71450 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

The fee regulations, consequently, did 

not specifically exclude from fee 

payment and collection pink shrimp 

caught under the two Puget Sound 

shrimp licenses. The holders of the 

Puget Sound shrimp licenses did not 

vote in the groundfish program’s fee 

referendum and NMFS did not include 

the ex-vessel value of pink shrimp 

landed under the Puget Sound licenses 

in the required section 212 formula both 

for referendum vote weighting and for 

establishing the reduction loan subamounts for whose repayment the 

reduction fishery and each of the feeshare fisheries were responsible. 

The Puget Sound shrimp fisheries are 

not a fee-share fishery and section 212 

does not authorize the payment and 

collection of fees on any shrimp, 

including pink shrimp, harvested under 

the Puget Sound shrimp licenses. 

Nevertheless, the fee regulations do not 

clearly exclude pink shrimp harvested 

under the Puget Sound shrimp licenses 

because NMFS was unaware of these 

licenses’ existence until after adopting a 

final fee rule. 

Fee collection and payment began on 

September 8, 2005, and this proposed 

rule is necessary to clarify that the feeshare fishery involving Washington 

pink shrimp includes only that portion 

of the Washington pink shrimp which is 

harvested by persons to whom 

Washington issued ocean pink shrimp 

licenses. 

Classification 

The Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has determined 

that this proposed rule is consistent 

with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 

other applicable laws. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

NMFS has certified to the Small 

Business Administration, under Section 

605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

that this proposed rule would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

There are currently six trawl fishing 

licenses in the Puget Sound within the 

Washington State shrimp fishery and 

115 trawl fishing licenses total within 

the Washington State Ocean pink 

shrimp fishery according to the 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. This regulation would apply to 

all 121 trawl fishing licenses issued in 

the Washington State shrimp fishery, 

although it will only directly affect the 

6 Washington State Puget Sound shrimp 

license holders. 

This proposed rule seeks to revise the 

regulations to expressly exclude the 

holders of the Puget Sound shrimp 

licenses from the groundfish program’s 

fee collection system. The holders of the 

Puget Sound shrimp licenses did not 

vote in the groundfish program’s fee 

referendum and NMFS did not include 

the ex-vessel value of pink shrimp 

landed under the Puget Sound licenses 

both for referendum vote weighting and 

for establishing the reduction loan subamounts for whose repayment the 

reduction fishery and each of the feeshare fisheries were responsible. The 

Puget Sound shrimp fisheries are not a 

fee-share fishery and the statute that 

created the program does not authorize 

the payment and collection of fees on 

any shrimp, including pink shrimp, 

harvested under the Puget Sound 

shrimp licenses. 

The change to the regulations will 

have a de minimis impact on those 

remaining in the fishery because the 

total payments from the non-fee-share 

fisheries are minor. The total fee to be 

collected for any given year is 

calculated based on a formula using 

projected landings, the interest rate, and 

the amortization schedule, and it is 

calculated in advance for the entire 

year. In determining the annual fee, the 

contributions from holders of the Puget 

Sound shrimp licenses were not 

considered in the calculation. The 

collection of fees from holders of the 

Puget Sound shrimp licenses would 

result in the repayment of fees above 

what was expected for this year. As a 

result of the additional revenue, the 

buyback loan would be repaid slightly 

earlier than expected and would result 

in a slight decrease in the overall 

amount of interest accrued on the loan. 

Removal of the holders of the Puget 

Sound shrimp licenses would only 

slightly negatively impact the remaining 

pink shrimp licence holders because the 

contributions from the non-fee-share 

fisheries are small compared to the 

overall reduction loan amount. The 

contributions from the holders of Puget 

Sound shrimp licences represents only 

5 percent of the total reduction loan 

amount. Although the impact of this 

rule is small, this proposed rule is 

necessary to ensure that holders of the 

Puget Sound shrimp licenses are 

excluded from the requirement to pay 

fees on pink shrimp landings. These six 

license holders would be positively 

affected by this proposed rule through 

their exemption from a fee they were 

not intended to have to pay. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600 

Fisheries, Fishing capacity reduction, 

Fishing permits, Fishing vessels. 

Dated: November 23, 2005. 

John Oliver, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Operations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 600 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS 

ACT PROVISIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 600 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart M—Specific Fishery or 

Program Fishing Capacity Reduction 

Regulations 

2. In § 600.1102, the definition of 

‘‘Fee-share fishery’’ in paragraph (b) is 

revised, and paragraphs (d)(2)(vi) and 

(i)(1)(vi) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.1102 Pacific Coast groundfish fee. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Fee-share fishery means each of the 

fisheries for coastal Dungeness crab and 

pink shrimp in each of the states of 

California and Oregon and the fishery 

for coastal Dungeness crab and ocean 

pink shrimp in the State of Washington. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(vi) Washington ocean pink shrimp 

fee-share fishery, $259,400. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vi) All fee collections from the 

Washington ocean pink shrimp feeshare fishery shall be accounted for in 

a Washington ocean shrimp fee-share 

fishery subaccount, and 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–23464 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 051116304–5304–01; I.D. 

110805A] 

RIN 0648–AT92 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Total Allowable Catch 

Amount for ‘‘Other Species’’ in the 

Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of 

Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71451 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule 

that would implement Amendment 69 

to the Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). 

Amendment 69, if approved, 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). 

The FMP amendment would allow the 

TAC amount for the ‘‘other species’’

complex to be set less than or equal to 

5 percent of the sum of groundfish 

targets species in the GOA. This 

proposed rule would revise the 

maximum retainable amount (MRA) of 

‘‘other species’’ in the directed 

arrowtooth flounder fishery from 0 to 20 

percent. 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 MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act), the FMP, and other applicable 

laws. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

January 13, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Lori Durall. Comments may be 

submitted by: 

• E-mail: 0648–AT92–PRGOA69@noaa.gov. Include in the 

subject line the following document 

identifier: GOA 69 PR. E-mail 

comments, with or without attachments, 

are limited to 5 megabytes. 

• Webform at the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions at that site 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) 

prepared for the amendment may be 

obtained from the same address or from 

the NMFS Alaska Region website at 

www.fakr.noaa.gov. The FMP is 

available from www.fakr.noaa.gov/ 

npfmc/fmp/goa/goa.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Pearson, 907–481–1780 or 

tom.pearson@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

groundfish fisheries in the exclusive 

economic zone of the GOA are managed 

under the FMP. The North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

prepared the FMP under the authority of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 

1801, et seq. Regulations implementing 

the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. 

General regulations governing U.S. 

fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600. 

The Council has submitted 

Amendment 69 for review by the 

Secretary of Commerce, and a Notice of 

Availability of the FMP amendment was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 16, 2005 (FR citation), with 

comments on the FMP amendment 

invited through January 17, 2006. 

Comments may address the FMP 

amendment, the proposed rule, or both, 

but must be received by January 17, 

2006, to be considered in the approval/ 

disapproval decision on the FMP 

amendment. All comments received by 

that time, whether specifically directed 

to the FMP amendment or to the 

proposed rule, will be considered in the 

approval/disapproval decision on the 

FMP amendment. 

Background 

Designation and management of the 

‘‘other species’’ complex have evolved 

through a series of amendments to the 

GOA FMP. The following section 

provides an overview of how the 

complex has been managed historically 

under the FMP, and the amendments 

that have modified the complex and its 

management. 

The original FMP, implemented in 

1978, identified three separate species 

categories: (1) prohibited species; (2) 

specific species or species complexes; 

and (3) ‘‘other species.’’ Under the 

original FMP, ‘‘other species’’ had a 

Maximum Sustained Yield/Optimum 

Yield (MSY/OY) of 16,200 mt based 

upon historic foreign catch. 

Amendment 5 to the FMP removed 

grenadiers from the ‘‘other species’’

complex and established them as their 

own category with a separate MSY/OY 

of 13,200 mt based upon the recorded 

average grenadier catch from 1967–

1979. Grenadiers were removed from 

the ‘‘other species’’ complex due to 

concerns that catches of grenadiers 

(specifically unforeseen incidental 

catches in the hook-and-line sablefish 

fishery) would exceed the MSY/OY for 

the ‘‘other species’’ complex and close 

directed fishing for target species. 

Because the population of grenadiers 

was not included in the development of 

the OY for ‘‘other species’’, the MSY/OY 

for the ‘‘other species’’ complex 

remained unchanged following the 

removal of grenadiers. 

Amendment 8 to the FMP was 

implemented in 1980 (45 FR 73486, 

November 5, 1980). Under this 

amendment, the grenadiers category was 

renamed non-specified species. All 

species caught that were not classified 

as target, prohibited or ‘‘other species’’

were reported to the non-specified 

category. Amendment 8 was intended to 

alleviate operational problems from 

fishermen reporting non-specified 

species in the ‘‘other species’’ complex. 

‘‘Other species’’ were defined 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 OY for the ‘‘other 

species’’ complex was established as 5 

percent of the OYs for all target species. 

The ‘‘other species’’ complex included 

sculpins, sharks, skates, eulachon, 

smelts, capelin, and octopi. Squids were 

managed as a separate target fishery 

with a separate MSY and OY. Under 

Amendment 8, the OY for the ‘‘other 

species’’ complex was modified to be 

managed Gulf-wide, rather than 

allocated by management area. 

Amendment 14 to the FMP was 

implemented November 18, 1985 (50 FR 

43193). This amendment set the OY for 

the ‘‘other species’’ complex to 22,460 

mt. Two years later, the FMP was 

amended by Amendment 15 (52 FR 

7868, March 13, 1987 such that the TAC 

calculation for the ‘‘other species’’

complex was equal to 5 percent of the 

total TACs for all GOA target groundfish 

species. This percentage was consistent 

with previous approaches for setting OY 

for the ‘‘other species’’ complex, and 

was determined to be ample to provide 

for the anticipated incidental catch of 

those species. 

Amendment 16 moved squids into the 

‘‘other species’’ complex from the target 

species category (53 FR 7756, March 10, 

1988). Atka mackerel was combined 

into the ‘‘other species’’ complex due to 

low abundance, and the absence of a 

directed fishery for several years. High 

landings in 1992 and a directed fishery 

in 1993 demonstrated Atka mackerel 

was a target species. Amendment 31 

moved Atka mackerel from the ‘‘other 

species’’ complex and established it as 

a target species (58 FR 54553, October 

22, 1993). 

Amendment 39 defined a forage fish 

category in the FMP (63 FR 13798, 

March 23, 1998). Important prey species 

were included in this category. 

Regulations promulgated under 

71452 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Amendment 39 prohibited directed 

fishing and commercial processing of 

forage fish. Retention, sale, barter, trade, 

or other commercial exchange were 

limited. Eulachon, capelin, and smelts 

were moved from the ‘‘other species’’

complex to the forage fish category. The 

full list of species included in the forage 

fish category is in the FMP (see 

ADDRESSES). 

In 2003, as a skate directed fishery 

expanded, conservation concerns 

developed. As long as skates remained 

a part of the ‘‘other species’’ complex, 

NMFS could not manage skates as a 

distinct target category. Skate catch was 

limited only by the ‘‘other species’’

complex TAC minus catch of the 

remaining species in the 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). 

Currently, overfishing levels, acceptable 

biological catches, and TACs are 

specified for big skates, longnose skates, 

and the remaining skates in the 

Bathyraja sp. (or other skate) complex. 

This amendment allowed for an 

appropriate sized directed fishery for 

skates based on the best available 

information on the stock, ensuring skate 

sustainability. 

The ‘‘other species’’ complex 

currently contains the following species 

groups: squids, sculpins, sharks, and 

octopi. The ‘‘other species’’ complex is 

open to directed fishing up to the TAC 

level for the complex, after allowing for 

incidental catch needs in other 

groundfish fisheries. The current 

requirement to set the ‘‘other species’’

complex TAC to 5 percent of the 

combined groundfish TACs could 

present conservation issues. Removing 

species from the ‘‘other species’’

complex has two effects. First, the 

number of target categories are 

increased. More target categories may 

increase the combined TAC in the GOA. 

If the combined TAC is larger, the TAC 

for the ‘‘other species’’ complex will be 

larger because the ‘‘other species’’ TAC 

is equal to exactly 5 percent of the 

combined TAC. Second, the number of 

species in the ‘‘other species’’ complex 

is reduced. Fewer species in the 

complex and the larger TAC increase 

the chance that one or more species 

groups in the complex may experience 

excessive harvest, including up to the 

entire TAC for the ‘‘other species’’

complex. The current process for 

calculating the ‘‘other species’’ TAC 

provides no flexibility. NMFS cannot 

establish the TAC for the ‘‘other 

species’’ complex at an amount lower 

than 5 percent, if the best available 

information indicates a lower amount is 

the most prudent action. 

Retention of squids has increased by 

13 times between 2003 and 2005. 

During 2005, shoreside processors were 

offering increased prices for spiny 

dogfish sharks. As indicated by skates, 

markets can develop quickly for species 

previously thought of as having little 

value. In order to quickly respond to 

developing fisheries in the ‘‘other 

species’’ complex, NMFS would need 

the flexibility to establish the ‘‘other 

species’’ complex TAC at a value less 

than 5 percent of the combined GOA 

species TACs. Setting the ‘‘other 

species’’ complex TAC to less than 5 

percent of the combined GOA species 

TACs could prevent catch of one or 

more groups in the complex from 

disproportionately dominating the 

entire ‘‘other species’’ complex catch. 

NMFS would be able to allow for a 

developing fishery on a group in the 

‘‘other species’’ complex while limiting 

the potential for excessive catch. The 

increased incidental catch of squids and 

the potential developing market for 

spiny dogfish sharks indicate that this 

proposed action is necessary and timely 

to allow for the ‘‘other species’’ complex 

TAC to be set at a level appropriate for 

sustainable harvest of sharks, squids, 

sculpins, and octopi groups. 

Amendment 69 would allow for 

sustainable management of any fishery 

targeting one or more species groups 

within the ‘‘other species’’ complex. As 

part of the annual groundfish harvest 

specifications process, Amendment 69 

to the FMP would allow a TAC amount 

for ‘‘other species’’ to be set less than or 

equal to 5 percent of the sum of TACs 

of the target species in the GOA. The 

‘‘other species’’ complex TAC could be 

set at an amount estimated to be 

sufficient to meet the annual incidental 

catch needs in other groundfish 

fisheries and could allow for directed 

fishing for ‘‘other species’’ to occur at 

sustainable levels. It is not necessary to 

amend existing regulations to 

implement the change in the ‘‘other 

species’’ complex TAC calculation. This 

calculation is described only in the FMP 

text and is not specified in the harvest 

specifications regulations at § 679.20. 

Because the ‘‘other species’’ TAC 

calculation is specified only in the FMP, 

no regulatory amendment is required to 

change the method of calculating the 

‘‘other species’’ TAC. However, it is 

necessary to amend the harvest 

specification regulations in order to 

ensure conservation and management of 

‘‘other species’’ incidental catch in 

groundfish fisheries, as described 

below. 

Proposed Regulatory Amendment 

To manage the incidental harvest of 

the ‘‘other species’’ complex with the 

implementation of Amendment 69, this 

proposed action would revise Table 10 

of 50 CFR part 679 to raise the MRA for 

the ‘‘other species’’ complex from 0 to 

20 percent in the arrowtooth flounder 

fishery in the GOA. This revision is 

necessary to properly manage the 

retention of ‘‘other species’’ in the 

arrowtooth flounder fishery and to 

potentially reduce the amount of 

discards of fish in the ‘‘other species’’

complex. 

This action is intended to meet the 

conservation objectives of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act to reduce the 

potential for overfishing the species 

groups in the ‘‘other species’’ complex 

and to efficiently use fishery resources 

by reducing potential discards. This 

action would be an interim step towards 

the Council’s development of a more 

comprehensive approach towards the 

management of ‘‘other species.’’

Classification 

NMFS has not yet determined 

whether the amendment that this 

proposed rule would implement is 

consistent with the national standards 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws. In making that 

determination, NMFS will take into 

account the data, views, and comments 

received during the comment period. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

NMFS prepared an IRFA which 

describes any adverse impacts this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would have 

on directly regulated small entities. 

Because this action is closely linked to 

the annual harvest specifications, the 

EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES) prepared 

for this action also analyzes the action 

to establish annual harvest 

specifications for the ‘‘other species’’

complex in the GOA. The IRFA analyses 

two FMP alternatives to revise the 

manner in which the annual TAC for 

the ‘‘other species’’ in the GOA is 

established, along with the status quo or 

no action alternative. In addition, two 

suboptions to revise the MRAs for 

‘‘other species’’ in the groundfish 

fisheries in the GOA are analyzed along 

with the status quo, or no action 

suboption. A summary of the IRFA for 

this action follows: 

The proposed action for Amendment 

69 revises the manner in which the 

annual TAC for the ‘‘other species’’

complex in the GOA is established and 

raises the MRA for ‘‘other species’’ from 

0 to 20 percent in the arrowtooth 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71453 

flounder fishery. As part of its annual 

groundfish harvest specification 

process, the Council would recommend 

a TAC amount for the ‘‘other species’’

complex at less than or equal to 5 

percent of the sum of the groundfish 

TAC amounts. The objective of this 

action is to give the Council greater 

flexibility in recommending a TAC 

amount for ‘‘other species’’ in order to 

better protect individual species in the 

‘‘other species’’ complex from 

overfishing and to make a sustainable 

fishery for the ‘‘other species’’ complex 

more likely. 

The legal basis for this action is found 

in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and in the 

GOA groundfish FMP promulgated 

pursuant to that act. 

The IRFA for this action ascertained 

that in 2003, 803 small catcher vessels 

and 13 small catcher processors might 

be directly regulated by this action. 

Most of these (655 catcher vessels and 

9 small catcher processors) were hookand-line vessels. In addition, 137 

catcher vessels and 1 catcher processor 

used pot gear, and 93 small catcher 

vessels and 3 small catcher processors 

used trawl gear. All these vessels are 

considered ‘‘small entities’’ as defined 

by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In 

2003, these vessels had average 

revenues of $190,000 from the federally 

managed groundfish fisheries. Average 

revenues were $170,000 for catcher 

vessels and $1,530,000 for catcher 

processors. 

This action would allow the TAC for 

‘‘other species’’ to be set at less than 5 

percent of the sum of other groundfish 

TACs, thereby limiting potential future 

harvests of ‘‘other species’’ and gross 

revenues from these harvests in the 

short run. In the long run, however, the 

biomass of ‘‘other species’’ would be 

given additional protection. Actual 

impacts to small entities would depend 

on the actual TAC amount 

recommended for ‘‘other species’’ by the 

Council and approved by NMFS. These 

impacts would be assessed in the IRFA 

for the TAC specification action. 

Nothing in the proposed action would 

result in changes in reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements. 

The analysis did not reveal any 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed action. 

The IRFA evaluated a no-action 

alternative, the preferred alternative and 

an alternative that would allow for only 

incidental catch of ‘‘other species.’’

Under the no-action alternative, the 

TAC for the ‘‘other species’’ complex 

would remain at 5 percent of the sum 

of other groundfish TACs. The ‘‘other 

species’’ complex 2006 TAC is 13,525 

mt (70 FR 8958, February 24, 2005). If 

this amount were harvested by targeting 

a single species in the ‘‘other species’’

complex it could drive down that 

species biomass and reduce its 

reproductive potential. While revenues 

from the fishery would be higher in the 

short run, they would be lower in the 

longer run. Thus, while this alternative 

may have imposed fewer short run 

restrictions on small fishing operations, 

it did not meet the objectives of 

providing protection to individual 

species within the ‘‘other species’’

complex in the GOA and thereby 

protecting the future of a sustainable 

fishery. The incidental catch only 

alternative would not allow the Council 

to provide for a directed fishery for 

‘‘other species.’’ This alternative would 

prevent the Council’s use of the best 

available information in determining the 

appropriate management for ‘‘other 

species.’’ For example, if the best 

available information indicated that a 

directed fishery for ‘‘other species’’

could occur without harming its future 

sustainability, then achieving its 

optimum yield would be prevented by 

this alternative. The preferred 

alternative, however, would allow the 

Council to decide whether to allow for 

a target fishery or for only incidental 

catch based on the latest stock 

assessment information. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 

Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

Dated: November 22, 2005. 

William T. Hogarth, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

For reasons set out in the preamble, 

50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 

ALASKA 

1. The authority citation for part 679 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1540(f); 

1801 et seq.; 1851 note; 3631 et seq. 

2. Table 10 to part 679 is revised to 

read as follows: 

71454 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 


EP29NO05.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71455 


EP29NO05.006</GPH>
71456 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 


EP29NO05.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71457 


EP29NO05.008</GPH>
71458 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

[FR Doc. 05–23465 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


EP29NO05.009</GPH>