Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Proposed 2005 Specifications for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery, 12168-12170 [05-4840]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12168
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 47 / Friday, March 11, 2005 / Proposed Rules
• FAR clause 52.212–4(p) and the
‘‘tailoring’’ provision at FAR 12.302, do
not reach the level of commercial
standards and that unlimited
consequential or other incidental or
special damages are not necessary and
are, in fact, counterproductive to
efficient procurement, raising costs and
establishing barriers to commercial
companies considering whether to do
business with the Federal Government;
• Although FAR 12.302 permits
contracting officers to tailor the
limitation of liability clause at FAR
52.212–4(p), some companies assert that
contracting officers are unwilling to do
so, leaving contractors with a take-it or
leave-it option and contracts that
deviate from the commercial
marketplace, making contractors in
general less willing to sign on to such
contracts;
• The commercial practice, unlike
FAR 52.212–4(p), that waives liability
for consequential damages resulting
from any defect or deficiencies in
accepted items, provides for a complete
wavier of consequential damages;
• Contractors would make risk
decisions and negotiate Government
contracts without having to add an
uncertainty premium as to liability
protection, if FAR Part 12 were
appropriately amended to reflect
commercial practices; and
• Contractors also request that we
make the waiver of consequential
damages for commercial products and
services available under other
provisions of the FAR.
Similarly, the General Accounting
Office and periodically GSA’s IG raise
concerns regarding GSA’s right to access
and examine contractor records after
contract award. GSA’s primary vehicle
for conducting post-award audits is
GSAR 552.215–70, Examination of
Records by GSA, that gives the
Administrator of GSA, or any duly
authorized representative, typically the
GSA Inspector General’s Office of
Audits, access to and the right to
examine contractor records relating to
over billings, billing errors, compliance
with the Industrial Funding Fee (IFF)
clause of the contract, and compliance
with the Price Reduction Clause under
MAS contracts.
In addition to the GSA Examination of
Records clause, GSA may use a number
of other authorities to conduct a postaward review of a contractor’s records.
These other authorities include FAR
52.212–5 which authorizes the
Comptroller General of the United
States to access and examine a
contractor’s directly pertinent records
involving transactions related to the
contract; GSAR 515.209–70(b) that
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:22 Mar 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
permits a contracting officer to modify
the GSA Examination of Records Clause
to define the specific area of audit (e.g.,
the use or disposition of Governmentfurnished property, compliance with
price reduction clause, etc.), and the
right of the GSA Inspector General to
issue subpoenas for contractor records
under the Inspector General Act of 1978.
Contractors’ major concerns with
GSA’s post-award audit authority
include complaints that they are too
broad and not consistent with
commercial contract practices.
In consideration of the above
concerns, we have questions as to how
the taxpayer may benefit from any
revisions to the GSAR to address
contractor concerns regarding limitation
of liability or post-award audits. We are
also interested in learning what, if any,
impact the Services Acquisition Reform
Act of 2002 and 2003 has on the issue
of revising the GSAR to address
limitations of liability.
In this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking and notice of public
meeting, GSA is seeking input from both
Government and industry on whether
the GSAR should be revised to waive
consequential damages in the purchase
of commercial items under FAR Parts
12, 13, 14, and 15 and whether GSA
should modify its policy and practices
with regard to the addition of post
award audit clauses into contracts it
awards.
Dated: March 4, 2005.
Rodney P. Lantier,
Acting Senior Procurement Executive, Office
of the Chief Acquisition Officer, General
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 05–4766 Filed 3–10–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–61–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 050302053–5053–01; I.D.
022805C]
RIN 0648–AS24
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Proposed 2005 Specifications
for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes specifications
for the spiny dogfish fishery for the
2005 fishing year, which is May 1, 2005,
through April 30, 2006. The
implementing regulations for the Spiny
Dogfish Fishery Management Plan
(FMP) require NMFS to publish
specifications for the upcoming fishing
year and to provide an opportunity for
public comment. The intent of this
rulemaking is to specify the commercial
quota and other management measures,
such as possession limits, to rebuild the
spiny dogfish resource.
DATES: Public comments must be
received (see ADDRESSES) no later than
5 p.m., EST, on March 28, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed
specifications should be sent:
• Mail: Paper, disk, or CD-ROM
comments should be sent to Patricia A.
Kurkul, Regional Administrator,
Northeast Region, National Marine
Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930–2298. Mark on
the outside of the envelope,
‘‘Comments—2005 Spiny Dogfish
Specifications.’’
• FAX: Fax comments to (978) 281–
9135.
• E-mail: E-mail comments to
DOG2005@noaa.gov. Include in the
subject line of the e-mail comment the
following document identifier:
‘‘Comments–2005 Dogfish
specifications.’’
• Comments may also be submitted
electronically through the Federal eRulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
Copies of supporting documents used
by the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee
and the Spiny Dogfish Monitoring
Committee; the Environmental
Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review,
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(EA/RIR/IRFA); and the Essential Fish
Habitat Assessment (EFHA) are
available from Daniel Furlong,
Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, Federal
Building, Room 2115, 300 South Street,
Dover, DE 19904. The EA, RIR, IRFA,
and EFHA are accessible via the Internet
at https://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978)281–9259, fax (978)281z69135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Spiny dogfish were declared
overfished by NMFS on April 3, 1998,
and added to that year’s list of
overfished stocks in the Report on the
Status of the Fisheries of the United
States, prepared pursuant to section 304
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
11MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 47 / Friday, March 11, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). Consequently,
the Magnuson-Stevens Act required the
preparation of measures to end
overfishing and to rebuild the spiny
dogfish stock. A joint FMP was
developed by the Mid-Atlantic and New
England Fishery Management Councils
(Councils) during 1998 and 1999. The
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (MAFMC) was designated as
the administrative lead on the FMP.
The regulations implementing the
FMP at 50 CFR part 648, subpart L,
outline the process for specifying
annually the commercial quota and
other management measures (e.g.,
minimum or maximum fish sizes,
seasons, mesh size restrictions,
possession limits, and other gear
restrictions) for the spiny dogfish
fishery to achieve the annual target F
specified in the FMP. The target F for
the 2005 fishing year is not to exceed
0.08.
The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring
Committee (Monitoring Committee),
comprised of representatives from
states; MAFMC staff; New England
Fishery Management Council (NEFMC)
staff; NMFS staff; and two non-voting,
ex-officio industry representatives (one
each from the MAFMC and NEFMC
regions) is required to review annually
the best available information and to
recommend a commercial quota and
other management measures necessary
to achieve the target F for the upcoming
fishing year. The Council’s Joint Spiny
Dogfish Committee (Joint Committee)
then considers the Monitoring
Committee’s recommendations and any
public comment in making its
recommendation to the two Councils.
Afterwards, the MAFMC and the
NEFMC make their recommendations to
NMFS. NMFS reviews those
recommendations to assure they are
consistent with the FMP, and may
modify them if necessary. NMFS then
publishes proposed measures for public
comment.
Monitoring Committee
Recommendations
The Monitoring Committee met on
September 24, 2004, and developed
recommendations for the 2005 fishery
based on stock conditions estimated
from the latest stock status updates.
According to the latest (2004) spring
survey values, the 3–year moving
average of total stock biomass decreased
from 916 million lb (415 million kg) in
2001–2003 to 857 million lb (389
million kg) in 2002–2004. Mature
female biomass decreased from 144
million lb (65.3 million kg) in 2001–
2003 to 132 million lb (59.9 million kg)
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:22 Mar 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
in 2002–2004. Pup abundance, however,
increased from 338 thousand lb
(153,314 kg) in 2001–2003 to 1.440
million lb (653,173 kg) in 2002–2004.
Although the FMP stipulates a target
fishing mortality rate of F=0.08 for the
upcoming fishing year, the 37th
Northeast Regional Stock Assessment
Review Committee (SARC — September
2003) recommended that total removals
not exceed the amount corresponding to
F=0.03 (Frebuild). The F=0.08 target
stipulated in the FMP was based on the
expectation, in 1999, that mature female
biomass would recover to 90 percent
SSBmax by 2003. The management
advice provided by the 37th SARC was
based on its review of the 2003 stock
assessment, and stated that, ‘‘given the
low current spawning biomass, poor
recruitment and reduced pup
survivorship, the SARC recommends
total removals (landings, discards,
Canadian catch) below those derived
from the estimated rebuilding F (0.03).
Targeting females should be avoided.’’
Because the updated stock status
information reviewed by the Monitoring
Committee indicated that mature female
biomass had not increased in 2004
compared to 2003 estimates, the
Monitoring Committee could find no
biological justification for deviating
from the advice of the 37th SARC. The
Monitoring Committee, therefore,
recommended maintaining the status
quo management measures for the
upcoming fishing year to encourage the
rebuilding of the mature female
biomass. These measures are: an annual
incidental catch quota of 4 million lb
(1.81 million kg) divided into two semiannual quota periods (quota period 1
(May 1, 2005 October 31, 2005) = 2.316
million lb (1.05 million kg), and quota
period 2 (November 1, 2005 April 30,
2006) = 1.684 million lb (763,849 kg)),
and possession limits of 600 lb (272 kg)
for quota period 1 and 300 lb (136 kg)
for quota period 2 (vessels are
prohibited from landing more than the
specified amount in any one calendar
day).
Joint Committee Recommendations
The Joint Committee met on October
4, 2004, and recommended that, for the
2005 fishing year (May 1, 2005 April 30,
2006), the Councils adopt a quota of 4
million lb (1.81 million kg), and that
possession limits be set at 1,500 lb (680
kg) of male spiny dogfish (i.e., a
prohibition on the possession of female
spiny dogfish) for the entire year. In the
view of the Joint Committee, the
increased possession limits would
accommodate the high volume demand
required by the processing sector of the
spiny dogfish fishery, while the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12169
prohibition on possession of female
spiny dogfish would help protect that
component of the stock. At its October
4, 2004, meeting, the MAFMC reviewed
the Monitoring Committee and Joint
Committee recommendations, and
adopted the Joint Committee’s
recommended specifications for the
2005 fishing year. The NEFMC, on the
other hand, at its November 18, 2004,
meeting, endorsed the Monitoring
Committee’s recommendations; namely,
maintaining the status quo.
Alternative Adopted by the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission
(ASMFC)
On November 9, 2004, the ASFMC
Spiny Dogfish and Coastal Shark
Management Board approved
specifications for the 2005 fishing year,
which are the same as the Federal status
quo.
Proposed 2005 Measures
NMFS reviewed both Councils’
recommendations and concluded that
maintaining the status quo, which is the
same as the Monitoring Committee’s
recommendation, would better assure
that the target F is not exceeded. NMFS
proposes a commercial spiny dogfish
quota of 4 million lb (1.81 million kg)
for the 2005 fishing year to be divided
into two semi-annual periods as follows:
2,316,000 lb (1.05 million kg) for quota
period 1 (May 1, 2005 - Oct. 31, 2005);
and 1,684,000 lb (763,849 kg) for quota
period 2 (Nov. 1, 2005 - April 30, 2006).
In addition, NMFS proposes to maintain
possession limits of 600 lb (272 kg) for
quota period 1, and 300 lb (136 kg) for
quota period 2, to discourage a directed
fishery. The directed fishery has
traditionally targeted large, mature
female spiny dogfish, the stock
component that is most in need of
protection and rebuilding. Maintaining
the limits of 600 lb (272 kg) and 300 lb
(136 kg) for quota periods 1 and 2,
respectively, would allow for the
retention of spiny dogfish caught
incidentally while fishing for other
species, but discourage directed fishing
and, therefore, provide protection for
mature female spiny dogfish.
Maintaining the status quo would also
be consistent with the measures being
implemented under the ASMFC’s
Interstate Fishery Management Plan in
state waters. This would have the
benefit of establishing consistent
management measures in Federal and
state jurisdictions.
Classification
This action is authorized by 50 CFR
part 648 and has been determined to be
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
11MRP1
12170
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 47 / Friday, March 11, 2005 / Proposed Rules
not significant for purposes of E.O.
12866.
The Council prepared an IRFA, as
required by section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, which
describes the economic impacts this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have
on small entities. A copy of the IRFA
can be obtained from the Council or
NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via the
Internet at http:/www.nero.noaa.gov. A
summary of the analysis follows:
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
this proposed rule and is not repeated
here.
Description and Estimate of Number of
Small Entities to Which the Rule Will
Apply
All of the potentially affected
businesses are considered small entities
under the standards described in NMFS
guidelines because they have gross
receipts that do not exceed $3.5 million
annually. Information from the 2003
fishing year was used to evaluate
impacts of this action, as that is the
most recent year for which data are
complete. According to unpublished
NMFS permit file data, 3,025 vessels
possessed Federal spiny dogfish permits
in 2003, while 94 of these vessels
contributed to overall landings.
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
This action does not contain any new
collection-of-information, reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements. It does not duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with any other
Federal rules.
Minimizing Significant Economic
Impacts on Small Entities
The IRFA considered three
alternatives. The action recommended
in this proposed rule includes a
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:22 Mar 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
commercial quota of 4 million lb (1.81
million kg), and possession limits of 600
lb (272 kg) during quota period 1 and
300 lb (136 kg) during quota period 2.
Alternative 2 evaluates the MAFMC
proposal, which would set a 4–millionlb (1.81 million kg) quota, with
possession limits of 1,500 lb (680 kg) of
male-only spiny dogfish in both quota
periods. Alternative 3 evaluates the
impact of having no management
measures (no action).
Because, under Alternative 1, the
specifications would remain unchanged,
revenues from dogfish harvest under
this alternative should be equivalent to
the status quo, except for changes in
market value. Note, however, that the
2003 quota (4.00 million lb (1.81 million
kg)) is 27.0 percent more than what was
actually landed (3.14 million lb (1.42
million kg)). Therefore, unlike previous
years, in which the quota was exceeded,
the federally permitted fleet should not
experience a decrease in dogfish fishing
opportunity, were this alternative to be
implemented.
In addition to the quota of 4.0 million
lb (1.81 million kg), Alternative 1
includes continuation of status quo
possession limits of 600 lb (272 kg) in
quota period 1 and 300 (176 kg) during
quota period 2 in 2004. Continuation of
these possession limits in 2005 is,
therefore, not expected to result in
significant revenue loss. These very low
possession limits were recommended
for the explicit purpose of eliminating
the directed harvest of spiny dogfish.
While the short-term economic impacts
of the status quo possession limits are
negative relative to higher possession
limits (Alternative 2) or an unregulated
fishery (Alternative 3), Alternative 1
rebuilds the stock fastest and thus
economic and social benefits of a
recovered stock will be realized more
quickly.
No gross revenue impacts are
anticipated as a function of the
Alternative 2 quota relative to the status
quo/Alternative 1, since the
recommended quotas are identical.
Additionally, the potential for increases
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in revenue from the larger possession
limit allowance is precluded by the
implementation of status quo possession
limits by the ASMFC. This leaves the
male-only possession restriction as the
only potential source of revenue
impacts under Alternative 2. The
likelihood of a directed male-only spiny
dogfish fishery developing in the
Exclusive Economic Zone is low, since
the fact that females attain a larger
maximum size makes them more
generally marketable. As such, it likely
that retention of spiny dogfish in the
Exclusive Economic Zone will decrease
under Alternative 2. This would
represent a slight loss, given that an
estimated 1.8 percent of the total 2003
spiny dogfish landings came from the
Exclusive Economic Zone. As such, it is
unlikely that this alternative will
produce significant revenue impacts.
Given that no quota is specified in
Alternative 3, landings are expected to
return to the levels approximately equal
to those observed in the unregulated
period of the fishery (about 25 million
lb (11.3 million kg)). This would
constitute a 525–percent increase in
landings compared to the status quo (4.0
million lb (1.81 million kg)) and a 696–
percent increase in landings compared
to actual 2003 landings (3.14 million lb
(1.42 million kg). Although the shortterm social and economic benefits of an
unregulated fishery would be much
greater than those associated with
Alternatives 1 and 2, fishing mortality is
expected to rise above the threshold
level that allows the stock to replace
itself such that stock rebuilding could
not occur. In the long term, unregulated
harvest would lead to depletion of the
spiny dogfish population, which would
eventually eliminate the spiny dogfish
fishery altogether.
Dated: March 7, 2005.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05–4840 Filed 3–10–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
11MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 47 (Friday, March 11, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12168-12170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4840]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 050302053-5053-01; I.D. 022805C]
RIN 0648-AS24
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Proposed 2005
Specifications for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes specifications for the spiny dogfish fishery for
the 2005 fishing year, which is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006.
The implementing regulations for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) require NMFS to publish specifications for the upcoming
fishing year and to provide an opportunity for public comment. The
intent of this rulemaking is to specify the commercial quota and other
management measures, such as possession limits, to rebuild the spiny
dogfish resource.
DATES: Public comments must be received (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5
p.m., EST, on March 28, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed specifications should be sent:
Mail: Paper, disk, or CD-ROM comments should be sent to
Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, National
Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-
2298. Mark on the outside of the envelope, ``Comments--2005 Spiny
Dogfish Specifications.''
FAX: Fax comments to (978) 281-9135.
E-mail: E-mail comments to DOG2005@noaa.gov. Include in
the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document
identifier: ``Comments-2005 Dogfish specifications.''
Comments may also be submitted electronically through the
Federal e-Rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Copies of supporting documents used by the Joint Spiny Dogfish
Committee and the Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee; the Environmental
Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA); and the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
(EFHA) are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Federal Building, Room 2115, 300
South Street, Dover, DE 19904. The EA, RIR, IRFA, and EFHA are
accessible via the Internet at https://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy
Analyst, (978)281-9259, fax (978)281z69135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Spiny dogfish were declared overfished by NMFS on April 3, 1998,
and added to that year's list of overfished stocks in the Report on the
Status of the Fisheries of the United States, prepared pursuant to
section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
[[Page 12169]]
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Consequently,
the Magnuson-Stevens Act required the preparation of measures to end
overfishing and to rebuild the spiny dogfish stock. A joint FMP was
developed by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management
Councils (Councils) during 1998 and 1999. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (MAFMC) was designated as the administrative lead on
the FMP.
The regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR part 648, subpart L,
outline the process for specifying annually the commercial quota and
other management measures (e.g., minimum or maximum fish sizes,
seasons, mesh size restrictions, possession limits, and other gear
restrictions) for the spiny dogfish fishery to achieve the annual
target F specified in the FMP. The target F for the 2005 fishing year
is not to exceed 0.08.
The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee),
comprised of representatives from states; MAFMC staff; New England
Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) staff; NMFS staff; and two non-
voting, ex-officio industry representatives (one each from the MAFMC
and NEFMC regions) is required to review annually the best available
information and to recommend a commercial quota and other management
measures necessary to achieve the target F for the upcoming fishing
year. The Council's Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee (Joint Committee)
then considers the Monitoring Committee's recommendations and any
public comment in making its recommendation to the two Councils.
Afterwards, the MAFMC and the NEFMC make their recommendations to NMFS.
NMFS reviews those recommendations to assure they are consistent with
the FMP, and may modify them if necessary. NMFS then publishes proposed
measures for public comment.
Monitoring Committee Recommendations
The Monitoring Committee met on September 24, 2004, and developed
recommendations for the 2005 fishery based on stock conditions
estimated from the latest stock status updates. According to the latest
(2004) spring survey values, the 3-year moving average of total stock
biomass decreased from 916 million lb (415 million kg) in 2001-2003 to
857 million lb (389 million kg) in 2002-2004. Mature female biomass
decreased from 144 million lb (65.3 million kg) in 2001-2003 to 132
million lb (59.9 million kg) in 2002-2004. Pup abundance, however,
increased from 338 thousand lb (153,314 kg) in 2001-2003 to 1.440
million lb (653,173 kg) in 2002-2004.
Although the FMP stipulates a target fishing mortality rate of
F=0.08 for the upcoming fishing year, the 37\th\ Northeast Regional
Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC -- September 2003) recommended
that total removals not exceed the amount corresponding to F=0.03
(Frebuild). The F=0.08 target stipulated in the FMP was
based on the expectation, in 1999, that mature female biomass would
recover to 90 percent SSBmax by 2003. The management advice
provided by the 37\th\ SARC was based on its review of the 2003 stock
assessment, and stated that, ``given the low current spawning biomass,
poor recruitment and reduced pup survivorship, the SARC recommends
total removals (landings, discards, Canadian catch) below those derived
from the estimated rebuilding F (0.03). Targeting females should be
avoided.''
Because the updated stock status information reviewed by the
Monitoring Committee indicated that mature female biomass had not
increased in 2004 compared to 2003 estimates, the Monitoring Committee
could find no biological justification for deviating from the advice of
the 37th SARC. The Monitoring Committee, therefore, recommended
maintaining the status quo management measures for the upcoming fishing
year to encourage the rebuilding of the mature female biomass. These
measures are: an annual incidental catch quota of 4 million lb (1.81
million kg) divided into two semi-annual quota periods (quota period 1
(May 1, 2005 October 31, 2005) = 2.316 million lb (1.05 million kg),
and quota period 2 (November 1, 2005 April 30, 2006) = 1.684 million lb
(763,849 kg)), and possession limits of 600 lb (272 kg) for quota
period 1 and 300 lb (136 kg) for quota period 2 (vessels are prohibited
from landing more than the specified amount in any one calendar day).
Joint Committee Recommendations
The Joint Committee met on October 4, 2004, and recommended that,
for the 2005 fishing year (May 1, 2005 April 30, 2006), the Councils
adopt a quota of 4 million lb (1.81 million kg), and that possession
limits be set at 1,500 lb (680 kg) of male spiny dogfish (i.e., a
prohibition on the possession of female spiny dogfish) for the entire
year. In the view of the Joint Committee, the increased possession
limits would accommodate the high volume demand required by the
processing sector of the spiny dogfish fishery, while the prohibition
on possession of female spiny dogfish would help protect that component
of the stock. At its October 4, 2004, meeting, the MAFMC reviewed the
Monitoring Committee and Joint Committee recommendations, and adopted
the Joint Committee's recommended specifications for the 2005 fishing
year. The NEFMC, on the other hand, at its November 18, 2004, meeting,
endorsed the Monitoring Committee's recommendations; namely,
maintaining the status quo.
Alternative Adopted by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(ASMFC)
On November 9, 2004, the ASFMC Spiny Dogfish and Coastal Shark
Management Board approved specifications for the 2005 fishing year,
which are the same as the Federal status quo.
Proposed 2005 Measures
NMFS reviewed both Councils' recommendations and concluded that
maintaining the status quo, which is the same as the Monitoring
Committee's recommendation, would better assure that the target F is
not exceeded. NMFS proposes a commercial spiny dogfish quota of 4
million lb (1.81 million kg) for the 2005 fishing year to be divided
into two semi-annual periods as follows: 2,316,000 lb (1.05 million kg)
for quota period 1 (May 1, 2005 - Oct. 31, 2005); and 1,684,000 lb
(763,849 kg) for quota period 2 (Nov. 1, 2005 - April 30, 2006). In
addition, NMFS proposes to maintain possession limits of 600 lb (272
kg) for quota period 1, and 300 lb (136 kg) for quota period 2, to
discourage a directed fishery. The directed fishery has traditionally
targeted large, mature female spiny dogfish, the stock component that
is most in need of protection and rebuilding. Maintaining the limits of
600 lb (272 kg) and 300 lb (136 kg) for quota periods 1 and 2,
respectively, would allow for the retention of spiny dogfish caught
incidentally while fishing for other species, but discourage directed
fishing and, therefore, provide protection for mature female spiny
dogfish.
Maintaining the status quo would also be consistent with the
measures being implemented under the ASMFC's Interstate Fishery
Management Plan in state waters. This would have the benefit of
establishing consistent management measures in Federal and state
jurisdictions.
Classification
This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been
determined to be
[[Page 12170]]
not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
The Council prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, which describes the economic impacts this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of the
IRFA can be obtained from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via
the Internet at http:/www.nero.noaa.gov. A summary of the analysis
follows:
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 this proposed rule and is not repeated here.
Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule
Will Apply
All of the potentially affected businesses are considered small
entities under the standards described in NMFS guidelines because they
have gross receipts that do not exceed $3.5 million annually.
Information from the 2003 fishing year was used to evaluate impacts of
this action, as that is the most recent year for which data are
complete. According to unpublished NMFS permit file data, 3,025 vessels
possessed Federal spiny dogfish permits in 2003, while 94 of these
vessels contributed to overall landings.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
This action does not contain any new collection-of-information,
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
The IRFA considered three alternatives. The action recommended in
this proposed rule includes a commercial quota of 4 million lb (1.81
million kg), and possession limits of 600 lb (272 kg) during quota
period 1 and 300 lb (136 kg) during quota period 2. Alternative 2
evaluates the MAFMC proposal, which would set a 4-million-lb (1.81
million kg) quota, with possession limits of 1,500 lb (680 kg) of male-
only spiny dogfish in both quota periods. Alternative 3 evaluates the
impact of having no management measures (no action).
Because, under Alternative 1, the specifications would remain
unchanged, revenues from dogfish harvest under this alternative should
be equivalent to the status quo, except for changes in market value.
Note, however, that the 2003 quota (4.00 million lb (1.81 million kg))
is 27.0 percent more than what was actually landed (3.14 million lb
(1.42 million kg)). Therefore, unlike previous years, in which the
quota was exceeded, the federally permitted fleet should not experience
a decrease in dogfish fishing opportunity, were this alternative to be
implemented.
In addition to the quota of 4.0 million lb (1.81 million kg),
Alternative 1 includes continuation of status quo possession limits of
600 lb (272 kg) in quota period 1 and 300 (176 kg) during quota period
2 in 2004. Continuation of these possession limits in 2005 is,
therefore, not expected to result in significant revenue loss. These
very low possession limits were recommended for the explicit purpose of
eliminating the directed harvest of spiny dogfish. While the short-term
economic impacts of the status quo possession limits are negative
relative to higher possession limits (Alternative 2) or an unregulated
fishery (Alternative 3), Alternative 1 rebuilds the stock fastest and
thus economic and social benefits of a recovered stock will be realized
more quickly.
No gross revenue impacts are anticipated as a function of the
Alternative 2 quota relative to the status quo/Alternative 1, since the
recommended quotas are identical. Additionally, the potential for
increases in revenue from the larger possession limit allowance is
precluded by the implementation of status quo possession limits by the
ASMFC. This leaves the male-only possession restriction as the only
potential source of revenue impacts under Alternative 2. The likelihood
of a directed male-only spiny dogfish fishery developing in the
Exclusive Economic Zone is low, since the fact that females attain a
larger maximum size makes them more generally marketable. As such, it
likely that retention of spiny dogfish in the Exclusive Economic Zone
will decrease under Alternative 2. This would represent a slight loss,
given that an estimated 1.8 percent of the total 2003 spiny dogfish
landings came from the Exclusive Economic Zone. As such, it is unlikely
that this alternative will produce significant revenue impacts.
Given that no quota is specified in Alternative 3, landings are
expected to return to the levels approximately equal to those observed
in the unregulated period of the fishery (about 25 million lb (11.3
million kg)). This would constitute a 525-percent increase in landings
compared to the status quo (4.0 million lb (1.81 million kg)) and a
696-percent increase in landings compared to actual 2003 landings (3.14
million lb (1.42 million kg). Although the short-term social and
economic benefits of an unregulated fishery would be much greater than
those associated with Alternatives 1 and 2, fishing mortality is
expected to rise above the threshold level that allows the stock to
replace itself such that stock rebuilding could not occur. In the long
term, unregulated harvest would lead to depletion of the spiny dogfish
population, which would eventually eliminate the spiny dogfish fishery
altogether.
Dated: March 7, 2005.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05-4840 Filed 3-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
