Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Spiny Dogfish; Framework Adjustment 1, 72100-72102 [05-23536]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
72100
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 230 / Thursday, December 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Analysis of Petition and Decision
NMFS carefully considered the
information contained in the petition
and supporting documents, and made
the final determinations for each portion
of the petition as follows.
Petition Component (1): Conduct Inwater Population Level Assessments
The petition fails to provide any new
information that justifies the need for
regulations that would change the
agency’s general pattern or practice
regarding data collection and analytical
methodologies. NMFS is aware of the
TEWG’s assessments of the current
datasets and is already working to
improve the empirical data that define
where, how many, and at what life stage
and condition sea turtles may be
encountered. NMFS is also conducting
and supporting in-water research in
many Atlantic states, as well as
conducting aerial surveys in the midAtlantic to better assess sea turtle
distribution and abundance. NMFS has
built upon the TEWG recommendations
by developing a requirements plan
(NOAA 2004) to improve our
understanding of the status of U.S. sea
turtle populations. The requirements
plan reviews the current sea turtle
population assessment program in terms
of present research capability and
capacity, and delineates the resources
necessary to acquire reliable assessment
information to fully address identified
data requirements. NMFS has
addressed, and will continue to address,
both the substance of this petitioned
action and the TEWG recommendations
through existing research planning
documents and programs. Improvement
of NMFS’ research program is a matter
left to the agency’s discretion; it is not
a specific and discrete action that is
properly within the scope of a petition
for rulemaking pursuant to APA 5
U.S.C. 553(e). Accordingly, NMFS
denies this component of the petition.
Petition Component (2): Increase
Observer Coverage to Obtain Accurate
Information on the Number of Sea
Turtles Caught in All Fisheries
Oceana has previously petitioned
NMFS to develop and implement a
workplan for placing observers on
enough fishing trips to provide
statistically reliable bycatch estimates in
all fisheries (67 FR 19154; April 18,
2002). In its response to that petition,
NMFS explained that even though
observers are effective in many fisheries,
they may not be appropriate for all
fisheries (68 FR 11501, March 11, 2003).
NMFS is continuing to expand and
modernize observer programs for
Federal commercial fisheries. NMFS
recognizes that improving monitoring
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:46 Nov 30, 2005
Jkt 208001
programs should increase our
understanding of sea turtle interactions,
but constraints on agency resources and
logistical difficulties (e.g., small boats)
make it difficult to monitor the extent of
sea turtle interactions in state-managed
and recreational fisheries. NMFS is
exploring various observer options that
could allow for more comprehensive,
longer term monitoring of sea turtlefishery interactions across fishing
sectors and jurisdictional boundaries,
but this on going effort is still in its
early stages. Options may include
placing observers in fisheries of concern
pursuant to authority under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). In light
of NMFS’ previous denial of a
substantially similar petitioned action
and the agency’s ongoing efforts to
improve observer coverage, granting this
petitioned action is unwarranted at this
time.
Petition Component (3): Establish a
New, Uniform Quantitative Method for
Determining Take Limits for Biological
Opinions
NMFS is interested in maintaining
consist ESA section 7 jeopardy analyses
in its biological opinions, while taking
into account the wide variability in
listed species’ biology, as well as the
wide variability in available information
on them. To this end, NMFS convened
a workshop in August 2004 as a first
step in vetting the ESA section 7
biological opinion assessment
framework. NMFS is still in the process
of adding features such as identifying a
suite of quantitative and qualitative
methods for use in both data-sparse and
data-rich situations, as well as testing
and refining the applicability of the
methods using information typical to
section 7 consultations.
Any structured decision approach
adopted by NMFS must, in the overall
jeopardy evaluation, weigh such
qualitative factors as severity of injury,
significance of behavioral responses,
and extent and severity of habitat
disturbance. Approaches for evaluating
take levels for biological opinions
should contain options suitable to the
varied species, available data sets, and
actions under consideration. Use of any
particular quantitative model such as
PBR for every evaluation is
inappropriate. Moreover, section 7 of
the ESA and its implementing
regulations do not require NMFS to
estimate incidental take quantitatively.
When promulgating the section 7
regulations in 1986, NMFS and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service explicitly
declined to endorse the use of
numerical estimates of incidental take
in all cases. In many biological
opinions, a description of the extent of
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
take is used because the loss of habitat
resulting in death or injury of
individuals may have more significant
adverse consequences than the direct
loss of a certain number of individuals
(51 FR 19953, June 3, 1986). Where
Federal actions ’take’ threatened or
endangered species by altering the
species’ habitat, it is often impossible to
translate the habitat lost into numerical
estimates of the number of individuals
taken. Consequently, numerical
estimates are not appropriate to every
consultation, and requiring them
through rulemaking could reduce the
protections listed species currently
receive.
The analytical framework for
evaluating take levels in biological
opinions is not yet completed and has
not been fully tested. NMFS has
determined that it is premature to
consider rulemaking to adopt the
framework, or any other uniform
decision approach, at this time. Thus,
NMFS denies this component of the
petition.
References Cited
Turtle Expert Working Group. 2000.
Assessment update for the Kemp’s
ridley and loggerhead sea turtle
populations in the western North
Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA
Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC–444, 115 pp.
NOAA Fisheries National Task Force
for Improving Marine Mammal and
Turtles Stock Assessment. September
2004. A Requirements Plan for
Improving Understanding of the Status
of U.S. Protected Species.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: November 28, 2005.
Donna Wieting,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05–23537 Filed 11–30–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[Docket No. 051104291–5291–01; I.D.
100405F]
50 CFR Part 648
RIN 0648–AT29
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Spiny Dogfish; Framework
Adjustment 1
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 230 / Thursday, December 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Proposed rule; establishing a
multiple-year specifications process.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes measures
contained in Framework Adjustment 1
(Framework 1) to the Spiny Dogfish
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that
would allow the specification of
commercial quotas and other
management measures for up to 5 years.
The intent is to provide flexibility and
efficiency to the management of the
species.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 16, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Framework 1, the
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA),
and other supporting documents are
available from Daniel Furlong,
Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, Room
2115, Federal Building, 300 South
Street, Dover, DE 19901–6790. The RIR/
IRFA is also accessible via the Internet
at https://www.nero.nmfs.gov.
Written comments on the proposed
rule may be sent by any of the following
methods:
• Mail to the following address:
Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional
Administrator, NMFS, Northeast
Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside
of the envelope ‘‘Comments on
Framework 1 - Dogfish’’;
• Fax to Patricia A. Kurkul at the
following number: (978) 281–9135;
• E-mail to the following address:
DogFrame1@noaa.gov. Include in the
subject line of the e-mail comment the
following document identifier:
‘‘Comments on Framework 1≥;
• Electronically through the Federal
e-Rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
Eric
Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978)
281–9259, fax (978) 281–9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background
This framework adjustment to the
FMP is intended to improve
management of the Northeast Atlantic
stock of spiny dogfish (Squalus
acanthias), pursuant to the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976, as amended
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). Under the
existing FMP, spiny dogfish are jointly
managed by both the Mid-Atlantic and
the New England Fishery Management
Councils (Councils). The Councils
recommend annual commercial quotas
and other management measures (e.g.,
minimum or maximum fish sizes,
seasons, mesh size restrictions, trip
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:46 Nov 30, 2005
Jkt 208001
limits, or other gear restrictions), as
needed, in order to ensure that the target
F of 0.08 will not be exceeded.
Implementing regulations for these
fisheries are found at 50 CFR part 648,
subpart L. Under the current FMP, the
commercial quota and trip limits are
specified annually and apply only to the
following fishing year.
The Councils developed Framework
1, pursuant to § 648.237, in order to
streamline the administrative and
regulatory processes involved in
specifying the fishing measures for
spiny dogfish, while, at the same time,
maintaining consistency with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The proposed
action would modify the FMP so that,
within a given year, the Councils could
specify commercial quotas and other
management measures necessary to
ensure that the target F of 0.08 will not
be exceeded in each of the following 1
to 5 years. Implementation of
Framework 1 will provide the option,
not the requirement, for Councils to
specify multi-year management
measures. All of the environmental and
regulatory review procedures currently
required under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and the National Environmental
Policy Act will be conducted and
documented during the year in which
specifications are set. These analyses
will consider impacts throughout the
time span for which specifications are to
be set (1 to 5 years). Multi-year quotas
and other management measures would
not have to be constant from year to
year, but would instead be based upon
expectations of future stock conditions
as indicated by the best scientific
information available at the time the
multi-year specifications are set.
Updated information on the resource
and the fishery would be reviewed at
least every 5 years by the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council’s
(MAFMC) Spiny Dogfish Monitoring
Committee, the Joint Spiny Dogfish
Committee and the Councils.
Adjustments to the management
measures, once implemented, would not
be expected to occur during the period
of multi-year specifications.
Nevertheless, if new information
indicated that modification to the multiyear management measures is necessary
to ensure that the target F of 0.08 is not
exceeded, the Councils would initiate
the process for setting specifications in
order to make such modifications. Given
the elimination of the annual review/
management measure adjustment
process under this proposed action,
environmental impact evaluation in the
specification setting year would have to
thoroughly consider the uncertainty
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72101
associated with projected estimates of
stock size in the 1 to 5 year time
horizon. Accordingly, Council
recommendations for multi-year
management measures would have to be
adequately conservative to
accommodate this uncertainty under the
proposed action.
During the development of
Framework 1, the Councils considered
and analyzed the following three
alternatives for a multi-year
specifications process: A no-action
alternative, which would continue the
requirement to establish spiny dogfish
specifications on an annual basis; the
proposed alternative; and an alternative
that would require the Councils to
conduct an annual review of the
previously established multi-year
specifications. The Councils selected
the proposed action because it provided
the most straightforward and efficient
administrative process for establishing
multi-year specifications, and because it
is expected to provide greater
predictability to the commercial fishing
sector.
Classification
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An IRFA was prepared that describes
the economic impact this proposed rule,
if adopted, would have on small
entities. 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 of
this proposed rule. The preamble also
includes complete descriptions of the
proposed, no action, and the other
alternative discussed here. Under the
current management system, the
Councils annually submit a
specifications document to NMFS for
review. Under the other two
alternatives, the Councils would submit
a specifications document only in the
first year of the multi-year specifications
period, if applicable. This would reduce
substantially the administrative burden
on both the Councils and NMFS.
Additionally, longer term specifications
should provide greater predictability to
the commercial fishing sector. Under
the proposed alternative, an annual
review of updated information on the
fisheries by the MAFMC’s Spiny
Dogfish Monitoring Committee, the Joint
Spiny Dogfish Committee, and the
Councils would not be required during
the period of multi-year specifications
because the analysis of multi-year
measures would have evaluated the
impacts of the measures for years 2
through 5, as appropriate, in the
specifications process. The Councils
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
72102
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 230 / Thursday, December 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
concluded that the provision for an
annual review would not be necessary
and would reduce administrative
efficiency. However, the Councils
contemplate that a review would be
initiated when new information
indicated that modifications could be
required to ensure that the target F of
0.08 is not exceeded.
There are no relevant Federal rules
that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
this rule. This rule does not contain any
new, nor does it revise any existing
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements. Framework 1
deals only with the administrative
periodicity of specifications process,
and therefore would have minimal
direct effect on entities participating in
these fisheries.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fishing, Fisheries, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 25, 2005.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE
NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. Section 648.230 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 648.230 Catch quotas and other
restrictions.
(a) Process for setting specifications.
The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring
Committee will review the following
data at least every five years, subject to
availability, to determine the total
allowable level of landings (TAL) and
other restrictions necessary to assure
that a target fishing mortality rate (F) of
0.08 will not be exceeded: Commercial
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:46 Nov 30, 2005
Jkt 208001
and recreational catch data; current
estimates of F; stock status; recent
estimates of recruitment; virtual
population analysis results; levels of
noncompliance by fishermen or
individual states; impact of size/mesh
regulations; sea sampling data; impact
of gear other than otter trawls and gill
nets on the mortality of spiny dogfish;
and any other relevant information.
(b) Recommended measures. Based on
this review, the Spiny Dogfish
Monitoring Committee shall recommend
to the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee a
commercial quota and any other
measures including those in paragraphs
(b)(1)-(b)(5) of this section that are
necessary to assure that the F specified
in paragraph (a) of this section will not
be exceeded in any fishing year (May 1
- April 30), for a period of 1–5 fishing
years. The quota may be set within the
range of zero to the maximum allowed.
The measures that may be
recommended include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Minimum or maximum fish sizes;
(2) Seasons;
(3) Mesh size restrictions;
(4) Trip limits; or
(5) Other gear restrictions.
(c) Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee
recommendation. The Councils’ Joint
Spiny Dogfish Committee shall review
the recommendations of the Spiny
Dogfish Monitoring Committee. Based
on these recommendations and any
public comments, the Joint Spiny
Dogfish Committee shall recommend to
the Councils a commercial quota and,
possibly, other measures, including
those specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, necessary to assure that the F
specified in paragraph (a) of this section
will not be exceeded in any fishing year
(May 1 – April 30), for a period of 1–
5 fishing years. The commercial quota
may be set within the range of zero to
the maximum allowed.
(d) Council recommendations. The
Councils shall review these
recommendations and, based on the
recommendations and any public
comments, recommend to the Regional
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Administrator a commercial quota and
other measures necessary to assure that
the F specified in paragraph (a) of this
section will not be exceeded in any
fishing year (May 1 - April 30), for a
period of 1–5 fishing years. The
Councils’ recommendations must
include supporting documentation, as
appropriate, concerning the
environmental, economic, and other
impacts of the recommendations. The
Regional Administrator shall initiate a
review of these recommendations and
may modify the recommended quota
and other management measures to
assure that the target F specified in
paragraph (a) of this section will not be
exceeded in any fishing year (May 1 April 30), for a period of 1–5 fishing
years. The Regional Administrator may
modify the Councils’ recommendations
using any of the measures that were not
rejected by both Councils. After such
review, NMFS shall publish a proposed
rule in the Federal Register specifying
a coastwide commercial quota and other
meas ures necessary to assure that the
F specified in paragraph (a) of this
section will not be exceeded in any
fishing year (May 1 - April 30), for a
period of 1–5 fishing years. After
considering public comments, NMFS
shall publish a final rule in the Federal
Register to implement such a quota and
other measures.
(e) Annual quota. [Reserved]
(f) Distribution of annual quota. (1)
The annual quota specified according to
the process outlined in paragraph (a) of
this section shall be allocated between
two semi-annual quota periods as
follows: May 1 through October 31 (57.9
percent) and November 1 through April
30 (42.1 percent).
(2) All spiny dogfish landed for a
commercial purpose in the states from
Maine through Florida shall be applied
against the applicable semi-annual
commercial quota, regardless of where
the spiny dogfish were harvested.
[FR Doc. 05–23536 Filed 11–30–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 230 (Thursday, December 1, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72100-72102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23536]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 051104291-5291-01; I.D. 100405F]
50 CFR Part 648
RIN 0648-AT29
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Spiny Dogfish;
Framework Adjustment 1
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
[[Page 72101]]
ACTION: Proposed rule; establishing a multiple-year specifications
process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes measures contained in Framework Adjustment 1
(Framework 1) to the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that
would allow the specification of commercial quotas and other management
measures for up to 5 years. The intent is to provide flexibility and
efficiency to the management of the species.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Framework 1, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR),
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and other supporting
documents are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300
South Street, Dover, DE 19901-6790. The RIR/IRFA is also accessible via
the Internet at https://www.nero.nmfs.gov.
Written comments on the proposed rule may be sent by any of the
following methods:
Mail to the following address: Patricia A. Kurkul,
Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope
``Comments on Framework 1 - Dogfish'';
Fax to Patricia A. Kurkul at the following number: (978)
281-9135;
E-mail to the following address: DogFrame1@noaa.gov.
Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following
document identifier: ``Comments on Framework 1;
Electronically through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy
Analyst, (978) 281-9259, fax (978) 281-9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This framework adjustment to the FMP is intended to improve
management of the Northeast Atlantic stock of spiny dogfish (Squalus
acanthias), pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976, as amended (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Under the
existing FMP, spiny dogfish are jointly managed by both the Mid-
Atlantic and the New England Fishery Management Councils (Councils).
The Councils recommend annual commercial quotas and other management
measures (e.g., minimum or maximum fish sizes, seasons, mesh size
restrictions, trip limits, or other gear restrictions), as needed, in
order to ensure that the target F of 0.08 will not be exceeded.
Implementing regulations for these fisheries are found at 50 CFR part
648, subpart L. Under the current FMP, the commercial quota and trip
limits are specified annually and apply only to the following fishing
year.
The Councils developed Framework 1, pursuant to Sec. 648.237, in
order to streamline the administrative and regulatory processes
involved in specifying the fishing measures for spiny dogfish, while,
at the same time, maintaining consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. The proposed action would modify the FMP so that, within a given
year, the Councils could specify commercial quotas and other management
measures necessary to ensure that the target F of 0.08 will not be
exceeded in each of the following 1 to 5 years. Implementation of
Framework 1 will provide the option, not the requirement, for Councils
to specify multi-year management measures. All of the environmental and
regulatory review procedures currently required under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and the National Environmental Policy Act will be conducted
and documented during the year in which specifications are set. These
analyses will consider impacts throughout the time span for which
specifications are to be set (1 to 5 years). Multi-year quotas and
other management measures would not have to be constant from year to
year, but would instead be based upon expectations of future stock
conditions as indicated by the best scientific information available at
the time the multi-year specifications are set. Updated information on
the resource and the fishery would be reviewed at least every 5 years
by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Spiny Dogfish
Monitoring Committee, the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee and the
Councils. Adjustments to the management measures, once implemented,
would not be expected to occur during the period of multi-year
specifications. Nevertheless, if new information indicated that
modification to the multi-year management measures is necessary to
ensure that the target F of 0.08 is not exceeded, the Councils would
initiate the process for setting specifications in order to make such
modifications. Given the elimination of the annual review/management
measure adjustment process under this proposed action, environmental
impact evaluation in the specification setting year would have to
thoroughly consider the uncertainty associated with projected estimates
of stock size in the 1 to 5 year time horizon. Accordingly, Council
recommendations for multi-year management measures would have to be
adequately conservative to accommodate this uncertainty under the
proposed action.
During the development of Framework 1, the Councils considered and
analyzed the following three alternatives for a multi-year
specifications process: A no-action alternative, which would continue
the requirement to establish spiny dogfish specifications on an annual
basis; the proposed alternative; and an alternative that would require
the Councils to conduct an annual review of the previously established
multi-year specifications. The Councils selected the proposed action
because it provided the most straightforward and efficient
administrative process for establishing multi-year specifications, and
because it is expected to provide greater predictability to the
commercial fishing sector.
Classification
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An IRFA was prepared that describes the economic impact this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. 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 of this
proposed rule. The preamble also includes complete descriptions of the
proposed, no action, and the other alternative discussed here. Under
the current management system, the Councils annually submit a
specifications document to NMFS for review. Under the other two
alternatives, the Councils would submit a specifications document only
in the first year of the multi-year specifications period, if
applicable. This would reduce substantially the administrative burden
on both the Councils and NMFS. Additionally, longer term specifications
should provide greater predictability to the commercial fishing sector.
Under the proposed alternative, an annual review of updated information
on the fisheries by the MAFMC's Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee, the
Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee, and the Councils would not be required
during the period of multi-year specifications because the analysis of
multi-year measures would have evaluated the impacts of the measures
for years 2 through 5, as appropriate, in the specifications process.
The Councils
[[Page 72102]]
concluded that the provision for an annual review would not be
necessary and would reduce administrative efficiency. However, the
Councils contemplate that a review would be initiated when new
information indicated that modifications could be required to ensure
that the target F of 0.08 is not exceeded.
There are no relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this rule. This rule does not contain any new, nor does
it revise any existing reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements. Framework 1 deals only with the administrative
periodicity of specifications process, and therefore would have minimal
direct effect on entities participating in these fisheries.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fishing, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 25, 2005.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. Section 648.230 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.230 Catch quotas and other restrictions.
(a) Process for setting specifications. The Spiny Dogfish
Monitoring Committee will review the following data at least every five
years, subject to availability, to determine the total allowable level
of landings (TAL) and other restrictions necessary to assure that a
target fishing mortality rate (F) of 0.08 will not be exceeded:
Commercial and recreational catch data; current estimates of F; stock
status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis
results; levels of noncompliance by fishermen or individual states;
impact of size/mesh regulations; sea sampling data; impact of gear
other than otter trawls and gill nets on the mortality of spiny
dogfish; and any other relevant information.
(b) Recommended measures. Based on this review, the Spiny Dogfish
Monitoring Committee shall recommend to the Joint Spiny Dogfish
Committee a commercial quota and any other measures including those in
paragraphs (b)(1)-(b)(5) of this section that are necessary to assure
that the F specified in paragraph (a) of this section will not be
exceeded in any fishing year (May 1 - April 30), for a period of 1-5
fishing years. The quota may be set within the range of zero to the
maximum allowed. The measures that may be recommended include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Minimum or maximum fish sizes;
(2) Seasons;
(3) Mesh size restrictions;
(4) Trip limits; or
(5) Other gear restrictions.
(c) Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee recommendation. The Councils'
Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee shall review the recommendations of the
Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee. Based on these recommendations and
any public comments, the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee shall recommend
to the Councils a commercial quota and, possibly, other measures,
including those specified in paragraph (b) of this section, necessary
to assure that the F specified in paragraph (a) of this section will
not be exceeded in any fishing year (May 1 - April 30), for a period of
1-5 fishing years. The commercial quota may be set within the range of
zero to the maximum allowed.
(d) Council recommendations. The Councils shall review these
recommendations and, based on the recommendations and any public
comments, recommend to the Regional Administrator a commercial quota
and other measures necessary to assure that the F specified in
paragraph (a) of this section will not be exceeded in any fishing year
(May 1 - April 30), for a period of 1-5 fishing years. The Councils'
recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate,
concerning the environmental, economic, and other impacts of the
recommendations. The Regional Administrator shall initiate a review of
these recommendations and may modify the recommended quota and other
management measures to assure that the target F specified in paragraph
(a) of this section will not be exceeded in any fishing year (May 1 -
April 30), for a period of 1-5 fishing years. The Regional
Administrator may modify the Councils' recommendations using any of the
measures that were not rejected by both Councils. After such review,
NMFS shall publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register specifying a
coastwide commercial quota and other meas ures necessary to assure that
the F specified in paragraph (a) of this section will not be exceeded
in any fishing year (May 1 - April 30), for a period of 1-5 fishing
years. After considering public comments, NMFS shall publish a final
rule in the Federal Register to implement such a quota and other
measures.
(e) Annual quota. [Reserved]
(f) Distribution of annual quota. (1) The annual quota specified
according to the process outlined in paragraph (a) of this section
shall be allocated between two semi-annual quota periods as follows:
May 1 through October 31 (57.9 percent) and November 1 through April 30
(42.1 percent).
(2) All spiny dogfish landed for a commercial purpose in the states
from Maine through Florida shall be applied against the applicable
semi-annual commercial quota, regardless of where the spiny dogfish
were harvested.
[FR Doc. 05-23536 Filed 11-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
