[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