[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 3, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42071-42080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19852]
[[Page 42071]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 990713189-9189-01; I.D. 060899B]
RIN 0648-AK79
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Spiny Dogfish
Fishery Management Plan
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 Spiny Dogfish
Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This proposed rule would implement the
following measures: A commercial quota; seasonal (semi-annual)
allocation of the quota; a prohibition on finning; a framework
adjustment process; establishment of a Spiny Dogfish Monitoring
Committee; annual FMP review; permit and reporting requirements for
commercial vessels, operators, and dealers; and other measures.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
September 17, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional
Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope ``Comments on
proposed rule for Spiny Dogfish FMP.''
Comments regarding the collection-of-information requirements
contained in this proposed rule should be sent to the Regional
Administrator and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attention:
NOAA Desk Officer).
Copies of the FMP, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) contained within the
RIR, the ``supplement'' dated May 1999, and the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), Room 2115
Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Pearson, Fishery Policy
Analyst, at 978-281-9279.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) is a
common small shark that inhabits the temperate and sub-Arctic latitudes
of the North Atlantic Ocean. In the Northwest Atlantic, spiny dogfish
range from Labrador to Florida, but are most abundant from Nova Scotia
to Cape Hatteras. They migrate seasonally, moving north in spring and
summer, and south in fall and winter. Spiny dogfish are considered a
unit stock in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean.
The FMP was developed jointly by the Mid-Atlantic and New England
Fishery Management Councils (Councils). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (Mid-Atlantic Council) has the administrative lead
on the FMP. A Notice of Availability for the FMP was published for
public comment at 64 FR 34759, June 29, 1999.
Domestic landings of spiny dogfish on the East Coast have increased
rapidly from 9.92 million lb (4,500 metric tons (mt)) in 1989 to 61.72
million lb (28,000 mt) in 1996, and then declined to approximately
41.89 million lb (19,000 mt) in 1997. During this period, the fishing
mortality rate (F) rose from below 0.1 during the 1980s to 0.3 in 1997.
In addition to the overall increase in landings, the landings have been
disproportionately composed of females, because females grow to a
larger size than males and are, therefore, preferred for processing.
Because of the directed fishing effort on adult female spiny dogfish,
the spawning stock biomass (SSB) has severely declined. The 26th
Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW 26), in March 1998,
concluded that spiny dogfish are overexploited. SAW 26 reported that
minimum biomass estimates of mature females ( 80 cm) have
declined by over 50 percent since 1989 and that recruitment of juvenile
dogfish was the lowest on record in 1997. The combination of increased
F, declining biomass of mature females, and low recruitment have
contributed to the overfished condition of the stock.
NMFS notified the Councils on April 3, 1998, that spiny dogfish was
being added to the list of overfished stocks in the Report on the
Status of the Fisheries of the United States, prepared pursuant to
section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires remedial
action for stocks that are designated overfished and requires the
Regional Fishery Management Councils to prepare measures within 1 year
of notification to end overfishing and to rebuild the overfished stock.
The purpose of this action is to propose the implementation of the
management measures contained in the FMP.
Proposed Management Measures
This proposed rule would implement the following measures contained
in the FMP: (1) A commercial quota; (2) seasonal (semi-annual)
allocation of a commercial quota; (3) a prohibition on finning; (4) a
framework adjustment process; (5) the establishment of a Spiny Dogfish
Monitoring Committee; (6) annual FMP review; (7) permit and reporting
requirements for commercial vessels, operators, and dealers; and (8)
other measures regarding sea samplers, foreign fishing, and
experimental fishing activities.
Commercial Quota
An annual spiny dogfish commercial quota would be allocated to the
fishery to control F. The quota would be set at a level to assure that
the F specified in the FMP would not be exceeded. The annual commercial
quota would be established by the Regional Administrator, Northeast
Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) based upon the recommendations of
the Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee and the Spiny Dogfish Committee
to the Councils. The quota recommendation of the Spiny Dogfish
Monitoring Committee would be based upon projected stock size estimates
for that year, as derived from the latest stock assessment information,
coupled with the target F specified for that year. The quota would be
specified for the fishing year, which would be defined as May 1 through
April 30, and would be allocated to two semi-annual periods, as
described below. The commercial quota could change annually following
the Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee process set forth below, if
appropriate. However, the quota could also be specified for a period of
up to 3 years.
The management unit for spiny dogfish extends throughout its range.
Therefore, the commercial quota would apply throughout the management
unit, in both state and Federal waters. All spiny dogfish landed for
sale from Maine through Florida would be applied against the commercial
quota, regardless of where the spiny dogfish were harvested. Using data
collected through this FMP, NMFS would monitor the fishery to determine
when the quota for a semi-annual quota period would be reached. The
Regional Administrator, through notification in the Federal Register,
would prohibit possession of spiny dogfish in the U.S. exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) and landings of spiny dogfish by vessels with
Federal spiny dogfish permits for the remainder of the period, when the
[[Page 42072]]
semi-annual quota has been determined to be reached.
The rebuilding schedule and corresponding annual quotas, as
described in the FMP, were projected assuming an implementation date of
May 1, 1999. A 1-year ``exit'' approach was chosen to minimize the
impact of the rebuilding program on both the harvesting and processing
sectors of the industry. According to the rebuilding schedule adopted
by the Councils for the period May 1, 1999, to April 30, 2000, F would
be reduced to 0.2, which would result in a quota of 22,059,228 lb
(10,006 mt), for the first year. Landings would be allocated semi-
annually for the periods May 1 through October 31 and November 1
through April 30. The May 1 through October 31 period would be
allocated 57.9 percent of the annual quota, and the remaining 42.1
percent would be allocated to period November 1 through April 30. Due
to unanticipated delays in the development of the FMP, the
implementation date of this FMP, if approved, would be approximately
November 1, 1999. Therefore, the quota for the second semi-annual
period (November 1999 through April 2000) of Year 1 would be
implemented at a level of 9,286,935 lb (4212.5 mt), which is equivalent
to 42.1 percent of the first year's quota. F would then be reduced to
0.03 for the remaining 4 years of the rebuilding plan (2000 through
2003). This is expected to result in annual quotas ranging from
2,901,254 lb (1,316 mt) to 3,198,875 lb (1,451 mt) during those 4
years.
The quotas in the FMP were developed with the assumption that
current levels of discard mortality would continue at the recent
average annual rate of 9.8 million lb (4,445 mt) per year.
Seasonal Allocation of Annual Commercial Quota
As described above, the annual commercial quota would be
distributed between two periods (May 1 through October 31 and November
1 through April 30) based on the historical percentage of commercial
landings for each semi-annual period during the years 1990 through
1997. The period May 1 through October 31 would receive 57.9 percent of
the annual allocation, and the period November 1 through April 30 would
receive 42.1 percent of the annual allocation. The specification of the
seasonal allocation may be revised through the framework adjustment
process described below.
Prohibition on Finning
Finning, the act of removing the fins of spiny dogfish and
discarding the carcass, would be prohibited. Vessels that land spiny
dogfish must land fins in proportion to carcasses, with the weight of
fins not to exceed 5 percent of the weight of carcasses. Fins may not
be stored on board a vessel after a vessel lands spiny dogfish.
Framework Adjustment Process
The Councils may add or modify management measures through a
framework adjustment process. This adjustment procedure allows the
Councils to add or to modify management measures through a streamlined
public review process. The following management measures could be
implemented or adjusted at any time through the framework adjustment
process: (1) Minimum fish size; (2) maximum fish size; (3) gear
requirements, restrictions, or prohibitions, including, but not limited
to, mesh size restrictions and net limits; (4) regional gear
restrictions; (5) permitting restrictions and reporting requirements;
(6) recreational fishery restrictions, including possession limits,
size limits, and season/area restrictions; (7) commercial season and
area restrictions; (8) commercial trip or possession limits; (9) fin
weight to carcass weight restrictions; (10) onboard observer
requirements; (11) commercial quota system, including commercial quota
allocation procedure and possible quota set-asides to mitigate bycatch
and to conduct scientific research or for other reasons; (12)
recreational harvest limit; (13) annual quota specification process;
(14) FMP Monitoring Committee composition and process; (15) description
and identification of essential fish habitat (EFH); (16) description
and identification of habitat areas of particular concern; (17)
overfishing definition and related thresholds and targets; (18)
regional season restrictions (including the option to split seasons);
(19) restrictions on vessel size (length and gross registered tonnage
(GRT)) or shaft horsepower;(20) target quotas; (21) provisions to
mitigate marine mammal entanglements and interactions; (22) regional
management; (23) any management measures currently included in the FMP;
and (24) provisions relating to aquaculture projects.
The framework adjustment process would involve the following steps.
If the Councils determine that an adjustment to management measures is
necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the FMP, they would
recommend, develop, and analyze appropriate management actions over the
span of at least two Council meetings. The Councils would then provide
the public with advance notice of the availability of the
recommendation, justification for the measure, and economic and
biological analyses. The Councils would afford the public an
opportunity to comment on the proposed framework adjustment before and
during the second Council meeting. After developing management actions
and receiving public comments, the Councils would make a recommendation
approved by a majority of each Council's members, present and voting,
to the Regional Administrator. Adjustments to the FMP using the
framework adjustment process would require the approval of both
Councils. The Councils' recommendation to the Regional Administrator
must include supporting rationale, an analysis of impacts, and a
recommendation to the Regional Administrator on whether to publish the
management measures as a final rule.
If the Councils recommend that the framework adjustment management
measures should be published as a final rule, they must consider at
least the following factors and provide support and analysis for each
factor considered: (1) Whether the availability of data on which the
recommended management measures are based allows for adequate time to
publish a proposed rule; (2) whether regulations have to be in place
for an entire harvest/fishing season; (3) whether there has been
adequate notice and opportunity for participation by the public and
affected industry members in the development of the Councils'
recommended management measures; (4) whether there is an immediate need
to protect the resource; and (5) whether there will be a continuing
evaluation of management measures adopted following the Councils'
promulgation as a final rule.
If, after reviewing the Councils' recommendation and supporting
information, NMFS concurs with the Councils' recommended management
measures and determines that the recommended management measures may be
published as a final rule, then the action will be published in the
Federal Register as a final rule.
If NMFS concurs with the Councils' recommendation and determines
that the recommended measures should be published first as a proposed
rule, then the action will be published first as a proposed rule in the
Federal Register. After providing an opportunity for additional public
comment, if NMFS concurs with the Councils' recommendation, then the
action will be
[[Page 42073]]
published as a final rule in the Federal Register.
If NMFS does not concur with the Councils' recommendation, they
would be notified, in writing, of the reason for non-concurrence.
Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee and Annual FMP Review
The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee would be a joint committee
made up of staff representatives of the Mid-Atlantic and New England
Councils, the NMFS Northeast Regional Office, the NMFS Northeast
Fisheries Science Center, and state representatives. The state
representatives would include any individual designated by an
interested state from Maine to Florida. In addition, the Monitoring
Committee would include two non-voting, ex-officio industry
representatives (one each from the Mid-Atlantic and New England Council
regions). The Mid-Atlantic Council Executive Director or a designee
will chair the Committee.
The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee would annually review the
best available data, as specified in 50 CFR 648.230, and recommend to
the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee a commercial quota and, possibly,
other measures to assure that the target F specified in the FMP for
spiny dogfish is not exceeded. This recommendation would be reviewed,
and possibly modified, by the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee, which
would then recommend a quota and, possibly, other measures to the
Councils to assure that the F specified in the FMP for the fishing year
is not exceeded. The Councils would consider the recommendation of the
Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee and then, jointly determine the quota and
other measures for the following year to assure that the specified F is
not exceeded. The Councils would make their recommendation to the
Regional Administrator. The Regional Administrator would review the
recommendation and, if necessary, modify it by using any measures that
were not rejected by both Councils to assure that the target F is not
exceeded. The recommended measures would be published as a proposed
rule for public comment, followed by a final rule to implement the
quotas and other management measures.
Permits for Commercial Vessels, Operators, and Dealers
Any owner of a vessel fishing for spiny dogfish within the EEZ for
sale or transporting or delivering for sale, spiny dogfish taken within
the EEZ must have a valid open access Federal commercial vessel permit
issued by NMFS for that purpose. Individuals with commercial vessel
permits may only sell spiny dogfish, at the point of first sale, to a
dealer who has a dealer permit issued pursuant to this FMP.
Any individual who operates a vessel for the purpose of fishing
commercially for spiny dogfish (i.e., possesses a valid commercial
vessel permit for spiny dogfish) would be required to obtain an
operator's permit. Any vessel fishing commercially for spiny dogfish
would be required to have at least one operator who holds an operator's
permit on board. An operator is defined as the master or other
individual on board a vessel who is in charge of that vessel. That
operator would be held accountable for violations of the fishing
regulations and could be subject to a permit sanction. During the
permit sanction period, the individual operator could not work in any
capacity aboard a federally permitted fishing vessel.
An operator's permit would be issued for a period of up to 3 years.
The permit would not be transferable. Permit holders would be required
to carry their operator's permit aboard the fishing vessel during
fishing and off-loading operation and must have it available for
inspection upon request by an authorized officer.
Any dealer of spiny dogfish would be required to have a permit. A
dealer of spiny dogfish would be defined as a person or firm that
receives spiny dogfish for a commercial purpose other than transport
from a vessel possessing a Federal commercial spiny dogfish permit.
Only persons with a Federal dealer permit may buy spiny dogfish from,
or landed by, a vessel that has a commercial spiny dogfish permit
issued pursuant to this FMP.
Reporting Requirements for Commercial Vessels, Dealers and
Processors
To aid in the monitoring of this fishery, this rule would require
owners or operators of vessels issued a Federal vessel permit to submit
vessel trip reports on a monthly basis. The vessel trip reports would
be the same as those required under other Federal FMPs in the Northeast
Region.
This rule would require dealers with permits issued pursuant to
this FMP to submit weekly reports showing the quantity of all fish
purchased and the name and permit number of the vessels from which the
fish were purchased. This rule would also require dealers to report
purchases of spiny dogfish through the Interactive Voice Response (IVR)
system utilized for quota-managed species in the Northeast Region.
Dealers would also be required to annually report to NMFS certain
employment data.
Other Measures
The Regional Administrator would be authorized to place sea
samplers aboard spiny dogfish vessels.
No foreign fishing vessel would be allowed to conduct a fishery for
or to retain any spiny dogfish. Foreign nations catching spiny dogfish
would be subject to prohibited species regulations at Sec. 600.509.
The Regional Administrator, in consultation with the Executive
Directors of the Councils, could exempt any person or vessel from the
requirements of the FMP to conduct experimental fishing beneficial to
the management of the spiny dogfish resource or fishery.
The Regional Administrator may not grant such exemption unless it
is determined that the purpose, design, and administration of the
exemption is consistent with the objectives of the FMP, the provisions
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. The exemption
may not have a detrimental effect on the spiny dogfish resource and/or
fishery, cause any quota to be exceeded, or create significant
enforcement problems.
Each vessel participating in an exempted experimental fishing
activity would be subject to all provisions of the FMP, except those
necessarily relating to the purpose and nature of the exemption. The
Regional Administrator would specify the exemption in a letter issued
to each vessel participating in the experimental activity. The vessel
would be required to carry the letter on board while participating in
the exempted experimental fishery. All exempted experimental activities
would be required to be consistent with the harvest levels in the FMP.
Classification
At this time, NMFS has not determined that the FMP this rule would
implement is consistent with 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 Councils prepared a FEIS for this FMP. A notice of availability
for the FMP, containing the FEIS, was published at 64 FR 34759, June
29, 1999. The proposed management measures would have long-term
positive impacts on affected human environments. A copy of the FEIS may
[[Page 42074]]
be obtained from the Councils (see ADDRESSES).
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant
for purposes of E.O. 12866.
The Councils prepared an IRFA as part of the RIR, which describes
the impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small
entities.
Domestic landings of spiny dogfish increased rapidly from 1989
through 1996, but began a decline in 1997. In 1998 NMFS declared the
stock to be overfished. Without any management measures (status quo),
landings in 2001 would be expected to decline to 21.3 million lb (9,662
mt), and then continuously decline due to the overfished condition of
the stock. Eventually, the spawning stock would diminish, leading to
recruitment failure and stock collapse. Due to the slow growth and low
fecundity of spiny dogfish, it would take decades to rebuild the stock.
The continuation of an unregulated fishery for spiny dogfish is
contrary to the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which
requires remedial action through appropriate management measures for
species designated as overfished. This FMP proposes measures for spiny
dogfish to prevent overfishing, rebuild the stock, and comply with
other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The categories of small entities likely to be affected by this
proposed action are commercial vessel owners harvesting spiny dogfish
and dogfish processors. The IRFA estimates that this proposed action is
expected to affect 595 vessels and 3 processors that meet the criteria
for small entities.
Impacts of Permitting and Reporting Requirements
Under all of the alternatives, any vessel fishing commercially for
spiny dogfish must have a valid open access Federal vessel spiny
dogfish permit issued by NMFS. It is estimated that 87 percent of the
595 commercial vessels landing spiny dogfish in 1997 from Federal
waters already possess a NMFS permit for at least one or more fisheries
other than spiny dogfish. Therefore, the other 13 percent
(approximately 77 vessels) would be required to apply for a Federal
spiny dogfish vessel permit using the initial application form. The
remainder would use the renewal form and would not likely incur an
additional burden. It is estimated that owner/operators of all 77
vessels would apply for a spiny dogfish permit. The burden costs to the
public for the permit application consist only of the time required to
complete an application (.5 hr), at a hourly rate of $15/hour. The
total burden cost to the public would be $578 ($7.50 per vessel X 77
vessels).
The expected burden cost to the public for commercial logbook
submissions would be $1,540 ($20 per vessel per year X 77 vessels).
In addition, the operators of these 77 vessels would be required to
apply for a Federal spiny dogfish operator permit using the initial
application form. The remainder would use the renewal form and would
not likely incur an additional burden. The burden costs to the public
for the operator permit consist only of the time required to complete
an application (1 hr), at a hourly rate of $15/hour. The total burden
cost to the public would be $1,155 ($15 per operator X 77 operators).
It is expected that there will be approximately 15 new applicants
for dealer permits. The cost to the public for dealer permits would be
$18.75 ($1.25 per applicant X 15 applicants). Thereafter, the public
annual estimate of submitting weekly reports will be $26 per dealer per
year. Thus, total cost for all new dealers (who do not currently have
permits) for permitting requirements in the first year is $409 ($1.25 +
$26 X 15 dealers).
Non-Preferred Alternative to Permitting and Reporting Requirements
The alternative to the permitting and reporting requirements is the
status quo, or no regulation. Without these requirements, a Federal
quota system would be unmanageable, as landings information would be
poor or unavailable and closures would be unenforceable. Because the
status quo option would not meet the requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, this alternative was rejected.
Impacts of Prohibition on Finning
This rule would prohibit the practice of finning spiny dogfish
(cutting off and retaining the fins and discarding the carcass).
Fishing industry representatives testified that this practice occurs
only under extremely limited circumstances in the fishery; therefore,
the prohibition would have a negligible effect on the current fishery.
The provision is proposed to prevent the practice in a reduced fishery
and thereby reduce waste of the spiny dogfish resource.
Non-Preferred Alternative to Prohibition on Finning
The alternative to the prohibition of finning is the status quo, or
no regulation. The practice is already banned in other shark fisheries
in the management area, therefore, not having a prohibition in this
fishery could complicate enforcement by allowing fishermen to claim
that fins from other sharks were from dogfish. Due to the strong
support for prohibiting finning from all sectors and the insignificant
economic effects of the prohibition, the status quo alternative was
rejected.
Impacts of the Preferred Spiny Dogfish Rebuilding Schedule
The intent of the Councils is to rebuild the spawning stock biomass
of the spiny dogfish stock to levels that will support the fisheries at
long-term, sustainable levels. The preferred rebuilding schedule
identified in the FMP is expected to eliminate overfishing and rebuild
the spiny dogfish stock in the shortest possible time, while still
allowing for a 1-year ``exit fishery.'' The 1-year ``exit fishery'' of
22 million lb (10,006 mt) (9,286,935 lb (4212.5 mt) for the second
semi-annual period of year 1) will allow participants to reduce
gradually their activity in the directed spiny dogfish fishery. This
approach was chosen to reduce the impacts of the rebuilding program on
both the harvesting and processing sectors of the industry, during the
first 6 months. Beginning May 1, 2000, landings would be reduced to 2.9
million lb (1,316 mt) and then maintained at under 4.4 million lb
(2,000 mt) until the target biomass is reached.
Based upon projected status quo landings in relation to proposed
total allowable commercial landings or TALs, ex-vessel gross revenue
declines would reach a high of $3,383,903 in year two as landings are
reduced to 2,901,780 lb (1,316 mt). Pack-out facility gross revenue
declines would be the greatest ($902,374) in year two. Gross revenue
losses would decline from this point as projected landings increase.
In year one of the preferred rebuilding schedule, there would be a
30-percent reduction in landings compared with the status quo levels.
This reduction would cause a decrease in gross revenues of greater than
5 percent for approximately 149 vessels (using 1997 dealer and weighout
data) and for 2 processors. In year two, with an 89-percent reduction
in landings (relative to the status quo levels), 232 harvesters would
have a gross reduction of revenues greater than 5 percent (based on
1997 landings and dealer data). The RIR also concluded that it is
possible that the proposed action will result in at least 12 spiny
dogfish harvesters ceasing operations.
Processors have indicated that their ability to process spiny
dogfish in a cost-effective manner is dependent upon volume. The
proposed action,
[[Page 42075]]
which greatly reduces landings in years two through four, could,
therefore, result in the elimination of dogfish processing operations
for the remaining 3 dogfish processors and the potential loss of
approximately 200 jobs.
An area of uncertainty is the effect of low TALs upon markets. The
proposed low TAL may cause processors to cease processing spiny dogfish
and cause established U.S.-based markets for this species to collapse.
Since most spiny dogfish are currently processed and exported, the
implications of the proposed action upon both foreign and domestic
markets are hard to predict. The demand for spiny dogfish by foreign
markets may decline as dogfish is replaced by a more readily available
alternative, or, conversely, reduction of supply in combination with
static demand could cause dogfish prices to rise and allow for a
limited fishery to exist with landings at low levels. Industry members
indicate that demand is likely to decline. The ability of processors
and harvesters to re-establish markets, if they ceased operations
earlier, is unknown.
If markets for spiny dogfish cease, there would be no processors to
whom harvesters could sell their catch. Conversely, if prices rise,
harvesters would be able to receive higher ex-vessel prices for spiny
dogfish (assuming a market exists). Even if prices increase, due to the
extremely low TALs, it would probably not mitigate the economic impacts
on the processors and harvesters caused by the preferred alternative.
Given low TALs, the harvesting, processing, and support industries are
not likely to see cumulative nominal benefits for at least 15 years.
While the short and intermediate effects of the FMP are negative
for those involved in the fishery, the long-term effects are likely to
be positive. Projections indicate that an unregulated dogfish fishery,
left unchecked, would deplete the adult spawning portion of the stock
by about 85 percent within 10 years. This would lead to a stock
collapse. Yields would be expected to plummet (even at current high
levels of F), and a rebuilding program after a stock collapse is
projected to take decades, due to the life history of dogfish. The
proposed action will rebuild the adult spawning stock biomass in a
relatively short period of time and, then, allow for a sustainable
fishery in future years.
Impacts of Alternatives to the Preferred Rebuilding Schedule
Considered but Rejected
Other alternatives to the preferred rebuilding schedule were
considered, but either did not meet the requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, or did not provide long-term economic benefits greater
than those of the proposed action.
Non-Preferred Alternative Rebuilding Schedule 1 would reduce
landings to a consistent level of approximately 5.5 million lb (2,500
mt) until 2003, when landings are assumed to reach a consistent level
of 14 million lb (6,350 mt). Relative to status quo, gross revenue
declines would reach a high of $3,067,000 in year two (2000).
Cumulative gross revenues would exceed status quo levels in 2015.
Similarly, relative to status quo, gross revenue declines for pack-out
facilities would reach a high of $817,000 in year two (2000). Impacts
would then decline afterwards as projected landings increase. At
approximately 5.5 million lb (2,500 mt), a directed fishery for spiny
dogfish is unlikely, and the effect that an incidental dogfish fishery
would have on markets is not known. This option would not provide for a
1-year ``exit'' fishery; therefore, it would have imposed greater
economic burdens on fishery participants in the short term. In
addition, this alternative's long-term economic benefits would not
exceed those of the preferred alternative.
Non-Preferred Alternative Rebuilding Schedule 2 would reduce
landings to 22.5 million lb (10,206 mt) in year one, to 11.3 million lb
(5,125 mt) in year two, and then limit landings to a level that would
ensure the rebuilding of the stocks within a 10-year time-frame.
Relative to status quo, gross revenue declines would reach a high of
$2,778,962 in year three (2001). Cumulative gross revenues would exceed
status quo levels in 2020. Similarly (also relative to status quo),
gross revenue declines for pack-out facilities would reach a high of
$741,056 in year three (2001). Impacts would then decline afterwards as
projected landings increase. Unlike the preferred alternative, this
alternative does not provide for a rebuilt stock until 2009. Similarly,
although the second year of this option provides for a higher TAL than
the preferred, the long-term economic outlook for the preferred
alternative is superior. Given the higher TAL in year two of this
option, there is the possibility that, in the short-term, this option
could provide some cost savings. By not forcing harvesters into other
fisheries as quickly as the preferred alternative, this option could
provide greater cost savings in the first 2 years of implementation of
the management measures. However, the cost data needed to clarify this
point are currently unavailable. The analysis examined gross revenues,
and the long-term benefits of the preferred alternative exceeded this
alternative.
Non-Preferred Alternative Rebuilding Schedule 3 would allow for a
reduction in dogfish landings to 13.2 million lb (5,988 mt) in 1999 and
8.8 million lb (3,992 mt) in 2000. Landings until 2003 would be reduced
to such a level as to allow the stock to be rebuilt in 5 years. Year
one gross ex-vessel revenue declines would be $2,631,447 and reach a
high of $2,697,000 in year three (2001), compared to the status quo
revenue levels. These impacts would decline throughout the time-span of
the FMP as projected landings increase. Cumulative gross revenues would
exceed status quo levels in 2015. This alternative would not provide
for an economically feasible exit fishery compared to the preferred
alternative; therefore, it was not favored by members of the fishing
industry. In addition, this alternative's long-term economic benefits
do not exceed those of the preferred alternative.
Alternatives four, five, and six would reduce F to levels that are
necessary to rebuild spiny dogfish stocks within a 15-, 20-, and 30-
year time frame, respectively. These options were rejected early in the
FMP development process because the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies that
rebuilding, in most cases, may not exceed 10 years. These options would
spread economic impacts over a greater time period, but would not meet
the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Alternative seven would establish a system of uniform trip limits
in conjunction with an annual quota. In the second year of the
rebuilding program, the projected trip limits per vessel could
potentially be as low as 12 lb (5.4 kg) per trip, assuming a TAL of 2.9
million lb (1,315 mt) and 250,000 trips. Given that the average
commercial fishing trip in 1997 landed 3,116 lb (1,413 kg), this low
trip limit would preclude a viable directed fishery. There could be
fewer participants involved in the commercial spiny dogfish fishery, an
occurrence that would allow for larger trip limits. However, a uniform
trip limit system would not necessarily ensure an equitable
distribution for all geographic areas, gears, and seasons. This
management option was rejected, because positive long-term benefits
would be limited.
[[Page 42076]]
Alternative eight would establish a minimum size limit for spiny
dogfish that corresponds to the length at which 50 percent of female
spiny dogfish are sexually mature (32 in (81 cm)). Alternative nine
would establish a minimum size limit for spiny dogfish that corresponds
to the length at which 100 percent of female spiny dogfish are sexually
mature (36 in (91 cm)). These alternatives would have little economic
impact on recreational fishing because most recreationally caught spiny
dogfish are released after capture. However, there would likely be
negative short-term economic impacts on the commercial harvesting
sector through reduced landings because very few dogfish harvested by
commercial fishermen currently achieve the proposed minimum sizes.
These negative economic impacts would likely extend to processors and
dealers because of reduced landings of spiny dogfish.
Alternative ten would allow only the harvest of spiny dogfish
between 27.5 in (70 cm) to 32 in (81 cm) in length (a ``slot size''
limit). The results of projected TALs under this scenario indicate that
this strategy would result in lower overall yields and not in reducing
the rebuilding period. Thus, the potential benefits under this scenario
would be less than the preferred alternative for the same time period.
The eleventh and twelfth alternatives would distribute the annual
quota on a quarterly or bi-monthly basis. The effects of these
alternatives would depend largely upon the distributional system set up
by the Councils. An equitable allocation of quotas would help to ensure
the maximization of long-term benefits through a rebuilt spiny dogfish
fishery. As the industry is presently structured, there are
insufficient fish to make processing operations (which depend on
volume) economically viable. Additionally, administrative logistics
associated with implementing a quarterly or bimonthly quota monitoring
system is expected to be formidable. For these reasons, these
alternatives were rejected.
NMFS seeks comments regarding the IRFA. A copy of this analysis is
available from the Councils (see ADDRESSES).
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
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 PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
This proposed rule contains eight new collection-of-information
requirements subject to review and approval by the OMB under PRA. These
collection-of-information requirements have been submitted to the OMB
for approval. The public reporting burden for these collection-of-
information requirements are indicated in the following statements and
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 the proposed collection-of-information requirements
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 the use
of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. Send comments regarding any of these burden estimates or
any other aspect of the collection-of-information to NMFS and OMB (see
ADDRESSES).
New Collection-of-Information Requirements
1. Spiny Dogfish Vessel Permits (Sec. 648.4(a)(11)), (30 minutes/
response);
2. Spiny Dogfish Operator Permits (Sec. 648.5(a)), (60 minutes/
response));
3. Spiny Dogfish Dealer/Processor Permits (Sec. 648.6(a)), (5
minutes/response));
4. Spiny Dogfish Weekly Dealer Purchase Reports
(Sec. 648.7(a)(1)(i)), (2 minutes/response);
5. Spiny Dogfish Weekly IVR System Reports (Sec. 648.7(a)(2)(i)),
(4 minutes/response);
6. Annual Processed Products Report (Sec. 648.7(a)(3)(i)), (2
minutes/response);
7. Northeast Region Vessel Logbook (Sec. 648.7(b)(1)(i)), (5
minutes/response);
8. Vessel Identification (Sec. 648.8), (45 minutes/response).
Endangered Species Act
A formal Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on the
potential impacts of the proposed FMP was initiated May 24, 1999. The
consultation will be completed prior to the publication of the final
rule.
Marine Mammal Protection Act
Potential adverse impacts to marine mammals resulting from fishing
activities conducted under this rule are discussed in the FEIS, which
focuses on potential impacts to harbor porpoise, right whales, and
humpback whales.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 28, 1999.
Andrew A. Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is
proposed to be amended as follows.
PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
Subpart A--General Provisions
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 648.1, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) This part implements the fishery management plans (FMPs) for
the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries (Atlantic
Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP); Atlantic salmon (Atlantic Salmon
FMP); the Atlantic sea scallop fishery (Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP
(Scallop FMP)); the Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog fisheries
(Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog FMP); the Northeast multispecies
fishery (NE Multispecies FMP); the summer flounder, scup, and black sea
bass fisheries (Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP); the
Atlantic bluefish fishery (Atlantic Bluefish FMP); and the spiny
dogfish fishery (Spiny Dogfish FMP). These FMPs and the regulations in
this part govern the conservation and management of the above named
fisheries of the Northeastern United States.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 648.2, the definition for ``Council'' is revised and the
definitions for ``Councils'' and ``Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee''
are added in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 648.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Council means the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC)
for the Atlantic sea scallop and the NE multispecies fisheries, or the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) for the Atlantic
mackerel, squid, and butterfish; the Atlantic surf clam and ocean
quahog; the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass
[[Page 42077]]
fisheries; the Atlantic bluefish fishery; and the spiny dogfish
fishery.
Councils means the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC)
and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) for the spiny
dogfish fishery.
* * * * *
Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee means a committee made up of
staff representatives of the MAFMC, NEFMC, the NMFS Northeast Regional
Office, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, the states and two ex-
officio industry members (one from each Council jurisdiction). The
MAFMC Executive Director or a designee chairs the committee.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 648.4, paragraphs (a)(9) and (a)(10) are added and
reserved, paragraph (a)(11) is added, and the first 4 sentences of
paragraph (b) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.4 Vessel and individual commercial permits.
(a) * * *
(9) [Reserved].
(10) [Reserved].
(11) Spiny dogfish vessels. Any vessel of the United States that
fishes for, possesses, or lands spiny dogfish in or from the EEZ must
have been issued and carry on board a valid commercial spiny dogfish
vessel permit.
(b) Permit conditions. Any person who applies for a fishing permit
under this section must agree as a condition of the permit that the
vessel and the vessel's fishing activity, catch, and pertinent gear
(without regard to whether such fishing activity occurs in the EEZ or
landward of the EEZ, and without regard to where such fish or gear are
possessed, taken or landed), are subject to all requirements of this
part, unless exempted from such requirements under this part. All such
fishing activities, catch, and gear will remain subject to all
applicable state requirements. Except as otherwise provided in this
part, if a requirement of this part and a management measure required
by a state or local law differ, any vessel owner permitted to fish in
the EEZ for any species managed under this part must comply with the
more restrictive requirement. Owners and operators of vessels fishing
under the terms of a summer flounder moratorium, scup moratorium, or
black sea bass moratorium permit or spiny dogfish permit must also
agree not to land summer flounder, scup, black sea bass or spiny
dogfish, respectively, in any state after NMFS has published a
notification in the Federal Register stating that the commercial quota
for that state or period has been harvested and that no commercial
quota is available for the respective species.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 648.5, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.5 Operator permits.
(a) General. Any operator of a vessel fishing for or possessing sea
scallops in excess of 40 lb (18.1 kg), NE multispecies, monkfish,
mackerel, squid, butterfish, scup, black sea bass, bluefish, or spiny
dogfish harvested in or from the EEZ, or issued a permit for these
species under this part, must have been issued under this section and
carry on board a valid operator's permit. An operator's permit issued
pursuant to part 649 of this chapter satisfies the permitting
requirement of this section. This requirement does not apply to
operators of recreational vessels.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 648.6, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.6 Dealer/processor permits.
(a) General. All NE multispecies, monkfish, sea scallop, summer
flounder, surf clam, ocean quahog, mackerel, squid, butterfish, scup,
black sea bass, and bluefish dealers and surf clam and ocean quahog
processors must have been issued under this section and have in their
possession a valid permit for these species. All spiny dogfish dealers
must have been issued under this section and have in their possession a
valid dealer permit. As of the effective date of the final rule to
implement Amendment 12 to the Northeast Multispecies and Monkfish
Fishery Management Plan, persons on board vessels receiving small-mesh
multispecies at sea for use as bait are not defined as dealers and are
not required to possess a valid permit under this section, provided the
vessel complies with the provisions specified under Sec. 648.13.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 648.7, paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(3)(i), and (b)(1)(i)
are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.7 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) All summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, Atlantic sea
scallop, NE multispecies, monkfish, Atlantic mackerel, squid,
butterfish, bluefish, or spiny dogfish dealers, must provide: Dealer's
name and mailing address; dealer's permit number; name and permit
number or name and hull number (USCG documentation number or state
registration number, whichever is applicable) of vessels from which
fish are landed or received; trip identifier for a trip from which fish
are landed or received; dates of purchases; pounds by species (by
market category, if applicable), price per pound by species (by market
category, if applicable); or total value by species (by market
category, if applicable); port landed; and any other information deemed
necessary by the Regional Administrator. The dealer or other authorized
individual must sign all report forms. If no fish are purchased during
a reporting week, no written report is required to be submitted. If no
fish are purchased during an entire reporting month, a report so
stating on the required form must be submitted.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, Atlantic sea scallop, NE
multispecies, monkfish, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, bluefish,
and spiny dogfish dealers must complete the ``Employment Data'' section
of the Annual Processed Products Report; completion of the other
sections of that form is voluntary. Reports must be submitted to the
address supplied by the Regional Administrator.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Owners of vessels issued a summer flounder, scup, black sea
bass, Atlantic sea scallop, NE multispecies, monkfish Atlantic
mackerel, squid, butterfish, bluefish, spiny dogfish permit. The owner
or operator of any vessel issued a permit for the species listed in the
preceding sentence must maintain on board the vessel and submit an
accurate daily fishing log report for all fishing trips, regardless of
species fished for or taken, on forms supplied by or approved by the
Regional Administrator. If authorized in writing by the Regional
Administrator, a vessel owner or operator may submit reports
electronically, for example by using a VMS or other system. At least
the following information, and any other information required by the
Regional Administrator, must be provided: Vessel name; USCG
documentation number (or state registration number, if undocumented);
permit number; date/time sailed; date/time landed; trip type; number of
crew; number of anglers (if a charter or party boat); gear fished;
quantity and size of gear; mesh/ring size; chart area fished; average
depth; latitude/longitude (or loran station and
[[Page 42078]]
bearings); total hauls per area fished; average tow time duration;
pounds by species (or count, if a party or charter vessel) of all
species landed or discarded; dealer permit number; dealer name; date
sold; port and state landed; and vessel operator's name, signature, and
operator's permit number (if applicable).
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 648.11, paragraphs (a) and (e) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.11 At-sea sea sampler/observer coverage.
(a) The Regional Administrator may require any vessel holding a
permit for Atlantic sea scallops, or NE multispecies, or monkfish, or
Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, or scup, or black sea bass, or
bluefish, or spiny dogfish, or a moratorium permit for summer flounder,
to carry a NMFS-approved sea sampler/observer. If required by the
Regional Administrator to carry an observer or sea sampler, a vessel
may not engage in any fishing operations in the respective fishery
unless an observer or sea sampler is on board, or unless the
requirement is waived.
* * * * *
(e) The owner or operator of a vessel issued a summer flounder
moratorium permit, or a scup moratorium permit, or a black sea bass
moratorium permit, or a bluefish permit, or a spiny dogfish permit, if
requested by the sea sampler/observer, also must:
(1) Notify the sea sampler/observer of any sea turtles, marine
mammals, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, bluefish, spiny
dogfish, or other specimens taken by the vessel.
(2) Provide the sea sampler/observer with sea turtles, marine
mammals, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, bluefish, spiny
dogfish, or other specimens taken by vessel.
* * * * *
9. In Sec. 648.12, the introductory text is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.12 Experimental fishing.
The Regional Administrator may exempt any person or vessel from the
requirements of subparts B (Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish),
D (sea scallop), E (surf clam and ocean quahog), F (NE multispecies), G
(summer flounder), H (scup), I (black sea bass), J (bluefish), or L
(spiny dogfish) of this part for the conduct of experimental fishing
beneficial to the management of the resources or fishery managed under
that subpart. The Regional Administrator shall consult with the
Executive Director of the Council regarding such exemptions for the
Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, summer flounder, scup, black sea
bass, bluefish, and spiny dogfish fisheries.
* * * * *
10. In Sec. 648.14, paragraphs (y) and (z) are added and reserved
and paragraphs (a)(117), (a)(118), and (aa) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.14 Prohibitions.
(a) * * *
(117) Purchase or otherwise receive, except for transport, spiny
dogfish from the owner or operator of a vessel issued a spiny dogfish
permit, unless the purchaser/receiver is in possession of a valid spiny
dogfish dealer permit.
(118) Purchase or otherwise receive for a commercial purpose spiny
dogfish landed for sale by a federally permitted vessel in any state,
from Maine to Florida, after the effective date of notification
published in the Federal Register stating that the semi-annual quota
has been harvested and the EEZ is closed to the harvest of spiny
dogfish.
* * * * *
(y) [Reserved].
(z) [Reserved].
(aa) In addition to the general prohibitions specified in
Sec. 600.725 of this chapter, it is unlawful for any person owning or
operating a vessel issued a valid spiny dogfish permit or issued an
operators permit to do any of the following:
(1) Sell, barter, trade or transfer, or attempt to sell, barter,
trade or otherwise transfer, other than for transport, spiny dogfish,
unless the dealer or transferee has a dealer permit issued under
Sec. 648.6(a).
(2) Possess spiny dogfish harvested in or from the EEZ after the
effective date of the notification published in the Federal Register
stating that the semi-annual quota has been harvested and that the EEZ
is closed to the harvest of spiny dogfish.
(3) Land spiny dogfish for sale after the effective date of the
notification in the Federal Register stating that the semi-annual quota
has been harvested and that the EEZ is closed to the harvest of spiny
dogfish.
(4) Remove the fins of spiny dogfish and discard the carcass.
(5) Land spiny dogfish fins in excess of 5 percent, by weight, of
the weight of spiny dogfish carcasses.
(6) Store spiny dogfish fins on board a vessel after the vessel
lands spiny dogfish.
11. Subpart K is added and reserved.
Subpart K--[Reserved]
12. Subpart L is added to read as follows:
Subpart L--Management Measures for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery
Sec.
648.230 Catch quotas and other restrictions.
648.231 Closures.
648.232 Time Restrictions. [Reserved]
648.233 Minimum Fish Sizes. [Reserved]
648.234 Gear restrictions. [Reserved]
648.235 Possession limit. [Reserved]
648.236 Special Management Zones. [Reserved]
648.237 Framework specifications.
Sec. 648.230 Catch quotas and other restrictions.
(a) Annual review. The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee will
annually review the following data, subject to availability, to
determine the total allowable level of landings (TAL) and other
restrictions necessary to achieve a target fishing mortality rate (F)
of 0.2 in 1999 through 2000, a target F of 0.03 in 2000 through 2003,
and a target F of 0.08 thereafter: Commercial and recreational catch
data; current estimates of F; stock status; recent estimates of
recruitment; virtual population analysis results; levels of
noncompliance by fishermen or individual states; impact of size/mesh
regulations; sea sampling data; impact of gear other than otter trawls
and gill nets on the mortality of spiny dogfish; and any other relevant
information.
(b) Recommended measures. Based on this review, the Spiny Dogfish
Monitoring Committee shall recommend to the Joint Spiny Dogfish
Committee a commercial quota set, from a range of zero to the maximum
allowed, to assure that the F specified in paragraph (a) of this
section for the upcoming fishing year (May 1 through April 30) will not
be exceeded and that the seasonal allocation of the quota will be
distributed into the following two semi-annual periods: May 1 through
October 30 and November 1 through April 30. In addition to the
commercial quota, the Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee may also
recommend any of the following measures:
(1) Minimum or maximum fish sizes;
(2) Seasons;
(3) Mesh size restrictions;
(4) Trip limits; or
(5) Other gear restrictions.
(c) Annual fishing measures. The Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee
shall review the recommendations of the Spiny Dogfish Monitoring
Committee. Based on these recommendations and any public comments, the
Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee shall recommend to the Councils a
commercial quota set,
[[Page 42079]]
from a range of zero to the maximum allowed, to assure that the F
specified in paragraph (a) of this section for the upcoming fishing
year (May 1 through April 30) will not be exceeded, and that the
seasonal allocation of the quota will be distributed into the following
two semi-annual periods: May 1 through October 30 and November 1
through April 30. In addition to the commercial quota, the Joint Spiny
Dogfish Committee may also recommend any of the measures specified in
paragraph (b) of this section. The Councils shall review these
recommendations and, based on the recommendations and any public
comments, recommend to the Regional Administrator a commercial quota
and other measures specified in paragraph (b) to assure that the F
specified in paragraph (a) of this section for the upcoming fishing
year will not be exceeded. The Councils' recommendations must include
supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental
and economic impacts of the recommendations. The Regional Administrator
shall review these recommendations. After such review, the Regional
Administrator will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register to
assure that the F specified in paragraph (a) of this section will not
be exceeded. The Regional Administrator may modify the Councils'
recommendation using any of the measures specified in paragraph (b) of
this section that were not rejected by both Councils. After considering
public comments, the Regional Administrator will publish a final rule
in the Federal Register to implement a coastwide commercial quota and
other measures necessary to assure that the F specified in paragraph
(a) of this section will not be exceeded.
(d) Distribution of annual quota. (1) The annual quota specified in
paragraph (a) of this section shall be allocated between two semi-
annual quota periods as follows: May 1 through October 30 (57.9
percent) and November 1 through April 30 (42.1 percent).
(2) All spiny dogfish landed for sale in the states from Maine
through Florida shall be applied against the applicable semi-annual
commercial quota, regardless of where the spiny dogfish were harvested.
The Regional Administrator will determine the date by which the semi-
annual quota will be harvested and will close the EEZ to the harvest of
spiny dogfish upon that date. The Regional Administrator will publish a
notice in the Federal Register advising that, upon that date, no vessel
may possess spiny dogfish in the EEZ during a closure, nor may vessels
issued a spiny dogfish permit under this part land spiny dogfish during
the closure.
Sec. 648.231 Closures.
If the Regional Administrator determines that the specified spiny
dogfish quota for a semi-annual quota period, as described in
Sec. 648.200(d)(1), will be reached, then he/she shall close the EEZ to
fishing for spiny dogfish by federally permitted commercial vessels for
the remainder of that semi-annual quota period, by publishing a
notification in the Federal Register.
Sec. 648.232 Time Restrictions. [Reserved]
Sec. 648.233 Minimum Fish Sizes. [Reserved]
Sec. 648.234 Gear restrictions. [Reserved]
Sec. 648.235 Possession limit. [Reserved]
Sec. 648.236 Special Management Zones. [Reserved]
Sec. 648.237 Framework specifications.
(a) Within season management action. The Councils may, at any time,
initiate action to add or adjust management measures if they find that
action is necessary to meet or be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Spiny Dogfish FMP.
(1) Adjustment process. After the Councils initiate a management
action, they shall develop and analyze appropriate management actions
over the span of at least two Council meetings. The Councils shall
provide the public with advance notice of the availability of both the
proposals and the analysis for comment prior to, and at, the second
Council meeting. The Councils' recommendation on adjustments or
additions to management measures must come from one or more of the
following categories: Minimum fish size; maximum fish size; gear
requirements, restrictions or prohibitions (including, but not limited
to, mesh size restrictions and net limits); regional gear restrictions;
permitting restrictions and reporting requirements; recreational
fishery measures (including possession and size limits and season and
area restrictions); commercial season and area restrictions; commercial
trip or possession limits; fin weight to spiny dogfish landing weight
restrictions; onboard observer requirements; commercial quota system
(including commercial quota allocation procedures and possible quota
set-asides to mitigate bycatch, conduct scientific research, or for
other purposes); recreational harvest limit; annual quota specification
process; FMP Monitoring Committee composition and process; description
and identification of essential fish habitat; description and
identification of habitat areas of particular concern; overfishing
definition and related thresholds and targets; regional season
restrictions (including option to split seasons); restrictions on
vessel size (length and GRT) or shaft horsepower; target quotas;
measures to mitigate marine mammal entanglements and interactions;
regional management; any other management measures currently included
in the spiny dogfish FMP; and measures to regulate aquaculture
projects.
(2) Councils' recommendation. After developing management actions
and receiving public testimony, the Councils shall make a
recommendation approved by a majority of each Council's members,
present and voting, to the Regional Administrator. The Councils'
recommendation must include supporting rationale and, if management
measures are recommended, an analysis of impacts and a recommendation
to the Regional Administrator on whether to issue the management
measures as a final rule. If the Councils recommend that the management
measures should be issued as a final rule, they must consider at least
the following factors and provide support and analysis for each factor
considered:
(i) Whether the availability of data on which the recommended
management measures are based allows for adequate time to publish a
proposed rule and whether regulations have to be in place for an entire
harvest/fishing season.
(ii) Whether there has been adequate notice and opportunity for
participation by the public and members of the affected industry in the
development of the Councils' recommended management measures.
(iii) Whether there is an immediate need to protect the resource.
(iv) Whether there will be a continuing evaluation of management
measures adopted following their implementation as a final rule.
(3) NMFS action. If the Councils' recommendation includes
adjustments or additions to management measures and:
(i) If NMFS concurs with the Councils' recommended management
measures and determines that the recommended management measures should
be issued as a final rule based on the factors specified in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, then the measures will be issued as a final
rule in the Federal Register.
(ii) If NMFS concurs with the Councils' recommendation and
determines that the recommended management measures should be published
first as a proposed rule, then the measures will be published as a
[[Page 42080]]
proposed rule in the Federal Register. After additional public comment,
if NMFS concurs with the Councils' recommendation, then the measures
will be issued as a final rule in the Federal Register.
(iii) If NMFS does not concur, the Councils will be notified in
writing of the reasons for the non-concurrence.
(iv) Framework actions can be taken only in the case where both
Councils approve the proposed measure.
(b) Emergency action. Nothing in this section is meant to derogate
from the authority of the Secretary to take emergency action under
section 305(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
[FR Doc. 99-19852 Filed 8-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
