[Federal Register: May 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 92)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26320-26324]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12my04-9]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 040223064-4136-02; I.D. 020404F]
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of
Alaska; Final 2004 Harvest Specifications for Skates
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final 2004 harvest specifications for skates and associated
management measures; closures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces final 2004 harvest specifications for skates
and associated management measures for the skate fishery of the Gulf of
Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to establish harvest limits and
associated management measures for skates during the 2004 fishing year
and to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the GOA (FMP). The intended effect of this
action is to conserve and manage the skate resources in the GOA in
accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
DATES: Effective at 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), June 11,
2004, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t, December 31, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared for this action and the
Final 2003 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report, dated
November 2003, are available from NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668,
Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Durall.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Pearson, 907-481-1780 or e-mail at
tom.pearson@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background for the Final 2004 Skate Harvest Specifications
NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) of the GOA 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 governing
U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and
679.
In October 2003, the Council made final recommendations on
Amendment 63 to the FMP and submitted it for review by the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) in November 2003. The Council proposed Amendment
63 to move skates from the ``other species'' category to the target
species category in the FMP. By establishing skates as a target
species, a directed fishery for skates in the GOA could be managed to
reduce the potential of overfishing skates while providing an
opportunity for achieving a long term sustainable yield from the skate
resource in the GOA. NMFS published a Notice of Availability for
Amendment 63 on December 2, 2003 (68 FR 67390) and a proposed rule to
implement Amendment 63 on January 6, 2004 (69 FR 614). The Secretary
approved Amendment 63 on February 27, 2004.
The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS, after
consultation with the Council, to specify annually the total allowable
catch (TAC) for each target species and for the ``other species''
category, the sum of which must be within the optimum yield (OY) range
of 116,000 to 800,000 metric tons (mt) (see Sec. 679.20(a)(1)(ii)).
Regulations at Sec. 679.20(c)(3)(i) further require NMFS to publish
annually the final annual TAC. NMFS published the final 2004 groundfish
harvest specifications in the Federal Register on February 27, 2004 (69
FR 9261). The final 2004 harvest specifications for skates in the GOA
and associated management measures contained in this action amend the
final 2004 groundfish harvest specifications.
The proposed harvest specifications for skates in the GOA were
published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2004 (69 FR 10190).
Comments were invited and accepted through March 19, 2004. NMFS
received one letter of comment on the proposed specifications. This
letter of comment is summarized and responded to in this document under
the heading Response to Comments. Public consultation with the Council
occurred during its December 2003 meeting in Anchorage, AK. After
considering public comments, as well as biological and economic data
that were available at the Council's December meeting, the Council
recommended, and NMFS approved, the final 2004 harvest specifications
for skates set forth in Table 1 of this action. No changes were made
from the proposed to the final harvest specifications for skates. For
2004, the sum of skate TAC amounts is 6,993 mt.
Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) and TAC Specifications
The final ABC and TAC levels for each species group are based on
the best available biological and socioeconomic information, including
methods used to calculate stock biomass, assumed distribution of stock
biomass, and estimated incidental catch in other directed groundfish
fisheries. In December 2003, the Council, its Advisory Panel (AP), and
its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed current
biological and harvest information about the condition of groundfish
stocks in the GOA. Most of this information was compiled initially by
the Council's GOA Plan Team and is presented in the final 2003 SAFE
report for the GOA groundfish fisheries, dated November 2003. The Plan
Team annually produces such a document as the first step in the process
of specifying TACs. The SAFE report contains a review of the latest
scientific analyses and estimates of each species' biomass and other
biological parameters, as well as summaries of the available
information on the GOA ecosystem and the economic condition of the
groundfish fisheries off Alaska. From these data and analyses, the Plan
Team estimates an ABC for each species category.
The Plan Team recommended a single gulfwide overfishing level (OFL)
for all skate species, a single gulfwide ABC for ``other skates''
(Genus Bathyraja), and ABCs for Big and Longnose skates (Raja
binoculata and Raja rhina, respectively) combined in the Western,
Central, and Eastern Regulatory Areas of the GOA. Additionally, the
Plan Team recommended that the TAC for Big and Longnose skates in the
Central Regulatory Area not exceed the calculated OFL for Big skates in
that area (3,284 mt). The SSC concurred with the Plan Team's
recommendation for a single gulfwide OFL for all skate species but
recommended a separate ABC for Big and Longnose skates only in the
Central Regulatory Area. The SSC believes that this breakout would be a
better method to address the immediate management concerns in the
Central Regulatory Area given the current data limitations, which
include a lack of skate species composition data in the retained and
discarded catch in previous years. The AP and Council concurred with
the SSC's ABC recommendations which are presented in Table 1. The AP
and the Council concurred with the Plan Team's TAC recommendation of
3,284 mt for Big and Longnose skates combined in the Central Regulatory
Area. The AP and
[[Page 26321]]
Council recommended that the TAC for all skates, excluding Big and
Longnose skates in the Central Regulatory Area, be set at the ABC level
of 3,709 mt. These amounts are presented in Table 1.
Table 1.--Final 2004 ABCs, TACs, and OFL for Skates in the Western (W), Central (C), Eastern (E), and Gulfwide
(GW) Areas of the Gulf of Alaska. (Values are in metric tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species/Area ABC TAC Overfishing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big and Longnose skate\1\/W and E and 3,709...................... 3,709...................... ...........
``Other'' skates\2\/GW..................
Big and Longnose skate/C................. 4,435...................... 3,284...................... ...........
Total/GW................................. 8,144...................... 6,993...................... 10,859
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Big skate means Raja binoculata and Longnose skate means Raja rhina.
\2\ ``Other'' skates means Bathyraja spp.
With respect to the final 2004 harvest specifications for the
groundfish fishery of the GOA, published on February 27, 2004 (69 FR
9261), this action would: (1) raise the gulfwide total OFL levels by
10,859 mt, from 649,460 mt to 660,319 mt, (2) raise the gulfwide total
ABC levels by 8,144 mt, from 498,948 mt to 507,092 mt, (3) raise the
``other species'' TAC by 350 mt (5 percent of 6,993 mt), from 12,592 mt
to 12,942 mt, (4) raise the gulfwide total TAC levels by 7,343 mt
(6,993 mt + 350 mt), from 264,433 mt to 271,776 mt, which is within the
required OY range of 116,000 mt to 800,000 mt, and (5) raise the non-
exempt AFA catcher vessel ``other species'' sideboard limitation
gulfwide total by 3 mt, from 113 mt to 116 mt.
Additional Management Measures
NMFS is adopting 4 management measures for skates that currently
apply to ``other species.'' First, NMFS published a proposed rule
implementing Amendment 63 to the FMP on January 6, 2004 (69 FR 614)
which proposed to establish the maximum retainable amount of incidental
catch for skates equal to that for ``other species'' (Table 10 to part
679--Gulf of Alaska Retainable Percentages). These management measures
will be implemented by the final rule for Amendment 63, which will be
published separately in the Federal Register in the near future. The
other management measures were published in the proposed specifications
for skates on March 4, 2004 (69 FR 10190).
Second, halibut bycatch mortality in the directed trawl fishery
targeting skates will accrue to PSC limits established for the shallow-
water complex, and bycatch mortality in the directed hook-and-line
fishery targeting skates will accrue to the limits established for
hook-and-line gear other than demersal shelf rockfish.
Third, the halibut discard mortality rates will be based on those
for ``other species'' i.e., 13 percent for hook-and-line gear, 61
percent for trawl gear, and 17 percent for pot gear.
Finally, the sideboard limitations for non-exempt AFA catcher
vessels for skates gulfwide will be based on the ratio of 1995-1997
non-exempt AFA catcher vessel catch of ``other species'' to 1995-1997
``other species'' TAC, which is 0.9 percent. These amounts are 33 mt
(3,709 mt x 0.009) for all skates gulfwide, except Big and Longnose
skates in the Central Regulatory Area, and 30 mt (3,284 mt x 0.009) for
Big and Longnose skates in the Central Regulatory Area. Based on these
sideboard limitations, and in accordance with Sec. 679.20(d)(1)(iii),
NMFS has established a directed fishing allowance of 0 mt for these
targets. Therefore, NMFS is closing directed fishing for all skates
gulfwide for the duration of the 2004 fishing year by non-exempt AFA
catcher vessels.
Response to Comments
NMFS received one letter of comment in response to the proposed
2004 harvest specifications for skates in the GOA (69 FR 10190, March
4, 2004) and the Environmental Assessment/Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (EA/IRFA) for a Revision to the Skate Harvest
Specifications for the Year 2004, implemented under the authority of
the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. The
letter contained four separate comments concerning the proposed 2004
harvest specifications for skates and their effect on the ``other
species'' category TAC in the GOA that are summarized and responded to
below. The letter also incorporated by reference comments that were
submitted on the notice of availability for Amendment 63 (68 FR 67390,
December 2, 2003). Those comments are summarized and responded to in
the final rule implementing Amendment 63.
Comment 1. Due to the sensitive life history of skates (slow
growth, late maturity, long life, and low fecundity) NMFS should adopt
an exceptionally cautious management approach as frameworked in Option
3 (with suboption 1) analyzed in the EA/IRFA. The proposed 2004 skates
harvest specifications are risk-prone and fail to prevent directed
fishing for skates, fail to prevent localized depletion (especially of
Big and Longnose skates), and fail to prevent the skate stocks from
being depleted to levels considered near extinction.
Response. Option 3 was analyzed in the EA prepared for this action
and considered by the GOA Plan Team, the Council, and its SSC, and AP.
Option 3 would create separate OFLs, ABCs, and TACs for three skate
targets (Big skates, Longnose skates, and other skates) in three
separate management areas (Eastern, Central, and Western) in the GOA.
Of all the options considered, the EA acknowledged that Option 3 would
provide the most protection for skates in the GOA. Pacific ocean perch
(POP) in the GOA is managed in this manner. The rationale for the
management of POP in this manner is that they are long lived, slow to
mature, and could be subject to localized depletion. These observations
are just as relevant for skates. However, no evidence is available to
show that localized depletion of any skate species has occurred or is
occurring. The estimated skate biomass, based on NMFS trawl surveys,
has increased from 13,575 mt in 1984 to 25,953 mt in 2003 in the
Eastern GOA, from 23,534 mt in 1984 to 75,628 mt in 2003 in the Central
Regulatory Area, and from 4,067 mt in 1984 to 15,089 mt in 2003 in the
Western Regulatory Area. However, given the sensitive life history of
skates, Option 3 is a viable management option and should continue to
be considered in the future as more information on the biology and
condition of the skate stocks becomes available or if directed
fisheries for skates in other areas begin to be developed in the
future.
Based on the lack of information available regarding skates, the
SSC recommended that a single gulfwide
[[Page 26322]]
OFL be established for skates in 2004, and that a single ABC should be
established for skates gulfwide with the exception of Big and Longnose
skates in the Central Regulatory Area. The SSC noted that Big and
Longnose skates in the Central Regulatory Area require additional
protection at this time, since the 2003 directed fishery for skates
preferentially targeted these two species and fishing effort was
concentrated in the Central Regulatory Area. The Council and its
committees also sought to avoid having to establish finely divided
target fisheries with small regional quotas, which if unexpectedly
reached, could have detrimental impacts on other more fully developed
fisheries. The Plan Team recognized that landings of skates in the
Central Regulatory Area were comprised mostly of Big skates and made a
TAC recommendation for Big and Longnose skates in the Central
Regulatory Area (3,284 mt) below the ABC level (4,435 mt) to prevent
reaching the OFL for Big skates in this area. The AP and Council
concurred with this recommendation, and it is incorporated into the
final 2004 skate harvest specifications for the GOA.
Each option for the management of skates analyzed in the EA
prepared for this action considered two suboptions. Suboption 1 would
set TACs at the ABC level or a lower level sufficient to meet
anticipated incidental catch needs in other directed fisheries during
the fishing year. Suboption 1 would have the effect of prohibiting
directed fishing for skates throughout the year. Suboption 2 would set
TACs at ABC levels, allowing the Regional Administrator, after
deducting anticipated incidental catch needs, to establish a directed
fishing allowance for skates. The Council recommended Suboption 2. In
either case, the retention of skates would be prohibited once TAC
levels are reached. The Council's recommended TACs would allow for a
modest directed fishery of about 1,000 mt in each of two specified
skate fisheries. When this directed fishing allowance is reached,
skates would be placed on bycatch status and directed fishing would be
prohibited. The Council recommended, and NMFS is establishing, TACs for
skates (totaling 6,993 mt) that are below ABC levels (totaling 8,144
mt) and substantially below the 2003 TAC for ``other species'' (11,260
mt) in the GOA.
These skate specifications do not constitute a risk-prone
management approach. OFL and ABC levels are calculated using a risk-
adverse tier 5 assessment where the OFL is set at the level estimated
to be the natural mortality rate multiplied by the biomass estimate of
skates. The ABC is set at 75 percent of that amount. The directed
fishing allowances are set at conservative levels which include for the
first time, estimates of incidental catch in the halibut fishery.
Finally, NMFS assumes that the mortality of all groundfish, including
skates, discarded at sea is 100 percent. This is a conservation
assumption because skates are robust fish, with mortality rates that
could be similar to or better than those of halibut released at sea in
similar conditions. In the unlikely event that the entire TAC for
skates were harvested, the conservative basis for setting the TACs
would prevent the skate stocks from being depleted to levels considered
near extinction.
Comment 2. We are concerned that once the TAC for Big and Longnose
skates is reached in the Central GOA, fishing effort may shift and over
exploit these and other skate species in other regions.
Response. Because the skate TACs are set conservatively, over
exploitation of skate stocks is unlikely. Almost two thirds of the
skate TACs have been reserved for incidental catch in other fisheries,
including for the first time, the halibut fishery. Over the past 15
years, total skate catch has varied from 1 mt to 110 mt annually in the
Eastern GOA and from 0 mt to 263 mt in the Western GOA. At this time no
processors purchase skates in either the Eastern or Western GOA. The
vessels currently participating in the skate fishery are mostly small
hook-and-line vessels for which travel back and forth to fishing
grounds in other management areas would not be feasible. The
implementation of these specifications will reduce the total catch of
skates during 2004 in the GOA compared to 2003 levels.
Comment 3. We are concerned that this action will raise the TAC for
the ``other species'' category by 350 mt, rather than lowering it as we
strongly advocate. This action will increase the allowable catches for
such vulnerable species as sharks in the ``other species'' category.
Response. NMFS does not set ABCs for separate species in the
``other species'' category as stock assessments are not prepared for
these species. Rather, the FMP set the TAC for the ``other
species''category at 5 percent of the total sum of TACs of groundfish
for which stock assessments have been prepared. The suggested change to
lower the ``other species'' TAC will require an FMP amendment. At this
time, species in the ``other species'' category are not targeted in the
GOA and the catch of these species is incidental to directed fisheries
targeting other species. While this action does raise the TAC for
``other species'' by 350 mt, this action will not necessarily result in
an increased catch of ``other species'' in the GOA because these
species are not presently targeted by any fishery in the GOA.
In instances where directed fisheries have developed rapidly for
species in the ``other species'' category, the Council has recommended,
and NMFS has implemented, FMP amendments to remove those targeted
species from the ``other species'' category so that they can be managed
separately. This was the case in 1992, when the Council recommended,
and NMFS implemented, Amendment 31 which removed Atka mackerel from the
``other species'' category, and more recently, when the Council
recommended Amendment 63 in 2003 which removed skates from the ``other
species'' category. If a single species, such as sharks, in the ``other
species'' category was targeted to the exclusion of other species in
the category at levels up to the ``other species'' TAC, then such
harvest levels probably would be unsustainable and detrimental to the
targeted fish stock and the Council and NMFS likely would act to manage
such harvests at sustainable levels.
Rather than approach concerns about ``other species'' in a
piecemeal fashion, the Council is developing an FMP amendment with a
more comprehensive approach toward the management of nontarget species.
An ad hoc committee has suggested that one management approach could be
to place the newly formed nontarget species category on bycatch status
year round and prohibit directed fishing for these species until an
adequate stock assessment for the species could be prepared that
demonstrated what (if any) directed fishing activities would be
sustainable. Species that could be considered for inclusion in the
nontarget species categories are: (1) all the species currently in the
``other species'' category, such as sharks, (2) species for which stock
assessments are currently poor, such as Atka mackerel in the GOA, (3)
species that are a very minor component of a larger category, such as
deep water sole in the deep water flatfish category, (4) species that
are uncommon in the GOA or at the edge of their geographic range, such
as several species in the other slope rockfish category, (5) all forage
fish, and (6) nonspecified species such as grenadiers, wrymouths,
prowfish, etc.
Comment 4. If a reduction of the ``other species'' TAC is not
possible under the current FMP, we strongly urge
[[Page 26323]]
NMFS not to implement Amendment 63 and to prohibit directed fishing for
skates until harvests of both skates and ``other species'' combined
will not exceed the catch of ``other species'' in 2003.
Response. Failure to implement Amendment 63 and these 2004 harvest
specifications for skates would mean that conservation and management
measures needed for skates would not be available. No additional
protection would be provided for ``other species'' because the TAC for
``other species'' is not reached. With the implementation of these
harvest specifications for skates in 2004, the total, combined catch of
skates and ``other species'' in 2004 likely will be lower than the 2003
``other species'' catch. A significant increase or decrease in the
incidental catch of the species remaining in the ``other species''
category is not likely. Also, the 2004 management measures include
setting the skate directed fishing allowances at lower levels than the
skate directed fishing catch in 2003. Therefore, a reduction in the
total catch of skates (including Big and Longnose skates in the Central
GOA) is likely in 2004, compared to 2003.
Not implementing Amendment 63 would place skate species at risk of
overfishing. The implementation of Amendment 63 will improve the
protection for skates, and will not adversely impact the species in the
``other species'' category because of the lack of interest in a
directed fishery on these species. NMFS will carefully monitor the
harvest of ``other species'' to determine if a directed fishery
develops on any of the species in this complex and to determine what
appropriate steps may be needed to prevent overfishing.
Classification
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator),
has determined that this final specification is necessary for the
conservation and management of the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and
GOA. The Regional Administrator also has determined that this final
specification is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other
applicable laws. No relevant Federal rules exist that may duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this action.
A FRFA was prepared for the final 2004 harvest specifications for
skates to address the statutory requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Act of 1996.
Issues Raised by Public Comments on the IRFA
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on March 4,
2004 (69 FR 10190). An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
was prepared for the proposed rule, and described in the Classification
section of the preamble to that rule. The public comment period ended
on March 19, 2004. No comments were received on the IRFA or regarding
the economic impact of this rule.
Number and Description of Small Entities Affected by the Rule
The entities directly regulated by this action, if adopted, would
be the fishing operations harvesting species in the ``other species''
complex in the GOA, using hook-and-line or trawl gear. These vessels
may be targeting skates (the only species in the ``other species''
category currently fished as a target), or they may be harvesting
skates and other species in the ``other species'' category incidental
to other targeted fishing operations (e.g., fishing for Pacific cod or
shallow-water flatfish). Since any hook-and-line or trawl operation in
the GOA may harvest the ``other species'' complex, the universe of
potentially affected operations includes all GOA hook-and-line and
trawl vessels. Pot gear is not an effective gear for targeting skates
because regulations limit the size of tunnel openings to no more than
36 inches (91 cm) in circumference.
In 2001, the universe of potentially affected vessels included 670
hook-and-line vessels and 138 trawlers. Of these, 650 were small hook-
and-line catcher vessels, 15 were small hook-and-line catcher/
processors, 120 were small trawl catcher vessels, and 4 were small
trawl catcher/processors. This size determination is based on operation
revenues from groundfish fishing in Alaska. Moreover, the data are not
available to take account of affiliations between fishing operations
and associated processors, or other associated fishing operations. For
these reasons, these counts may overstate the numbers of small entities
potentially directly regulated by the proposed action. Average Alaska
groundfish revenues, in 2001, for these small entities were $100,000
for hook-and-line catcher vessels, $1.82 million for hook-and-line
catcher/processors, $370,000 for trawl catcher vessels, and $1.80
million for trawl catcher/processors. The directed skate fishery
emerged in 2003; 77 hook-and-line catcher vessels, 53 trawl catcher
vessels, 13 hook-and-line catcher/processors, and 10 trawl catcher/
processors, took part in the fishery in 2003, producing an estimated
ex-vessel gross revenue of about $1.7 million. This suggests average
revenues for these vessels were about $11,000.
Description of Other Alternatives Analyzed
Alternative 1 creates a single GOA-wide OFL and ABC for all skate
species. This alternative fails to protect the stocks. It provides no
protection against localized depletion or against selective fishing for
larger skates. The National Environmental Policy Act analysis
determined that this alternative had a ``significantly adverse''
environmental impact.
Alternative 2 creates three GOA-wide OFLs for skate species or
species groups (Big skates, Longnose skates, and Other skates) and
three GOA-wide ABCs for the same species or species groups. This
alternative did not provide protection against spatial depletion of
skate stocks, particularly those in the Central GOA.
Alternative 3 creates a separate OFL and a separate ABC for each of
the species and species groups defined under Option 2, in the Western,
Central and Eastern management areas. This alternative provided the
greatest level of protection for skate stocks, however, the
multiplicity of relatively small OFLs under this alternative created
the greatest potential for the closure of a fishery harvesting skates
incidentally while targeting another species.
Alternative 4 combines the Big skate and Longnose skate management
area-specific OFLs and ABCs of Alternative 3, with the GOA-wide OFL and
ABC for Other skates in Alternative 2. It therefore falls between these
in terms of its adverse impacts on small entities. This alternative
aggregates the ``Other skates'' OFLs across all three areas, but
retains separate Big and Longnose skate OFLs in each of the three
management areas (a total of six OFLs). These separate OFLs were a
source of concern to industry.
Alternative 5 creates a GOA-wide OFL for all species combined. ABCs
would be established in each management area in the GOA for a Big/
Longnose skate grouping. A GOA-wide ABC would be established for
``Other'' skates. In the Central GOA a TAC would be established for
combined Big and Longnose skate catch. This TAC will equal 10 percent
of the estimated biomass of Big skates in the Central Area (this would
have been the OFL for Big skates in this area if such an OFL had been
promulgated). This option was meant to be in place for one year, and to
be reviewed at the end of 2004, in light of species-specific harvest
data to be collected in 2004. This alternative
[[Page 26324]]
was explicitly crafted to protect skate stocks while imposing a
relatively small burden on fishing operations. While it is less
burdensome on small operations than Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, it has
more separate TACs and ABCs than Alternative 6, the preferred
alternative.
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The action does not impose new recordkeeping or reporting
requirements on small entities. The analysis did not reveal any Federal
rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed action.
This action is authorized under 50 CFR 679.20 and is exempt from
review under Executive Order 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et
seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1540(f); Pub. L. 105 277, Title II of Division C;
Pub L. 106 31, Sec. 3027; and Pub L. 106 554, Sec. 209.
Dated: May 5, 2004.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 04-10782 Filed 5-11-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S