[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67610-67615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33641]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 971208294-7294-01; I.D. 103097B]
RIN 0648-AJ20
Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Restrictions on Frequency of Limited
Entry Permit Transfers; Sorting Catch by Species; Retention of Fish
Tickets
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement management
measures recommended by the Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Council) that restrict the frequency of limited entry permit transfers
to once every 12 months, with transfers taking effect on the first day
of a cumulative landings limit period. This rule would also require the
sorting of all groundfish species with trip limits, size limits,
quotas, or harvest guidelines at the point of landing, and the
retention of landings receipts on board the vessel that has made those
landings. This proposed rule is intended to constrain the introduction
of new fishing effort into the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries, and
to improve the enforceability of Federal and state fisheries
regulations. This action would be taken under the authority of the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), and the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act).
DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing by February 12, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to William Stelle, Jr.,
Administrator, Northwest Region, (Regional Administrator) NMFS, 7600
Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or to William
Hogarth, Acting Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 W. Ocean
Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213. Information relevant to
this proposed rule is available for public review during business hours
at the Office of the Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, and at the
Office of the Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS. Copies of the
Environmental Assessments/Regulatory Impact Reviews (EA/RIRs) for these
issues are available from Lawrence D. Six, Executive Director, Pacific
Fishery Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland,
OR 97201.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William L. Robinson at 206-526-6140,
or Svein Fougner at 562-980-4034, or the Pacific Fishery Management
Council at 503-326-6352.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is proposing three separate regulatory
changes: (1) Restricting the frequency of limited entry permit
transfers to once every 12 months, with transfers taking effect only on
the first day of a cumulative landings limit period; (2) providing
Federal regulatory support for existing state requirements that require
the sorting of all groundfish species with trip limits, size limits,
quotas, or harvest guidelines; and (3) providing consistent regulatory
requirements on the retention of landings receipts throughout the
management area. These regulatory changes were recommended by the
Council at its October 1996 and June 1995 meetings, respectively. The
background and rationale for this proposed rule are summarized below.
More details appear in the EA/RIRs for these actions.
Restrictions on Permit Transfer Frequency
Background. A license limitation program for the Pacific Coast
groundfish
[[Page 67611]]
fisheries went into effect at the beginning of the 1994 fishing season.
The purpose of this program was to control the size and harvesting
capacity of the Washington, Oregon, and California fleet, which had
expanded far beyond the effort needed to catch the available groundfish
resource. This license limitation program includes restrictions on the
number of participants in a limited entry groundfish fishery, as well
as restrictions on vessel length expansion and on gear used by
permitted vessels, as measures to control total fleet harvesting
capacity. However, the initial limited entry licensing formula was
fairly liberal, capping fishery participation without reducing
capacity, and in fact leaving opportunity for an increase in fishing
effort.
Most of the West Coast groundfish catch is harvested by limited
entry vessels, which use trawl, longline, or pot (or trap) gears.
Vessels in the open access fishery use a variety of gear types,
including pot and longline gears, to take the remainder of the harvest.
In 1996, the Council introduced 2-month cumulative landings limit
periods for all gears. This cumulative landings approach allows each
vessel to catch up to a specific amount of different groundfish species
over a 2-month period, with not more than 60 percent of the cumulative
period total to be taken in either month of the period. Cumulative
period catch limits are set by comparing current or previous landings
rates with the year's total available catch. Landing limits have been
used to slow the pace of the fishery and stretch the fishing season out
over as many months as possible, so that the overall harvest target is
not reached until the end of the year.
Current Federal regulations place no restrictions on the frequency
or timing of permit transfers, a situation that allows expansion of new
effort into the fishery. In an open access fishery, the participating
vessels do not participate constantly. For example, if there are 100
vessels in the fishery, they do not all participate for 12 months of
the year. Most vessels are out of the fishery at times for repairs, or
to participate in other fisheries. When the limited entry program went
into effect, the vessels that received permits did not have a history
of fishing constantly in the fishery. However, as the limited entry
program has progressed, permit owners have realized that it is possible
to use a permit for 12 months of the year by leasing the permit out to
other vessels during times when the original vessel is not directly
participating in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. If a permit is
shared between two or more vessels in a year, those multiple vessels
will exert more effort in the fishery than if just one vessel had used
the permit, with the permit lying idle during that vessel's days away
from the fishery. Historically, individual vessels have not
participated in the Pacific groundfish fishery every day of the year.
Permits may also be transferred at any time during a cumulative
limit period, which means that two or more vessels could use the same
permit during the 2-month cumulative limit period, with each vessel
fishing towards its own cumulative limit. Transferring limited entry
permits between vessels or owners to circumvent vessel landing limits
is inconsistent with specific language of the FMP. Transfers of this
nature also increase effort in the fishery.
Council Action
At the October 1996 Council meeting, the Council recommended
constraining groundfish fleet effort expansion by restricting the
frequency of limited entry permit transfers to once every 12 months,
with transfers taking effect only on the first day of a major
cumulative limit period. These periods will be announced each year in
the Federal Register with the annual specifications and management
measures, or with routine management measures when the cumulative limit
periods are changed. Cumulative limit periods that govern just a
portion of the groundfish fisheries, such as the fixed gear regular
sablefish season, are not considered ``major'' cumulative limit
periods. For permit holders participating in the ``B'' delivery
platoon, transfer effectiveness dates would align with ``B'' platoon
cumulative limit period dates, and the new recipient of the ``B''
platoon permit would be required to participate in ``B'' platoon
deliveries for the remainder of the calendar year.
The Council expects that this proposed action would constrain
effort expansion in two ways: (1) it would prevent two or more vessels
from sharing a limited entry permit during a single cumulative limit
period and thereby landing more than one limit on that permit, and (2)
it would discourage increased fishing effort in the fishery by
preventing limited entry permit holders from temporarily transferring
their permits during times when the vessel is undergoing repairs,
operating in other fisheries, or otherwise idle.
Of the permit leases made in 1994 and 1995, 67 percent were shorter
than 6 months in length, and 89 percent were shorter than one year in
length. The Council's recommendation to limit the frequency of limited
entry permit transfers to one time in any 12 month period would reduce
most of the current leasing activity on limited entry permits. The
average length of all limited entry permit leases, for all gears and
for both years was 176 days, while the median lease length for those
same conditions was 130 days, which means that the majority of permit
leases have shorter than average durations.
Fixed gear permits are most frequently transferred as leases. Most
fixed gear permits have longline gear endorsements. Because there are
many open access vessels that fish with longline gear, there are always
several open access fishers who are ready to transfer into the limited
entry fisheries as longliners leasing limited entry permits. This easy
transfer of additional effort from the open access fishery increases
the number of potential participants in an already over-capitalized
fleet. Council recommendations to restrict the frequency of limited
entry permit transfer would eliminate the annual influx of short-term
fixed gear participants into the large but brief, limited entry, fixed
gear regular sablefish season.
Permit transfer trends for limited entry trawl vessels are more
linked to sales activity than to lease transfers. Trawl permits had
relatively low lease activity in 1994 and 1995, but a significant
number of permits changed ownership more than once in those years.
There were 105 permits that changed ownership more than once during the
1994-1995 period, 79 of which changed ownership twice during those
years. The proposed Council action to limit the frequency of limited
entry permit transfers to once every 12 months would eliminate
documented permit activity of three, four, or five ownership changes in
a 2-year period.
Members of the West Coast fishing industry commented on the
crafting of this Council recommendation, and the Council's action on
this issue was generally well received by the limited entry fleet.
However, members of the at-sea component of the whiting fishery opposed
the action, because motherships would no longer be able to lease
Pacific coast permits for use by their high-power, Alaska-based catcher
boats, which do not participate in the non-whiting portion of the
groundfish fishery. Representatives from this sector of the fishery
argued at the Council meeting that high-power catcher boats are
necessary to fish farther offshore for whiting, where chances of
yellowtail rockfish and salmon bycatch are lower. Certain fishing
corporations that own Pacific Coast groundfish limited entry
[[Page 67612]]
permits have also been in the practice of leasing out their catcher
boat permits during times outside of the at-sea component of the
whiting fishery, and restrictions on lease transfers would eliminate
that permit leasing income for those corporations. Analysis of the at-
sea sector of the groundfish fleet has shown that in 1994 and 1995, out
of 49 permits with at-sea deliveries, 13 permits had been transferred
for periods less than 12 months in duration. The Council determined
that the benefits to the fishery overall that could be gained from
restricting the entrance of new effort into the fishery as a whole
outweighed the concerns of the at-sea whiting sector.
Hardship Exemptions
In its October 1996 recommendation, the Council supported waiving
the restriction on transferring permits once every 12 months in cases
of hardship. Hardship exemptions could not be used to waive the
requirement that transfers take effect only on the first day of a
cumulative limit period. Hardship exemptions were defined for this
issue as either death of the permit holder, or loss of the permitted
vessel. In previous meetings, the Council and its advisory bodies had
also considered exemptions in cases of serious illness of the permit
holder, but then decided to define ``hardship'' narrowly, to limit the
discretion in using the exemption. This narrow definition covers the
cases most likely to require a transfer, but restricts the possibility
of abuse of the process.
If a limited entry permit holder applies to transfer his or her
permit within 12 months of the last transfer, the permit holder will be
required to submit documents demonstrating that the transfer meets the
exceptions of death of the permit holder or loss of the vessel. Loss of
vessel is defined in the Pacific Coast groundfish regulations at
Sec. 660.302, ``Totally lost means the vessel being replaced no longer
exists in specie, or is absolutely and irretrievably sunk or otherwise
beyond the possible control of the owner, or the costs of repair
(including recovery) would exceed the repaired value of the vessel.''
Death of a permit holder would be documented by a copy of the death
certificate of the permit holder.
If the permit is owned by a partnership or a corporation, a
transfer within 12 months of the last transfer would be allowed if a
person or persons owning 50 percent or more of the ownership interest
in the partnership or corporation has died. NMFS understands the
Council's recommendation for allowance of a hardship exemption in cases
of death to mean that a transfer should be allowed in cases where the
primary owner of the permit has died. NMFS is also aware that many of
the limited entry permits are owned by partnerships or corporations,
entities that do not ``die'' in the same sense that a human person
would die. However, the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery does include
several permit-owning partnerships and corporations whose only
shareholders are limited to one of the following: an individual, a
husband and wife, or a parent and child.
NMFS includes the provision that the hardship exemption may be
applied in cases of the death of a person who owned 50 percent or
greater interest in the permit so that individuals and small businesses
will not be denied use of the hardship exemption in cases where the
businesses have been incorporated, but the primary owner of the
business has died. In these situations, the business is more likely to
be significantly affected by the death of the owner. For a larger
corporation or partnership, the death of one stockholder or partner is
much less likely to severely affect the operation of the business. NMFS
selected the 50 percent ownership limit to have a clear, easy to
implement standard that still accommodates those most likely to be
adversely affected by death of an owner. NMFS particularly seeks
comment on this provision.
If a request for transfer is denied, the Fisheries Management
Division (FMD), NMFS Northwest Region, will explain in writing why the
transfer request has been denied. Further, if the transfer is denied,
the permit owner may appeal that decision within 30 days to the
Regional Administrator, explaining the basis for the appeal. The
Regional Administrator will decide upon the appeal within 45 days in a
final agency action.
Sorting of Groundfish Catch by Species
Under current regulations at Sec. 660.306, fishers landing
groundfish at West Coast ports must sort, before the first weighing
after offloading, those groundfish species or species groups for which
there is a trip limit, if the weight of the total delivery exceeds
1,361 kg (3,000 lb) round weight. NMFS introduced this regulation in
1990, when a 1,361 kg (3,000 lb) landing was thought to be almost
insignificant. When the Council decided to revisit this issue in 1995,
however, the Council's analysis found that landings of less than 1,361
kg (3,000 lb) may comprise a significant portion of the catch,
especially among landings to California ports. According to the July
1996 EA/RIR for this issue, in the 1993 California rockfish fishery, 96
percent of the hook-and-line trips (53 percent by weight) and 75
percent of the trawl trips (14 percent by weight) landed less than
1,361 kg (3,000 lb).
The Council has a policy of maintaining a year round groundfish
fishery through adjustable 2-month cumulative limits. Capitalization of
the fleet continues to rise, which means that individual vessels are
more able to catch the available cumulative limits faster than in the
past. To keep this overcapitalized fleet from exceeding harvest
guidelines on the groundfish stocks that it manages, the Council has
had to periodically decrease the 2-month cumulative limits. As these
limits are decreased, small trips make up a greater portion of the
overall catch. In order to improve enforcement efforts and prevent loss
of data in a fishery with shrinking landings limits, the Council has
proposed requiring the sorting of all species managed by trip limits,
size limits, quotas, or harvest guidelines. This measure is consistent
with regulations that Washington and Oregon already have in place;
although Washington does not require sorting of species with harvest
guidelines but with no trip limits. This regulation introduces a new
requirement for California fishers landing less than 3,000 lb (1,361
kg) per trip, but most fishers, already sort their catch by species
prior to offloading as part of the marketing transaction between fisher
and fish processor. California commonly models its fisheries management
regime on Federal regulations and is likely to change its state
regulations to match the Federal sorting regulations if such
regulations become final. Fishers landing shortbelly rockfish or jack
mackerel in Washington would also be affected by this requirement, but
these species are underutilized and neither species has been landed in
Washington in any great quantity to date. Requiring the sorting of
species with harvest guidelines but with no trip limits could have a
future impact if the Council decides to implement new harvest
guidelines for species not yet managed by harvest guidelines without
also implementing trip limits for those species. This requirement would
facilitate enforcement because agents would not have to examine
unsorted catches. Compliance could be enhanced if fishers sorted at sea
because fishers would be more aware of the harvest amount of individual
species.
Retaining Fish Tickets On Board the Vessel
Groundfish trip limits are now specified as a cumulative amount
that
[[Page 67613]]
may be retained in any calendar month or 2-month period. Most vessels
make multiple trips during a month or two-month period, and enforcement
personnel at the dock would have difficulty determining whether a
vessel has exceeded its limits if all the vessel's landings receipts
were not readily accessible. Current Federal regulations at
Sec. 660.303 require that fishers comply with state law on retaining
and filing all reports of groundfish landings. Each state has
requirements for retaining fish tickets on board vessels for
enforcement purposes; however, the regulations are inconsistent from
state to state and there are no unifying Federal regulations on this
subject.
Fishers landing groundfish in Washington and Oregon are required to
keep their landings receipts on board for 90 days. In California, fish
tickets must be kept throughout the cumulative trip limit period of the
landings and for 15 days thereafter. When the Council addressed this
issue at its June 1995 meeting, they recommended a change to Federal
regulations that would both standardize the record retention
requirements coastwide, and set regulatory language that would
accommodate the different cumulative limit periods of the different
sectors of the fishery. Consistency along the coast under Federal
regulations is needed to ensure that enforcement agents have consistent
access to on board landings records.
The Council forwarded a recommendation to NMFS on this issue
because they saw a need to improve enforceability of landings
restrictions across the three states with Federal regulatory language
that recognizes a flexible management system with potentially changing
cumulative limit period durations. This Proposed Rule would require
that all West Coast groundfish fishers retain landings receipts on
board their vessels throughout the cumulative trip limit period of the
landings and for 15 days thereafter. The proposed rule also clarifies
that the fish tickets must be provided to an authorized officer upon
request. This is a minor regulatory change that is expected to
eliminate confusion among fishers as to which state's landings receipts
should be kept on board for what length of time.
Biological Impacts
Marine biological background and biological impacts of the
groundfish fishery are analyzed in ``Status of the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Through 1996 and Recommended Acceptable Biological
Catches for 1997: Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation'' (SAFE
Document), and in the Environmental Assessments for these actions.
These documents may be obtained from the Pacific Fishery Management
Council. (See ADDRESSES above).
Restricting the frequency of limited entry permit transfers is not
expected to have a direct biological impact on the West Coast
groundfish fishery, although it may trigger positive secondary impacts
following the reduction of fishery effort. By reducing effort in the
limited entry groundfish fishery, harvesting pressure on the targeted
stocks will also decline, and annual harvest guidelines for the
groundfish stocks will be achieved at a slower rate than under a system
of unrestricted permit transfers.
Requiring fishers to sort their groundfish landings under 3,000 lb
(1,361 kg) would also have minor, positive biological impacts. To the
extent that more and better data on species composition become
available, harvest monitoring would be improved. Complete sorting
information is already required under Washington and Oregon State
regulations, so the primary benefit would result from improved data on
California groundfish landings from small vessels. In addition,
enforcement would be facilitated, allowing for expanded enforcement
coverage for the same amount of agent effort. No biological impacts,
positive or negative, are expected to result from standardizing the
required period of fish ticket retention.
Biological impacts from these actions are not significant, and
where they occur, will likely be positive. The acceptable biological
catches and harvest guidelines of West Coast groundfish stocks would
not be affected by these actions.
Socio-Economic Impacts
Permit holders would be unable to lease their permits for short
periods of time under the proposed action, as they might wish to do
when pursuing another fishery, or when the permitted vessel is under
repair. Thus, permit holders will lose the possibility of the dual
revenues that might be made by both leasing out their own permit and
simultaneously pursuing a fishery outside of the groundfish limited
entry fishery.
This proposed measure would slow the rate of permit transfers, as
it would reduce incentives for temporary permit transfers. If the
benefits of temporarily transferring permits are reduced, the value of
the permits will decrease. However, by reducing the benefits of
temporary permit transfers, permit holders with minimal interest in the
fishery may be more likely to sell their permits. As more permanent
permit transfers are made, the permit prices should rise to compensate
for the initial drop that may follow restrictions on permit transfer
frequency. This proposed action may also lead to more fleet stability,
as it will discourage the permit speculators who might lease out
permits to several different boats throughout the year. Similarly,
persons who have been temporarily transferring into the fishery will
have a greater incentive to make long-term commitments to the fishery
by buying a permit. The benefit of this restriction is that due to the
reduction of effort, the value of the groundfish resource would be
increased for permitted fisheries. The levels of trip limits should be
higher than it would be without this restriction.
Requiring the sorting of groundfish species with trip limits, size
limits, quotas, or harvest guidelines would not impose an additional
burden on Washington and Oregon fishers, as those two states already
have similar state regulations in place for landings sorting.
Washington fishers are not required to sort harvest guideline species,
but the only species for which there are harvest guidelines but no trip
limits are shortbelly rockfish and jack mackerel, both of which are
underutilized and infrequently caught. The additional burden of sorting
would fall on fishers landing less than 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) per trip in
California. However, many of the species landed in this sector of the
fishery are already sorted during the sales transaction between fisher
and processor into marketing categories that are the same as species
sorting categories. This requirement would not affect the amount of
fish that are harvested,
The measure to standardize fish ticket retention requirements may
lead to some initial confusion among fishers from the three different
states, but that should be resolved by the fact that state and Federal
requirements will be consistent with each other. The sorting
requirement, and the clear directive to make fish tickets available to
authorized officers would facilitate enforcement.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has initially
determined that this action is consistent with the FMP and the national
standards and other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of E.O. 12866.
[[Page 67614]]
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Most of the permit holders and vessels in the Pacific
Coast fleet are considered small entities. NMFS considers an impact to
be ``significant'' if it results in a reduction in annual gross
revenues by more than 5 percent, an increase in annual compliance costs
of greater than 5 percent, compliance costs at least 10 percent higher
for small entities than for large entities, compliance costs that
require significant capital expenditures, or the likelihood that 2
percent of the small entities would be forced out of business. NMFS
considers a ``substantial number'' of small entities to be more than 20
percent of those small entities affected by the regulation engaged in
the fishery.
The provision of the rule limiting the frequency of limited entry
permit transfers would prevent permit holders from leasing their
permits for periods shorter than 12 months. There may be economic
losses resulting from this provision for permit holders who generate
more income from short-term permit leases than they would from fishing
those permits.
NMFS analyzed the transfer actions for each permit that existed in
1996. If a permit was transferred in 1996, 1995 and 1997 records would
show whether that transfer had occurred within 12 months of a previous
or subsequent transfer. At the time that the EA/RIR was written for
this action, only 1994 and 1995 permit data were available, which made
a full analysis of 1995 permit transfers impossible. In 1996,
approximately 539 vessels were licensed to participate in the Pacific
Coast limited entry groundfish fishery. Of those 539 permits, 75
permits (approximately 14 percent of permits held in 1996) were sold or
leased for a duration of shorter than 12 months, with some of those
permits being sold or leased more than once in 1996. Because 14 percent
is below the 20 percent ``substantial number'' threshold, this
provision would not impact a substantial number of small entities.
NMFS cannot quantify the level of economic impact to the 14 percent
of the fleet that would be expected to transfer their permits more
often than once every twelve months. The fishing strategies, permit
lengths, gear endorsements, and reasons for transferring permits differ
for each affected fisher. Permit holders who lease out their permits
and permit lessees may both suffer economic losses from reduced
opportunities to enter into short-term leases. It is not known how
these individuals would change their fishing strategies if they cannot
make leases for shorter than twelve months. Permit holder strategies
may include increased personal participation in the groundfish fishery,
hiring skippers to fish their groundfish permits, year-long leases for
their permits, or sale of their permits. Persons who have taken short-
term leases on permits in the past may change their fishing strategies
to concentrate on non-groundfish species, fish for groundfish in the
open access fishery, take year-long leases on limited entry permits, or
buy limited entry permits. Therefore, the degree of economic loss that
these two types of people would suffer will depend upon individual
ability to alter fishing and business strategies. It is reasonable to
expect that some small businesses may suffer significant economic
losses if this rule is implemented. However, NMFS is not able to
determine how many small businesses in the Pacific Coast groundfish
fleet would have a reduction in annual gross revenues by more than 5
percent, for more than 20 percent of the participants; an increase in
total costs of production of more than 5 percent as a result of an
increase in compliance costs, for 20 percent or more of the affected
small entities; compliance costs as a percent of sales for small
entities that are at least 10 percent higher than compliance costs as a
percent of sales for large entities, for 20 percent or more of the
affected small entities; capital costs of compliance that represent a
significant portion of capital available to small entities, considering
internal cash flow and external financing capabilities; or two percent
of the small business entities affected being forced to cease business
operations.
The provision to require sorting of groundfish species with trip
limits, size limits, quotas, or harvest guidelines is expected to have
a minimal impact, if any, on small entities. Oregon and Washington
already have species sorting requirements similar to those proposed by
this rule; although Washington does not require the sorting of species
with harvest guidelines but with no trip limits. The only species for
which there are harvest guidelines but no trip limits are shortbelly
rockfish and jack mackerel, both of which are underutilized and
infrequently caught. California has similar species sorting
requirements for groundfish landings greater than 3,000 pounds. Thus,
only persons making landings of less than 3,000 pounds of groundfish in
California will be affected by this rule. Because many of these persons
already sort their catch by species during the sale of the fish to
processors, this sorting requirement is expected to impose very little
economic or other burdens on small entities. Furthermore, the time and
effort that would be necessary to comply with this proposed sorting
requirement would be minimal and would not be expected to result in a
reduction in annual gross revenues by more than 5 percent, an increase
in annual compliance costs of greater than 5 percent, compliance costs
at least 10 percent higher for small entities than for large entities,
compliance costs that require significant capital expenditures, or the
likelihood that 2 percent of the small entities would be forced out of
business.
The provision to require retention of landings receipts on board
the vessel that has made the landing is expected to have no economic
impact on small entities. All three Pacific Coast states already
require the retention of landings receipts on board the vessel that has
made the landing. Because Federal requirements for landings receipt
retention would standardize the requirements across the three states,
these requirements are expected to eliminate the regulatory burden of
following different rules when landing in different states.
This rule, if adopted, would not change the amount of fish caught
or retained by limited entry permit holders or the number of vessels
licensed in the limited entry fleet. None of the requirements of this
proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. As a result, a regulatory flexibility
analysis was not prepared.
NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the ESA on August 10, 1990,
November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, and May 14,
1996 pertaining to the impacts of the groundfish fishery on Snake River
spring/summer chinook, Snake River fall chinook, and Sacramento River
winter chinook. The opinions concluded that implementation of the FMP
for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery is not expected to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under
the jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. This proposed rule is within the
scope of these consultations. Because the impacts of this action fall
within the scope of the impacts considered in these Biological
Opinions,
[[Page 67615]]
NMFS has determined that additional consultations are not required for
this action. In addition, coho salmon south of Cape Blanco, OR,
recently have been listed as threatened (northern CA/southern OR) and
endangered (central CA) under the ESA. This action will not affect coho
salmon.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries,
Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 19, 1997.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Services.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR 660 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 660 --FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN
PACIFIC
1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 660.303, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 660.303 Reporting and recordkeeping.
* * * * *
(c) Any person landing groundfish must retain on board the vessel
from which groundfish is landed, and provide to an authorized officer
upon request, copies of any and all reports of groundfish landings,
containing all data, and in the exact manner, required by the
applicable state law throughout the cumulative limit period during
which a landing occurred and for 15 days thereafter.
3. In Sec. 660.306, paragraph (h) is revised and paragraph (x) is
added to read as follows:
Sec. 660.306 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(h) Fail to sort, prior to the first weighing after offloading,
those groundfish species or species groups for which there is a trip
limit, size limit, quota, or harvest guideline, if the vessel fished or
landed in an area during a time when such trip limit, size limit,
harvest guideline or quota applied.
* * * * *
(x) Fail to retain on board a vessel from which groundfish is
landed, and provide to an authorized officer upon request, copies of
any and all reports of groundfish landings, or receipts containing all
data, and made in the exact manner required by the applicable state law
throughout the cumulative limit period during which such landings
occurred and for 15 days thereafter.
4. In Sec. 660.333, paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) are revised;
paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) are redesignated as (c)(4) and (c)(5) and
a new (c)(3) is added; paragraph (d) introductory text is revised;
paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) are redesignated as (f)(3) and (f)(4) and
a new (f)(2) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 660.333 Limited entry fishery - general.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Upon transfer of a limited entry permit, the FMD will reissue
the permit in the name of the new permit holder, with such gear
endorsements, and, if applicable, species endorsements as are eligible
for transfer with the permit. Permit transfers will take effect on the
first day of the next major limited entry cumulative limit period
following the date of the transfer. Transfers of permits designated as
participating in the ``B'' platoon will become effective on the first
day of the next ``B'' platoon major limited entry cumulative limit
period following the date of the transfer. No transfer is effective
until the limited entry permit has been reissued and is in the
possession of the new permit holder.
(2) A limited entry permit may not be used with a vessel unless it
is registered for use with that vessel. Limited entry permits will
normally be registered for use with a particular vessel at the time the
permit is issued, renewed, transferred, or replaced. A permit not
registered for use with a particular vessel may not be used. If the
permit will be used with a vessel other than the one registered on the
permit, a registration for use with the new vessel must be obtained
from the FMD and placed aboard the vessel before it is used under the
permit. Registration of a permit to be used with a new vessel will take
effect on the first day of the next major limited entry cumulative
limit period following the date of the transfer.
(3) The major limited entry cumulative limit periods will be
announced in the Federal Register each year with the annual
specifications and management measures, or with routine management
measures when the cumulative limit periods are changed.
* * * * *
(d) Evidence and burden of proof. A vessel owner (or person holding
limited entry rights under the express terms of a written contract)
applying for issuance, renewal, replacement, transfer, or registration
of a limited entry permit has the burden to submit evidence to prove
that qualification requirements are met. A permit holder applying to
register a limited entry permit has the burden to submit evidence to
prove that registration requirements are met. The following evidentiary
standards apply:
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1)
(2) Limited entry permits may not be transferred to a different
holder or registered for use with a different vessel more than once
every 12 months, except in cases of death of the permit holder or if
the permitted vessel is totally lost, as defined at Sec. 660.302, The
exception for death of a permit holder applies for a permit held by a
partnership or a corporation if the person or persons holding at least
50 percent of the ownership interest in the entity dies.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-33641 Filed 12-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
