportunity to the 

resource. 

The fleet as it exists in present day is 

not likely to change over the 2005–2009 

period because vessels from California 

could fish in the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone off Oregon and 

Washington without a respective state 

issued limited entry permit, but would 

have to land their catches in California. 

Given the current technology and 

operational aspects of the Pacific 

sardine fishery this would not be 

practicable. Therefore, NMFS believes 

that these 63 and 41 vessels will 

comprise the respective southern and 

northern subarea fleets in the future. 

Under the preferred long-term allocation 

alternative, Pacific sardine landings for 

CPS for the entire West Coast were 

projected to increase: (1) 19,674 mt from 

the status quo over the 2005–2009 

period, with a corresponding increase in 

ex-vessel revenues of $3,076,891, under 

a 136,000–mt harvest guideline, and a 

10 percent annual growth rate in 

landings for all fishery sectors over the 

2005–2009 period (defined as base 

case); (2) no change in total landings, 

but an increase of $1,514,553 in exvessel revenues under a 72,000 mt 

harvest guideline, and a 10- percent 

annual growth rate in landings for all 

Pacific sardine fishery sectors over the 

2005–2009 period (defined as low 

harvest guideline case or); and, (3) no 

change in total landings or in total exvessel revenues under a 200,000 mt 

harvest guideline, and a 10–percent 

annual growth rate in landings for all 

fishery sectors over the 2005–2009 

period (defined as high harvest 

guideline case). 

NMFS anticipates a 10 percent annual 

growth rate per year based on input 

from the Pacific sardine industry 

members as to what the Pacific sardine 

market could accommodate. For the 

preferred alternative, Pacific sardine 

landings in the northern subarea sardine 

fishery were estimated to be 28,141 mt 

greater than the status quo with exvessel revenues increasing by $3.8 

million under the base case; a 34,592–

mt increase in landings and an increase 

of $4.7 million in ex-vessel revenue 

under the low harvest guideline case; 

and a no increase in landings or in exvessel revenue under the high harvest 

guideline case. Landings in the southern 

subarea Pacific sardine fishery would 

decrease by 8,467–mt and ex-vessel 

revenues would decrease by $743,181 

relative to the status quo under the base 

case; a decrease of 26,011 mt in landings 

and $3.2 million in ex-vessel revenues 

under the low harvest guideline case; 

and, no changes under the high harvest 

guideline case. 

For the 63 CPS limited entry vessels 

that would be eligible to participate in 

the southern subarea Pacific sardine 

fishery, the 8,467 mt loss in landings 

over the period under the base case, 

preferred alternative, represents a 

potential decrease in ex-vessel revenues 

of $11,797 per vessel from the status 

quo alternative, which would be 2.6 

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: