Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 64683

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 040713206–4292–02; I.D. 

070704F]

RIN 0648–AR77

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Revisions to the 

Annual Harvest Specifications Process 

for the Groundfish Fisheries of the 

Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule that 

implements Amendment 48 to the 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for 

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) 

and Amendment 48 to the FMP for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(BSAI) (Amendments 48/48). 

Amendments 48/48 revise the 

administrative process used to establish 

annual harvest specifications for the 

groundfish fisheries of the GOA and the 

BSAI and update the FMPs by revising 

the description of the groundfish 

fisheries and participants, revising the 

name of the BSAI FMP, revising text to 

simplify wording and correct 

typographical errors, and revising the 

description of the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

Groundfish Plan Teams’

responsibilities. This action is necessary 

to manage fisheries based on the best 

scientific information available, to 

provide adequate opportunity for prior 

public review and comment to the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on 

Council recommendations, to provide 

additional opportunity for Secretarial 

review, to minimize unnecessary 

disruption to fisheries, to promote the 

public’s understanding, and to promote 

administrative efficiency. The final rule 

revises regulations to implement the 

new harvest specifications process in 

Amendments 48/48 and revises the 

name of the BSAI FMP. This action is 

intended to promote the goals and 

objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMPs, 

and other applicable laws.

DATES: Effective December 8, 2004, 

except that the amendments to 

§§ 679.20(c)(5) and (c)(6) and 

679.62(a)(3) will be effective April 1, 

2005.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the 

Environmental Assessment/Regulatory 

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) and 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(FRFA) prepared for Amendments 48/48 

and the final rule may be obtained by 

mail from NMFS Alaska Region, P. O. 

Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668, 

Attn: Lori Durall, or from the NMFS 

Alaska Region website at 

www.fakr.noaa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melanie Brown, 907–586–7228 or 

melanie.brown@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive 

Economic Zone of the GOA and the 

BSAI are managed under the FMPs. The 

Council prepared the FMPs under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations 

implementing the FMPs appear at 50 

CFR part 679. General regulations 

governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 

50 CFR part 600.

The Council submitted Amendments 

48/48 for Secretarial review and a notice 

of availability (NOA) of the FMP 

amendments was published in the 

Federal Register on July 14, 2004 (69 FR 

42128), with comments on the FMP 

amendments invited through September 

13, 2004. A complete description of the 

amendments is in the NOA. The 

proposed rule for this action was 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 27, 2004 (69 FR 44634), with 

comments on the proposed rule invited 

through September 10, 2004. Four 

letters of comment were received on the 

FMP amendments and the proposed 

rule. Comments are summarized and 

responded to under Comments and 

Responses, below. The Secretary 

approved Amendments 48/48 on 

October 12, 2004.

Background

Amendments 48/48 were 

unanimously recommended by the 

Council in October 2003. These 

amendments revise the administrative 

process used to establish harvest 

specifications for the groundfish 

fisheries of the BSAI and GOA. Harvest 

specifications establish specific limits 

on the commercial harvest of groundfish 

and are used to manage the groundfish 

fisheries. Harvest specifications include 

total allowable catch (TAC), acceptable 

biological catch (ABC), overfishing 

levels, and prohibited species catch 

amounts, and apportionments thereof, 

which have been recommended by the 

Council. The current regulations 

authorize annual harvest specifications 

that are applicable January 1 through 

December 31. The objectives in revising 

the harvest specifications process are to: 

(1) manage fisheries based on the best 

scientific information available, (2) 

provide adequate opportunity for prior 

public review and comment to the 

Secretary on Council recommendations, 

(3) provide additional opportunity for 

Secretarial review, (4) minimize 

unnecessary disruption to fisheries and 

public confusion, and (5) promote 

administrative efficiency.

The changes to the harvest 

specifications process under 

Amendments 48/48 and considerations 

in establishing harvest specifications are 

described in the proposed rule (69 FR 

44634, July 27, 2004). This action 

provides consistency between the 

groundfish FMPs for the harvest 

specifications process and provides 

flexibility during the harvest 

specifications process to react to the 

best available science. Amendments 48/

48 allow harvest specifications to be 

effective for up to two fishing years, 

allowing for the use of either an annual 

or biennial harvest specifications 

process. For species on an annual 

harvest specifications process schedule, 

two years of harvest specifications will 

be established, with the second year of 

specifications being superceded in 

approximately March or June of the 

second year by the new set of two years 

of harvest specifications established 

each year. Specifying annually two-year 

harvest specifications is necessary to 

allow for Administrative Procedure Act 

rulemaking requirements to be met after 

the December Council recommendations 

without disrupting the start of the 

groundfish fisheries and to ensure that 

harvest specifications can be updated on 

an annual basis. A full second year of 

harvest specifications also is necessary 

to provide the annual TAC basis for the 

seasonal apportionment of harvest and 

associated fisheries that are conducted 

in the early part of the fishing year.

The stock assessment models used for 

determining the harvest specifications 

use two-year projections for biomass 

and ABC. The frequency of fishery 

resource surveys also affects whether 

new information is available to support 

adjustments to harvest specifications on 

an annual or biennial basis. Allowing 

specifications to be effective for up to 

two years fits well with the frequency of 

stock projections that must be used for 

the harvest specifications and provides 

the Council and NMFS the flexibility to 

adjust the specifications process 

frequency in response to potential 

changes in the frequency of stock 

assessment surveys or other stock 

64684 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

assessment data or administrative 

issues.

Regulatory Amendments

Amendment 48 to the BSAI FMP 

revises the title of the FMP to read ‘‘The 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area.’’

This change provides a more concise 

description of the BSAI FMP, 

establishes consistency with the name 

of the GOA groundfish FMP, and 

reduces confusion for users of the two 

documents. In § 679.1(b), the title of the 

BSAI FMP is revised to reflect the new 

title resulting from the approval of 

Amendment 48 to the BSAI FMP.

Sections 679.20 and 679.21 are 

revised to implement the new 

administrative process for harvest 

specifications under Amendments 48/

48. In §§ 679.20(c)(1) and (c)(3) and 

679.21(d)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), (e)(1)(iii), and 

(e)(6)(i), the revisions authorize harvest 

specifications to remain in effect for up 

to two fishing years, allowing time to 

comply with rulemaking requirements 

and ensuring that management is based 

on the best scientific information 

available.

Section 679.20(c)(1) is further revised 

to remove the requirement to address 

the U. S. harvesting and processing 

capacity in the proposed harvest 

specifications. This requirement was 

necessary when foreign groundfish 

fishing occurred before the 1990s. 

Harvesting and processing groundfish in 

Alaskan waters are performed 

exclusively by U. S. owned and 

operated vessels and processors under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 

American Fisheries Act (AFA). 

Amendments 48/48 remove references 

to allocations to foreign fishing in the 

FMPs, and this revision makes the 

regulations consistent with the FMPs.

The final rule allows NMFS to specify 

the length of the public comment period 

for the proposed harvest specifications 

when the proposed specifications are 

published. Current regulations require a 

public comment period of 30 days 

(§§ 679.20(c)(1), 679.21(d)(2), and 

679.21(e)(6)(ii)). The final rule affords 

NMFS the discretion to specify a 

comment period of a reasonable period 

given the length of the document and 

the complexity of the issues presented 

when the proposed specifications are 

published.

The final rule rescinds provisions for 

interim harvest specifications at 

§ 679.20(c)(2) on April 1, 2005. 

However, as NMFS implements the new 

harvest specification process, interim 

harvest specifications are needed in 

2005 until the new harvest 

specifications are effective. The use of 

interim harvest specifications until 

April 1, 2005, ensures no disruption to 

the 2005 groundfish fisheries prior to 

the effective date of the final 2005 

harvest specifications. Once harvest 

specifications are implemented under 

Amendments 48/48, interim harvest 

specifications no longer are needed. 

Thus, the applicable regulatory 

provision authorizing interim harvest 

specifications is rescinded on April 1, 

2005.

The species listed for seasonal 

allowances for the final harvest 

specifications under §§ 679.20 (c)(1)(ii), 

(c)(1)(iii), (c)(3)(ii) and (c)(3)(iii) are 

revised by the final rule. The Steller sea 

lion protection measures (68 FR 204, 

January 2, 2003) require the seasonal 

apportionment of the harvest of Pacific 

cod, pollock, and Atka mackerel in the 

BSAI and of Pacific cod and pollock in 

the GOA. The current regulations 

reference seasonal harvest specifications 

only for pollock in the BSAI and GOA. 

The final rule adds Pacific cod and Atka 

mackerel seasonal allowances to the 

BSAI harvest specifications and Pacific 

cod seasonal allowances to the GOA 

harvest specifications. Paragraphs 

(c)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(iii) of the same 

section also are revised to be consistent 

with (c)(3)(ii) and (c)(3)(iii) of the same 

section so that proposed and final 

harvest specifications contents are 

consistent.

The final rule revises §§ 679.20(c)(5) 

and (c)(6), and 679.62(a)(3) to remove 

references to interim harvest 

specifications. Interim harvest 

specifications will not be used once the 

new harvest specifications process is 

effective. These revisions will be 

effective April 1, 2005, when the 

regulations for interim harvest 

specifications at § 679.20(c)(2) are 

removed.

No changes were made to the final 

rule from the proposed rule.

Comments and Responses

Four letters containing 11 unique 

comments were received regarding the 

amendments and proposed rule. The 

comments are summarized and 

responded to below.

Comment 1. Concern exists regarding 

use of a biennial harvest specifications 

process for rockfish species which have 

TACs established at or near the ABCs. 

Rockfish species are of particular 

concern because of their biological 

sensitivity and high economic value. 

Significant changes have occurred for 

some of these species between the 

proposed and final TAC values based on 

information available between surveys. 

Allowing specifications for rockfish to 

be based on two year old surveys may 

harm the stocks by allowing too much 

harvest or may unnecessarily constrain 

the fishery. Under the future 

management programs, rockfish harvest 

likely will be conducted up to the TAC 

level, so that a TAC set at too high a 

level has more potential for adverse 

impacts on the stock.

Response. Amendments 48/48 allow 

NMFS to adjust the frequency of harvest 

specifications for a particular species or 

species group to ensure the use of best 

available science information. 

Specifications may be effective for up to 

two years, but the final rule does not 

require a biennial harvest specifications 

process for any GOA species. The EA/

RIR/IRFA for Amendments 48/48 (see 

ADDRESSES) analyzes the impact of using 

a biennial process for certain long-lived 

GOA species, including rockfish, so that 

the Council and NMFS can make an 

informed decision during the harvest 

specifications process in October 

through December of each year as to 

whether a particular species should be 

managed using biennial or annual 

harvest specifications. The Council has 

recommended that GOA rockfish be 

managed on a biennial harvest 

specifications process based on the 

information available in the EA/RIR/

IRFA for Amendments 48/48. However, 

new fishery information will be 

considered during the development of 

harvest specifications to determine the 

appropriate effectiveness period of 

specifications for GOA rockfish species 

within the two-year maximum. 

Concerns about the frequency of the 

harvest specifications process should be 

brought to the Council’s groundfish plan 

teams and Science and Statistical 

Committee for consideration during 

their September and October meetings, 

respectively.

Comment 2. The primary objective of 

this rule should be fish health and 

abundance. The allowance of continual 

overfishing is severely impacting our 

children’s heritage. The intention of this 

rule is to add more bureaucracy to 

confuse the public on how much of our 

children’s heritage is being taken by 

commercial fisheries.

Response. NMFS’ primary objective 

during the harvest specifications 

process is the conservation and 

management of fish resources. Annual 

or biennial review of the stock 

assessments for each managed species 

and the setting of TACs at levels that 

prevent overfishing help accomplish 

this objective. Currently, no Alaska 

groundfish species are known to be 

experiencing overfishing. This rule 

provides a meaningful opportunity to 

the public to review and comment on 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 64685

harvest specifications and is not 

bureaucratic.

Comment 3. Making a point of 

helping small businesses is ridiculous. 

Small businesses may instantly access 

decisions by computers.

Response. The commentor may be 

referring to the IRFA analysis completed 

for this action and the description of the 

results in the preamble to the proposed 

rule. This analysis of the potential 

impacts on small businesses is required 

by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

analysis is intended to identify aspects 

of the action that may be further refined 

to prevent disproportional adverse 

impacts on small businesses.

Comment 4. A preferred alternative 

means that anything the environmental 

public say will be ignored.

Response. A preferred alternative in a 

draft EA identifies to the reader the 

alternative at the time of the draft 

analysis that is deemed to be the most 

likely alternative to be implemented 

based on the results to date in the 

analysis. Identification of the preferred 

alternative focuses public comment on 

the most likely alternative, but 

comments from all members of the 

public regarding any proposed rule, 

FMP amendment, and the supporting 

draft analyses for both are carefully 

reviewed and considered before a final 

decision is made. Public comments can 

and do influence the development of the 

final analyses and rules and play a 

critical role in NMFS’ rulemaking 

process.

Comment 5. Quotas should be cut by 

50 percent the first year and 10 percent 

each year after. Marine sanctuaries 

should be established.

Response. This action revises the 

administrative process used to establish 

harvest levels for a fishing year. The 

specification of harvest levels is done by 

separate rulemaking during the harvest 

specifications process. The decisions on 

the amount of harvest are based on the 

best available science and 

socioeconomic considerations. Whether 

quotas should be reduced or not is a 

decision made during the development 

of harvest specifications and is not 

germane to this action.

Additionally, this action does not 

address the creation of marine 

sanctuaries. The concept of establishing 

marine reserves is explored in the draft 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

for essential fish habitat (EFH) dated 

January 2004. Further information on 

the draft EIS may be found at the NMFS 

Alaska Region website at 

www.fakr.noaa.gov.

Comment 6. The Pew Foundation 

reports on overfishing and regional 

fishery management council bias and 

the United Nations report on overfishing 

are incorporated into the comments 

from this commentor.

Response. This action has no 

relationship to overfishing concerns or 

the membership of regional fishery 

management councils. The specific 

concerns and relationship to this action 

that are represented by these reports are 

not presented by the commentor. 

Because no further details are provided 

by the commentor, NMFS is unable to 

respond further to this comment.

Comment 7. The proposed rule is 

written to confuse the public and 

should be rewritten so that a 12 year old 

may understand the rule. The proposed 

rule should be written in compliance 

with the law that requires the use of 

plain English.

Response. NMFS strives to use plain 

language in all documents it creates, 

including this rule. NMFS has reviewed 

the language of this rule and believes it 

is clearly written.

Comment 8. The term ‘‘maximizing’’

is the same as ‘‘overfishing.’’ A two year 

schedule is an invitation to overfish.

Response. Maximizing the harvest of 

managed species is not the same as 

overfishing. Overfishing is defined in 

section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

as a rate or level of fishing mortality that 

jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to 

produce the maximum sustainable yield 

on a continuing basis. None of the 

groundfish species managed in Alaska 

are known to be experiencing 

overfishing or are overfished. 

Maximizing harvest is an important goal 

related to the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

and the FMPs. The final rule ensures 

that harvest levels set for a two-year 

time period are adjusted through the 

harvest specifications process to prevent 

overfishing and to provide for the 

optimum yield on a continuing basis.

Comment 9. The preamble of the 

proposed rule should explain the 

criteria used to determine ‘‘good cause’’

to waive the prior public review and 

comment on changes made in the 

harvest specifications between the 

proposed and final rule under the APA. 

The criteria should include the use of 

the best scientific information and 

consideration of achieving the optimum 

yield, as described in national standards 

1 and 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

This would ensure the ‘‘good cause’’

waiver may be used to adjust TACs 

either up or down.

Response. ‘‘Good cause’’ to waive 

prior public review and comment under 

APA during rulemaking will be 

determined specific to the relevant 

circumstances at the time the 

determination is to be made, and must 

be based upon specific criteria 

enumerated in the APA.

Comment 10. NMFS should not use 

the standard of a ‘‘logical outgrowth’’ in 

evaluating the differences between the 

proposed and final harvest 

specifications. Logical outgrowth is a 

legal test that is developed in common 

law. If a ‘‘substantial relation’’ test is 

used that applies technical expertise 

and evaluation, NMFS’ decision may be 

accorded more deference in court.

Response. The notice and comment 

procedures of the APA provide for 

public participation in the development 

of rules and produce more informed 

agency decisionmaking. In order to 

accomplish these goals, notices of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the issues in the rulemaking. 

If a final rule differs to such an extent 

from the proposed rule that the public 

was inadequately informed of the issues 

at stake in the rulemaking, a court may 

vacate that final rule on the ground that 

the notice of proposed rulemaking did 

not provide the public adequate notice. 

The question of providing the public 

with adequate notice in a particular 

rulemaking depends very much on the 

specific facts and circumstances of the 

rulemaking. Courts have developed the 

logical outgrowth test to evaluate the 

adequacy of notice by determining 

whether a particular final rule was a 

logical outgrowth of its notice of 

proposed rulemaking - that is, whether 

the purposes of notice and comment 

were adequately served in the proposed 

rule. NMFS believes that this is the 

appropriate standard to apply to notices 

of proposed and final specifications to 

ensure achievement of the APA’s 

objectives and success in litigation over 

fishery specifications.

Comment 11. Harvest specifications 

should be effective for no more than 18 

months rather than for up to two years. 

NMFS should not depart from using the 

most recent survey to calculate harvest 

specifications and should not abandon 

annual surveys or rulemaking 

proceedings for cost or other reasons. 

Allowing harvest specifications to be 

effective for up to two years was not 

contemplated during or analyzed in 

development of Amendments 48/48 and 

requires a new amendment process to 

implement.

Response. The rule does not require 

NMFS to change the current frequency 

of surveys or to abandon the annual 

harvest specifications process; however, 

it does allow NMFS and the Council to 

implement harvest specifications that 

will be effective for up to two years 

when the best available science 

indicates that a fishery should be 

managed on a biennial basis.

64686 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Alternative 4 of the EA/RIR/IRFA 

analyzed the impact of two year harvest 

specifications for all species. Alternative 

5 analyzed using an annual harvest 

specifications process to set harvest 

specifications for up to two fishing 

years, with the understanding that the 

second fishing year’s TACs would be 

replaced each year by a new set of TACs 

for the current and following fishing 

year. In addition to the most recent 

stock assessments, the EA/RIR/IRFA for 

Amendments 48/48 provides 

information on the impacts of a decision 

to move a species from an annual 

harvest specifications process to a 

biennial process. Amendments 48/48 

fall within the scope of the analysis, and 

no additional analysis is needed.

Classification

The Regional Administrator 

determined that Amendments 48/48 are 

necessary for the conservation and 

management of the BSAI and GOA 

groundfish fisheries and that they are 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and other applicable laws.

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866.

NMFS prepared an FRFA which 

incorporates the IRFA and a summary of 

the analyses completed to support the 

action. A copy of these analyses is 

available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

The FRFA did not reveal any Federal 

rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with the action. The following 

summarizes the FRFA.

Need for and Objectives of This Action

The need and objectives for this 

action are described above in the 

preamble to this final rule.

Issues Raised by Public Comments on 

the IRFA

The proposed rule was published in 

the Federal Register on July 27, 2004 

(69 FR 44634) with comments on the 

proposed rule invited through 

September 10, 2004. An IRFA was 

prepared for the proposed rule and 

described in the Classification section of 

the preamble to that rule. One public 

comment was received that may have 

been in response to the IRFA. See 

Comment 3 in the preamble to this rule 

for more information. No changes were 

made to the final rule from the proposed 

rule in response to this comment.

Number and Description of Small 

Entities Affected by the Rule

The entities directly regulated by this 

action are those that commercially 

harvest federally managed groundfish in 

the BSAI and GOA. These entities 

include the groundfish catcher vessels 

and catcher/processor vessels active in 

these areas. They also include 

organizations to which direct 

allocations of groundfish are made. In 

the BSAI, this includes the Western 

Alaska Community Development Quota 

(CDQ) groups and the American 

Fisheries Act fishing cooperatives.

Pursuant to the Small Business 

Administration criteria and NMFS 

guidelines, fishing vessels, including 

catcher vessels and catcher/processors, 

are considered ‘‘small entities’’ if they 

gross less than $3.5 million in a year, 

when all their affiliated elements are 

taken together. Catcher vessel gross 

revenues are measured at the ex-vessel 

level. Catcher/processor revenues are 

the first wholesale value of the 

processed product. About 840 catcher 

vessels, 33 catcher/processors, and six 

CDQ groups were estimated to be small 

entities under this criterion.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Four alternatives to the preferred 

alternative were considered. Alternative 

1 would require NMFS to publish 

proposed specifications, followed by 

interim and final specifications, under 

the status quo schedule. Alternative 1 

may result in larger harvests than 

Alternatives 2 through 4 and, thus, 

potentially higher average revenues for 

small entities. This alternative is the 

most constraining of the alternatives 

with respect to small businesses’ access 

to the decision-making process. This 

alternative fails to achieve the objectives 

of the proposed action in that it does not 

provide opportunity for prior public 

review and comment on interim 

specifications and does not guarantee 

meaningful opportunity for public 

comment on the proposed specifications 

to the Secretary. For this reason, this 

alternative was not chosen.

Alternative 2 would eliminate interim 

harvest specifications and would 

require NMFS to issue proposed and 

final harvest specifications before the 

start of the fishing year. This alternative 

would improve opportunities for small 

businesses’ access to the decision 

making process. However, this 

alternative would introduce an 

additional year’s lag between the time 

fishery survey data become available 

and the time harvest specifications 

based on those data are implemented. 

The alternative may result in reductions 

in groundfish harvests and revenues and 

increased year-to-year variation in 

harvests. These changes could reduce 

small entities’ revenues, but 

disproportionate impacts on small 

entities are not identified. These 

potential adverse effects to small 

entities outweigh the benefits from an 

enhanced rulemaking process. The 

potential for revenue reductions caused 

this alternative to be rejected.

Alternative 3 would postpone the 

start of the fishing year by six months 

to provide enough time for proposed 

and final harvest specifications. An 

option to this alternative would 

postpone the start of the fishing year for 

most species by six months, but would 

not change the fishing year for sablefish 

IFQ fisheries. This option would protect 

the IFQ management of the sablefish 

fisheries. This alternative would have 

revenue impacts very similar to those 

for Alternative 5, the preferred 

alternative. Alternative 5 was preferred 

to this one due to the administrative 

problems for managers and fishermen 

that might be associated with a change 

in the fishing year.

Alternative 4 would use stock 

assessment projections to prepare 

biennial harvest specifications, while 

setting PSC limits annually. This 

alternative would improve 

opportunities for small business access 

to the decision making process. The two 

options for this alternative are likely to 

result in larger potential reductions in 

harvests and revenues than Alternative 

2 and in more potential for year-to-year 

variation in harvests. The changes could 

reduce small entities’ revenues, but 

disproportionate impacts on small 

entities are not identified. The potential 

adverse effects outweigh the enhanced 

rulemaking process in this alternative 

and are no better for directly regulated 

small entities than Alternative 5.

Alternative 5 is the preferred 

alternative. Under this alternative, 

harvest specifications would be set for 

up to two years. Harvest specifications 

would be superseded by new harvest 

specifications typically published 

between March and June of the second 

year. This alternative would provide 

increased opportunities for notice and 

comment under the APA. This 

alternative would introduce relatively 

modest lags between biological surveys 

and subsequent harvest specifications, 

thus creating relatively modest adverse 

revenue impacts compared with 

Alternatives 2 and 4. If a second 

proposed rule is required, the revenue 

effects would be similar to Alternative 

3; if not, they may be similar to those 

for Alternative 1.

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements

Nothing in the action would result in 

changes in reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 64687

Small Entity Compliance Guide

This action revises 50 CFR part 679 

which describes the procedures for the 

harvest specifications process for the 

Alaska groundfish fisheries. This action 

does not require any additional 

compliance from small entities as it 

provides an administrative change to 

the process for establishing harvest 

specifications. Copies of this final rule 

are available from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES) and at the following 

website: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements.

Dated: November 2, 2004.

Rebecca Lent, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service.

■ For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 

CFR part 679 is 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., 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.

■ 2. In § 679.1, the introductory heading 

of paragraph (b) is revised to read as 

follows:

§ 679.1 Purpose and scope.

* * * * *

(b) Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area.

* * *

* * * * *

■ 3. In § 679.20, paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(3), 

(c)(5), (c)(6), and the introductory 

paragraph to (c)(2) are revised to read as 

follows:

§ 679.20 General limitations.

* * * * *

(c) Annual specifications—(1) 

Proposed specifications—(i) 

Notification. As soon as practicable after 

consultation with the Council, NMFS 

will publish proposed specifications for 

the groundfish fisheries in the BSAI and 

the GOA.

(ii) Public comment. NMFS will 

accept public comment on the proposed 

specifications established by this 

section and by § 679.21 for a period 

specified in the notice of proposed 

specifications published in the Federal 

Register.

(iii) GOA. The proposed 

specifications will specify for up to two 

fishing years the annual TAC for each 

target species and the ‘‘other species’’

category and apportionments thereof, 

halibut prohibited species catch 

amounts, and seasonal allowances of 

pollock and Pacific cod.

(iv) BSAI. The proposed specifications 

will specify for up to two fishing years 

the annual TAC for each target species 

and the ‘‘other species’’ category and 

apportionments thereof, PSQ reserves 

and prohibited species catch 

allowances, seasonal allowances of 

pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel 

TAC (including pollock, Pacific cod, 

and Atka mackerel CDQ), and CDQ 

reserve amounts.

(2) Interim specifications. (Applicable 

until April 1, 2005.) Interim harvest 

specifications will be in effect on 

January 1 and will remain in effect until 

superseded by the filing of the final 

specifications by the Office of the 

Federal Register. Interim specifications 

will be established as follows:

* * * * *

(3) Final specifications—(i) Procedure 

and notification. NMFS will consider 

comments received on the proposed 

specifications and, after consultation 

with the Council, will publish a notice 

of final specifications in the Federal 

Register unless NMFS determines that 

the final specifications would not be a 

logical outgrowth of the notice of 

proposed specifications. In that event, 

NMFS will either:

(A) Publish a revised notice of 

proposed specifications in the Federal 

Register for public comment, and after 

considering comments received on the 

revised proposed specifications, publish 

a notice of final specifications in the 

Federal Register; or

(B) Publish a notice of final 

specifications in the Federal Register

without an additional opportunity for 

public comment based on a finding that 

good cause pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedure Act justifies 

waiver of the requirement for a revised 

notice of proposed specifications and 

opportunity for public comment 

thereon.

(ii) GOA. The final specifications will 

specify for up to two fishing years the 

annual TAC for each target species and 

the ‘‘other species’’ category and 

apportionments thereof, halibut 

prohibited species catch amounts, and 

seasonal allowances of pollock and 

Pacific cod.

(iii) BSAI. The final specifications 

will specify for up to two fishing years 

the annual TAC for each target species 

and the ‘‘other species’’ category and 

apportionments thereof, PSQ reserves 

and prohibited species catch 

allowances, seasonal allowances of 

pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel 

TAC (including pollock, Pacific cod, 

and Atka mackerel CDQ), and CDQ 

reserve amounts.

* * * * *

(5) BSAI Pacific cod gear allocations.

(Effective April 1, 2005) The proposed 

and final specifications will specify the 

allocation of BSAI Pacific cod among 

gear types as authorized under 

paragraph (a)(7) of this section.

(6) BSAI Atka mackerel allocations.

(Effective April 1, 2005) The proposed 

and final specifications will specify the 

allocation of BSAI Atka mackerel among 

gear types and HLA fisheries as 

authorized under paragraph (a)(8) of this 

section.

* * * * *

■ 4. In § 679.21, paragraphs (d)(1)(i), 

(d)(2), and (e)(6), and introductory 

paragraphs to (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(1)(iii), are 

revised to read as follows:

§ 679.21 Prohibited species bycatch 

management.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Proposed and final limits and 

apportionments. NMFS will publish in 

the Federal Register proposed and final 

halibut PSC limits, and apportionments 

thereof, in the notification required 

under § 679.20.

* * * * *

(2) Public comment. NMFS will 

accept public comment on the proposed 

halibut PSC limits, and apportionments 

thereof, for a period specified in the 

notice of proposed halibut PSC limits 

published in the Federal Register. 

NMFS will consider comments received 

on proposed halibut PSC limits and, 

after consultation with the Council, will 

publish notification in the Federal 

Register specifying the final halibut PSC 

limits and apportionments thereof.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) Red king crab in Zone 1. The PSC 

limit of red king crab caught by trawl 

vessels while engaged in directed 

fishing for groundfish in Zone 1 during 

any fishing year will be specified for up 

to two fishing years by NMFS, after 

consultation with the Council, based on 

abundance and spawning biomass of red 

king crab using the criteria set out under 

paragraphs (e)(1)(iii)(A) through (C) of 

this section. The following table refers 

to the PSC limits for red king crab that 

you must follow in Zone 1:

* * * * *

(iii) Tanner crab (C. bairdi). The PSC 

limit of C. bairdi crabs caught by trawl 

64688 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

vessels while engaged in directed 

fishing for groundfish in Zones 1 and 2 

during any fishing year will be specified 

for up to two fishing years by NMFS 

under paragraph (e)(6) of this section, 

based on total abundance of C. bairdi

crabs as indicated by the NMFS annual 

bottom trawl survey, using the criteria 

set out under paragraphs (e)(1)(iii)(A) 

and (B) of this section.

* * * * *

(6) Notification—(i) General. NMFS 

will publish in the Federal Register, for 

up to two fishing years, the annual red 

king crab PSC limit, and, if applicable, 

the amount of this PSC limit specified 

for the RKCSS, the annual C. bairdi PSC 

limit, the annual C. opilio PSC limit, the 

proposed and final PSQ reserve 

amounts, the proposed and final 

bycatch allowances, the seasonal 

apportionments thereof, and the manner 

in which seasonal apportionments of 

nontrawl fishery bycatch allowances 

will be managed, as required by 

paragraph (e) of this section.

(ii) Public comment. Public comment 

will be accepted by NMFS on the 

proposed annual red king crab PSC limit 

and, if applicable, the amount of this 

PSC limit specified for the RKCSS, the 

annual C. bairdi PSC limit, the annual 

C. opilio PSC limit, the proposed and 

final bycatch allowances, seasonal 

apportionments thereof, and the manner 

in which seasonal apportionments of 

nontrawl fishery bycatch allowances 

will be managed, for a period specified 

in the notice of proposed specifications 

published in the Federal Register.

* * * * *

■ 5. In § 679.62, paragraph (a)(3) is 

revised to read as follows:

§ 679.62 Inshore sector cooperative 

allocation program.

(a) * * *

(3) Conversion of quota share 

percentage to TAC allocations.

(Effective April 1, 2005) Each inshore 

pollock cooperative that receives a 

quota share percentage for a fishing year 

will receive an annual allocation of 

Bering Sea and/or Aleutian Islands 

pollock that is equal to the cooperative’s 

quota share percentage for that subarea 

multiplied by the annual inshore 

pollock allocation for that subarea. Each 

cooperative’s annual pollock TAC 

allocation may be published in the 

proposed and final BSAI harvest 

specifications notice.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–24856 Filed 11–5–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S