Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Highly Migratory Species Fisheries

AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Proposed rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

NMFS proposes regulations to implement the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (FMP), which was submitted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) for review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce.

DATES:

Comments must be received by January 26, 2004.

ADDRESSES:

Comments should be sent to Rodney R. McInnis, Acting Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.

Copies of the FMP, environmental impact statement (EIS), regulatory impact review (RIR), and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) may be obtained from Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220-1384. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Svein Fougner, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802, and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or faxed to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Svein Fougner, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4040.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Pacific Council prepared the FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. On January 18, 2002, a notice of availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the FMP was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 2651). The Pacific Council held 7 public hearings on the FMP from January 28, 2002, to February 4, 2002, in the States of Washington, Oregon, and California. At its March 2002 meeting in Sacramento, CA, the Pacific Council reviewed public comments received at the hearings, considered written and oral comments, and adopted preliminary preferred alternatives for some issues, leaving its decision on other alternatives for a future meeting. At its October-November 2002 meeting in Foster City, CA, the Pacific Council adopted all of its preferred alternatives and voted to submit the FMP for Secretarial review.

Among the preferred alternatives was a provision to allow longline fishing targeting swordfish east of 150° W. longitude (long.). Before the final FMP document was submitted, however, NMFS informed the Pacific Council at its March 2003 meeting in Sacramento, CA about potential impacts of the fishery under the preferred alternative on endangered sea turtles. NMFS asked the Pacific Council to delay submission of the FMP to provide time for a rigorous scientific analysis of recently collected observer data, and review of the results by the Pacific Council and its advisory bodies, prior to final completion and submission of the FMP. Those data indicated that take rates of sea turtles in the longline fishery in the eastern Pacific were similar to those in the western Pacific, and if those rates were representative of what could be expected in the fishery, there could be excessive sea turtle takes under the Pacific Council's preferred alternative. At the Pacific Council's June 2003 meeting in Foster City, CA, NMFS presented reports on the catch rates of turtles in the longline fishery and the results of the scientific analysis of the data. NMFS informed the Pacific Council that allowing longline fishing targeting swordfish east of 150° W. long. may not provide sufficient protection to endangered and threatened sea turtles. Therefore, this alternative might not be approved. The Pacific Council then heard reports from its advisory bodies and public comments and concluded that the FMP should be submitted without changing any of its preferred alternatives. The Pacific Council then completed the final FMP and submitted it for Secretarial review. A Notice of Availability of the FMP was published in the Federal Register at 68 FR 62763, November 6, 2003.

The FMP that would be implemented by this proposed rule is intended to address concerns about the effect of fishing on highly migratory species (HMS) off the U.S. West Coast and on ocean resources caught incidentally to fishing for HMS. The fish species included in the management unit are tuna (yellowfin, bigeye, skipjack, albacore, and northern bluefin), billfish (striped marlin and swordfish), oceanic sharks (common thresher, bigeye thresher, pelagic thresher, shortfin mako, blue), and dorado (also commonly known as mahi mahi and dolphinfish). Other species ranging throughout the Pacific Ocean throughout the Pacific are taken incidental to fishing for HMS but are not in the management unit. A significant amount of information exists on some species, such as some of the tunas, but comprehensive stock assessments are needed for many species, which are harvested by numerous coastal and distant-water fishing nations throughout the Pacific. United States fishermen fish HMS in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (U.S. EEZ), in the exclusive economic zones of other nations, and on the high seas.

Marine mammals, sea turtles, and sea birds also are occasionally caught incidental to fishing for HMS by some gear types. The effect on such species of takes by fishing gear is a problem throughout the Pacific Ocean, and the United States has in many cases already taken action under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to minimize or mitigate the impact of U.S. fisheries on these resources. The FMP would provide additional protective measures for West Coast HMS fisheries.

The FMP, if approved, would directly impose certain conservation and management measures on the fisheries as well as provide a procedural framework for future management actions that might be necessary as the international and U.S. fisheries change.

Management Unit Species

The FMP is intended to ensure conservation and promote the achievement of optimum yield of those HMS that are defined as management unit species in the FMP. The FMP is designed to conserve HMS throughout their individual ranges, both within and beyond the U.S. EEZ to the extent practicable, recognizing that management authority of all species falls within many jurisdictions. The Pacific Council reviewed 6 alternatives for designating management unit species. As indicated, the proposed species to be managed are striped marlin and swordfish; common, pelagic, and bigeye thresher shark, shortfin mako (bonito) shark), and blue shark; north Pacific albacore, yellowfin, bigeye, skipjack, and northern bluefin tuna; and dorado. Other groupings of species (e.g., excluding dorado or excluding bigeye and pelagic thresher sharks) are included in the FMP as alternatives to the preferred alternative, and public comment is sought on what species should be in the management unit.

Tuna

Some tuna species are highly productive and are harvested by fishing fleets of many countries. For example, yellowfin and bigeye tuna are harvested by the United States, Mexico, Costa Rica, and other coastal states in Central and South America. Harvest limits for yellowfin and bigeye tuna in the eastern Pacific are set by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and not by NMFS through the FMP. However, the decisions made by the IATTC regarding harvest limits and the basis for those decisions would be available to the Pacific Council for its review. Opinions of the Pacific Council on international management would be forwarded to the U.S. State Department through NMFS. If allocations among U.S. fishermen became necessary as a result of decisions by the IATTC, the Pacific Council would be the body with the responsibility to make recommendations to NMFS regarding implementation. A similar arrangement would be utilized by NMFS for any fishery in which an international organization is involved. No harvest limits for bluefin tuna, skipjack tuna, or north Pacific albacore are proposed by the FMP at this time, although a maximum sustainable yield for each species of tuna is contained in the FMP. Unilateral harvest limits for these species would have no practical effect, given the international nature of the fisheries for these species and the low portion of total catches for which the U.S. fleet is responsible in most cases. However, if international action to limit harvests is agreed to, then the Pacific Council may play a role in implementing such limits with respect to U.S. fisheries.

Sharks

Most sharks are less productive than other HMS and are vulnerable to overfishing. Although shark species included in the management unit range throughout the Pacific Ocean and are not being overfished, the FMP proposes to adopt harvest limits off the Pacific coast for common thresher of 340 metric tons (mt) and shortfin mako of 150 mt to prevent local depletion. The thresher shark harvest guideline is lower than the recommended harvest limit set in the tri-state fishery management plan for this species developed by the States of California, Oregon, and Washington. The justification for a more conservative approach in the FMP is the result of an analysis of historical harvests explained in Chapter 3 of the FMP, which contains an estimate of a local maximum sustainable yield that is less than that contained in the tri-state plan. No harvest limit is proposed for pelagic thresher shark, bigeye thresher shark or blue shark. Public comment is sought on this approach and whether harvest limits should be placed on other species.

Other Species

No harvest limits are proposed for striped marlin, dorado, or swordfish. Again, unilateral limits for U.S. fisheries would have no beneficial effect, given the international nature of the fisheries and the small share of total catch made by U.S. vessels. Like many HMS, striped marlin off the Pacific coast is at the northern limit of its range off California. The sale of striped marlin would be prohibited to prevent commercial targeting of this species, which has such high value for recreational fisheries. This species has been a target of recreational fisheries for decades. The proposed limit on the sale of marlin contained in the FMP continues a prohibition that has been in California law since the 1930s.

Fishing Gear Employed

HMS are harvested off the West Coast by five commercial gear groups and various recreational fisheries. Under the FMP, the authorized commercial gears are surface hook-and-line, drift gillnet, longline, purse seine, and harpoon. Recreational anglers would be allowed to pursue HMS from commercial passenger fishing vessels and from private boats with hook-and-line gear.

The definition of fishing gear is important because gear not defined in regulations implementing the FMP would not be legal gear. For example, mousetrap gear, which is a free floating hook-and-line gear, is not defined in this proposed rule and would not be legal. Likewise, if a drift gillnet is defined as having a mesh size of at least 14 inches (35.56 cm), which is the proposed action in the FMP, any net with a smaller mesh size would not be legal and could not be fished from Pacific coast ports for HMS. This issue is discussed in section 9.2.4.1 of the FMP and in Major Issues below.

Major Issues

1. Management of Longline Fishery

The preferred alternative with regard to longline fishing is to (1) prohibit longline fishing in the U.S. EEZ; (2) adopt, for longline vessels fishing west of 150° W. long., all of the restrictions that apply to longline vessels fishing with a limited entry permit under the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagics FMP); and (3) adopt, for longline vessels fishing outside the U.S. EEZ and east of 150° W. long., the same restrictions as those that apply to longline vessels fishing with a limited entry permit under the Pelagics FMP, except that the restrictions that prevent shallow sets for swordfish would not apply.

The restrictions preventing shallow sets for swordfish in the central and western Pacific were designed to reduce the impact on threatened and endangered sea turtles taken incidental to swordfish sets. After being presented with available information on the frequency of sea turtle interactions expected under different fishing scenarios, however, the Pacific Council felt that there was not sufficient information available in the eastern Pacific to justify prohibiting swordfish sets east of 150° W. long. Further, the Pacific Council concluded that it could not reasonably estimate the impacts (reduced sea turtle takes, reduced swordfish catches, etc.) if there were partial limits such as time/area closures. Therefore, the FMP proposes that longline vessels be able to target swordfish in the eastern Pacific east of 150° W. long. These vessels would have to comply with all other restrictions, including the requirements to maintain a vessel monitoring system (VMS) on board the vessel, use line clippers and dip nets for turtle release, and use seabird avoidance gear and techniques as in waters west of 150° W. long., as well as complying with the proper handling of sea turtles and seabirds.

This approach would establish consistency with regulations in waters west of 150° W. long. while minimizing the economic impact on vessels fishing from West Coast ports; however, regulations east of 150° W. long. would be different. This is a serious issue for NMFS. Based on available observer data, NMFS is concerned that allowing shallow sets for swordfish east of 150° W. long. may not comply with the ESA; therefore, this measure is at risk of not being approved.

A formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA has been initiated on the effects of the fisheries as they would operate under the FMP. The consultation will include a review of the impact of all fishing gear regulated by the FMP, the impact of other domestic fishing fleets as they now operate, and the most recent information on the status and trends of sea turtle populations. A biological opinion will be written, and if a jeopardy conclusion is reached, a reasonable and prudent alternative will be provided to the Pacific Council that will be designed to provide sufficient protection for endangered and threatened sea turtles. Even if there is not a jeopardy conclusion, the biological opinion may include reasonable and prudent measures and conservation recommendations to reduce or mitigate sea turtle interactions. Also, an incidental take statement will be issued that may set terms and conditions on fishing to reduce or mitigate sea turtle interactions. The biological opinion will thus provide NMFS and the Pacific Council with information that could be used to develop framework measures under the FMP that would further address the impact of longline fishing on endangered and threatened sea turtles. Finally, it is noted that the observer coverage anticipated under the FMP will greatly improve the information base for future management actions.

A section 7 consultation also has been initiated concerning the potential impacts of the fisheries under the FMP on other species. The FMP requires that longline fishers use seabird avoidance gear and techniques, as is required for central and western Pacific longline fishers. This consultation is scheduled to end on the same time frame as the consultation with respect to species under NMFS jurisdiction.

2. Management of Drift Gillnet Fishing

Drift gillnet fishing is currently regulated by the states and by regulations implementing the MMPA and the ESA. The preferred alternative in the FMP is to incorporate under Magnuson-Stevens Act authority the gear and time/area closures currently in state and ESA regulations into the regulations implementing the FMP. Therefore, state area closures that extend into the U.S. EEZ are included in this proposed rule. Gear restrictions in state regulations and in NMFS regulations under the ESA to protect sea turtles are included as well. The California limited entry program for drift gillnet gear is not included in this proposed rule because the Pacific Council decided not to address overcapitalization issues at this time; however, the California limited entry program would remain in effect under State of California regulations.

Regulations establishing a Take Reduction Plan for drift gillnet vessels that includes specifications for extender lines and pingers, an acoustical device attached to the net, and skipper education workshops can be found at 50 CFR 229.30 and 229.31. These regulations would remain in effect when the FMP is implemented and would not be moved to the section of the CFR that implements the FMP. However, it is anticipated that the Pacific Council will be provided the opportunity to participate in the Take Reduction Team process to ensure that the Take Reduction Team process and recommendations and the FMP process and actions are carried out in a coordinated manner.

Endangered and threatened sea turtles are defined as fish by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Area and seasonal closures designed to protect sea turtles in the drift gillnet fishery that are currently in effect at 50 CFR 223.206 would be moved to CFR 660 subpart K. The ESA section 7 consultations will address the impacts of drift gillnet fishing on all listed species.

The FMP defines drift gillnet gear as 14-inch (35.56-cm) stretched mesh or greater. A drift gillnet vessel with a mesh size less than 14 inches (35.56 cm) would not be able to target HMS. An incidental landing of 10 HMS per trip, other than swordfish, would be allowed to minimize bycatch of HMS while fishing for state managed species.

3. Permits

This proposed rule would require all commercial vessels fishing for HMS to obtain a permit with an endorsement for the specific gear to be used. A permit would also be required for all recreational charter vessels and commercial passenger carrying fishing vessels (CPFV) fishing for HMS. Other alternatives analyzed in the FMP include a general permit without a gear specification and a permit system that includes all recreational vessels. The purpose of a permit is to identify the vessels in the HMS fisheries so that surveys can be made when management information is required and to notify all participants of potential management actions affecting the fisheries. Permits based on gear type make surveys more efficient because landing and economic information is often needed for specific gear types. Permits would be issued to the owner of a specific vessel. Data would be maintained so that landings by the permitted vessel or by the owner of the vessel can be summarized, which would give the Pacific Council flexibility in determining qualifications for limited entry permits if the Pacific Council should decide to develop a limited entry program. No Federal limited entry program is being proposed at this time because the Pacific Council does not have sufficient information to determine the need for such a program; however, the Pacific Council has assigned its HMS Management Team to begin evaluating a limited entry program for longline vessels fishing from West Coast ports. A limited entry program would require substantial analysis and an amendment to the FMP.

Permits are currently required for vessels fishing on the high seas under the authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act of 1995 and for longline vessels fishing under the authority of the Pelagics FMP. In compliance with United States obligations under the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, NMFS is also providing information to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) for an international vessel register including all U.S. vessels that fish tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Thus, a list of vessels that would likely fall under the jurisdiction of the FMP has been completed by the Southwest Region, NMFS. The regulations propose issuing HMS permits to all individuals on this list. There would be no qualification requirements for a permit. Vessel owners who have not received a permit to harvest HMS by 60 days following the effective date of the final regulations would have to apply for an HMS permit. All vessels would need an HMS permit by January 1, 2005. There would be no cost to fishermen for this permit.

4. Recording and Recordkeeping

The proposed rule would require all commercial and recreational charter vessels and CPFV to maintain a logbook of catch and effort statistics for their HMS fishing under their permits to be submitted to the Regional Administrator following the end of a fishing trip. The proposed rule allows state logbooks to meet the Federal reporting requirement if those logbooks are submitted on time and provide the required information and if the information is available to the Regional Administrator by agreement with that state. Federal logbooks are now required for: vessels fishing on the high seas under the authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act of 1995, vessels fishing tuna under the authority of the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, and vessels fishing under the authority of the regulations implementing the Pelagics FMP. A Federal logbook for troll vessels fishing albacore, which is currently voluntary, would be required under the FMP. The State of California requires a logbook for harpoon vessels, drift gillnet vessels, and CPFVs. The State of Oregon requires a logbook for drift gillnet vessels. These state logbooks, which are tailored to specific gear types, would be acceptable under these regulations. Duplicate logbooks would not be required.

5. Bycatch

A number of provisions are included in the FMP to measure and reduce bycatch and to provide better information to assess the amount and type of bycatch in HMS fisheries. The proposed standardized reporting system for bycatch assessment is to initially require that longline, surface hook-and-line, small purse seine fisheries, and recreational charter vessels carry observers when directed by the Regional Administrator. An observer program is already in effect for drift gillnet vessels and longline vessels, though coverage needs to be expanded for the latter. In consultation with the Pacific Council, its advisory bodies, and the fishery participants, NMFS will develop initial observer coverage plans for these fisheries, which will be completed 60 days following approval of the FMP. The observer coverage plans for these fisheries may be adjusted as the initial data is assessed and more is learned about the levels of coverage necessary to obtain statistically reliable data on bycatch in the various fisheries. In the longer term, NMFS will develop observer sampling plans for private recreational vessels to assess potential ways of improving information on managed species and on the quantity of bycatch in recreational fisheries.

The FMP identifies a variety of measures already in effect (e.g., drift gillnet mesh size, time and area closures for certain gear types) to prevent or reduce bycatch and evaluates the practicability of additional bycatch reduction measures.

6. Management Organizations

There is no single, pan-Pacific institution that manages all HMS throughout their ranges. The IATTC adopts conservation measures for yellowfin and bigeye tunas in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Member nations of the IATTC, including the United States, are obligated to implement IATTC conservation measures for their national fisheries. On September 5, 2000, the Convention on Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean was opened for signature by the coastal nations of the western and central Pacific and nations fishing in that region. The Convention has not yet entered into force and has not been ratified by the United States, but it would establish a commission empowered to adopt management measures for HMS throughout their ranges in the central and western Pacific. The IATTC and the new western Pacific commission may play important roles in managing West Coast-based HMS fisheries.

In 1981, the United States and Canada signed the Treaty on Pacific Coast Albacore Tuna Vessels and Port Privileges, which allows fishing vessels of each nation to fish for albacore tuna in waters of the other nation beyond 12 nautical miles. Recently, U.S. albacore fishermen have become concerned about the increased effort by Canadian vessels in U.S. waters and the lack of information on the amount of albacore taken by Canada. The United States engaged in negotiations with Canada on these issues, which resulted in a treaty amendment in July 2002. The United States can promulgate regulations to implement the amended treaty if the U.S. Congress enacts legislation authorizing the promulgation of regulations.

Within the United States, three regional fishery management councils have management responsibility for HMS in the Pacific Ocean: the Pacific, the North Pacific, and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Councils. The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council manages highly migratory species in the central and western Pacific under the authority of the Pelagics FMP. Many of the same stocks of HMS are harvested in separate jurisdictions. In some cases vessels are fishing in the same areas but landing in different jurisdictions, where there may be different management objectives and management measures.

Effective management of HMS in the Pacific will require the Pacific Council to be fully informed of management actions being considered in the international organizations affecting HMS and will require the Pacific Council to coordinate its activities with the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council and North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Although management objectives may differ in the respective areas, consistency is expected to be achieved by NMFS to meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act while giving full consideration to local needs.

7. Protected Species and the Framework Process

Drift gillnet and longline vessels encounter endangered and threatened sea turtles and marine mammals during fishing operations, and longline vessels encounter significant numbers of birds. Measures to prevent jeopardy and minimize the impacts on these species have been implemented through regulations under the authority of the MMPA and the ESA. Area closures and special equipment apply to drift gillnet vessels. There is much less information about the extent or nature of interactions with sea turtles and seabirds by vessels engaged in purse seine fishing for tuna, harpoon fishing for swordfish, and trolling for albacore. However, available information indicates that interactions are very rare. The FMP mandates observer coverage to ensure a sound scientific basis for determinations of interactions and impacts and consideration of management adjustments if necessary and appropriate. It is possible that additional data will show that other fishing gear used to harvest highly migratory species has an impact in protected species. The FMP recognizes that the Pacific Council is the body best suited to weigh and consider all potential impacts on fishing for HMS from West Coast ports. The FMP includes framework procedures by which the Pacific Council can consider the need for additional actions as new information becomes available, e.g., observer data demonstrating a protected species interaction problem. The framework process explicitly includes the potential for action to conserve and protect species of special concern.

Section 118(f)(9) of the MMPA authorizes the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) to promulgate regulations governing commercial fishing operations to implement a take reduction plan to protect or restore a marine mammal stock or species. Likewise, vessels fishing for highly migratory species may have an impact on threatened or endangered species, which could require action by the Assistant Administrator under the authority of the ESA. The Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team established under the MMPA reviews fishery and observer data and provides guidance to NMFS on actions needed to protect marine mammals. The Southwest Regional Administrator will provide these reports to the Pacific Council for recommendations on whether and how best to implement any necessary measures. If appropriate, the Pacific Council will utilize the framework processes in the FMP to address these issues to the extent FMP regulations are appropriate. This process does not prevent the AA from taking action under the authority of the MMPA and the ESA independent of the Pacific Council process.

The Pacific Council submitted draft regulations with the FMP as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. While technical changes have been made for clarity and compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, no substantive changes in the regulations have been made.

Classification

At this time, NMFS has not determined that the FMP this proposed rule would implement is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.

The Pacific Council prepared the FMP in the format of a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) consistent with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). NOAA expects to file the FEIS with the Environmental Protection Agency after Secretarial review of the FMP has begun but before final action to approve, disapprove, or disapprove in part the FMP. The FMP contains a framework management process that facilitates timely implementation of management measures by the Pacific Council without amending the FMP. This will allow the Pacific Council and NMFS to act quickly to address resource conservation issues. Maximum sustainable yield is established for all managed species to ensure compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, although some species are also managed by international organizations and come within the jurisdiction of other fishery management councils. Consistency of management to ensure effective conservation and management is a goal of the FMP. Harvest limits are established for common thresher and mako shark to prevent local depletion. Although highly migratory, evidence indicates that local depletion of these sharks can occur and would have an impact on these species and the fisheries involved. To protect endangered turtles and protected seabirds, the FMP makes regulations governing longline fishing from West Coast ports consistent with the rules established for longline vessels fishing out of Hawaii, when West Coast vessels are fishing west of 150° W. long.; therefore, all U.S. fishermen must adhere to the same conservation measures in these waters regardless of jurisdiction. However, in waters east of 150° W. long., West Coast longline vessels would not be subject to the same limitation as western Pacific vessels. The impacts of this approach, both with respect to implications for effective management and with respect to ESA issues, will be fully evaluated through the review of the FMP and the section 7 consultations described above. Rules governing drift gillnet fishing issued under the authority of the ESA are incorporated in the FMP. Incorporating rules in the FMP issued under other authorities will ensure wider public review of management issues and broader analysis. Permit and reporting requirements of the FMP build on existing programs to obtain sufficient information needed for management while minimizing duplication.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

NMFS prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. The IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows:

A fish-harvesting business is considered a “small” business by the Small Business Administration (SBA) if it has annual receipts not in excess of $3.5 million. For related fish-processing businesses, a small business is one that employs 500 or fewer persons. For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is one with annual receipts not in excess of $5.0 million.

Fishing vessels targeting HMS are expected to be the only types of small entities directly impacted by the proposed actions. Any regulatory action under the FMP that would result in a reduction in domestic landings of HMS are expected to be offset at the processor level by imports at comparative prices. None of the initial regulatory alternatives considered are expected to add to the costs or reduce revenues of marinas and charter/party boats. Only the permit and logbook requirements described below would add additional reporting.

A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the SUMMARY and elsewhere in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this proposed rule and are not repeated here.

The FMP proposes management of 5 commercial fishing fleets and a fleet of recreational charter vessels. Each fleet has its own gear requirements, each has a differential impact on ocean resources, and each has different economic circumstances. The FMP authorizes commercial legal HMS gear as harpoon, surface hook and line, drift gillnet of at least 14-inch (35.56-cm) stretched mesh or greater, purse seine, and pelagic longline. The FMP authorizes rod and reel, spear, and hook and line as recreational gear. An alternative for drift gillnet gear was to allow stretched mesh less than 14 inches (35.56 cm).

The proposed alternative of requiring 14-inch (35.56-cm) stretched mesh or larger is consistent with the historic use of drift gillnet used to target swordfish and sharks. Fishermen estimated that there may be as many as 8-10 vessels that occasionally use small-mesh drift gillnets when albacore and bluefin tuna are available. There could be as many as 20 vessels that might have fished small-mesh drift gillnets at one time or another, based on landing receipts for drift gillnet vessels landing albacore and bluefin tuna, but not swordfish. Vessels fishing small mesh drift gillnet gear would be restricted to landing HMS only as an incidental catch. The economic impact on the four vessels that have been documented as using small mesh drift gillnets amounts to between 20 percent and 48 percent of gross receipts. These vessels landed between 1.0 and 15.0 mt of albacore and 0.0 to 3.0 mt of bluefin tuna during the 2001 season. The vessels might make up for the lost revenue through other small mesh gillnet fisheries or simply return to using large mesh nets because all four vessels also currently possess permits for use of the larger mesh gear. Vessels currently fishing large mesh nets would suffer no economic loss under this alternative as they would not need to modify their gear or current fishing practices. The opportunity for albacore surface hook-and-line vessels to deploy small mesh drift gillnet gear to target albacore while on overnight trips would be preempted under this alternative. Loss of this opportunity would prevent realization of potential efficiency gains from landing more albacore per unit of time on the water.

For drift gillnet vessels using nets with 14-inch (35.56-cm) or greater stretched mesh, the FMP adopts all Federal conservation and management measures in place under the MMPA and ESA; adopts all state regulations for drift gillnet fishing under Magnuson-Stevens Act authority, except the states' limited entry programs, which will remain under state authority; modifies an Oregon closure inside 1000 fathoms to be in effect year round; closes U.S. EEZ waters off Washington to all drift gillnet vessels; and includes provisions (as in current ESA regulations) to establish a turtle protection closure north of Point Sur, CA to 45° N. lat. from August 15 to November 15, and south of Pt. Conception, CA to 120° W. long. during a forecasted or occurring El Nino event in the months of June, July, and August. Existing Federal and state regulations, including current state drift gillnet time-area closures and gear restrictions were deemed appropriate for adopting. However, the Pacific Council concluded that incorporating under MSA authority the existing state limited entry programs would significantly increase Federal costs and administrative burdens and was premature. The Pacific Council may consider limited entry under the FMP in the future and has already asked its plan team to begin consideration of limited entry for the West Coast longline fishery. Closures off Washington and Oregon are intended to protect the common thresher shark, sea turtles and marine mammals. This alternative modifies the current state regulations to prohibit, year round, drift gillnet fishing for swordfish and sharks in U.S. EEZ waters off Oregon east of a line approximating the 1,000 fm curve (deleting an existing May-August prohibition within 75 nautical miles) and prohibits drift gillnet fishing in all U.S. EEZ waters off Washington. The State of Washington currently does not allow the use of drift gillnet gear and Oregon does not allow drift gillnets to target thresher shark, although drift gillnet vessels have fished off both states and landed their catch in California.

Approximately 64 vessels actively participate in the drift gillnet fishery off the U.S. West Coast (see table below). All of these vessels would be considered small businesses under the SBA standards. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate financial impacts between small and large vessels under the proposed action.

Financial or private costs, and measures of fishing performance are those costs and performance measures faced by individual vessel owners. Short-run, financial or private profit realized by vessel owners from participation in the swordfish/shark gillnet fishery was calculated as the difference between the annual private costs incurred during swordfish/shark fishing operations — the annual variable costs associated with swordfish/shark fishing — and the total ex-vessel revenue generated from the vessel's annual landings from swordfish/shark fishing. Only short-run measures of financial and economic performance were calculated because many vessels typically engage in other types of fishing, and there is no reasonable basis for allocating fixed and common costs across types of fishing, i.e. across drift gillnet, surface hook-and-line, or others. These are costs that do not vary with the level of fishing activity and cannot be assigned to a single type of fishing or output. Under these circumstances common or fixed costs are excluded from the short-run net benefit and financial profit calculations for each management alternative. Although drift gillnet vessels harvest a number of species and will use alternative gears, no attempt was made to evaluate potential changes in fishing strategies by these vessels in response to different opportunities to harvest HMS under each of the regulatory alternatives, and what this would mean in terms of operating costs and ex-vessel revenues under alternative fishing strategies.

Financial impacts of each drift gillnet regulatory alternative were evaluated based on incremental changes from the status quo; i.e., the difference between drift gillnet ex-vessel private profits under the proposed action and drift gillnet private profits under the status quo. The following table reports the estimated incremental changes in short-run financial profits for drift gillnet vessels for each regulatory alternative relative to the status quo. Financial impacts are evaluated as the present value of changes in short-run financial profits over a 25 year time period discounted at 7 percent and 4 percent discount rates. In column two, the present value of the change in average annual short-run financial profit from the status quo (from column three) is calculated for a 25-year time horizon at 7 percent and 4 percent discount rates. Column three reports the difference in estimated average annual short-run financial profit the difference between average annual exvessel revenue and average annual variable costs - under the alternative being considered and the average annual short-run financial profit under the status quo alternative. The discount rate is the rate of interest at which the cash flows associated with the proposed policy are to be discounted. The choice of discount rate reflects social time preference and the opportunity cost of resources that are used under the policy. Social time preference tends to discount the future less heavily than private time preference, while opportunity cost considerations tend to weigh against using lower discount rates for public policies for fear of preempting higher valued private use of the appropriated resources.

The estimated changes in financial profit are based on cost and earnings surveys of industry members. For the drift gillnet fishery, 42 vessel owners (about half the active fleet) responded by providing 2 years of data each. The response rate was sufficient to provide a robust analysis.

The following abbreviations are used in the tables summarizing the analyses: NQ+ = non-quantifiable positive, NQ- = non-quantifiable negative, NC = no change from status quo, and UN = unknown and NA = not applicable.

The impact on drift gillnet vessels under Alternative 2, the proposed action, primarily stems from rescinding the closure of the U.S. EEZ to fishing by Oregon vessels inside 75 nautical miles off Oregon from May 1 to August 14, closing waters inside the 1,000 fathom curve off Oregon, and the entire U.S. EEZ off Washington to all fishermen year round. These closures alone reduce the discounted value of short-run financial profits available to the fleet formerly fishing in those areas by $661,557 over 25 years at a 7 percent discount rate; or $886,843 over 25 years at a 4 percent discount rate. (The data used for the financial analysis of the Oregon and Washington closures were provided by 2 fishermen out of the 2-3 active fishermen operating in these areas and covered 2 years of fishing for both respondents.)

Although the absolute level of decline in short-run financial profits from this measure is comparatively small in relation to the entire fishery, the entire burden is borne by the 2-3 vessels that currently fish both swordfish and thresher sharks, but especially the latter using drift gillnet gear in these waters. Their lost opportunity represents a decline of 51 percent in their short-run financial profits.

The FMP establishes a prohibition on the use of pelagic longline gear in the U.S. EEZ. The proposed action continues the de facto longline prohibition throughout the U.S. EEZ and minimizes potential bycatch of fish and protected species, and reduces fishery competition problems. There are no vessels currently participating in a pelagic longline fishery within the U.S. EEZ off the U.S. West Coast. Although Oregon is the only state that allows pelagic longlining within the U.S. EEZ on a case by case basis, no landings have occurred. All of the Oregon vessels would be considered small businesses under the SBA standards; therefore, there would be no financial impacts resulting from disproportionality between small and large vessels under the proposed action.

Financial impacts of each pelagic longline regulatory alternative within the U.S. EEZ were evaluated based on incremental changes from the status quo; i.e., the difference between pelagic longline ex-vessel private profits under the proposed action and pelagic longline private profits under the status quo. Because there are no empirical financial data available for this fishery, comparisons are based on the application of economic theory to potential fishing opportunities arising from the regulatory alternatives. The following table reports the estimated incremental qualitative changes in short-run financial profits for vessels for each regulatory alternative relative to the status quo. The annual average change in short-run financial profits is also shown.

There are not expected to be any financial impacts associated with Alternative 2 because it essentially represents the status quo. It would eliminate the Oregon longline fishery, authorized outside 25 nautical miles under the State's developmental fisheries program permit system. However, there are no active Oregon permits at the present time. This alternative would also eliminate the potential opportunity now available to West Coast based commercial fishermen for fishing off Oregon and California and landing in Oregon, which is currently not being exercised. The other alternatives offer potential increases in financial profits if it can be scientifically determined that there would not be an adverse impact on bycatch and protected species interactions.

Beyond the U.S. EEZ, the FMP applies to West Coast-based longline vessels all of the restrictions applied to Hawaii-based longline vessels when fishing west of 150° W. long., but applies selected restrictions to vessels fishing east of 150° W. long., which allows West Coast-based vessels to target swordfish east of 150° W. long. (except for a partial closure in April and May). Restrictions limit sea turtle and seabird interactions and improve monitoring of the fishery. Swordfish targeting would be allowed east of 150° W. long. for most of the year under the FMP, though the ESA section 7 consultations may result in a finding of jeopardy to one or more species listed under the ESA and alternative management measures may be necessary. The objectives of the proposed action provide for a longline fishing opportunity, giving due consideration to traditional participants in the fisheries, while providing adequate protection to sea turtles and seabirds.

A total of 38 vessels participated in the West Coast-based, high seas pelagic longline fishery during 2001 (see table below). All of these vessels would be considered small businesses under the SBA standards. Therefore, there would be no financial impacts resulting from disproportionality between small and large vessels under the proposed action.

Financial impacts of each high seas pelagic longline regulatory alternative were evaluated based on incremental changes from the status quo; i.e., the difference between pelagic longline ex-vessel private profits under the proposed action and pelagic longline private profits under Alternative 1, the status quo. The following table reports the estimated incremental changes in short-run financial profits for pelagic longline vessels for each regulatory alternative relative to the status quo. Financial impacts are evaluated as the present value of changes in short-run financial profits projected over a 25 year time period, discounted at 7 percent and 4 percent discount rates. The annual average change in short-run financial profits is also shown. The changes in financial profit were estimated using cost and earnings data voluntarily provided by industry members. Owners of 6 vessels provided 2 years of data each; this was about 25 percent of the active fleet in that period.

Under the status quo, the FMP would not impose regulations on the high seas, West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery. Fishing could continue without regulations until regulations are established under other authorities. Therefore, without the FMP, the future of the West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery operating on the high seas is expected to be different from recent conditions. Swordfish is the target species of this fishery, and swordfish sets may be prohibited; gear restrictions (no light sticks, minimum depth of sets, line clippers to release sea turtles) would apply; and seabird avoidance methods would be required. Longline fishing targeting tuna on the high seas out of West Coast ports might then be an alternative if swordfish targeting is prohibited, but current participants in the fishery indicate that without being able to target swordfish, the high seas longline fishery originating from West Coast ports would cease to exist. In view of this likelihood, the estimated financial impacts relative to Alternative 1 assume that regulations are likely in the future that would prohibit West Coast-based pelagic longliners from targeting swordfish on the high seas, and that under those circumstances the fishery would cease to exist.

Alternative 2 would allow the fishery to continue under selected restrictions, and the financial impact of Alternative 2, shown below, is based on a projection of current private profits in the fishery. Estimates of current private profits do not include the private costs that might be incurred in adopting turtle and seabird saving measures, placement of observers, and the installation and use of VMS, and any lost revenues from being unable to fish from 15° N. lat. to the equator, and from 145° W. long. to 180° W. long. during April and May. Therefore, private profits under Alternative 2 in the table below may be overstated. While some West Coast-based, high seas pelagic longliners harvest species other than swordfish, no attempt was made to evaluate potential changes in fishing strategies by these vessels in response to different harvest opportunities under each of the regulatory alternatives, and what this would mean in terms of operating costs and ex-vessel revenues under alternative fishing strategies. Alternative 2 was chosen because the Pacific Council concluded that it could not propose elimination of such a valuable fishery without clear indication that the takes of sea turtles would be excessive.

Alternative 3 would prohibit swordfish targeting with implementation of the FMP. Under Alternative 3 the assumption is that the fishery would disappear in the long run, in which case there is no difference from the status quo.

Alternative 2 would maintain the fishery, but impose some slight additional costs on West Coast-based longliners targeting swordfish on the high seas. Fishermen would have to incur some of the cost of adopting turtle and seabird saving measures, accommodating observers and using monitoring equipment such as a vessel monitoring system. Therefore, under Alternative 2 there would be a slight reduction in annual short-run, financial profits from those reported above. There may also be reductions in swordfish catch rates due to the alternative of turtle and seabird mitigation measures. This could further reduce short-run, financial profits. If subsequent analyses prove that swordfish longlining on the fishing grounds of the West Coast-based, high seas pelagic longline fleet results in less impact on turtles and other protected species (or that these interactions can be avoided), its further development could lead to increased short run financial profits. If on the other hand, subsequent analyses prove that swordfish longlining in the fishing grounds in the eastern north Pacific action area has potential for the same or greater impact on protected species, the fishery may not be able to continue operating unless ways to prevent jeopardy to protected species can be developed. In the latter case there are likely to be additional harvesting costs involved to perform the prevention measures which in the absence of any improvements in harvest rates, or other efficiency gains, would reduce short-run financial profits.

The fishery will probably be subject to regulations promulgated under other authorities, which are expected to result in its disappearance in time. This is reflected in the long-term status quo, Alternative 1, where financial profits become zero with a phase out of the fishery. In the near term however, the fishery may persist under existing state regulations, in which case short-run financial profits are expected to be $6.8 million per year under the status quo. These are the same as the annual average financial profits that would be expected under Alternative 2 minus the cost of adopting turtle and seabird saving measures, accommodating observers and using monitoring equipment such as vessel monitoring systems. Short and long-term profits would disappear under Alternative 3 with the prohibition on targeting swordfish. Therefore, in the long term, Alternative 3 is the same as the status quo.

The FMP opens the entire U.S. EEZ to purse seine fishing, although there has been little interest in such fishing for highly migratory species off Oregon and Washington. The objectives of the proposed action are to provide for additional purse seine fishing opportunities. There were 27 vessels on average participating in the West Coast-based, coastal purse seine fishery during the 1995-99 period. All of these vessels would be considered small businesses under the SBA standards. Therefore, there would be no financial impacts resulting from disproportionality between small and large vessels under the proposed action.

Financial impacts of each purse seine regulatory alternative were evaluated based on incremental changes from the status quo; i.e., the difference between expected purse seine ex-vessel private profits under the proposed action and private profits under the status quo. The following table reports the estimated incremental qualitative changes in short-run financial profits for pelagic longline vessels for each regulatory alternative relative to the status quo. There are no cost and earnings data available for purse seine fishing for highly migratory species off Oregon and Washington.

The proposed action will have little impact on private profits because there has been virtually no purse seine fishing for highly migratory species in the waters proposed to be closed.

Northern bluefin tuna do not generally occur in significant numbers in the Pacific Northwest except during periods of elevated water temperature. Thus, there would likely only be an increase in purse seine fishing activity for northern bluefin tuna during El Nino-like conditions. These conditions, by providing an additional fishing opportunity, would likely increase short-run financial profits for purse seiners that currently participate in the Oregon-Washington sardine fishery. Under exceptionally good bluefin fishing in Oregon-Washington waters, this opportunity might extend to California-based purse seiners.

Alternatives 3 and 4 would preclude existing fishing opportunities above 45° N. lat. for California and Oregon vessels. This could reduce their potential financial profits in years of exceptionally good bluefin fishing in these waters.

It is noted that only 2 purse seine vessels were recorded as landing HMS into a West Coast port in 2002. NMFS does not expect the development of a significant HMS purse seine fishery on the West Coast, due to lack of processing capability and markets, and the unlikelihood of new investment in new processing capability under the current price structure.

The FMP would prohibit the sale of striped marlin by all vessels. The objectives are to provide for continued recreational fishing opportunities. Prohibiting sale removes the incentive for commercial fishermen to take striped marlin.

Financial impacts of each regulatory alternative pertaining to the sale of striped marlin were evaluated based on incremental changes from the status quo; i.e., the difference between expected ex-vessel private profits under the proposed action and private profits under the status quo. The following table reports the estimated incremental qualitative changes in short-run financial profits for each regulatory alternative relative to the status quo.

The proposed action will have little impact on private profits because there is virtually no change from the status quo. Striped marlin cannot now be sold, so no revenue impacts to the fishermen will ensue.

The FMP would require a Federal permit with a specific endorsement for each gear type (harpoon, drift gillnet, surface hook and line, purse seine, and pelagic longline). The permits and endorsements are subject to sanctions, including revocation, as provided by Section 308 (g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Permits are a standard tool used to support management by facilitating collection of biological, economic or social data, facilitating enforcement of laws and regulations, identifying those who would be affected by actions to prevent or reduce excess capacity in the fishery, and providing information to meet international obligations.

A review of NMFS data bases indicates that there are an estimated 1,337 vessels likely to harvest highly migratory species. All vessels would be considered small businesses under the SBA standards. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate financial impacts between small and large vessels under the proposed action. The proposed action is duplicative in the sense that permit requirements implemented for other purposes (e.g., HSFCA) may require a vessel to have more than one permit to fish highly migratory species.

Financial impacts of each regulatory alternative pertaining to commercial fishing permits were evaluated based on incremental changes from the status quo; i.e., the difference between expected ex-vessel private profits under the proposed action and private profits under the status quo. The following table reports the estimated incremental qualitative changes in short-run financial profits for each regulatory alternative relative to the status quo. The annual average change in short-run financial profits is also shown.

Under Alternative 2 there would be a slight reduction in financial profits due to the cost of acquiring a commercial permit. Estimates of permit costs for commercial vessels are about $60.00 per vessel; a $40 permit fee and $20 for the time involved in filling out or confirming information on the permit registration form. The same costs would be entailed under Alternatives 3 and 4, no matter what the scope of the permit. This is an additional fixed cost, and although minor, may be disproportionate across smaller vessels engaged in HMS fisheries.

The FMP requires a Federal permit for all charter or commercial passenger carrying fishing vessels (CPFV) from which recreational fishers pursue highly migratory species, but an existing state permit or license for recreational vessels could meet this requirement. As with commercial fishing permits, this measure would provide a mechanism for identifying the scope of the recreational fishery and the participants so that data collection and research could be more focused and effective. There are approximately 300 charter and CPFV vessels on the West Coast. All these vessels would be considered small businesses under the SBA standards; therefore, there would be no financial impacts resulting from disproportionality between small and large vessels under the proposed action. The proposed action would not require new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements. However, permit processing and periodic permit renewal would be necessary under state laws and regulations.

Financial impacts of each regulatory alternative pertaining to recreational fishing permits were evaluated based on incremental changes from the status quo; i.e., the difference between expected ex-vessel private profits under the proposed action and private profits under the status quo. The following table reports the estimated incremental qualitative changes in short-run financial profits for each regulatory alternative relative to the status quo. The annual average change in short-run financial profits is also shown.

Under Alternative 2, recreational vessels without a state permit would experience a slight reduction in financial profits due to the cost of acquiring a Federal recreational permit, which is estimated to be about $50.00 per vessel. This is an additional fixed cost, and even though minor, may be disproportionate across smaller vessels engaged in commercial passenger recreational fishing for highly migratory species. The same costs would be entailed under Alternatives 3 and 4, no matter what the scope of the permit. Alternative 3 could be somewhat duplicative if it were to overlap state requirements. If a vessel has a choice between a state and a federally issued permit to meet this requirement, there could be some cost savings, improved financial profits, if there is a difference in costs between state and Federal permits.

The FMP would require all commercial and recreational party or charter fishing vessels to maintain and submit logbooks to NMFS. State or existing Federal logbooks could meet this requirement as long as essential data elements are present and data are available to NMFS subject to a data exchange agreement. This measure would facilitate the monitoring of commercial and recreational vessel activities and enhance data collection. This measure would effect about 1,354 commercial and recreational vessels. The number of vessels for which this requirement poses an increased record keeping burden is unknown, but many vessels already are required to maintain state or existing Federal logbooks that would satisfy this requirement. The proposed action would impose new reporting and record-keeping requirements for some vessels. The proposed action is designed to avoid duplication of existing Federal reporting requirements.

Financial impacts of each regulatory alternative pertaining to fishing vessel reporting requirements were evaluated based on incremental changes from the status quo; i.e., the difference between expected ex-vessel private profits under the proposed action and private profits under the status quo. The following table reports the estimated incremental qualitative changes in short-run financial profits for each regulatory alternative relative to the status quo. The annual average change in short-run financial profits is also shown.

Under Alternative 2 there would be a slight reduction in financial profits due to the cost of satisfying the proposed reporting requirements for logbooks for those vessels that do not already meet these requirements. There are also additional reporting requirements associated with the use of vessel monitoring systems and vessel markings. Vessel monitoring systems would be required of longline vessels, but there are not expected to be any costs to vessels under this requirement. All vessels would be required to have identifying numbers, which would impose some additional fixed costs, and although minor, may be disproportionate across smaller vessels engaged in fisheries for highly migratory species. Under Alternative 3, financial impacts would be less because many vessels already maintain logbooks under existing Federal laws.

This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These requirements will be submitted to OMB for approval. The public reporting burden for these requirements is estimated to be 5 minutes for a confirmation of records for a permit application, 10 minutes to correct a record for a permit application, 30 minutes for a new permit application, 5 minutes for filling out a log each day, and 45 minutes to affix the official number of a vessel to its bow and weather deck. In addition, for longline vessels, the reporting burden includes 4 hours for installation of a vessel monitoring system, 2 hours for maintenance of the system, and 24 seconds for electronic reporting via the satellite based vessel monitoring system. These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Public comment is sought regarding whether these proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimate, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated information technology. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted to, Svein Fougner, Assistant Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, Southwest Region (SEE ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirement of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

A formal consultation under the ESA was initiated on September 24, 2003. Based on the conclusions of the consultation, the Regional Administrator will determine if fishing activities under this proposed rule are likely to affect adversely endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat under NMFS jurisdiction.

A formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under the ESA was initiated by NMFS on September 22, 2003. Based on the consultation, the FWS will determine if fishing activities under this proposed rule are likely to affect adversely endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat under its jurisdiction.

The Regional Administrator has determined that, based on the information and analyses in the FMP, fishing activities conducted under this proposed rule would have no adverse impacts on marine mammals. Regulations promulgated under MMPA authority to implement a Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan would remain in effect.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 223

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine mammals, Transportation.

50 CFR Part 224

Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 660

Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223, 50 CFR part 224, and 50 CFR part 660 are proposed to be amended as follows:

50 CFR Chapter VI

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.12 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

2. In § 223.206, paragraph (d)(6) is removed and reserved.

PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

3. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

4. In § 224.104, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF THE WEST COAST AND IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

5. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

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

6. Add subpart K to read as follows:

Subpart K-Highly Migratory Fisheries

Subpart K—Highly Migratory Fisheries