[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 23, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13482-13496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-6476]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 040109009-4085-02; I.D. 121803D]
RIN 0648-AR79


Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Recordkeeping and 
Reporting Requirements; Regulatory Amendment To Modify Seafood Dealer 
Reporting Requirements

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement approved management 
measures contained in a regulatory amendment to modify the reporting 
and recordkeeping regulations for federally permitted seafood dealers 
participating in the summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, Atlantic 
sea scallop, Northeast (NE) multispecies, monkfish, Atlantic mackerel, 
squid, butterfish, Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, Atlantic herring, 
Atlantic deep-sea red crab, tilefish, Atlantic bluefish, skates, and/or 
spiny dogfish fisheries in the NE Region. The purpose of this action is 
to improve monitoring of commercial landings by collecting more timely 
and accurate data, enhance enforceability of the existing regulations, 
promote compliance with existing regulations, and ensure consistency in 
reporting requirements among fisheries.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the regulatory amendment, its Regulatory Impact 
Review (RIR), the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and 
other supporting materials are available from Patricia A. Kurkul, 
Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, 
Gloucester, MA 01930. The regulatory amendment/RIR/IRFA is also 
accessible via the Internet at http:www.nero.nmfs.gov.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
final rule may be submitted to Patricia A. Kurkul at the above address 
and by e-mail to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-
7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Pentony, Senior Fishery Policy 
Analyst, (978)281-9283, fax (978)281-9135, email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule implements measures 
contained in a regulatory amendment to modify the reporting and 
recordkeeping regulations for federally permitted seafood dealers. This 
action will require daily electronic reporting of all fish purchased 
(including fish received) by federally permitted dealers who are 
determined to be large dealers while delaying the daily reporting 
requirement for all small dealers who initially will be required to 
report electronically on a weekly basis. Also, it will eliminate dealer 
reporting via the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system; implement a 
trip identifier requirement for dealers; require dealers to report the 
disposition of purchased

[[Page 13483]]

fish; and modify the dealer reporting requirements for the surfclam and 
ocean quahog fisheries to make them consistent with the requirements of 
other fisheries. Details concerning the justification for and 
development of the regulatory amendment and the implementing 
regulations were provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (69 FR 
2870, January 21, 2004) and are not repeated here.
    Regulations implementing the fishery management plans (FMPs) for 
the summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, Atlantic sea scallop, NE 
multispecies, monkfish, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, Atlantic 
surfclam, ocean quahog, Atlantic herring, Atlantic deep-sea red crab, 
tilefish, Atlantic bluefish, skates, and spiny dogfish fisheries are 
found at 50 CFR part 648. These FMPs were prepared under the authority 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). All dealers and vessels issued a Federal permit 
in the aforementioned fisheries must comply with the reporting 
requirements outlined at Sec.  648.7. Lobster dealers issued a Federal 
lobster permit, but not issued any of the permits with mandatory 
reporting requirements, are not required to comply with these reporting 
regulations, although other reporting requirements may apply. NMFS is 
modifying several components of these reporting regulations to simplify 
reporting requirements, improve data quality and data access, maximize 
compliance, and improve the information available for the management of 
important marine resources.

Dealer Electronic Reporting

    This rule requires all seafood dealers permitted under Sec.  648.6 
to submit an electronic report containing the required trip-level 
information for each purchase of fish from fishing vessels. Electronic 
data submission replaces the comprehensive trip-level written reports 
dealers are required to submit weekly, as well as the weekly landings 
summary reports submitted through the dealer IVR system for quota-
monitored species. Dealers are required to submit an electronic 
negative report for each week in which no fish were purchased. Written 
negative reports will be accepted through December 31, 2004. Dealers 
are allowed to submit negative reports for up to 3 months in advance, 
if they know that no fish will be purchased during that time.
    There are four mechanisms from which dealers may choose how they 
submit trip-level reports electronically. Because dealers use computer 
applications to varying degrees, NMFS has developed an Internet web 
site (http://safis.accsp.org) that enables dealers to transfer 
information to NMFS via an Internet File Transfer Protocol (FTP) or to 
enter the data directly into an online form. Dealers without Internet 
access have the option of submitting electronic trip-level report files 
directly to NMFS via a standard FTP and the phone line. A fourth option 
allows dealers to use an acceptable file upload report system 
implemented by one or more state fishery management agencies. Dealers 
will receive a user name and personal identification number (PIN) that 
will enable them to log onto a secure site and submit their trip-level 
reports.
    To ensure compatibility with the reporting system and database, 
seafood dealers are required to obtain and utilize a personal computer, 
in working condition, with an Intel Pentium 3-equivalent 300 megahertz 
or greater processing chip, at least 128 megabytes of random access 
memory (RAM), a 56,000 baud data/fax modem or cable or digital 
subscriber line (DSL) modem, Microsoft Internet Explorer version 6.0 
(or equivalent) or better, and a monitor with 800 pixel by 600 pixel or 
better resolution.
    Due to the Magnuson-Stevens Act provision that renders trip-level 
reports from dealers confidential, information sent from dealers to 
NMFS in compliance with the electronic reporting requirements is 
subject to strict encryption standards and will be available only to 
persons authorized under section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
the submitter. Dealers will also be allowed to access, review, and edit 
the information they have submitted, using a secure procedure similar 
to those in common usage throughout the banking industry. Dealers will 
be allowed to make corrections to their trip-level reports via the 
electronic editing features for up to 3 business days following the 
initial report. If a correction is needed more than 3 business days 
following the initial report, an extension will only be possible 
through a direct request to NMFS staff, and may be subject to 
enforcement action. These submissions will constitute the official 
reports as required by the various FMPs in the NE. No other reporting 
methods (e.g., written reports) will be considered to be in compliance 
with the electronic reporting requirements, except as provided for 
below for negative reports made through the end of the 2004 calendar 
year.

Dealer Report Submission Schedule

    This final rule modifies the schedule for the submission of 
comprehensive trip-level reports by all federally permitted seafood 
dealers. Currently, detailed reports for all transactions in a 
reporting week must be postmarked or received by NMFS within 16 days 
after the end of each reporting week. Upon implementation, this action 
requires all federally permitted seafood dealers to submit trip-level 
reports electronically, and establishes two categories of seafood 
dealers for the purposes of determining the frequency with which these 
reports must be submitted.
    Federally permitted seafood dealers with less than $300,000 in 
reported annual fish purchases (ex-vessel value) in each year from 
2000-2002 have the option to submit trip-level reports electronically 
on a weekly basis until May 1, 2005, at which time they will be 
required to submit these reports electronically on a daily basis. All 
other federally permitted seafood dealers, those with $300,000 or more 
in reported annual fish purchases (ex-vessel value) in at least 1 year 
from 2000-2002 and all newly permitted dealers (those that obtained 
their initial dealer permit in either 2003 or 2004), are required to 
submit trip-level reports electronically on a daily basis beginning 
upon implementation of this final rule. All dealers are required to 
submit trip-level reports electronically, according to the provisions 
described above, beginning upon implementation of this final rule. The 
delay in effectiveness of the requirement to report purchases daily for 
some dealers is in recognition that for some dealers, particularly 
smaller dealers, compliance with these requirements may impose a fairly 
substantial initial administrative burden. By delaying for 1 year 
implementation of the requirement to report daily, NMFS intends to 
provide these smaller dealers with sufficient time to become acquainted 
with electronic reporting procedures before increasing their reporting 
frequency.
    Analysis of the NMFS' dealer report database from 2000-2002 
indicates that dealers with $300,000 or more in reported annual fish 
purchases in at least 1 year made, on average, 320.6 reports per year, 
while dealers below this threshold made, on average, only 27.6 reports 
per year. Because dealers that exceed the threshold had over 11 times 
more reports than dealers that fall below the threshold, it is more 
important for NMFS to monitor on a daily basis landings purchased by 
these larger dealers than landings purchased by the smaller dealers. 
Large dealers

[[Page 13484]]

(those defined as meeting or exceeding the threshold) represent less 
than 50 percent of dealers that reported fish purchases in 2000-2002 
(and only 36 percent of permitted dealers), yet they accounted for 92 
percent of all reports of fish purchases, 98 percent of total landed 
weight of fish purchases reported, and 98 percent of the total ex-
vessel value of the fish purchases reported.
    By providing dealers below the threshold an additional year to come 
into compliance with the daily reporting requirement, NMFS is providing 
an opportunity for dealers that report, on average, much less than 
dealers that meet or exceed the threshold to have extra time to become 
familiar with the new electronic reporting requirements before they are 
required to increase their reporting frequency. By requiring the larger 
dealers to report daily initially, NMFS can ensure that quota 
monitoring will be effective and reasonably accurate until all dealers 
begin reporting daily.
    Dealers authorized to provide trip-level reports weekly must submit 
a report for all fish purchased in a reporting week (Sunday-Saturday) 
within 3 days of the end of the reporting week,  i.e., by midnight 
Tuesday of the week after the fish were purchased. This is the same 
schedule currently required of dealers submitting reports via the IVR 
system for quota-managed fisheries.
    Dealers required to provide trip-level reports on a daily basis 
must submit a report for all completed purchases by midnight of the 
next business day. Reports are not required to be submitted on weekends 
or Federal holidays, although the data system will be operational 
should dealers choose to report on those days. Therefore, for 
transactions completed on a Sunday-Thursday, reports are due by 
midnight of the following day (Monday-Friday); for transactions 
completed on a Friday or Saturday, reports are due by midnight of the 
following Monday; for transactions completed the day before a Federal 
holiday, reports are due by midnight of the first business day 
following the holiday; and, for transactions completed on a Federal 
holiday, reports are due by midnight of the following day, unless the 
following day is a Saturday or Sunday, in which case the reports are 
due by midnight of the following Monday. For example, if a transaction 
is completed on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, a Federal holiday, 
the report will be due by midnight on the Friday immediately following 
Thanksgiving. If a transaction is completed on Thanksgiving day, the 
report will also be due by midnight on the Friday immediately 
following, as it is the first business day after the Federal holiday.
    NMFS is aware that not all required data elements, such as price 
and disposition of fish, may be available within this timeframe; 
therefore, to accommodate this lag in availability, price and 
disposition information must be submitted within 16 days of the end of 
the reporting week (by midnight Monday of the third week after the fish 
were purchased), or by the end of the calendar month, whichever is 
later. This will be accomplished through an update procedure in which 
the dealer will access and update the previously submitted data. 
Dealers using an FTP submission process will be allowed to submit an 
updated report and transmit the updated information using a modified 
FTP process.
    Under this rule, dealers are required to submit a negative report 
for each week in which no fish were purchased. Negative reports will be 
due within 3 days of the end of the reporting week (by midnight on 
Tuesday of the following week). Negative reports are not required to be 
submitted on a daily basis. Dealers may submit negative reports in 
large blocks ahead of time (up to 3 months) if they know that no fish 
will be purchased during these times. This will decrease the number of 
reports required of dealers who can predict periods of inactivity.
    For the remainder of the 2004 calendar year, negative reports will 
be accepted via hardcopy (i.e., in writing), as well as via electronic 
means. Beginning January 1, 2005, all negative reports, as well as 
trip-level reports, will only be accepted via one of the available 
electronic reporting mechanisms. This means that some federally 
permitted dealers that will not be purchasing any fish immediately 
following the implementation of this action will not have to come into 
full compliance to be able to submit dealer trip-level reports via 
electronic means until they either: (1) Anticipate purchasing fish from 
a fishing vessel during the 2004 calendar year; or (2) apply for their 
2005 dealer permit renewal. As of the beginning of the 2005 calendar 
year, any dealer that has not come into compliance with this action, 
and is unable to submit negative and trip-level reports via one of the 
available electronic reporting methods described above, will not have 
his/her permit renewed. Said dealer may reapply and obtain a reinstated 
Federal dealer permit once he/she acquires and can demonstrate the 
capability to submit all required reports electronically.

Quota Monitoring

    Dealers are no longer required to submit weekly landing summary 
reports or weekly negative reports through the dealer IVR system for 
quota-monitored species. Vessel owners/operators currently required to 
report through the IVR system are unaffected by this action.

Trip Identifier

    In order for each fishing trip to be uniquely identifiable and to 
aid in matching dealer trip-level report data with the corresponding 
fishing vessel trip report (VTR) data, this final rule explicitly 
defines and implements reporting of a trip identifier for each trip 
from which fish are purchased from a federally permitted vessel. The 
trip identifier requirement applies to all fish purchased by a 
federally permitted dealer from a federally permitted vessel that is 
required to maintain a VTR. The trip identifier is defined as follows: 
``Trip identifier'' is the complete serial number of the vessel logbook 
page completed for that trip. If more than one vessel logbook is 
completed for a trip, then the serial number from any page may be used.
    To facilitate the transfer of this information from the vessel to 
the dealer, the vessel logbook packet includes two pages labeled 
``dealer copy.'' These pages include the unique serial number for the 
logbook packet and space for the vessel name, the USCG document or 
state registration number, the vessel permit number, and the date/time 
sailed. The dealer is responsible to obtain and include the unique 
serial number located on the dealer copy of the VTR with the 
appropriate trip-level dealer report when submitting this information 
via one of the available electronic reporting mechanisms. If more than 
one vessel logbook page is completed for a single fishing trip, only 
one serial number need be recorded.
    Of more than 126,000 VTRs submitted for 2002, over 98 percent 
reported delivery to only one or two dealers per trip. In these 
situations, the current VTR form can accommodate transfer of the trip 
identifier to the dealer(s). To accommodate the less than 2 percent of 
remaining trips with three or more dealers, NMFS is developing 
alternatives for how fishing vessels may more easily transmit the trip 
identifier to multiple dealers. Details on these alternatives will be 
provided to vessels and dealers in permit holder letters announcing 
implementation of this action.

[[Page 13485]]

    Effective upon implementation of this rule, all dealers must report 
the trip identifier for all purchases from federally permitted vessels. 
Through April 30, 2005, the trip identifier may be reported along with 
the price and disposition code information reported for the trip, i.e., 
up to 16 days from the end of the reporting week in which the 
transaction was completed, or by the end of the month, whichever is 
later. Effective May 1, 2005, the trip identifier must be reported 
along with the initial trip-level report, i.e., by midnight of the next 
business day. This change in reporting frequency for the trip 
identifier will be implemented automatically on May 1, 2005, unless 
this provision is waived by the Regional Administrator. Once this final 
rule has been effective for at least 6 months, NMFS will conduct a 
review of the trip identifier information and evaluate the 
effectiveness of allowing the trip identifier to be reported separately 
from the initial landings information.

Disposition Code

    The disposition of seafood products is needed to determine the 
ultimate fate and use of harvested fish. This information is used by 
NMFS and its partners to better understand the impacts regulations may 
have on seafood markets and marketing and how these changes may affect 
fishermen and various sectors of the fishing industry. To ensure the 
disposition is accurately reflected in the database, this final rule 
requires that all federally permitted dealers report the disposition of 
any fish that they purchase. Disposition information includes such 
categories as ``sold as food,'' ``sold for bait,'' and ``not sold.'' In 
those cases where the final disposition may not be known, dealers are 
expected to provide a good faith estimate of the most likely 
disposition of the product.

Mailing Address

    To eliminate duplication of information reported, dealers are no 
longer required to record their mailing address on each trip-level 
report. Dealers will continue to be required to provide their current 
mailing address on the permit application and to notify NMFS of any 
change in their mailing address.

Changes to Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Dealer Reporting

    To eliminate confusion regarding the information required to be 
submitted by surfclam and ocean quahog dealers and processors, these 
dealers and processors are no longer required to report the allocation 
permit number of the vessel(s) from which they purchase surfclams or 
ocean quahogs, nor are processors required to report the size 
distribution and meat yield per bushel by species.

Annual Processed Products Report

    All federally permitted seafood dealers subject to this final rule, 
including surfclam and ocean quahog dealers, are required to complete 
all sections of the Annual Processed Products Survey.

Comments and Responses

    The deadline for receiving comments on the proposed rule was 
February 20, 2004. NMFS received 79 comment letters on the proposed 
rule prior to the close of the comment period. Four of these letters 
were from state fishery management agencies (Maine, Rhode Island, New 
York, and North Carolina). Fifty-eight letters were from individuals or 
organizations representing or affiliated with seafood dealers. Twelve 
letters originated from commercial fishermen or individuals or 
organizations representing commercial fishermen. Three letters were 
submitted by conservation non-governmental organizations, and two 
letters were submitted by members of the general public. Eighteen 
comment letters expressed support for the proposed rule, and the rest 
either expressed general opposition to the final rule or provided 
specific comments on one or more of the following issues:

Comments on the Administrative Burden

    Comment 1: Thirty comment letters stated that the regulations in 
the proposed rule would be very burdensome for all dealers, 
particularly small dealers, and the administrative cost and burden 
associated with daily reporting would be too high.
    Response: Many seafood dealer firms already employ computer-based 
accounting procedures and complying with these regulations could reduce 
the reporting burden on these dealers by eliminating the requirements 
to report via the IVR system and the written dealer weighout reports. 
For other dealers who do not already employ a computer-based accounting 
system for their purchases, the additional administrative burden of 
reporting via computer on a daily basis is not considered to be unduly 
burdensome. However, in consideration of the impacts of this action, 
particularly on smaller businesses, NMFS has decided to reduce the 
reporting burden, temporarily, on some small dealers. The final rule 
implements the requirement for daily reporting only for those dealers 
that reported $300,000 or more in annual fish purchases (ex-vessel 
value) in at least 1 year between 2000 and 2002. Because dealers that 
exceed the threshold report much more than dealers that fall below the 
threshold, it is more important for NMFS to monitor on a daily basis 
landings purchased by these larger dealers than landings purchased by 
the smaller dealers. Therefore, dealers that fall below this threshold 
will be required to report electronically via computer, but may 
continue to report on a weekly basis, rather than daily, until May 1, 
2005, at which time they, too, will be required to report daily. Daily 
electronic reporting will significantly improve quota monitoring by 
increasing the resolution and timeliness of trip-level reports used in 
quota monitoring. Improvements in data resolution and timeliness are 
expected to minimize the potential for closing a quota-based fishery 
too early in the season (to the detriment of the industry) or too late 
in the season (to the detriment of the resource).
    Comment 2: Six comment letters suggested that NMFS underestimated 
the economic impacts that would result from implementation of the 
regulations described in the proposed rule. One commenter added that 
this proposed rule was not subject to the same analytical requirements 
as Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies FMP, and that NMFS should 
conduct a wider examination of the consequences of the action.
    Response: NMFS notes that the estimates provided in the proposed 
rule of economic impacts likely to be incurred by dealers as a result 
of this final rule represent average costs per dealer, and that the 
actual costs incurred are likely to vary from dealer to dealer. Some 
dealers may incur costs substantially greater than the estimates, just 
as some dealers may incur costs substantially lower than the estimates. 
The actual amount of economic impact on each dealer will vary depending 
on whether or not they already own and utilize a computer that meets 
the minimum requirements, whether or not they currently have Internet 
access, whether or not they currently employ computer-based accounting 
of all fish purchases, and whether or not they currently employ 
computer-literate staff on a daily basis to perform these functions.
    NMFS concedes that this action was not subject to the same breadth 
of analysis as Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies FMP with respect to 
the National Environmental Policy Act

[[Page 13486]]

(NEPA), because a determination was made that due to the administrative 
nature of the regulations described in this rule, this action was 
categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment, pursuant to NOAA 
Administrative Order 216-6. In contrast, due to its wide-ranging 
effects on fish stocks and the environment, as well as impacts on the 
fishing industry and fishing communities, Amendment 13 was subject to 
an EIS under NEPA.
    The Regulatory Amendment to Modify Seafood Dealer Recordkeeping and 
Reporting Requirements includes an assessment of the biological, 
ecological, economic, and social impacts of the action. The Amendment 
complied with all the applicable analytical requirements of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Coastal Zone 
Management Act, the Data Quality Act, and E.O.s 12898, 13132, and 
13158.
    Comment 3: Ten comment letters indicated that the authors believed 
they would have to hire additional staff to deal with the increased 
workload associated with the increase to daily reporting.
    Response: As indicated in the proposed rule, NMFS does not consider 
the increased workload as a result of the increase in reporting 
frequency to be significant. Reporting time is estimated to take, on 
average, 2 minutes per response. Dealers subject to daily reporting 
will be responsible for reporting once per day for each workday 
(Monday-Friday) of the week. Thus, the total average weekly reporting 
time will depend upon the number of transactions each dealer makes 
during a reporting cycle (either per day or per week). Dealers with 
more transactions will require more time to complete their reports, but 
the overall time is not expected to increase substantially above the 
time required to complete the current detailed trip-level and weekly 
summary-level dealer reports. To accommodate the concerns of some 
dealers regarding the increase in administrative burden, this final 
rule initially implements the requirement for daily reporting only for 
those dealers that reported $300,000 or more in fish purchases (ex-
vessel value) in at least 1 year between 2000 and 2002. Dealers that 
fall below this threshold will be required to report electronically via 
computer, but may continue to report on a weekly, rather than daily, 
basis until May 1, 2005, at which time they, too, will be required to 
report daily.
    Comment 4: One comment letter suggested that NMFS allow companies 
with less than 50 employees to continue to report once per week.
    Response: This is similar to the alternative developed by NMFS 
whereby only firms with $300,000 or more in seafood purchases (ex-
vessel value) in at least 1 year between 2000 and 2002 would be 
required to comply with the daily electronic reporting regulations. The 
final rule allows dealers that fall below this threshold to continue to 
report once per week until May 1, 2005, but will require that all 
reporting occur electronically. NMFS considers the requirement for all 
dealers to report electronically on a daily basis essential to making 
accurate and timely estimates of harvest levels.
    Comment 5: One comment letter suggested that a possible outcome of 
the regulations described in the proposed rule would be for some 
dealers to cease operations, limiting options for fishing vessel owners 
or operators as to which dealer they might choose to sell their 
product. One additional comment, from a dealer holding a herring dealer 
permit, indicated that they may drop their herring permit if the 
regulations are implemented.
    Response: Although it is possible that some dealers may cease 
operations rather than comply with these regulations, all indications 
suggest that the likelihood of this occurring is small. NMFS only 
received the one letter described above from a dealer indicating that 
they may drop a herring dealer permit. This dealer, however, also 
indicated in his letter that his firm has not purchased any Atlantic 
herring in 20 years. Thus, there would be no impact or loss of 
opportunity to fishing vessels from the loss of this herring dealer.
    Comment 6: NMFS received two comment letters indicating that there 
would be significant impacts on fishermen-dealers (fishermen who have 
dealer permits to enable them to sell their catch to themselves, as a 
dealer, so that they can then sell their product directly to 
restaurants, retail stores, or other outlets that may not have dealer 
permits). The letter suggests that these entities are generally small 
businesses.
    Response: NMFS expects that some fishermen-dealers already own a 
computer, either for their personal use or as part of their fishing 
business. These fishermen-dealers will have to begin utilizing this 
computer for reporting. Other fishermen-dealers may need to purchase a 
computer and become acquainted with basic computer operations in order 
to comply with the new dealer reporting requirements. NMFS has designed 
the system to be compatible with readily available off-the-shelf 
personal computers that can be purchased for less than $1,000. This 
one-time expense is not considered unreasonable as a cost of doing 
business. NMFS also notes that many small fishermen-dealers likely had 
less than $300,000 in annual purchases in 2000-2002 and therefore do 
not need to begin reporting on a daily basis until May 1, 2005.
    Comment 7: Two comment letters stated that the commenters did not 
want to have to report all purchases twice: Once to report the pounds 
landed, and once to report the prices paid.
    Response: NMFS does not consider this to be an additional burden. 
Currently, dealers subject to IVR reporting must report all the pounds 
landed for all purchases soon after the end of the reporting week, and 
then complete a separate written report that documents the pounds 
landed as well as the prices paid to the vessel. Although the reporting 
frequency for pounds landed will eventually increase to daily for all 
dealers, the frequency for the follow-up report with price and 
disposition information will remain as it is now, albeit reported via 
electronic means. Also, there is no requirement to report separately 
the pounds landed and the prices paid. If the price information is 
available and reported at the time of the initial report, no follow-up 
report would be necessary.
    Comment 8: One comment letter suggested that data collected under 
the proposed system would be less credible than under the current 
system due to the added stress on dealers to comply with the daily 
reporting requirements.
    Response: While there may be a period of adjustment during which 
time some dealers may feel added stress to comply with the new 
requirements, it will take only a short time for dealers to become 
familiar with the changes to the reporting system, and the result will 
be an increase in the quality of the data available for fisheries 
management.
    Comment 9: One comment letter suggested, due to the level of 
impacts likely to be imposed on dealers as a result of the proposed 
rule, that an IRFA should be prepared.
    Response: NMFS prepared an IRFA with the Regulatory Amendment 
document; a summary of the IRFA was included in the proposed rule. This 
final rule incorporates the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
    Comment 10: One comment letter suggested that, contrary to 
conclusions drawn in the proposed rule, this action

[[Page 13487]]

would affect fishermen by affecting the prices they are paid.
    Response: The cost basis, on average, per dealer, to implement this 
action is not substantial ($671-$1,479 per dealer in the first year, 
including costs to purchase all required computer hardware, software, 
Internet access, and initial training); therefore, any costs passed on 
to the fishing vessels in the way of lower prices in an attempt to 
recoup these costs are expected to be minimal when considered at the 
scale of the total number of vessels and trips handled by each dealer. 
Instead, dealers may choose to pass some or all of this additional cost 
on to purchasers in the form of higher prices for their products.
    Comment 11: One comment letter claims that this action would 
violate National Standard 7 because it does not minimize costs to 
dealers or avoid duplication.
    Response: By providing several options for how federally permitted 
dealers may report their trip-level reports (Internet-based web form, 
FTP upload, or state-based electronic reporting system), and by 
designing the system to be compatible with reasonably priced off-the-
shelf computer systems (e.g., computer systems more than sufficient to 
meet the minimum hardware requirements are widely available for less 
than $1,000), NMFS has strived to the extent practicable, to minimize 
the costs to seafood dealers associated with complying with this 
action. One of the results of this action is to avoid the duplication 
of effort characteristic of the system that would otherwise remain in 
place (e.g., dealers with a permit for one or more of the quota-managed 
species are required to submit both weekly IVR reports as well as 
weekly paper weighout reports, and dealers that already employ 
computer-based accounting systems would enter the data once on their 
computers for their own use, but also have to provide paper reports of 
their purchases). NMFS considers that the benefits of this action 
outweigh the initial costs to affected dealers. Daily electronic 
reporting will significantly improve quota monitoring by increasing the 
resolution and timeliness of trip-level reports used in quota 
monitoring. Improvements in data resolution and timeliness are expected 
to minimize the potential for closing a quota-based fishery too early 
in the season (to the detriment of the industry) or too late in the 
season (to the detriment of the resource). Because either case results 
in adverse impacts to the fishing industry (closing a fishery too early 
results in a loss of opportunity to harvest fish in the current year, 
while closing a fishery too late reduces the available quota in future 
years), it is to the benefit of the fishing industry, dealers and 
vessels alike, to utilize the most accurate, highest resolution data 
possible.

Comments on the Use of Computers and/or the Internet

    Comment 12: Twenty-two comment letters indicated that the authors 
do not use or have a computer, they lack computer skills, and/or they 
believe a computer would be too costly for them to buy.
    Response: Many affected dealers already use a computer in their 
business operations and are familiar with at least the basics of 
operating said computer. Some portion of affected dealers may need to 
purchase a computer and become acquainted with basic computer 
operations in order to comply with the new dealer reporting 
requirements. NMFS has designed the system to be compatible with 
readily available off-the-shelf desktop or laptop personal computers 
that can be purchased for less than $1,000. NMFS does not consider this 
one-time expense to be unduly burdensome as a cost of doing business. 
Training on computer operations is available through a variety of 
sources and should not be difficult to obtain.
    Comment 13: Seven comment letters suggested that reliance on the 
Internet as a data transfer medium was a problem, either because the 
commenter believed that Internet access is too costly, the commenter 
did not have access to the Internet, or the commenter's access to the 
Internet is intermittent.
    Response: To accommodate issues associated with reliance on the 
Internet as a data transfer medium, NMFS is including a reporting 
option that does not rely on access to the Internet, but will allow a 
dealer to report directly to NMFS via their computer modem and a 
standard phone line. This option could be used by dealers for whom 
access to the Internet is either too expensive, unavailable, or 
unreliable.
    Comment 14: Five comment letters indicated that the commenters 
believed their computer hardware and/or software was inadequate to 
comply with the proposed rule.
    Response: NMFS understands that some dealers may have to upgrade 
their existing computer hardware and/or software in order to meet the 
requirements in this rule. However, the cost of upgrading a computer is 
less than the cost of purchasing a new computer, and neither of these 
costs is considered to be significant. There are no requirements for 
particular software associated with this action. Dealers may complete 
their reports via an online web-based form on the Internet, or use any 
readily available off-the-shelf bookkeeping software application to 
export reports suitable for upload.
    Comment 15: One comment letter suggested that NMFS consider 
installing computer kiosks in large market areas (e.g., Fulton Fish 
Market) for dealers to access for reporting purposes.
    Response: NMFS does not currently have the infrastructure or 
funding to set up an extensive network of computer kiosks for dealer 
reporting. Since it is likely that a substantial number of dealers have 
an office and already have access to a computer, either at home or at 
their dealership, the anticipated benefits of computer kiosks for 
dealer electronic reporting are likely to be negligible. However, the 
feasibility of establishing computer and Internet access for use by 
dealers and vessel operators at various port offices is currently being 
researched. In addition, NMFS is coordinating with the Atlantic Coastal 
Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP) and the state fishery management 
agencies to investigate setting up computer kiosks for vessel 
electronic reporting, which may accommodate some dealers as well.
    Comment 16: Three comment letters suggested that NMFS should 
subsidize expenses incurred by dealers for computer equipment and labor 
necessary to comply with the new regulations.
    Response: NMFS has no plans to subsidize the expenses incurred by 
dealers to comply with the rule; however, NMFS considers such a subsidy 
to be unnecessary as NMFS has designed the system to be compatible with 
readily available off-the-shelf personal computers that can be 
purchased for less than $1,000. This one-time expense is not considered 
unreasonable as a cost of doing business, nor an undue hardship on 
dealers. NMFS also does not consider the increase in labor costs as a 
result of the regulations to be significant.
    Comment 17: Two comment letters raised concern over what would 
occur if a dealer has trouble reporting. One of these letters suggested 
that there be a backup method available if the Internet is not working.
    Response: NMFS infers from this comment that the commenter is 
concerned with how reporting will be completed if the dealer had 
computer trouble, trouble accessing the Internet, or if there was 
trouble accessing NMFS' reporting system. If the dealer has computer 
trouble or there is a problem accessing the Internet, the dealer

[[Page 13488]]

remains responsible for complying with all aspects of this final rule 
(reporting all required data electronically at the specified 
frequencies). Computer and/or Internet problems will not relieve 
dealers of the reporting requirements specified in this rule. Also, as 
described in the response to an earlier comment, NMFS is including an 
option for dealers to report directly to NMFS via their computer modem 
and a phone line. This may serve as the primary reporting mechanism for 
those dealers without Internet access, or as a backup reporting 
mechanism for those dealers whose Internet connection is not working at 
the time they wish to report.
    Comment 18: One comment letter indicated that there should be no 
cost to the dealer to report over the Internet, above the standard cost 
to obtain Internet service.
    Response: This is the case. NMFS will not charge any fees or impose 
any other costs on dealers to report over the Internet. Any costs 
associated with gaining basic Internet access are the sole 
responsibility of the dealers who choose to report via the Internet.
    Comment 19: One comment letter requested that the electronic 
reporting system be easy to use and remember, but that there be no 
``cookies'' or hidden files put on the dealers' computers.
    Response: In developing the electronic reporting system, NMFS has 
strived to develop a user-friendly system that will be easy for dealers 
to use and to remember the steps for reporting. It is the policy of 
NMFS that no cookies or hidden files will be employed in the 
development or implementation of this system.
    Comment 20: One comment letter indicated that all dealer software 
required to comply with the new reporting system be compatible with 
existing software used by dealers.
    Response: As long as all required data elements are included, any 
off-the-shelf or custom software package that is capable of exporting 
the proper file types would be usable by dealers. The system has been 
designed to be compatible with export file types commonly used by off-
the-shelf business accounting software packages such as QuickBooks, 
PeachTree, and NetYield, among others.
    Comment 21: One comment letter took issue with the use of the 
Internet as a data transfer medium, stating that the Internet 
represents a loss of privacy for individuals who use it.
    Response: NMFS is intent on implementing a secure reporting and 
data management system that meets all applicable Department of Commerce 
standards to ensure confidentiality, as required under section 402(b) 
of the Magnuson-Steven Act. The system developed by NMFS employs the 
same technology used in the banking industry, including the use of a 
secure certificate, to ensure the confidentiality and security of 
financial transactions.

Comments on the Trip Identifier

    Comment 22: NMFS received 27 comment letters that took issue with 
the proposed definition of the ``trip identifier'' that dealers are 
required to include in their trip-level reports. Most commenters voiced 
concern over their ability to ensure that the vessels would provide 
this information to them, and concern over the implications that the 
dealers would be held accountable if the trip identifier is not 
provided by the vessels. Several commenters stated that providing the 
trip identifier should be the responsibility of the vessel, not the 
dealer. One commenter suggested allowing dealers to report the trip 
identifier once per month. Some commenters indicated that, although 
this information would be possible to obtain, it may not always be 
possible to obtain at the time of the transaction. One commenter 
suggested that NMFS did not pursue sufficient alternatives for linking 
the VTR and the dealer trip-level reports before selecting the approach 
described in the proposed rule. Two commenters also suggested that NMFS 
consider delaying implementation of the trip identifier requirement 
until some time after the dealer electronic reporting requirements are 
implemented.
    Response: To accommodate concerns over the requirement for dealers 
to obtain and report the trip identifier, the final rule will extend 
temporarily the time period within which the trip identifier must be 
reported by the dealer. The proposed rule included the trip identifier 
as one of the items that would need to be reported within 24 hours of 
the transaction. The final rule will delay this requirement such that 
until May 1, 2005, the trip identifier may be reported along with the 
price and disposition information up to 16 days from the end of the 
reporting week, or by the end of the calendar month, whichever is 
later. At the end of this first year, NMFS will evaluate the 
effectiveness of allowing the trip identifier to be reported separate 
from the initial landings information. The requirement for the trip 
identifier to be reported within 24 hours of the initial transaction 
will be implemented automatically on May 1, 2005, unless waived by the 
Regional Administrator. The final rule will also modify this 
requirement such that dealers must obtain a trip identifier only from 
federally permitted vessels, rather than from federally and state 
permitted vessels. The current VTR is considered to provide a 
sufficient mechanism for most vessels to provide the trip identifier to 
dealers, as there are two removable ``dealer copy'' pages of the VTR 
that have the VTR serial number pre-printed on them. In addition, for 
those vessels that sell product to three or more dealers, NMFS staff 
are developing alternatives for how fishing vessels may more easily 
transmit the trip identifier to these dealers. Details on these 
alternatives will be provided to vessels and dealers in permit holder 
letters announcing implementation of this action. NMFS considered other 
options for linking the dealer reports with the VTRs, such as relying 
on information provided by the vessel, and concluded that including the 
VTR serial number on the dealer report represented the most efficient 
and consistent mechanism to ensure that the two reports could be 
effectively linked.
    Comment 23: One comment letter suggested that NMFS implement a rule 
requiring fishing vessels to tag fish cartons with their VTR number, 
thereby ensuring that the trip identifier would be available for the 
dealers.
    Response: NMFS does not foresee a need to implement a regulation 
specifying the mechanism by which fishing vessels must provide the trip 
identifier to dealers because it will be more efficient for dealers and 
vessels alike to be able to determine what works best in their own 
situations.
    Comment 24: Two comment letters stated that the trip identifier and 
the VTR number should be the same (i.e., that the trip identifier 
should be reported as the VTR number).
    Response: This is how the trip identifier is determined. The 
regulations specify that the trip identifier is defined as the complete 
VTR serial number. It is the intent of NMFS that utilizing the VTR 
number as the trip identifier will provide a simple and consistent link 
between the VTR and the dealer trip-level report.

Comments on the Timing of Reports

    Comment 25: Four comment letters suggested that NMFS should expand 
the time frame for requiring landings data to be reported to 4 days for 
quota-managed species and 7 days for non-quota-managed species.
    Response: NMFS has decided to modify the reporting frequency, 
temporarily, for some small dealers. The final rule implements the 
requirement for daily reporting only for those dealers that reported 
$300,000 or more in fish purchases (ex-vessel value) in at least 1

[[Page 13489]]

year between 2000 and 2002. Because dealers that exceed the threshold 
report much more than dealers that fall below the threshold, it is more 
important for NMFS to monitor on a daily basis landings purchased by 
these larger dealers than landings purchased by the smaller dealers. 
Dealers that fall below this threshold will be required to report 
electronically via computer, but may continue to report on a weekly 
basis, rather than daily, until May 1, 2005, at which time they, too, 
will be required to report daily.
    Comment 26: NMFS received two letters commenting that daily 
reporting was not needed for quota monitoring.
    Response: Experience has demonstrated the limitations of weekly 
data reporting for quota monitoring. Catch projections based on weekly 
data often lack the precision necessary to effectively manage quota-
based fisheries. Daily electronic reporting will significantly improve 
quota monitoring by increasing the resolution and timeliness of trip-
level reports used in quota monitoring. Improvements in data resolution 
and timeliness are expected to minimize the potential for closing a 
quota-based fishery too early in the season (to the detriment of the 
industry) or too late in the season (to the detriment of the resource).
    Comment 27: Six comment letters indicated that dealers would not be 
able to report every day. One comment letter requested that the weekend 
reporting exemption be extended to include Federal holidays.
    Response: NMFS clarifies that under the system implemented in this 
rule, dealers subject to the daily reporting requirement are required 
to report once on each business day (Monday-Friday, excluding Federal 
holidays), and are not required to report on weekends or Federal 
holidays. NMFS is modifying the regulations as described in the 
proposed rule, such that only new dealers and dealers that reported 
$300,000 or more of fish purchases (ex-vessel value) in at least 1 year 
from 2000-2002 are required to report on a daily basis. Dealers that 
fall below this threshold will be able to continue to report on a 
weekly basis, through April 30, 2005.
    Comment 28: Seven comment letters indicated that 3 days was an 
insufficient amount of time to make corrections to trip-level reports. 
One commenter suggested changing the limit from 3 calendar days to 3-4 
business days. Another commenter suggested 14 days.
    Response: NMFS clarifies that the intent of the proposed rule was 
to indicate that corrections to landing reports may be made within 3 
business days, not calendar days. NMFS considers 3 business days 
sufficient time to make any necessary corrections to incorrectly 
reported trip-level reports, except in rare circumstances which NMFS 
will consider on a case-by-case basis.
    Comment 29: Two comment letters indicated that daily reporting 
should only be required for quota-managed species, and all other 
species should be reported on a weekly basis.
    Response: NMFS considered the approach suggested by the commenter, 
and concluded that this approach would not be practicable. Requiring 
different reporting frequencies depending on the species landed would 
likely result in significant confusion among dealers and introduce 
inconsistencies into the dealer report database. Maintaining reporting 
frequencies as indicated, not based on species, will be more consistent 
for all dealers, regardless of the state in which they reside.
    Comment 30: One comment letter suggested that the end-of-week 
reporting deadline be extended from midnight Tuesday to midnight 
Wednesday to provide more time for dealers to finalize all landings 
that came in between the previous Friday and Sunday.
    Response: NMFS considered this comment and concluded that the 
originally proposed deadline of midnight Tuesday is sufficient time to 
report all purchases that occurred for the previous Friday and 
Saturday. This schedule remains consistent with the current IVR 
reporting schedule, under which all weekly purchases must be reported 
by midnight on the following Tuesday.
    Comment 31: One comment letter indicated that 8 minutes would not 
be sufficient time to complete a report.
    Response: NMFS considered this comment, and concluded that, once 
dealers become familiar with the reporting systems and protocols, each 
trip-level report will take no more than 2 minutes to complete, on 
average.

Comments on Access to Data

    Comment 32: NMFS received one letter suggesting that dealers be 
able to retrieve historical data entered by that dealer at any time.
    Response: The system is designed so that dealers will immediately 
have access to all information they submit electronically. Historical 
information (data submitted to NMFS prior to the introduction of the 
electronic reporting system) will be available electronically in late 
2004 or early 2005. Although the ability to make corrections to those 
data will be limited according to the provisions of the regulations, 
all information will remain available for viewing.
    Comment 33: One comment letter indicated that access to the dealer 
reporting system should be password protected on a secure system so 
that only the appropriate dealer personnel and NMFS have access.
    Response: It is the intent of NMFS to implement a system as 
described by the commenter, in which each dealer may access their data 
through a password-protected secure system. Access to these data will 
be limited to NMFS and other personnel (state fishery management agency 
staff, staff of the Regional Fishery Management Councils, etc.), as 
authorized under section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Comment 34: One commenter indicated that dealers should be able to 
revise previously submitted data.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has developed the reporting system so 
that dealers will be able to revise previously submitted data, subject 
to the constraints identified in the regulations.
    Comment 35: One comment letter questioned why dealer reports are 
confidential.
    Response: Dealer reports are treated as confidential information 
under section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires that 
all information submitted to the Secretary of Commerce by any person in 
compliance with any requirement under the Act shall remain confidential 
and not be disclosed except under the limited circumstances described 
in the law. Summary data, with no identifying information, is made 
available to the public on a routine basis.

Comments on the Alternatives

    Comment 36: Two comment letters suggested that NMFS provide 
additional options for reporting: One commenter requested the option of 
faxing reports in addition to reporting via a computer; and the other 
commenter suggested that NMFS use a combination of the current IVR 
system and electronic reporting, at the discretion of the dealer.
    Response: In order to ensure compatibility of data submitted by 
dealers, and their availability for use by managers, NMFS insists that 
all dealer reports must be submitted via one of the electronic 
reporting mechanisms described in the rule. Dealer reports via fax and/
or the IVR system will not be considered to be in compliance with this 
rule.
    Comment 37: Thirteen comment letters indicated that the commenters 
supported the status quo and they believed the weekly IVR system was

[[Page 13490]]

easier to use than the proposed daily electronic reporting system.
    Response: While some dealers would prefer the status quo, with 
which they may have significant experience, NMFS intends to improve the 
current reporting system. The daily electronic reporting system is 
intended to remedy several limitations of the weekly reporting systems 
by increasing the resolution of landings data, making landings data 
available to managers and other users in a more timely manner, and 
eliminating the redundant reporting systems of both an IVR report and a 
written dealer weighout report.
    Comment 38: Two comment letters indicated support for an 
alternative to the proposed action--the alternative that would make 
daily electronic reporting mandatory only for those dealers that met a 
minimum threshold criterion of having purchased $300,000 or more of 
fish (ex-vessel value) in at least 1 year between 2000 and 2002.
    Response: NMFS is implementing a variation on this alternative that 
allows dealers below the threshold to continue to report on a weekly 
basis until May 1, 2005, at which time they will need to begin 
reporting on a daily basis. New dealers and dealers above the threshold 
will be required to begin reporting on a daily basis upon 
implementation of this rule. All federally permitted dealers, 
regardless of the threshold, will need to begin reporting 
electronically upon implementation of this rule. Because dealers that 
exceed the threshold report much more than dealers that fall below the 
threshold, it is more important for NMFS to monitor on a daily basis 
landings purchased by these larger dealers than landings purchased by 
the smaller dealers.

Comments on Interactions With State Systems

    Comment 39: Five comment letters raised issues regarding the 
integration and interaction of the proposed system with reporting 
systems being developed by the states. One letter opposed the proposed 
regulations because they purportedly continue an overlap of reporting 
requirements with the states. Similarly, another comment letter 
suggested that NMFS use landings data provided to the states, or allow 
dealers to report to NMFS at the same time they report to their state. 
Several commenters suggested that NMFS use the same system as the 
states.
    Response: Several states are in the process of developing 
electronic reporting systems. NMFS has been working in conjunction with 
the ACCSP and the state fishery management agencies to ensure that the 
system deployed by NMFS is consistent and compatible to the maximum 
degree possible with the systems being developed and implemented by the 
various states agencies. One of the reporting options allows dealers to 
use an acceptable file upload report system implemented by their state 
fishery management agency, provided that they comply with the more 
frequent of the minimum reporting schedules (e.g., if the state 
requires weekly reporting, but the Federal regulations require daily 
reporting, the dealer may use the state system to report their 
purchases, but must do so daily). This option, which is available to 
all dealers in a state with a compatible electronic reporting system, 
will enable these dealers to report once, to their state, and have 
their data automatically provided to NMFS, eliminating any overlap or 
duplication of state and Federal reporting requirements.
    Comment 40: One comment letter suggested that NMFS work more 
closely with the ACCSP, and, in particular, the North Carolina Division 
of Marine Fisheries (NC DMF), on the development of the electronic 
reporting system.
    Response: As noted in the response to the previous comment, NMFS 
has worked closely with ACCSP to develop a data reporting system that 
is compatible and consistent with ACCSP and the state fishery 
management agency data reporting systems, including the system being 
developed by NC DMF. All data collected by NMFS will be available to 
the states, including NC DMF, through the ACCSP system.

Comments on Price and Disposition Information

    Comment 41: Twenty-four comment letters stated that the time 
allotted in the proposed rule to provide price information on purchases 
was insufficient. Several of these commenters suggested that at least 1 
week be allowed, and other commenters suggested that 1 month be the 
minimum time.
    Response: The proposed rule would have required that all trip-level 
reports be updated with price information no later than midnight on the 
Tuesday following the week in which the purchases were first reported. 
In some cases (for those fish purchased over a weekend, or on a Monday 
or Tuesday), dealers would have had at least 1 week to provide price 
information. For purchases reported on a Wednesday, Thursday, or 
Friday, dealers would have had less than 1 week to update the report 
with price information. To accommodate the concerns of affected 
dealers, the final rule modifies this requirement to allow dealers to 
provide this information up to 16 days from the end of the reporting 
week, or by the end of the calendar month, whichever is later. This 
provides dealers an extra 2-3 weeks to update their trip-level reports 
with price and disposition information.
    Comment 42: NMFS received nine comment letters that questioned the 
requirement to report the disposition of the seafood products. Several 
commenters indicated they were unsure of the purpose of the disposition 
code, and several others suggested that this requirement had no bearing 
on fishery regulations. Most of these commenters also added that this 
requirement should not be included in the final rule.
    Response: Catch disposition information is needed to develop and 
maintain a more complete understanding of seafood industry marketing 
for use in analyses regarding the impacts changes to fishing 
regulations may have on fishermen and various sectors of the fishing 
industry.
    Comment 43: Two comment letters suggested that NMFS should not 
require price information.
    Response: Information on the prices paid to fishing vessels for 
their catch provides vital data to enable NMFS, the states, and the 
Regional Fishery Management Councils to understand and analyze the 
economic and social impacts changes to fishing regulations may have on 
fishermen and various sectors of the fishing industry and their 
communities.

Comments on Negative Reporting

    Comment 44: Six comment letters addressed the requirement for 
negative reporting. Two letters stated that negative reporting should 
not be necessary, two suggested that negative reports continue to be 
due monthly, one requested that negative reports not be due daily, and 
one letter suggested that negative reports be due on the same frequency 
as trip-level reports.
    Response: Negative reporting is required to establish and enable 
NMFS to distinguish between dealers who did not report because they 
purchased no fish during a reporting period and those dealers who 
simply failed to report, but may have purchased fish. Without negative 
reporting, it would be impossible for NMFS to determine when all 
dealers required to report have, in fact, completed their reporting 
requirement. In order to be assured of a complete and accurate 
accounting of landings, at the end of a reporting period, NMFS needs to 
be able to determine if the landings that have been

[[Page 13491]]

reported represent all of the landings during that period. Negative 
reporting closes that loop by providing a mechanism by which NMFS can 
determine whether dealers that did not report a purchase have either 
failed to report a purchase or simply did not make a purchase during 
that reporting period. Unlike reports of purchases, negative reports 
are required to be made on a weekly basis, and may be made for up to 3 
months in advance. This provision is intended to reduce the reporting 
burden on dealers who do not purchase any fish for extended periods of 
time. If negative reports were due less frequently than weekly (e.g., 
monthly), NMFS would not be able to effectively monitor quota-based 
fisheries because the information needed to confirm compliance with the 
reporting requirements would not be provided in a sufficiently timely 
manner.

Other Comments

    Comment 45: Two comment letters suggested that, rather than 
implementing electronic dealer reporting, NMFS require the recreational 
fishing sector to obtain operator permits, and provide log books and 
trip reports.
    Response: These comments are not directly relevant to the rule in 
question, which is intended to provide a mechanism to improve the 
accounting of commercial fish landings. Commercial fish landings are 
handled by commercial seafood dealers, thus this action addresses the 
reporting requirements for these dealers. This action does not propose 
any changes to the regulations that affect the recreational fishing 
sector, as landings by this sector are not pertinent to an accounting 
of commercial fish landings.
    Comment 46: One comment letter suggested that electronic dealer 
reporting would only be used to close quota-based fisheries sooner.
    Response: It is the intent of NMFS that implementation of an 
electronic dealer reporting system will allow quotas to be managed more 
effectively, reducing the frequency of early closures of quota-based 
fisheries as well as late closures.
    Comment 47: One comment letter requested that NMFS implement new 
reporting requirements to ensure that dealers in the NE identify large 
and small coastal shark landings by species.
    Response: NMFS regulations require reporting of all landings by 
species, including sharks, and NMFS is working with dealers in the NE 
to improve the identification of shark species.
    Comment 48: Two comment letters stated that the annual report is 
redundant with data submitted earlier in the year and should not be 
required.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the Annual Processed Products Survey 
report is redundant with previously submitted data. The annual report 
collects information on employment and the volume and value of 
processed products that is not captured in the daily and weekly dealer 
trip-level reports.
    Comment 49: Three comment letters raised an issue regarding whether 
this action is directed at the point-of-purchase transaction or the 
point-of-landing transaction. One comment letter suggested that the 
requirement to report daily be initiated at the point-of-purchase 
rather than the point-of-landing, because it can sometimes take an 
extended period of time for some vessels to be unloaded, and until the 
vessel is completely unloaded, the amount of fish to be purchased is 
not known. The other two letters suggested that the point-of-landing 
would be the more appropriate transaction point.
    Response: NMFS has considered this issue, and recognizes that there 
remains some debate regarding whether the point-of-purchase or the 
point-of-landing is more appropriate to determine the action that 
triggers a dealer trip-level report, but is making no change to this 
aspect of the regulations at this time. This may be reconsidered in a 
future action.
    Comment 50: One comment letter indicated that the commenter would 
like the proposed reporting requirements to apply to dealers that hold 
only a Federal lobster permit, as well as the others affected by the 
action.
    Response: The scope of this action is limited to those regulations 
promulgated under 50 CFR part 648, and the fisheries addressed therein. 
Changes to the regulations under 50 CFR part 697 that address fisheries 
managed under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management 
Act, including American lobster, may be reconsidered in a future 
action.
    Comment 51: One comment letter suggested that NMFS implement no-
take marine sanctuaries to protect fishery resources.
    Response: The implementation of no-take marine sanctuaries is not 
within the scope of this action.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In Sec.  648.2, new definitions for ``Dealer--large'' and 
``Dealer--small'' are added to clarify to whom the differing reporting 
schedules specified at Sec.  648.7(f)(1) apply. The definitions are 
based on the threshold criterion described in the proposed rule under 
the alternatives to the proposed action that would have implemented the 
electronic reporting requirements only for dealers with reported annual 
purchases above the threshold.
    In Sec.  648.2, the definition of ``trip identifier'' is modified 
to clarify that the complete serial number of the vessel logbook page 
completed for a trip composes the trip identifier, and to remove the 
option that would have allowed dealers to use the vessel's date sailed 
as the trip identifier. This option has been removed as a result of a 
change to the trip identifier requirement so that it is required only 
for trips conducted by federally permitted vessels. The option was 
included originally to provide a mechanism for dealers to determine a 
trip identifier when purchasing fish from a state-only permitted vessel 
that was not required to use a Federal fishing VTR and would not have 
access to a logbook serial number. Because the trip identifier 
requirement no longer applies for trips made by state-only permitted 
vessels, this option is no longer necessary and would only serve to 
introduce confusion and inconsistencies into the reporting system.
    In Sec.  648.7, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to clarify that dealers 
must submit a detailed trip-level report of all fish purchased or 
received, subject to the time periods specified in paragraph (f) of 
this section, without specifying whether those reports must be 
submitted on a daily basis. The intent of this final rule is to 
determine, with greater level of precision and accuracy, the amount of 
fish landed; therefore, this section is clarified to indicate that it 
is fish both purchased and received that must be reported. This 
paragraph is also revised to clarify that the Regional Administrator 
has the authority to direct dealers to report by some other means than 
those specified in this rule, should the need arise.
    In Sec.  648.7, paragraph (a)(1)(i) is revised to limit the 
requirement for dealers to provide a trip identifier to those trips 
from which fish are purchased or received from a commercial fishing 
vessel permitted under this part. This removes the requirement for 
dealers to provide a trip identifier when reporting fish purchased or 
received from a non-federally permitted vessel.
    In Sec.  648.7, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to specify that dealers 
are required to have the capability to transmit data over a telephone 
line or a cable using a computer modem. This clarifies that any form of 
Internet access (dial-up, DSL, or cable) is sufficient to comply with 
the requirements of this rule.

[[Page 13492]]

    In Sec.  648.7, paragraph (d) is revised to clarify that all 
records upon which the reports required under this section are or will 
be based must be made available for inspection upon request.
    In Sec.  648.7, paragraph (e) is revised to clarify that fishing 
log reports must be kept on board the vessel and available for review 
for at least 1 year and must be retained for a total of 3 years after 
the date of the last entry on the log.
    In Sec.  648.7, paragraph (f)(1)(i) is revised to specify the 
report submission schedule required for Large Dealers, i.e., that 
detailed daily trip-level reports must be received by midnight of the 
next business day following the day fish are purchased or received from 
a fishing vessel.
    In Sec.  648.7, a new paragraph (f)(1)(ii) is inserted to specify 
the report submission schedule required for Small Dealers, i.e., that 
through April 30, 2005, small dealers are required to provide detailed 
trip-level reports that must be received within 3 days after the end of 
the reporting week, or by midnight of the following Tuesday, and that 
effective May 1, 2005, small dealers are required to provide detailed 
daily trip-level reports that must be received by midnight of the next 
business day following the day fish are purchased or received from a 
fishing vessel.
    In Sec.  648.7, paragraph (f)(1)(ii) is redesignated as paragraph 
(f)(1)(iii) and revised to clarify that corrections to previously 
submitted trip-level reports may be made for up to 3 business days 
following submission of the initial report.
    In Sec.  648.7, a new paragraph (f)(1)(iv) is inserted to specify 
that through April 30, 2005, the trip identifier, as well as the price 
and disposition information, may be submitted after the initial trip-
level report, but must be received within 16 days of the end of the 
reporting week or the end of the calendar month, whichever is later. 
This paragraph also clarifies that dealers will be able to access and 
update previously submitted trip identifier, price, and disposition 
data. This paragraph is further revised to clarify that, effective May 
1, 2005, the trip identifier must be submitted with the initial trip-
level report.
    In Sec.  648.7, paragraph (f)(1)(iii) is redesignated as paragraph 
(f)(1)(v) and revised to specify that this paragraph applies effective 
May 1, 2005. This paragraph is also revised to extend the period within 
which price and disposition information may be reported, from 3 days 
from the end of the reporting week, to 16 days from the end of the 
reporting week or the end of the calendar month, whichever is later, 
and to specify that, effective May 1, 2005, only price and disposition 
information may be submitted within this timeframe.
    In Sec.  648.7, paragraph (f)(1)(iv) is redesignated as paragraph 
(f)(1)(vi).

Classification

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of E.O. 12866.
    Included in this final rule is the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a). The FRFA 
incorporates the IRFA, the comments and responses to the proposed rule, 
and the analyses completed in support of this action. A copy of the 
IRFA is available from the Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Statement of Objective and Need

    A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, 
and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, is contained in 
the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised in Public Comments

    NMFS received 79 comment letters on the proposed rule prior to the 
close of the comment period. Of these, several made reference 
specifically to issues addressed in the IRFA, particularly the costs 
associated with purchasing or upgrading computer equipment, the need to 
hire additional staff to comply with the new reporting requirements, 
the overall administrative burden on small businesses to comply with 
the requirement to report daily, NMFS estimate of the economic impacts 
that would result from implementation of the regulations described in 
the proposed rule, the impact on fishermen-dealers, effects on 
fishermen due to reductions in prices paid by dealers, and support for 
the alternative that would make daily electronic reporting mandatory 
only for those dealers that met a minimum threshold of annual 
purchases. The remainder of the comment letters raised issues that did 
not pertain to the IRFA. For a complete description of the comments 
received on the proposed rule, refer to the section above titled 
``Comments and Responses.''
    To address the significant issues raised by the public on the 
proposed rule, the economic analyses contained in the IRFA, and the 
alternatives to the proposed action, NMFS is implementing several 
changes from what was proposed in the proposed rule. To address 
concerns raised regarding the administrative burden on small businesses 
to comply with the new reporting requirements, NMFS is delaying for 1 
year the requirement for smaller dealers (those below the threshold 
used to define a Small Dealer) to report on a daily basis. These 
dealers will have to report electronically beginning with the 
implementation of this rule, but they may continue through April 30, 
2005, to report on a weekly basis. This delay is intended to provide 
time for smaller dealers to become familiar with the changes associated 
with reporting electronically via computer, many of whom may be 
obtaining a computer for the first time, before they must increase the 
frequency of their trip-level reports. By providing this delay, these 
dealers will be able to better assess whether or not they will need to 
hire additional staff to comply with the eventual change to a more 
frequent reporting schedule. NMFS intends for this change to also 
accommodate the concerns of fishermen-dealers, many of whom are small 
businesses that will meet the definition of a Small Dealer.
    In addition to this change, NMFS considered the comments regarding 
the costs of purchasing or upgrading computer equipment, the potential 
for reductions in prices paid to fishermen, and the overall estimate of 
the economic impacts associated with this rule, but is not making any 
changes to the requirements in response to these concerns. Regarding 
the costs to purchase or upgrade computer equipment, NMFS has estimated 
the costs to be no more than $671-$1,479 per dealer for all hardware, 
software, initial training, and the first year of dial-up Internet 
service. These costs are based upon published retail prices for readily 
available off-the-shelf systems that will be more than sufficient to 
meet the minimum requirements of the reporting system. NMFS does not 
consider these costs to be prohibitive or an unreasonable part of doing 
business.
    Regarding the potential for dealers to reduce prices paid to 
fishermen in order to recoup their compliance costs and thus impose an 
adverse economic impact on fishermen, NMFS does not foresee this to be 
a significant issue. As noted above, the cost basis, on average, per 
dealer, to implement this action is not substantial ($671-$1,479 per 
dealer in the first year); therefore, any costs passed on to fishing 
vessels in the way of lower prices in an attempt to recoup these costs 
are expected to be minimal when considered at the scale of the total 
number of vessels and trips handled by

[[Page 13493]]

each dealer. Due to these analyses, and other information provided in 
the IRFA, NMFS considers its original estimates of the potential 
economic impacts on dealers to remain valid. None of the comment 
letters submitted on the proposed rule provided any new information not 
previously considered by NMFS in its analysis of economic impacts.

Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule 
Will Apply

    This action impacts seafood dealers and processors who purchase 
fish from vessels landing specific species in the NE Region. Dealers 
are firms who purchase fish from vessels for a commercial purpose, 
other than solely for transport over land, and then sell or otherwise 
transfer that product directly to restaurants, markets, other dealers, 
processors, and consumers without substantially altering the product. 
Processors are firms that purchase raw product and produce another 
product form, which is then sold or otherwise transferred to markets, 
restaurants, or consumers. The vast majority of dealers and processors 
have at least four different permits.
    For purposes of the RFA, all dealers affected by this final rule 
are considered small businesses; therefore, there are no 
disproportionate impacts between large and small entities, as defined 
in the RFA. However, given the differences noted in the preamble to 
this final rule in the number of reports submitted by Large Dealers and 
Small Dealers, as defined in this rule, NMFS is assigning all affected 
dealers to one of these classes for the purpose of determining when 
said dealers must comply with the requirement to report daily. All 
dealers must comply with the requirement to report electronically 
immediately upon implementation of this rule, but while Large Dealers 
must begin reporting daily immediately upon implementation of this 
rule, Small Dealers may continue to report on a weekly basis until May 
1, 2005, at which time they must also begin reporting daily.
    Based on 2002 landings information, it is estimated that 
approximately 500 dealers and processors will be required to comply 
with this rule. The majority of these dealers and processors are 
resident in Massachusetts (26 percent), Maine (20 percent), New York 
(16 percent), and Rhode Island (11 percent). All other coastal states 
through North Carolina have dealers and processors who need to comply 
with the action, and there are companies with dealer permits who 
purchased fish in 2002 from as far away as California and Hawaii. 
However, the value of fish purchased by dealers outside of the NE 
Region is so small that they may not continue purchasing fish directly 
from vessels once they are forced to comply with mandatory electronic 
reporting if they do not currently have the capability to report 
electronically.
    Based on industry surveys conducted over the past year, NMFS 
estimates that at least 50 firms have the necessary computer hardware, 
software, and Internet connections to comply with this final rule with 
no additional cost. It is therefore assumed that as many as 450 firms 
will need to purchase the hardware and software and obtain an Internet 
connection. It is very likely that more than 50 currently active 
dealers have computers and Internet access, but this information is 
unavailable at this time. While this additional information (the actual 
number of permitted dealers with computer capability and Internet 
access) would have been useful in the analysis of the potential 
economic impacts of the action and the alternatives, the process to 
collect this information could not be completed within the timeframe 
necessary to complete this action.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements to which this final rule applies were identified in the 
preamble to the proposed rule and in the IRFA and remain the same, with 
the exception of the temporary reductions in required reporting 
frequencies described in the section above entitled ``Changes From the 
Proposed Rule.'' A description of the projected reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements is provided in the 
IRFA and the IRFA summary contained in the Classification section of 
the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No professional skills are 
necessary for preparation of the reports or records specified above.

Steps Taken To Minimize Economic Impacts on Small Entities

    This final rule modifies the reporting and recordkeeping 
regulations for federally permitted seafood dealers participating in 
the summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, Atlantic sea scallop, NE 
multispecies, monkfish, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, Atlantic 
surfclam, ocean quahog, Atlantic herring, Atlantic deep-sea red crab, 
tilefish, Atlantic bluefish, skates, and/or spiny dogfish fisheries in 
the NE Region. The potential economic impacts of these measures are 
described in detail in the IRFA and the IRFA summary contained in the 
Classification section of the proposed rule. Results of these analyses 
indicate that, although there will be an economic cost incurred by most 
affected dealers to comply with the new requirements, the overall 
magnitude of this cost is likely to be relatively small ($769-$1,577 
per dealer in the initial year and less in follow-on years).
    In addition to the action being taken in this final rule, NMFS 
considered several alternatives, including: (1) Making no changes to 
the current seafood dealer reporting requirements; (2) voluntary 
electronic reporting for federally permitted dealers; (3) mandatory 
electronic reporting for some federally permitted dealers, based on a 
threshold criterion of $300,000 in annual purchases in at least 1 year 
between 2000 and 2002; and (4) tiered implementation of mandatory 
electronic reporting for federally permitted dealers, based on the same 
threshold criterion. NMFS selected this action from among the 
alternatives because it will provide for a substantial improvement in 
data collection, make dealer trip-level report data more readily 
available, provide for a substantial improvement in the ability of NMFS 
to monitor landings of quota-managed species, and minimize costs to the 
Government that would be required if the Government were to maintain 
multiple data collection systems, as would be the case under all of the 
non-preferred alternatives save the no action alternative. 
Specifically, NMFS avouches that daily electronic reporting will 
significantly improve quota monitoring by increasing the resolution and 
timeliness of trip-level reports used in quota monitoring. Improvements 
in data resolution and timeliness are expected to minimize the 
potential for closing a quota-based fishery too early in the season (to 
the detriment of the industry) or too late in the season (to the 
detriment of the resource). Because either case results in adverse 
impacts to the fishing industry (closing a fishery too early results in 
a loss of opportunity to harvest fish in the current year, while 
closing a fishery too late reduces the available quota in future 
years), it is to the benefit of the fishing industry, dealers and 
vessels alike, to utilize the most accurate, highest resolution data 
possible.
    Under the no action alternative, there would be no increases in 
costs to the dealers and no revisions would be made to the existing 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. This alternative would result 
in the lowest possible cost

[[Page 13494]]

to industry as a whole, but would not achieve any of the objectives of 
this action and is, therefore, unacceptable to meet the continuing 
needs of fisheries managers for timely, accurate, and precise data on 
which to base management decisions.
    Under the alternative to make daily electronic reporting voluntary, 
federally permitted dealers would be given the option to report all 
fish purchases electronically rather than via the present reporting 
requirements. Dealers that opted to report electronically all purchases 
on a trip-by-trip basis, as under the proposed action, would be exempt 
from the regulations requiring weekly hardcopy trip-level reports and 
IVR reports. Dealers that did not opt to utilize electronic reporting 
would remain required to provide weekly hardcopy trip-level reports 
and, if applicable, IVR reports. There is no information available on 
the number of firms that would voluntarily submit electronic reports. 
For many of the larger dealers that already have the capability to 
report electronically, it would undoubtedly make sense for them to 
participate. However, many dealers would likely not participate, 
resulting in an overall lower cost to the industry than the preferred 
alternative. Although this alternative would result in lower costs to 
the industry as a whole, it would not achieve the objectives of this 
action, as it would require the Government to utilize and maintain 
duplicate data collection and management systems without providing any 
benefit regarding data quality, timeliness, or availability.
    The alternative that would use a threshold criterion to determine 
which dealers must comply with electronic reporting would mandate daily 
electronic reporting for dealers who purchased $300,000 or more of fish 
(ex-vessel value) from commercial fishing vessels in at least 1 year 
between 2000 and 2002. Data show that this alternative would impact 
approximately 50 percent of the dealers, which translates into an 
overall industry cost of one-half the cost of the proposed action. 
Although this alternative would also result in lower costs to the 
industry as a whole, it also would not achieve the objectives of this 
action, as it would require the Government to utilize and maintain 
duplicate data collection and management systems without providing any 
benefit regarding data quality, timeliness, or availability.
    The alternative that would use a threshold criterion to determine 
when dealers must come into compliance with electronic reporting would 
mandate electronic reporting for all dealers, but delay implementation 
by a year for dealers who purchased less than $300,000 worth of fish in 
each year between 2000 and 2002. This would delay implementation for 
approximately 50 percent of the dealers. Compared to the proposed 
action, this alternative would be less costly to industry in present 
value terms due to the delayed implementation, assuming that the price 
of computers and software does not increase. Although this alternative 
possibly would result in slightly lower costs to the industry as a 
whole, it would not fully achieve the objectives of this action, as it 
would require the Government to utilize and maintain duplicate data 
collection and management systems during the interim period and would 
delay and compromise the Government's ability to effectively monitor 
quota-managed species and obtain the full benefits of the new system 
regarding data quality, timeliness, and availability.
    In addition to the alternatives considered in the proposed rule, 
this final rule incorporates several changes from the measures proposed 
initially. These changes are intended to minimize, to the extent 
practicable, economic impacts on affected dealers while meeting the 
overall objectives of the action. These changes include: (1) Delaying 
for 1 year the full implementation of the requirement for federally 
permitted dealers to report fish purchased on a daily basis, for 
smaller dealers (those with less than $300,000 in annual purchases in 
each year from 2000-2002); (2) delaying for 1 year the requirement for 
the trip identifier to be reported on a daily basis at the time of the 
initial trip-level report, and allowing, during the interim, the trip 
identifier to be reported along with the price and disposition 
information; (3) extending the timeframe within which the price and 
disposition information may be reported to up to 16 days from the end 
of the reporting week or the end of the month, whichever is later; and 
(4) modifying the requirement for dealers to obtain the trip identifier 
to only apply when fish are purchased from a federally permitted 
vessel, instead of from state as well as federally permitted vessels.
    These changes have the effect of reducing the initial 
administrative burden on affected dealers, particularly smaller dealers 
who may have been less able to fully comply with all of the new 
requirements. Because dealers that meet or exceed the threshold report 
much more than dealers that fall below the threshold, it is more 
important for NMFS to monitor on a daily basis landings purchased by 
these larger dealers than landings purchased by the smaller dealers. 
Only 49 percent of dealers that reported during 2000-2002 will be 
required to report daily. The remaining 51 percent will be able to 
continue to report weekly until May 1, 2005. The change in the 
requirement to obtain a trip identifier has the effect of substantially 
reducing the number of vessels and the number of fishing trips for 
which dealers will have to obtain and report the trip identifier.

Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish 
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, 
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance 
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is 
required to take to comply with a rule or group of related rules. As 
part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide will 
be sent to all holders of NE Federal dealer or commercial fishing 
vessel permits. In addition, copies of this final rule and guide (i.e., 
permit holder letter) are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and at 
the following web site: http://www.nmfs.gov/ro/doc/nero.html.

Collection-of-Information Requirements

    This final rule contains two collection-of-information requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These two requirements 
represent revisions to existing approved collections. The collection of 
this information is under review by OMB. NMFS will notify the affected 
public through a follow-up notice in the Federal Register announcing 
OMB's clearance of the collection-of-information requirements. The 
public's reporting burden for the collection-of-information 
requirements includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection-of-information requirements.
    The new and revised reporting requirements and the estimated time 
for a response are as follows:
    Dealer purchase reports, OMB control number 0648-0229 (2 minutes 
per response for a dealer purchase report).
    Annual Processed Products Survey, OMB control number 0648-0118 (30 
minutes per year to complete the survey).

[[Page 13495]]

    Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of 
information to NMFS and to OMB (see ADDRESSES).
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to nor shall any 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 OMB control number.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 17, 2004.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as 
follows:

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

0
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  648.2, new definitions for ``Dealer--large,'' ``Dealer--
small,'' and ``Trip identifier'' are added, in alphabetical order, to 
read as follows:


Sec.  648.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Dealer--large means a federally permitted dealer determined by the 
Regional Administrator to have reported $300,000, or more, in annual 
fish purchases (ex-vessel value) at least once from 2000 through 2002, 
or, any dealer for whom the Regional Administrator cannot establish 
that he/she meets the definition of a Small Dealer provided below.
    Dealer--small means a federally permitted dealer determined by the 
Regional Administrator to have reported less than $300,000 in annual 
fish purchases (ex-vessel value) in each year from 2000 through 2002.
* * * * *
    Trip Identifier means the complete serial number of the vessel 
logbook page completed for that trip.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  648.7, paragraphs (a), (d), (e), (f)(1), and (f)(3) are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  648.7  Record keeping and reporting requirements.

    (a) Dealers--(1) Detailed report. Federally permitted dealers must 
submit to the Regional Administrator or to the official designee a 
detailed report of all fish purchased or received for commercial 
purposes, other than solely for transport on land, within the time 
periods specified in paragraph (f) of this section, by one of the 
available electronic reporting mechanisms approved by NMFS, unless 
otherwise directed by the Regional Administrator. The following 
information, and any other information required by the Regional 
Administrator, must be provided in each report:
    (i) All dealers issued a dealer permit under this part must 
provide: Dealer name; dealer permit number; name and permit number or 
name and hull number (USCG documentation number or state registration 
number, whichever is applicable) of vessel(s) from which fish are 
purchased or received; trip identifier for each trip from which fish 
are purchased or received from a commercial fishing vessel permitted 
under this part; date(s) of purchases and receipts; pounds by species 
(by market category, if applicable, or, if a surfclam or ocean quahog 
processor or dealer, the number of bushels by species); price per pound 
by species (by market category, if applicable, or, if a surfclam or 
ocean quahog processor or dealer, the price per bushel by species) or 
total value by species (by market category, if applicable); port 
landed; cage tag numbers (if a surfclam or ocean quahog processor or 
dealer); disposition of the seafood product; and any other information 
deemed necessary by the Regional Administrator. If no fish are 
purchased or received during a day, no report is required to be 
submitted. If no fish are purchased or received during an entire 
reporting week, a report so stating must be submitted.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (iii) Dealer reporting requirements for skates. In addition to the 
requirements under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, dealers shall 
report the species of skates received. Species of skates shall be 
identified according to the following categories: Winter skate, little 
skate, little/winter skate, barndoor skate, smooth skate, thorny skate, 
clearnose skate, rosette skate, and unclassified skate. NMFS will 
provide dealers with a skate species identification guide.
    (2) System requirements. All persons required to submit reports 
under paragraph (a)(1) of this section are required to have the 
capability to transmit data over a telephone line or a cable using a 
computer modem. To ensure compatibility with the reporting system and 
database, dealers are required to obtain and utilize a personal 
computer, in working condition, that meets the minimum specifications 
identified by NMFS. The affected public will be notified of the minimum 
specifications via a letter to all Federal dealer permit holders.
    (3) Annual report. All persons required to submit reports under 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section are required to submit the following 
information on an annual basis, on forms supplied by the Regional 
Administrator:
    (i) All dealers issued a dealer permit under this part must 
complete all sections of the Annual Processed Products Report for all 
species of fish that were processed during the previous year. Reports 
must be submitted to the address supplied by the Regional 
Administrator.
    (ii) Surfclam and ocean quahog processors and dealers whose plant 
processing capacities change more than 10 percent during any year shall 
notify the Regional Administrator in writing within 10 days after the 
change.
    (iii) Atlantic herring processors, including processing vessels, 
must complete and submit all sections of the Annual Processed Products 
Report.
* * * * *
    (d) Inspection. All persons required to submit reports under this 
section, upon the request of an authorized officer, or by an employee 
of NMFS designated by the Regional Administrator to make such 
inspections, must make immediately available for inspection copies of 
the required reports and the records upon which the reports are or will 
be based. At any time during or after a trip, vessel owners and 
operators must make immediately available for inspection the fishing 
log reports currently in use, or to be submitted.
    (e) Record retention. Records upon which trip-level reports are 
based must be retained and be available for immediate review for a 
total of 3 years after the date of the last entry on the report. 
Dealers must retain the required records at their principal place of 
business. Copies of fishing log reports must be kept on board the 
vessel and available for review for at least 1 year and must be 
retained for a total of 3 years after the date of the last entry on the 
log.
    (f) * * *
    (1) Dealer or processor reports. (i) Dealers--large. Detailed daily 
trip reports, required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, must be 
received by midnight of the next business day following the day fish 
are purchased or received from a fishing vessel. Reports of purchases 
or receipts made on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday must be received by 
midnight of the following Monday. If no fish are purchased or received 
during a reporting week, the

[[Page 13496]]

report so stating required under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section 
must be received within 3 days after the end of the reporting week, or 
by midnight on the following Tuesday.
    (ii) Dealers--small. (A) Through April 30, 2005. Detailed trip 
reports, required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, must be 
received within 3 days after the end of the reporting week, or by 
midnight on the following Tuesday. If no fish are purchased or received 
during a reporting week, the report so stating required under paragraph 
(a)(1)(i) of this section must be received also within 3 days after the 
end of the reporting week, or by midnight on the following Tuesday.
    (B) Effective May 1, 2005. Detailed trip reports, required by 
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, must be received by midnight of 
the next business day following the day fish are purchased or received 
from a fishing vessel. Reports of purchases or receipts made on a 
Friday, Saturday, or Sunday must be received by midnight of the 
following Monday. If no fish are purchased or received during a 
reporting week, the report so stating required under paragraph 
(a)(1)(i) of this section must be received within 3 days after the end 
of the reporting week, or by midnight on the following Tuesday.
    (iii) Dealers who want to make corrections to their trip-level 
reports via the electronic editing features may do so for up to 3 
business days following submission of the initial report. If a 
correction is needed more than 3 business days following the submission 
of the initial trip-level report, the dealer must contact NMFS directly 
to request an extension of time to make the correction.
    (iv) Through April 30, 2005, to accommodate the potential lag in 
availability of some required data, the trip identifier, price, and 
disposition information may be submitted after the initial report, but 
must be received within 16 days of the end of the reporting week or the 
end of the calendar month, whichever is later. Dealers will be able to 
access and update previously submitted trip identifier, price, and 
disposition data. Effective May 1, 2005, the trip identifier must be 
submitted with the initial purchase report, as required under 
paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (v) Effective May 1, 2005, to accommodate the potential lag in 
availability of some required data, price and disposition information 
only may be submitted after the initial report, but must be received 
within 16 days of the end of the reporting week or the end of the 
calendar month, whichever is later. Dealers will be able to access and 
update previously submitted price and disposition data.
    (vi) Annual reports for a calendar year must be postmarked or 
received by February 10 of the following year. Contact the Regional 
Administrator (see Table 1 to Sec.  600.502) for the address of NMFS 
Statistics.
* * * * *
    (3) At-sea purchasers, receivers, or processors. All persons, 
except persons on Atlantic herring carrier vessels, purchasing, 
receiving, or processing any Atlantic herring, summer flounder, 
Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, scup, or black sea bass at sea 
for landing at any port of the United States must submit information 
identical to that required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section and 
provide those reports to the Regional Administrator or designee by the 
same mechanism and on the same frequency basis.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-6476 Filed 3-19-04; 10:00 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S