[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63738-63742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-28209]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 021113274-3267-02; I.D. 031501A]
RIN 0648-AO79


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Exempted Fishing Activities

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

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule in accordance with framework 
procedures for adjusting management measures of the Final Fishery 
Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks (HMS FMP), and 
Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan (Billfish 
FMP). This final rule modifies existing regulations for Atlantic highly 
migratory species (HMS) exempted fishing activities, with the intent of 
improving monitoring and reporting of exempted fishing activities for 
Atlantic HMS, primarily those which are collected for public display 
purposes and those targeted for scientific research.

DATES: Effective December 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Written reports on fishing activities and applications for 
Exempted Fishing Permits and Scientific Research Permits should be 
submitted to Sari Kiraly or Heather Stirratt, Highly Migratory Species 
Management Division (F/SF1), Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sari Kiraly or Heather Stirratt at 
301-713-2347, fax 301-713-1917, e-mail [email protected] or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 50 CFR 635.32, and consistent with 50 
CFR 600.745, NMFS may authorize, for limited testing, public display, 
and scientific data collection purposes, the target or incidental 
harvest of species managed under an FMP or fishery regulations that 
would otherwise be prohibited. Exempted fishing may not be conducted 
unless authorized by an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) or a Scientific 
Research Permit (SRP) issued by NMFS in accordance with criteria and 
procedures specified in those sections. As necessary, an EFP or SRP 
would exempt the named party(ies) from otherwise applicable regulations 
under 50 CFR part 635. Such exemptions could address fishery closures, 
possession of prohibited species, commercial permitting requirements, 
and retention and minimum size limits.
    This final rule was developed largely in response to ongoing 
concerns related to EFPs issued in the past for the purpose of 
collecting regulated HMS, particularly those collected for public 
display, and also takes into consideration concerns related to the 
reporting of permitted HMS scientific research activities. It is 
intended to strengthen the existing regulations which govern these 
permit related activities. This final rule is in accordance with 
framework procedures for adjusting management measures provided in the 
Final HMS FMP, and Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP.

Exempted Fishing Operations

    With respect to exempted fishing activities, NMFS finalizes the 
following requirements:
    (1) Collectors of HMS for public display are required to notify the 
local NMFS Office for Law Enforcement at

[[Page 63739]]

least 24 hours prior to departing on a collection trip as to collection 
plans and location, and number of animals to be collected. This 
requirement is included so that the local NMFS Office for Law 
Enforcement can be aware of and monitor exempted collection activities 
within its jurisdiction. Additionally, this information can be made 
available by NMFS to state level enforcement agencies.
    (2) Collectors of HMS for public display have the option of using 
conventional dart tags or microchip Passive Integrated Transponder 
(PIT) tags. Both types of tags will be supplied by NMFS. Unless PIT 
tags are specifically requested in the EFP application, conventional 
dart tags will be issued. Terms and conditions associated with the use 
of the tags issued will be specified in the EFP on a case-by-case 
basis.
    (3) To minimize mortality of targeted animals as well as incidental 
bycatch potentially associated with the live capture of HMS, NMFS may 
specify permit conditions regarding fishing activities, such as gear 
deployment, monitoring, or soak time, if warranted, on a case-by-case 
basis.
    (4) NMFS may select for at-sea observer coverage any vessel issued 
an EFP or SRP under this section. Selected vessels must comply with 
requirements specified under 50 CFR 635.7, 600.725, and 600.746. This 
requirement will be used to verify reports and monitor the takes of HMS 
and protected species resulting from fishing activities.
    (5) This final rule also modifies EFP requirements for swordfish 
offloading. For the pelagic longline directed swordfish fishery, as 
vessel monitoring systems (VMS) are now required to be installed and 
operating on vessels, EFPs to allow delayed offloading after a closure 
are no longer required.

Reporting Requirements

    To enhance data collection and reporting, NMFS finalizes the 
following reporting requirements:
    (1) Applications for EFP and SRP renewals are required to include 
all reports specified in the applicant's previous permit, including the 
year-end report, all delinquent reports for permits issued in prior 
years, and all other specified information, in order for the renewal 
application to be considered complete. An EFP or SRP will not be issued 
for incomplete applications. This new requirement will reinforce the 
importance to NMFS of specified reports on the activities conducted 
under the permit.
    (2) Fishing activities and disposition of all HMS either retained, 
discarded alive or dead, or tagged and released under an EFP or SRP 
must be reported within 5 days of the fishing activity, or as specified 
in the permit, without regard to whether the fishing activity occurs in 
or outside the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Dead discards will be 
counted against appropriate annual quotas. Also, an annual written 
summary report must be submitted to NMFS within 30 days after the 
expiration date of the permit. Reporting of such HMS fishing activity 
will provide important information as to the actual numbers of any 
animals that are removed from the stocks. If an individual issued a 
Federal EFP or SRP captures no HMS in any given month, either in or 
outside the EEZ, that individual must submit a ``no-catch'' report to 
NMFS within 5 days of the last day of that month.
    (3) Several prohibitions are also added or modified to address: (a) 
submission of false information on permit applications or activity 
reports, and (b) violations of any of the terms and conditions of the 
EFP or SRP. These prohibitions are needed to facilitate enforcement of 
EFP and SRP application and reporting requirements. Essentially, they 
extend the permitting, record-keeping, and reporting requirements 
otherwise applicable to vessels and dealers to those persons issued 
EFPs and SRPs.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received a number of comments on the proposed rule during the 
comment period. In addition to the provisions contained in the proposed 
rule, comments were requested on several other potential regulatory 
provisions. Major comments received are summarized here together with 
responses.

Exempted Fishing Operations

    Comment 1: The 72-hour pre-departure notification for collecting 
HMS may be problematic. NMFS should consider a more reasonable time 
frame of 24 - 48 hours.
    Response: NMFS has modified the final rule to require a 
notification time of at least 24 hours. This time frame will still 
allow sufficient time for the local NMFS Office for Law Enforcement to 
respond and notify local officials as necessary.
    Comment 2: Commenters generally disagreed with notification to the 
NMFS Office for Law Enforcement upon completion of a collection trip 
and 48 hours prior to shipping animals for display as being 
unreasonable. One commenter supported the provision.
    Response: While notification upon completion of a trip and prior to 
shipping animals would serve to better track collection activities, 
NMFS has not included these provisions in the final rule because 
commenters objected on the grounds that: 1) it is unnecessary, since 
catch reports are submitted; and 2) such notification may be 
logistically difficult because transport times are not always 
predictable, as they are based on animal acclimation and health, 
transport staff, and equipment availability.
    Comment 3: Commenters generally objected to the use of PIT tags on 
the grounds that there is insufficient information on the use of PIT 
tags in fishes, particularly sharks, and there are potential problems 
associated with their use. These commenters noted that given these 
uncertainties, a requirement at this time that PIT tags be used for HMS 
collected for display is not warranted. One commenter supported the use 
of PIT tags.
    Response: The requirement to use PIT tags was included in the 
proposed rule in response to commercial collectors who objected to the 
use of the conventional dart tags because of their experience with 
infections and scarring in the animals and requested an alternative 
means of tagging. PIT tags were selected because aquariums and 
scientific researchers have used them to identify HMS. The final rule 
reflects the concerns associated with the use of PIT tags by not 
requiring collectors to use PIT tags, but by specifying that they may 
be used as an alternative to dart tags. NMFS will provide PIT tags upon 
request.
    Comment 4: Commenters generally disagreed with the provision that 
would allow NMFS to specify fishing practices for collecting HMS for 
display in order to minimize mortalities. Specifically, commenters felt 
that NMFS should leave this determination to the collection 
professionals, as it is in their best interest to minimize or eliminate 
mortalities by using the most effective and efficient fishing gear and 
associated practices. One commenter supported the provision.
    Response: It is in the best interest of collectors to minimize 
mortalities of the fish they collect. However, it is NMFS' 
responsibility to manage the HMS fisheries and minimize unnecessary 
mortalities of the target species and other species, such as sea 
turtles and seabirds, that may interact with fishing gear. Thus, the 
language in the final rule has been modified to more accurately reflect 
NMFS intent that NMFS may specify collection conditions in the permit 
as necessary.

[[Page 63740]]

    Comment 5: Commenters generally disagreed with NMFS placing at-sea 
observers on board HMS collection vessels and suggested that NMFS 
should consider alternatives. Commenters noted that collecting 
operations are very specific and potentially hazardous, and that only 
experienced, trained personnel should be on board the vessels. Also, 
the vessels used are often small and crowded with no place for 
inexperienced newcomers who may jeopardize collecting operations. One 
commenter supported the provision to place observers on board 
collection vessels.
    Response: At-sea observers are an important means for fishery 
managers to collect information on fishing activities that are 
generally considered too burdensome for fishermen to collect, either 
due to the specific details required or to potential interference with 
fishing operations. They also provide data that are used to verify 
other reporting requirements, allowing for more responsive management. 
In cases of overfished stocks, such as many HMS, or protected species 
such as sea turtles, observer data can be used to improve stock 
assessments. Observers are fully trained before being placed on board a 
vessel and should not interrupt fishing operations. Additionally, 
observers should be able to help the vessel captain and crew in 
releasing protected species. As specified in 50 CRF 635.7, 600.725, and 
600.746, NMFS will not place an observer on a vessel that is deemed 
unsafe.

Reporting Requirements

    Comment 6: The requirement that year-end reports be a mandatory 
component of a permit renewal package is appropriate.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has retained this requirement in the 
final rule.
    Comment 7: Commenters generally held that the reporting of dead 
discards and no-catch reporting is burdensome and not necessary. 
Because the intention is to collect and maintain live animals, the 
number of dead discards is very small and does not warrant the 
paperwork. Similarly, monthly no-catch reporting is questionable 
because collecting is not a year-round activity. Finally, the 
requirement to submit catch and no-catch reports within a 5-day time 
frame is impractical, and a more reasonable time frame should be 
considered. Conversely, one commenter supported the dead discard and 
no-catch reporting provisions.
    Response: Through catch reports, NMFS will be better able to 
determine if many more animals are authorized for collection than 
actually are collected. These reporting requirements will allow for 
more accurate counting against the public display quota or relevant 
quotas recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation 
of Atlantic Tunas. Including dead discards in the counting will further 
enhance the accuracy of stock assessments and the monitoring of species 
subject to dead discard allowances. Similarly, NMFS will be able to 
better evaluate collection trends by confirming those times when no 
animals are collected. NMFS believes that a 5-day time frame for 
submitting reports is reasonable, as the report forms take only a few 
minutes to complete and can be mailed upon the vessel's return to 
shore. Therefore, the dead discard and no-catch reporting requirements, 
as well as the 5-day time frame for submitting reports, have been 
retained in the final rule.
    Comment 8: Reporting collections in state waters should not be 
mandatory, as this further complicates an already complicated process. 
If NMFS wants data on state-permitted collections, the information 
should be obtained from the states. Also, NMFS should pursue the 
proposed Federal-state coordination process that has been discussed and 
which could resolve this issue.
    Response: NMFS is in favor of developing a coordinated Federal-
state permitting program. However, as the states have differing permit 
and reporting requirements, the most efficient interim solution is for 
federally permitted collectors to provide information on their 
collections regardless of where the fishing activity occurs. This will 
enable NMFS to assess better the total number of HMS being removed from 
the stocks.
    Comment 9: Commenters support the prohibitions provisions regarding 
submission of false information and violations of the terms and 
conditions of the permit.
    Response: NMFS retains these provisions in the final rule.

Request for Comments on Potential Regulatory Provisions

    Comment 10: There was general agreement that EFP applicants should 
be required to demonstrate that holding facilities adequate for HMS 
animal husbandry are maintained. Commenters also suggested that 
existing accreditation organizations be involved in this process. 
However, some commenters noted that accreditation does take time, and 
NMFS should not preclude collection of animals while certification is 
pending
    Response: NMFS is considering these types of regulations and may 
issue a proposed rule in the future.
    Comment 11: Commenters generally held that denying EFPs for the 
collection of HMS that are difficult to maintain may be denying the 
development of technological advances in aquarium science and research. 
Additionally, commenters expressed concern regarding the data to be 
used to justify such restrictions. However, one commenter supported the 
proposal.
    Response: NMFS agrees that there could be future technological 
advances in animal husbandry, and would not want to inhibit such 
advances. However, restricting the collection of certain animals may be 
necessary to avoid unwarranted mortality in stressed populations. NMFS 
will continue to consider this type of measure and may issue a proposed 
rule in the future.
    Comment 12: Several commenters supported the issuance of EFPs only 
to display facilities in that this may eliminate commercial collectors 
collecting HMS in advance of actual purchases. Other commenters 
disagreed with this proposal, holding that independent commercial 
collectors should continue to be authorized to collect HMS, some 
companies having made significant contributions to improving the 
process.
    Response: NMFS will continue to consider this approach and may 
issue a proposed rule in the future.
    Comment 13: Commenters generally questioned the necessity or 
disagreed with the proposal regarding the issuance of a NMFS display 
permit in order to maintain HMS in captivity for display purposes. 
These commenters noted the existence of other regulatory entities and 
accreditation organizations which can adequately address the animal 
welfare concerns regarding public display facilities. Questions were 
raised as to the procedures and authority for such a display permit. 
One commenter supported the proposal, but expressed concern regarding 
how this would be implemented.
    Response: NMFS will continue to consider this approach and may 
issue a proposed rule in the future.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    A number of changes to the regulations were made in response to 
comments received on the proposed rule:
    (1) The proposed requirement that collectors of HMS for public 
display notify the local NMFS Office for Law Enforcement 72 hours prior 
to departing on a collection trip has been reduced to a minimum of 24 
hours prior

[[Page 63741]]

notification. Also, the proposed requirements to notify the NMFS Office 
for Law Enforcement upon returning from a collection trip and 48 hours 
prior to shipping HMS to other locations have been eliminated.
    (2) The proposed mandatory use of PIT tags in lieu of conventional 
dart tags for HMS collected for public display has been changed so that 
collectors will have the option of using either PIT tags or the 
conventional dart tags that NMFS currently issues. NMFS will supply PIT 
tags only upon request by EFP applicants, otherwise dart tags will be 
issued.
    (3) The proposed provision that NMFS will specify permit conditions 
regarding HMS collection activities on a case-by-case-basis has been 
clarified to state that permit conditions may be specified by NMFS if 
warranted.
    (4) The regulatory text has been reorganized to clarify the 
regulations and the requirements for SRPs versus EFPs. In addition, 
NMFS revised Sec.  635.32 to simplify the text to state that the 
notification and reporting requirements apply to individuals with EFPs 
or SRPs regardless of where the fishing activity occurs.

Classification

    This final rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et 
seq., and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.
    For the purposes of NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, the 
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) has determined that this 
action would not have a significant effect, individually or 
cumulatively, on the human environment, that it is consistent with the 
environmental impact statement for the FMP, and that it involves only 
minor technical additions, corrections or changes to the regulations. 
Accordingly, under sections 5.05 and 6.03a3(b) of NAO 216-6, this 
action is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    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 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that 
collection of information displays a currently valid Office of 
Management and Budget Control Number.
    This final rule contains a new collection-of-information 
requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA. The 
requirement for exempted fishing activity reporting has been cleared by 
OMB under Control Number 0648-0471. The public reporting burden for 
this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes per 
notification phone call at the beginning of a collection trip. The 
estimated time to prepare a catch report required by an EFP issued for 
display collection is 5 minutes, and to prepare a ``no-catch'' report 
the estimated time is 2 minutes. The estimated application preparation 
and year-end report preparation times for display EFPs are 30 minutes 
each. Application of a PIT or dart tag to a HMS collected for public 
display is estimated to take 2 minutes. 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. Send comments regarding these burden 
estimates, or any other aspect of these data collections, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT), and by e-mail to [email protected], or 
fax to 202-395-7285.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel of Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that the proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
No comments were received on the economic impact of this rule. 
Accordingly, neither an initial regulatory flexibility analysis nor a 
final regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared for this final rule.
    The AA has determined that this action will have no impacts on the 
enforceable policies of those Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean 
coastal states/territories that have approved coastal zone management 
plans under the Coastal Zone Management Act. NMFS submitted requests 
for consistency determinations to affected states/territories with the 
proposed rule. Nine states/territories replied that the proposed action 
was consistent with their respective coastal zone management programs. 
Six states/territories did not respond within the allowed time frame; 
therefore, their concurrence is presumed.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

    Fisheries, Fishing , Fishing Vessels, Foreign Relations, Imports, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: November 3, 2003.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is amended as 
follows:

PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  635.7, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.7  At-sea observer coverage.

    (a) Applicability. NMFS may select for at-sea observer coverage any 
vessel that has an Atlantic HMS, tunas, shark or swordfish permit 
issued under Sec.  635.4 or Sec.  635.32. Vessels permitted in the HMS 
Charter/Headboat and Angling categories will be requested to take 
observers on a voluntary basis. When selected, vessels issued any other 
permit under Sec.  635.4 or Sec.  635.32 are required to take observers 
on a mandatory basis.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  635.28, paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  635.28  Closures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) No more than 15 swordfish per trip may be possessed in or from 
the Atlantic Ocean north of 5 N. lat. or landed in an Atlantic coastal 
state on a vessel using or having on board a pelagic longline. However, 
North Atlantic swordfish legally taken prior to the effective date of 
the closure may be possessed in the Atlantic Ocean north of 5 N. lat. 
or landed in an Atlantic coastal state on a vessel with a pelagic 
longline on board, provided the harvesting vessel does no fishing after 
the closure in the Atlantic Ocean north of 5 N. lat., and reports 
positions with a vessel monitoring system, as specified in Sec.  
635.69. Additionally, legally taken swordfish from the South Atlantic 
swordfish stock may be possessed or landed north of 5 N. lat. provided 
the harvesting vessel does no fishing on that trip north of 5 N. lat., 
and reports positions with a vessel monitoring system as specified in 
Sec.  635.69. NMFS may adjust the incidental catch retention limit by 
filing with the Office of the Federal Register for publication 
notification of the change at least 14

[[Page 63742]]

days before the effective date. Changes in the incidental catch limits 
will be based upon the length of the directed fishery closure and the 
estimated rate of catch by vessels fishing under the incidental catch 
quota.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  635.32, paragraph (c)(1) is revised, paragraph (c)(4) is 
removed, and paragraphs (d) and (e) are added to read as follows:


Sec.  635.32  Specifically authorized activities.

* * * * *
    (c) Exempted fishing permits. (1) For activities consistent with 
the purposes of this section and Sec.  600.745(b)(1) of this chapter, 
other than scientific research conducted from a scientific research 
vessel, NMFS may issue exempted fishing permits.
* * * * *
    (d) Applications and renewals. Application procedures shall be as 
indicated under Sec.  600.745(b)(2) of this chapter, except that NMFS 
may consolidate requests for the purpose of obtaining public comment. 
In such cases, NMFS may file with the Office of the Federal Register 
for publication notification on an annual or, as necessary, more 
frequent basis to report on previously authorized exempted fishing 
activities and to solicit public comment on anticipated exempted 
fishing requests. Applications for EFP and SRP renewals are required to 
include all reports specified in the applicant's previous EFP or SRP, 
including the year-end report, all delinquent reports for EFPs or SRPs 
issued in prior years, and all other specified information, in order 
for the renewal application to be considered complete. In situations of 
delinquent reports, renewal applications will be deemed incomplete and 
a permit will not be issued under this section.
    (e) Terms and conditions. (1) Written reports on fishing activities 
and disposition of catch for all HMS either retained, discarded alive 
or dead, or tagged and released under a permit issued under this 
section, must be submitted to NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS, 
within 5 days of the fishing activity, without regard to whether the 
fishing activity occurs in or outside the Exclusive Economic Zone 
(EEZ). Also, an annual written summary report of all fishing activities 
and disposition of all fish captured under the permit must be submitted 
to NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS, within 30 days after the 
expiration date of the permit. NMFS will provide specific conditions 
and requirements as needed, consistent with the Fishery Management Plan 
for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks, in the permit. If an 
individual issued a Federal permit under this section captures no HMS 
in any given month, either in or outside the EEZ, a ``no-catch'' report 
must be submitted to NMFS within 5 days of the last day of that month.
    (2)(i) Collectors of HMS for public display must notify the local 
NMFS Office for Law Enforcement at least 24 hours, excluding weekends 
and holidays, prior to departing on a collection trip, regardless of 
whether the fishing activity will occur in or outside the EEZ, as to 
collection plans and location and the number of animals to be 
collected. In the event that a NMFS agent is not available, a message 
may be left.
    (ii) All live HMS collected for public display are required to have 
either a conventional dart tag or a microchip Passive Integrated 
Transponder (PIT) tag applied by the collector at the time of the 
collection. Both types of tags will be supplied by NMFS. Conventional 
dart tags will be issued unless PIT tags are specifically requested in 
the permit application and their use approved by NMFS. Terms and 
conditions of the permit will address requirements associated with the 
use of the tags supplied on a case-by-case basis.
    (3) Permit conditions regarding fishing activities, such as gear 
deployment, monitoring, or soak time, may be specified by NMFS if 
warranted, on a case-by-case basis.
    (4) NMFS may select for at-sea observer coverage any vessel issued 
a permit under this section. Selected vessels must comply with the 
requirements for observer accommodation and safety specified at 
Sec. Sec.  635.7, 600.725, and 600.746 of this chapter.

0
5. In Sec.  635.71, paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(26) are revised to read 
as follows:


Sec.  635.71  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (6) Falsify or fail to record, report, or maintain information 
required to be recorded, reported, or maintained, as specified in 
Sec. Sec.  635.5 and 635.32 or in the terms and conditions of a permit 
issued under Sec.  635.4 or an exempted fishing permit or scientific 
research permit issued under Sec.  635.32.
* * * * *
    (26) Violate the terms and conditions or any provision of a permit 
issued under Sec.  635.4, or an exempted fishing permit or scientific 
research permit issued under Sec.  635.32.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-28209 Filed 11-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S