[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75202-75206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-32034]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 031017264-3317-02; I.D. 100103C]
RIN 0648-AR48


Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Referendum Procedures for a 
Potential Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Individual Fishing Quota Program

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; revision and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed rule to provide information about 
the schedule, procedures, and eligibility requirements for 
participating in referendums to determine whether an individual fishing 
quota (IFQ) program for the Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper 
fishery should be prepared and, if so, whether it should subsequently 
be submitted to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review. This 
proposed rule revises a previously published proposed rule based on 
public comments that were received on the initial proposed rule. In 
response to those public comments, this proposed rule includes 
additional options regarding the procedure for weighting votes by 
eligible participants. NMFS is soliciting additional public comment on 
this proposed rule and, particularly, comments on the vote-weighting 
options. The intended effect of this proposed rule is to implement the 
referendums consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on 
January 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be sent to Phil 
Steele, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive 
N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702. Comments also may be sent via fax to 727-
570-5583. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or 
Internet.
    Copies of supporting documentation for this proposed rule, which 
includes a regulatory impact review (RIR) and a Regulatory Flexibility 
Act Analysis (RFAA) are available from NMFS at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Steele, telephone: 727-570-5305, 
fax: 727-570-5583, e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef fish fishery in the exclusive 
economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the Fishery 
Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico 
(FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 
Council (Council) and is implemented under the authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
    The following is a restatement of the material contained in the 
original proposed rule, with minor changes regarding: Scheduling; date 
and location of the Council meeting where results of the initial 
referendum, if approved, would be presented; and clarification of an 
example stated in the original proposed rule regarding the landings 
categories (poundage ranges) to be used. See ``Additional Alternatives 
for a Vote-Weighting Formula,'' which follows this restatement of the 
original proposed rule, for a description of other vote-weighting 
alternatives that are under consideration and are provided for public 
comment. Restatement of the Original Proposed Rule Material.

Background

    During the early to mid-1990s, the Council began development of an 
IFQ program for the commercial red snapper fishery in the Gulf of 
Mexico. Development of this program involved extensive interaction with 
the fishing industry, other stakeholders, and the public through 
numerous workshops, public hearings, and Council meetings. The program 
was approved by NMFS and was scheduled for implementation in 1996. 
However, Congressional action in late 1995 prohibited implementation of 
any new IFQ programs in any U.S. fishery, including the Gulf of Mexico 
red snapper fishery, before October 2000. Subsequent Congressional 
action, passage of HR5666, incorporated this prohibition and related 
provisions into the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
ultimately extended the prohibition until October 1, 2002. However, 
HR5666 also provided authority to the Council to develop a profile for 
any fishery under its jurisdiction that may be considered for a quota 
management system.
    Under Section 407(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council is 
authorized to prepare and submit a plan amendment and regulations to 
implement an IFQ program for the commercial red snapper fishery, but 
only if certain conditions are met. First, the preparation of such a 
plan amendment and regulations must be approved in a referendum. If the 
result of the referendum is approval, the Council would be responsible 
for preparing any such plan amendment and regulations through the 
normal Council and rulemaking processes that would involve extensive 
opportunities for industry and public review and input at various 
Council meetings, public hearings, and during public comment periods on 
the plan amendment and regulations. Second, the submission of the plan 
amendment and regulations to the Secretary for review and approval or 
disapproval must be approved in a subsequent referendum. Both 
referendums must be conducted in accordance with Section 407(c)(2). 
Section 407(c)(2) also specifies that, ``Prior to each referendum, the 
Secretary, in consultation with the Council, shall: (A) identify and 
notify all such persons holding permits with red snapper

[[Page 75203]]

endorsements and all such vessel captains; and (B) make available to 
all such persons and vessel captains information about the schedule, 
procedures, and eligibility requirements for the referendum and the 
proposed individual fishing quota program.''

Purpose of This Proposed Rule and the Referendums

    NMFS, in accordance with the provisions of Section 407(c) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, will conduct referendums to determine, based on 
the majority vote of eligible voters, whether a plan amendment and 
regulations to implement an IFQ program for the Gulf of Mexico 
commercial red snapper fishery should be prepared and, if so, whether 
any subsequently prepared plan amendment and regulations should be 
submitted to the Secretary for review and approval or disapproval. The 
primary purpose of this proposed rule is to notify potential 
participants in the referendums, and members of the public, of the 
procedures, schedule, and eligibility requirements that NMFS would use 
in conducting the referendums. The procedures and eligibility criteria 
used for purposes of conducting the referendums have no bearing on the 
procedures and eligibility requirements that might be applied in any 
future IFQ program that may be developed by the Council. The provisions 
of any proposed IFQ program would be developed independently by the 
Council through the normal plan amendment and rulemaking processes that 
would involve extensive opportunities for public review and comment 
during Council meetings, public hearings, and public comment on any 
proposed rule. There is no relation between eligibility to vote in the 
referendums, as described in this proposed rule, and any eligibility 
regarding a subsequent IFQ program.

Referendum Processes

Who Would Be Eligible to Vote in the Referendums?

    Section 407(c)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act establishes criteria 
regarding eligibility of persons to vote in the referendums. Those 
criteria are subject to various interpretations. After careful 
consideration of those criteria and the practicality and fairness of 
several possible interpretations, NMFS has determined that the 
following persons would be eligible to vote in the referendums.
    (I) For the initial referendum:
    (A) A person who according to NMFS permit records has continuously 
held their Gulf red snapper endorsement/Class I license from September 
1, 1996, through the date of publication in the Federal Register of the 
final rule implementing these referendum procedures;
    (B) In the case of a Class 1 license that has been transferred 
through sale since September 1, 1996, the person that according to 
NMFS' permit records holds such Class 1 license as of the date of 
publication in the Federal Register of the final rule implementing 
these referendum procedures;
    (C) In the case of a Class 1 license that has been transferred 
through lease since September 1, 1996, both the final lessor and final 
lessee as of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the 
final rule implementing these referendum procedures, as determined by 
NMFS' permit records; and
    (D) A vessel captain who harvested red snapper under a red snapper 
endorsement in each red snapper commercial fishing season occurring 
between January 1, 1993, and September 1, 1996.
    (II) For the second referendum:
    (A) A person who according to NMFS permit records has continuously 
held their Gulf red snapper endorsement/Class I license from September 
1, 1996 through the date of publication in the Federal Register of a 
subsequent notice announcing the second referendum;
    (B) In the case of a Class 1 license that has been transferred 
through sale since September 1, 1996, the person that according to 
NMFS' permit records holds such Class 1 license as of the date of 
publication in the Federal Register of a subsequent notice announcing 
the second referendum;
    (C) In the case of a Class 1 license that has been transferred 
through lease since September 1, 1996, both the final lessor and final 
lessee as of the date of publication in the Federal Register of a 
subsequent notice announcing the second referendum, as determined by 
NMFS' permit records; and
    (D) A vessel captain who harvested red snapper under a red snapper 
endorsement in each red snapper commercial fishing season occurring 
between January 1, 1993, and September 1, 1996.
    A person would only receive voting eligibility under one of the 
eligibility criteria, i.e., a person would not receive dual voting 
eligibility by being both a qualifying vessel captain and a qualifying 
holder of an endorsement/Class I license.
    NMFS will have sufficient information in the Southeast Regional 
Office fisheries permit database to identify those persons who would be 
eligible to vote in the referendums based on their having held a red 
snapper endorsement/Class 1 license during the required periods. 
However, NMFS did not have sufficient information to identify vessel 
captains whose eligibility would be based on the harvest of red snapper 
under a red snapper endorsement in each red snapper commercial fishing 
season occurring between January 1, 1993, and September 1, 1996. To 
obtain that information, NMFS prepared and distributed a fishery 
bulletin that described the general referendum procedures and provided 
a 20-day period (ending August 18, 2003) for submittal of detailed 
information by those vessel captains. That fishery bulletin was widely 
distributed to all Gulf reef fish permitees, including dealers, and to 
major fishing organizations, state fisheries directors, and others. 
Information received from that solicitation would be used to identify 
vessel captains whose eligibility to vote in the referendums is based 
on the red snapper harvest criterion.

How Would Votes Be Weighted?

    Section 407(c)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS 
develop a formula to weight votes based on the proportional harvests 
under each eligible endorsement and by each eligible captain between 
the period January 1, 1993, and September 1, 1996. NMFS would obtain 
applicable red snapper landings data from the Southeast Fisheries 
Science Center reef fish logbook database. Information from NMFS' 
Southeast Regional Office permit database would be used to assign total 
applicable landings to each eligible voter (red snapper endorsement/
Class 1 license holder, lessee/lessor, or vessel captain).
    The weighting procedure is complicated somewhat by requirements to 
protect the confidentiality of landings data, when the applicable 
landings history involves landings by different entities. To address 
confidentiality concerns, NMFS would establish a series of categories 
(ranges) of red snapper landings based on 5,000-lb (2,268-kg) 
intervals, e.g., 0-5,000 lb (0-2,268 kg); 5,001-10,000 lb (2,268-4,536 
kg); etc., concluding with the interval that includes the highest 
documented landings. Each eligible voter's total landings between the 
period January 1, 1993, and September 1, 1996, would be attributed to 
the appropriate category. The overall average landings attributed to 
each category would be determined. That average number of pounds would 
be the vote-weighting factor, i.e., one vote for each such pound, for 
each eligible voter whose landings fall within

[[Page 75204]]

that category. For example, if the overall average number of pounds 
attributed to the 5,001-10,000-lb (2,268-4,536-kg) category is 8,150 lb 
(3,697 kg), each eligible voter within that category would receive 
8,150 votes.

How Would the Vote Be Conducted?

    On or about January 23, 2004, NMFS would mail each eligible voter a 
ballot that would specify the number of votes (weighting) that that 
voter is assigned. NMFS would mail the ballots and associated 
explanatory information, via certified mail return receipt requested, 
to the address of record indicated in NMFS' permit database for 
endorsement/Class I license holders and, for vessel captains, to the 
address provided to NMFS by the captains during the prior information 
solicitation that ended August 18, 2003. All votes assigned to an 
eligible voter must be cast for the same decision, i.e., either all to 
approve or all to disapprove the applicable referendum question. The 
ballot must be signed by the eligible voter. Ballots must be mailed to 
Phil Steele, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center 
Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702. Ballots for the initial referendum 
must be received at that address by 4:30 p.m., eastern time, February 
27, 2004; ballots received after that deadline would not be considered 
in determining the outcome of the initial referendum. Although it would 
not be required, voters may want to consider submitting their ballots 
by registered mail.

How Would the Outcome of the Referendums Be Determined?

    Vote counting would be conducted by NMFS. Approval or disapproval 
of the referendums would be determined by a majority (i.e., a number 
greater than half of a total) of the votes cast. NMFS would prepare a 
fishery bulletin announcing the results of each referendum that is 
conducted and would distribute the bulletin to all Gulf reef fish 
permitees, including dealers, and to other interested parties. The 
results would also be posted on NMFS' Southeast Regional Office's Web 
site at http://caldera.sero.nmfs.gov.

What Would Happen After the Initial Referendum?

    NMFS would present the results of the initial referendum at the 
March 8-11, 2004, Council meeting in Mobile, AL. If the initial 
referendum fails, the Council cannot proceed with preparation of a plan 
amendment and regulations to implement an IFQ program for the 
commercial red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. If the initial 
referendum is approved, the Council would be authorized, if it so 
decides, to proceed with development of a plan amendment and 
regulations to implement an IFQ program for the commercial red snapper 
fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed IFQ program would be 
developed through the normal Council and rulemaking processes that 
would involve extensive opportunities for industry and public review 
and input at various Council meetings, public hearings, and during 
public comment periods on the plan amendment and regulations. The plan 
amendment and regulations could only be submitted to the Secretary for 
review and approval or disapproval if in a second referendum approval 
of the submission was passed by a majority of the votes cast by the 
eligible voters as described in this proposed rule. NMFS would announce 
any required second referendum by publishing a notice in the Federal 
Register that would provide all pertinent information regarding the 
referendum. Any second referendum would be conducted in conformance 
with Section 407(c)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the provisions 
outlined in this proposed rule.

Background Information About a Potential IFQ Program

    In anticipation of the October 2002 expiration of the Congressional 
moratorium on development of IFQ programs, and recognizing that HR5666 
provided the Council the authority to develop a profile for any fishery 
that may be considered for a quota management system, some members of 
the commercial red snapper fishery requested that the Council develop 
an IFQ profile for the fishery. Based on that request, the Council 
convened an Ad Hoc Red Snapper Advisory Panel (AHRSAP), comprised of 
participants in the commercial red snapper fishery and other 
individuals knowledgeable about the fishery and/or IFQ programs, to 
develop a profile. This profile, later referred to as an Individual 
Transferable Quota (ITQ) Options Paper for the Problems Identified in 
the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Fishery, provides background information 
about historical management of the red snapper fishery, problems in the 
fishery, management goals, and issues and management alternatives 
associated with a potential IFQ/ITQ program. The profile addresses such 
issues as: ITQ units of measurement (percentage of quota or pounds of 
red snapper), duration of ITQ rights, set-aside for non-ITQ catches 
under current commercial quota, actions to be taken if the quota 
increases or decreases, types of ITQ share certificates, initial 
allocation of ITQ shares and annual coupons (including eligibility, 
apportionment, transferability of landings histories, etc.), possible 
controls on ownership and transfer of ITQ shares, whether to include a 
``use it or lose it'' provision, disposition of unused or sanctioned 
ITQ shares and coupons, possible landings restrictions, monitoring of 
ITQ share certificates and annual coupons, quota tracking, an appeals 
process, and size limit changes.
    This profile represents an outline of an IFQ program as envisioned 
by the AHRSAP, with input from the Council--it does not reflect any 
final decisions by the Council regarding the structure of a proposed 
IFQ program for the red snapper commercial fishery. The Council may 
consider the options in the profile, and perhaps a variety of other 
options, if it chooses to pursue development of an IFQ program for the 
fishery. However, for purposes of the initial referendum, the Council 
intentionally refrained from adopting the profile. Any subsequent 
development of a proposed IFQ program for the red snapper commercial 
fishery would be conducted through the normal Council and Federal 
rulemaking processes that ensure numerous opportunities for review and 
comment by industry participants and members of the public.

Additional Alternatives for a Vote-Weighting Formula

    On October 27, 2003, NMFS published a proposed rule that described 
procedures and eligibility requirements for participating in 
referendums regarding a potential individual fishing quota (IFQ) 
program for the Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper fishery; comments 
were requested through November 12, 2003 (68 FR 61178). Public comment 
received on that October 27, 2003, proposed rule expressed concern 
about the vote-weighting procedure, and specifically objected to 
allowing both a qualified lessor and qualified lessee fully weighted 
votes, resulting in double counting. In response to those public 
comments, NMFS is issuing a second proposed rule to include a broader 
range of potential options for weighting votes. NMFS is seeking public 
input regarding these or other options.
    NMFS evaluated several additional alternatives for a vote-weighting 
formula for the IFQ referendums. In addition to the one vote per-
participant-per-pound approach specified in the initial proposed rule 
(68 FR 61178) each alternative below is based on varying the vote-per-
pound weighting by

[[Page 75205]]

specified eligible voting class based on their respective involvement 
in the fishery.
    NMFS is expressly seeking comments as to alternative approaches for 
weighting votes, whether they focus on the following or propose 
entirely new alternatives not addressed below.
    The following alternatives are not necessarily mutually exclusive 
and were considered individually and in combinations. For the purpose 
of these alternatives, the term ``license'' refers to a Class I license 
and/or endorsement, consistent with the context of Section 407(c)(2) of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    (1) Allocating one half (or some other fraction) of a vote per 
qualifying pound to the qualifying historical vessel captain. Section 
407(c)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifically identifies such 
vessel captains as eligible to vote in the referendums; thus, 
implicitly it acknowledges the need for some level of multiple 
counting, unless all current license holders, whose license was 
previously fished by a qualifying historical captain, are subject to 
the same pound to vote ratio (see alternative 5 below). Fractionalizing 
historical captains' pound to vote ratio would reduce the impact of 
weighting multiple votes by the pounds from a single license's landings 
history, but this option alone would not eliminate such multiple 
counting of landings associated with a single license;
    (2) Allocating one half vote (or some other fraction) per 
qualifying pound to both the lessor and lessee license holders to avoid 
double counting of the associated poundage. As is the case with 
historical captains, using this option alone would not eliminate the 
multiple counting of poundage associated with a single license. 
However, in combination with some fractionalization of historical 
captain weighting and associated reductions in lessor/lessee 
proportional votes, it would eliminate such multiple counting (see 
alternative 5);
    (3) Allocating one vote per pound of landings to both lessors and 
lessees, while allocating two votes per pound to license holders who 
are not involved in lease arrangements with their license. This option 
addresses the multiple counting of landings by allowing all poundage to 
be counted at least twice, which while actually increasing the quantity 
of pounds multiple counted would provide the same treatment for 
virtually all poundage. This would result in increasing the voting 
weight of landings associated with non-leased licenses to the same 
level as the landings associated with leased licenses, i.e., all pounds 
would be counted at least twice;
    (4) Votes could be weighted based on an individual's level of 
participation in the fishery, measured by length of time they held a 
license. This could be applied to all license holders, or some portion 
thereof, such as only lessors and lessees, and would prorate the 
respective weight of a vote based on the number of years of 
participation in the fishery. For example, using the 3-year time period 
established for historical captain eligibility, a participant could be 
awarded one vote per pound if they held a license for 3 or more years, 
two-thirds of a vote per pound if they held a license for less than 3 
but at least 2 years, and one-third of a vote if they held it less than 
2 years. Once again, this would not eliminate multiple counting of 
poundage, but would increase the weighting factor for longer-term 
participants in the fishery;
    (5) The total allowable weighted votes allocated to participants in 
each referendum could be capped by the total number of pounds 
harvested, which would eliminate all multiple counting of poundage. 
Then all participants with eligibility tied to a particular license 
would have their vote weighted at a ratio equal to all other 
participants associated with that license, so that their combined vote 
would be equal to one vote per one pound of landings associated with 
that license. For example, if a historical captain is eligible based on 
his landings under a specific license during the relevant time period, 
and that license is now held by a license holder who is not involved 
with lease arrangements with that license, but who is not the same 
historical captain, then each would get one-half of a vote per pound of 
landings associated with the license. In this example, should the 
current holder lease the same license, then each participant would have 
their vote weighted as one-third of a vote per pound, so that their 
combined vote would equal the total number of pounds associated with 
the license. While this option would eliminate all multiple counting, 
it is not directly tied to participation in the fishery.

Classification

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The basis for this certification follows.

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended, provides the statutory 
basis for the proposed rule. The proposed rule would implement up to 
two referendums on a potential Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) for 
the commercial red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, consistent 
with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The primary 
purpose of this proposed rule is to notify potential participants in 
the referendums, and members of the public, of the procedures, 
schedule, and eligibility requirements that NMFS would use in 
conducting the referendums.
    One hundred and thirty-seven entities have been identified as 
having a vessel permit with a red snapper Class 1 license during the 
specified eligibility time frame and, therefore, qualify for 
participation in the referendums. Approximately 37 of these licenses 
are currently being fished on vessels operated by other entities 
through lease arrangements. One additional vessel captain has been 
identified as a referendum qualifier. Although the number of Class 1 
licenses and vessel captains is known with certainty, lease 
arrangements may be subject to cancellation prior to a referendum 
such that the total number of eligible entities due to lease 
arrangements is not known with certainty. Although new lease 
arrangements are also a possibility, such that the number of lease 
arrangements could increase from the current total, increased 
leasing is not expected since this would dilute the voting power of 
the Class 1 license holder, absent control over the subsequent vote 
by the lessee. Thus, it is expected that the number of lease 
qualifiers will decline by some unknown amount. Assuming, however, 
that all current qualifiers maintain their status, the total number 
of entities that qualify for participation in the referendum is 175.
    The total red snapper fishery is valued at approximately $10 
million in ex-vessel revenue on an annual basis. Although 
participants in this fishery do not harvest red snapper exclusively, 
among those vessels that target red snapper (as determined by 
whether the revenues from red snapper on an individual trip were 
greater than the revenues from any other individual species), 
approximately 57 percent of annual revenues for these vessels came 
from red snapper sales. If all qualifiers target red snapper and all 
red snapper ex-vessel revenues are attributed to these participants, 
and assuming red snapper revenues equal 57 percent of total 
commercial revenues for these participants, the average ex-vessel 
revenue per entity is approximately $100,000 (($10 million/0.57)/
175). If evaluated over the number of Class 1 licenses (137), the 
appropriate average revenue is approximately $128,000. Although it 
is logical to assume that the qualifiers target red snapper, these 
estimates are biased high since all red snapper revenues cannot be 
attributed to either categories of entities. Thus, the average ex-
vessel revenue per entity is less than either figure.
    All referendum qualifiers that would be directly affected by the 
proposed rule are commercial fishing operations. The Small Business 
Administration defines a small business that engages in commercial 
fishing

[[Page 75206]]

as a firm with receipts up to $3.5 million. Based on the revenue 
profile provided above, all commercial entities that would qualify 
for participation in the referendums are considered small entities. 
Since all qualifying entities would be affected by the proposed 
rule, it is concluded that the proposed rule would affect a 
substantial number of small entities.
    The outcome of ``significant economic impact'' can be 
ascertained by examining two issues: disproportionality and 
profitability. The disproportionality question is: Do the 
regulations place a substantial number of small entities at a 
significant competitive disadvantage to large entities? Since all 
the entities that would be affected by the proposed rule are 
considered small entities, the issue of disproportionality does not 
arise in the present case.
    The profitability question is: Do the regulations significantly 
reduce profit for a substantial number of small entities? Since the 
proposed rule would not directly affect fishery participation or 
harvest in any way, it would not reduce business profit for any 
fishery participants or related businesses. Profits are, therefore, 
not expected to be significantly reduced by the proposed action. On 
this basis, the proposed rule may be adjudged not to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

    As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was not 
prepared. Copies of the RIR and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis are 
available (see ADDRESSES).
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to nor shall a 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 OMB control number.
    This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject 
to the PRA which have been approved by OMB under control number 0648-
0477. Public reporting burden is estimated to average 10 minutes for a 
response to an initial referendum regarding preparation of an IFQ 
program; 20 minutes for a response to a subsequent referendum; and 10 
minutes per response for any information request regarding vessel 
captains, including 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 this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data 
collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and 
OMB (see ADDRESSES).

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

    Dated: December 23, 2003.
Rebecca J. Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 03-32034 Filed 12-23-03; 3:17 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P