123 



the November Council meeting, when the Council adopted its 

 recommendation, because the analysis was not completed until 

 December. 



Quastion 3: Did the Department, after rejecting the Council's 

 recommendations, make any effort to consult or otherwise seek the 

 Council's participation in the Department's reexamination of 

 allocation issues? If not, why not? 



The public comment period on the proposed rule ended 



April 1, 1993. After receipt and review of public comments, and 



extensive internal discussion, the Assistant Administrator made 



the final decision to disapprove most of the Council's proposal 



based on the administrative record before her. At this time it 



was too late to consult with the Council and develop a new 



proposal for the 1993 fishing season because the fishing season 



was scheduled to begin on April 15, 1993, just a few days after 



the close of the public comment period. Therefore, N'MFS 



implemented the only portion of the Council proposal it believed 



was supported by the record, and advised the Council of its 



actions. 



Question 4: In rejecting the Council's allocation, what 

 cost/benefit analysis did the Department engage in, and did the 

 Department rely on the best available data in reaching its 

 decision? If not, why not? 



NCAA used the best available data, including the 



cost/benefit analysis submitted by the Council and public 



comments that are included in the administrative record. The 



agency economists determined that, because of the extreme 



