25 



very interactive in spite of what Suzanne might have said about 

 interaction with the pubhc. We, I think, are as interactive as any- 

 body has ever been and perhaps more so, and constantly out look- 

 ing for different things that we might do. So, again, we will be 

 happy to try to work with you and the fishermen. 



Mr. Pallone. What about the — what I mentioned. Dr. Foster, 

 about the reporting by the dealers? I mean, that was cited as the 

 cause of the overrun in the general category and, you know, I men- 

 tioned about NMFS taking enforcement action, as to why the deal- 

 ers didn't submit the reports. 



My understanding is they are supposed to fax the information 

 within 24 hours. I mean, that wasn't done and apparently 



Dr. Foster. Yes, and this issue has come up and we are discuss- 

 ing it and will do what we can. 



Mr. Pallone. I think that is important, because otherwise, you 

 know, the problems are going to continue again. 



Dr. Foster. Yes. Yes. We recognize that. 



Mr. Pallone. I don't know if anybody else wanted to comment. 

 Ray. 



Mr. Bogan. Yes, thank you. Congressman Pallone. There is one 

 thing that I would just start bandying about with regard to certain 

 of the quotas, and remember, we have the various size limits and 

 quotas, and that is to have a buffer time period. 



I don't have an idea of what would be the best, the minimal 

 amount of time, but, for example, having a two-day time period 

 perhaps designated two different times in the course of the year to 

 stop, make sure the data isn't lagging and to make sure that you 

 don't get overrun this year. And I say this respectfully to Dick be- 

 cause I have not, as have some others, said that this is some kind 

 of purposeful thing. 



What I have said is I made calls a week before this and I said, 

 guys, you are going way over. And it was a mystery to me why Ray 

 Bogan and a lot of other folks didn't question. It was done and we 

 knew it was going way over then, and then we got a fax the next 

 day saying we are going to review it on Tuesday. It was impossible 

 to stop it. We knew then, we looked at each other and said, OK, we 

 are gone completely. We were shocked when we got the 20-ton allo- 

 cation, then we had a 20-ton allocation taken away. 



The point being is that there are specific buffer time periods, I 

 don't know what is most adequate, but a period in which they can 

 review data, they will be able to, if need be, make adjustments. 

 When there is no slowdown, the September 15th date, for example, 

 was always our monitoring date several years ago. As it turns out, 

 the September 15th date, immediately thereafter is coincidentally 

 when the numbers went wild, after the monitoring date. 



Mr. Pallone. I would hope that you could look into that also as 

 an option. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Manton. Well, that concludes our round of questions and 

 the hearing right on time. We are now going to move to markup a 

 resolution. 



[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the Subcommittee proceeded to other 

 business. The following was submitted for the record:] 



