Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan

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.

ies 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

y 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

ct). 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

d 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

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

ld

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

ings 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;

trictions; (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 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

sures 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

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

e 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

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

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

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

S, 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

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

th

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)

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

ass).

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

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,

ers 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,

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

gfish 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

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

s 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

e 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.

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.

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

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

. 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

ast 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

pecies

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

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.

enter, 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

r

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

ive 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) * * *

; 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

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

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.

* * * * *

cup, 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.

inistrator 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.

er

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.

imum 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,

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

hall 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]

strator 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

uding 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:

ting 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

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.

hould be published

first as a proposed rule, then the measures will be published as a

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