[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-4231]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: February 25, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 663
[Docket No. 940257-4057; I.D. 012494C]
RIN No.: 0648-AF76
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS requests public comments on a proposed rule to establish
requirements for combining two or more limited entry Pacific Coast
groundfish fishery permits endorsed with vessel lengths from smaller
vessels into a single limited entry permit endorsed with a larger
length for use with a single fishing vessel. Comments are requested on
the NMFS preferred approach for which proposed regulatory text is
offered, and on two alternatives (Initial Alternatives I and II). This
rule is necessary to comply with regulations that require the Director,
Northwest Region, NMFS (Regional Director), to develop and implement a
standardized measure of harvest capacity for the purpose of determining
the appropriate endorsed lengths for limited entry permits created by
combining two or more permits with smaller size endorsements.
DATES: Comments are invited until March 21, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to J. Gary Smith, Acting Director,
Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 7600 Sand Point
Way NE., BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or Anneka W. Bane, Acting
Director, Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 501 W.
Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213. Copies of the
Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) are available for public review
during business hours at the office of the Regional Director.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William L. Robinson at 206-526-6140,
or Rodney R. McInnis at 310-980-4030.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Amendment 6 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) was prepared by the Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) and approved and implemented by NMFS on
November 16, 1992 (57 FR 54001), through regulations codified at 50 CFR
part 663, subpart C. Amendment 6, also called the ``Limited Entry
Plan,'' is intended to control the harvesting capacity of the
groundfish fishing fleet by: (1) Limiting the overall number of
vessels; (2) limiting the number of vessels using each of the three
major gear types; and (3) limiting increases in vessel harvest capacity
by limiting vessel length.
Amendment 6 requires that each limited entry fishing permit be
endorsed with the length overall of the vessel that initially qualified
for the permit (except for certain exceptions explained in the
implementing regulations). A permit can only be used on a vessel no
more than 5 ft (1.5 m) longer than the endorsed size on the permit or
on a smaller vessel. Vessel owners may obtain and fish with larger
vessels by combining permits for smaller vessels. Regulations at 50 CFR
663.33(g) require the Regional Director, with professional advice of
marine architects and other qualified individuals, and after
consultation with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), to
develop and implement a standardized measure of harvest capacity for
the purpose of determining the appropriate endorsed lengths for limited
entry permits created by combining two or more permits with smaller
size endorsements.
Amendment 6 bases the system for combining limited entry permits in
the Pacific Coast groundfish limited entry fishery on overall length of
the fishing vessel. The standard it sets is that the harvest capacity
represented by the appropriate length endorsement for the combined
permit should not exceed the sum of the capacity of the permits being
combined. As provided by Amendment 6, the standard applies regardless
of the target species being fished, and is equally applicable to trawl,
longline, and fish trap (pot) vessels. As a practical matter, any
system for combining permits must also provide the flexibility for
vessel owners to mix and match permits with a variety of different
length endorsements in order to achieve the desired length endorsement
for a larger vessel. Once the relationship between length and
harvesting capacity is established, a table can be generated that
assigns a certain number of capacity rating points for each increment
of vessel length. This table can be used by vessel owners to determine,
at a glance, how many rating points are needed for any particular
length of vessel (see Table 1 proposed to be added to Sec. 663.33(g)).
Under Amendment 6, only limited entry permits with ``A'' gear
endorsements may be combined, and only permits for the same gear type
(e.g., longline and longline, not trawl and longline) may be combined.
At the April 1993 Council meeting, NMFS circulated a discussion
paper proposing a theoretical approach for combining permits based on
the premise that, within a certain size range of vessels, the larger
the vessel, the greater the harvesting capacity. This relationship was
described by an exponential curve up to a certain vessel length. The
theoretical approach initially put forward stemmed from the generally
accepted premise that the relationship between length, width, and depth
of a vessel is logically related to the harvesting capacity of the
vessel and that, other things being equal, the harvesting capacity
increases or decreases in direct relationship to these measurements.
This relationship was described mathematically as length cubed. The
April 1993 NMFS discussion paper illustrated three different
relationships: length cubed, length to the 2.5 power, and length
squared. At some vessel length, however, it was assumed that the curve
was no longer exponential, because the rate of increase in capacity
begins to slow as vessel length increases. This was assumed because
observed catch rates for vessels above a certain size no longer
appeared to be exponentially greater than the catch rates of smaller
vessels. To illustrate the decline in the increase in harvesting
capacity per increment of length for many larger vessels, the
exponential curves were flattened in several examples between 120 ft
(36.6 m) and 250 ft (76.2 m), at which point the rate of increase
declined to zero.
This theoretical approach was reviewed by the Council, its
Scientific and Statistical Committee and Groundfish Advisory Panel in
consultation with a marine architect at the April 1993 Council meeting.
In general, all groups supported the theoretical approach, but desired
to see it ``reality checked'' with data from actual groundfish
fisheries where, to the extent possible, landings were not artificially
constrained (e.g., by trip landing limits or markets).
Prior to the September 1993 Council meeting, NMFS examined actual
production (catch amounts per time period) of vessels of various
lengths for all three limited entry gear types in a variety of
different fisheries. (Note: Harvest capacity, a physical measure, is
not synonymous with a vessel's actual production. In some cases,
vessels may produce (harvest) very close to their theoretical capacity.
In other cases, factors may exist that act to limit a vessel's ability
actually to produce at physical capacity level. When comparing the
actual production of different vessel classes to the theoretical
capacity curves, it is important to keep in mind that actual production
is often less than theoretical capacity).
In addition to reviewing the data in a graphical format, NMFS
conducted regression analyses using vessel-periods falling in the top
25 percent of landings quantities for a vessel class (highliners).
Highliner landings are significant because they are a measure of the
highest level of actual production that, historically, has been
observed within a particular fishery. Generally, for all three limited
entry gears used by the West Coast shorebased groundfish fleet, the
relationship observed between length and the upper 25 percent of catch
amounts per time period was very consistent with the use of a cubic or
2.5 exponential function of vessel length, for lengths up to somewhere
in the 55-70 ft (16.8-21.3 m) range. Above this range, except for
Alaska freezer longliners (i.e., freezer longliners built primarily for
fishing off Alaska but also fishing off the West Coast), actual catch
rates usually either increased at a much slower rate or, in several
cases, went down. This pattern of landing rates increasing and then
decreasing as vessel size increases was also present in shoreside
longline landings from the Alaskan 1991 groundfish fishery. However,
when Alaska freezer longliner catch rates were included, a 2.5
exponential relationship between length and catch also tracked peak
performance reasonably well for vessels from 120 ft (36.6 m) up to 150
ft (45.7 m). In the ranges from 75-120 ft (22.9-36.6 m) and above 150
ft (45.7 m), no vessels performed up to the level corresponding to a
2.5 exponential function fitted to the peak values in the two other
length ranges.
The only West Coast groundfish fishery in which very large vessels
have participated is the whiting fishery. It is the only fishery in
which motherships (typically supplied with catch by five to seven
trawlers) and factory trawlers (combination harvester/processors) have
conducted operations off the West Coast. The harvesting vessels in this
fishery are typically larger than other groundfish vessels. All of the
factory trawlers were larger than 210 ft (64 m), while more than two-
thirds of the trawlers delivering to motherships were larger than 85 ft
(25.9 m).
The 1991 data for the offshore delivery fleet shows a very gradual
increase in the weekly whiting catch of the top 25 percent of vessels
as vessel length increases. Over a range of vessel lengths from 50 to
150 ft (15.2 to 45.7 m), a 1.5 exponential value produced the best fit
to actual production values. In the factory trawler fleet, there was
even less evidence of a significant upward trend in catches with
increased vessel size. The best fit for a regression using the top 25
percent of the vessel-weeks was obtained using an exponent for length
of roughly 1.2, meaning that the increase in catch was proportionately
not much greater than the increase in vessel size. Review of 1992
production data, as with the 1991 data, showed a slight upward slope to
the factory trawler production values for vessels over 200 ft (61.0 m),
although the actual production values were somewhat higher in 1992.
Within the context of the at-sea whiting fishery, the data show that
any function steeper than a linear function of length is likely to be
adequate to ensure that existing harvesting capacity is not exceeded,
even if permits are combined across the full range of vessel sizes.
The Council's Groundfish Management Team (GMT) reviewed this
analysis prior to the Council's September meeting. There was general
agreement within the GMT that a simple and reasonably safe formula for
combining permits could be created using a 2.5 exponential function of
length, up to 90 ft (27.4 m), followed by a straight-line increase from
that point up to a value equal to 10 times that for a 60-foot (18.3 m)
boat (10 permits endorsed with a vessel length overall of 60 ft (18.3
m)) for vessels 200 ft (61.0 m) in length, or greater. Above 200 ft
(61.0 m) in length, the rate of increase would be zero and no further
accumulation of permits would be required.
Initial Two Alternatives
At the September 14-17, 1993, Council meeting in Portland, OR, NMFS
recommended the formula described below be used to determine the vessel
length rating points for each 1-foot (0.3 m) increment in vessel length
beginning with a vessel length of 20 ft (6.1 m) length overall and
ending with zero rate of increase at a vessel length of 200 ft (61.0
m), which is equal to about 10 times the rating points of a 60-foot
(18.3 m) vessel. The formula was expressed in a form so that vessel
owners could easily consult the table and determine the number of
rating points necessary to achieve any specified vessel length.
Beginning with a vessel length of 20 ft (6.1 m) length overall, the
formula is a 2.5 exponential function up to and including a length of
90 ft (27.4 m), followed by a linear increase from that point up to a
value equal to 10 times that for a 60-foot (18.3 m) boat for vessels
200 ft (61.0 m) in length. Above 200 ft (61.0 m) in length, the rate of
increase is zero and no further accumulation of permits would be
required. For purposes of this rulemaking, use of this formula is
Initial Alternative I.
The Council considered this recommendation and raised several
concerns. Considerable concern was expressed that large (over 200 ft
(61.0 m)), efficient vessels would be able to enter the whiting fishery
by buying up ten 60-foot (18.3 m) permits from vessels that represented
the lowest level of production in the groundfish fishery and had no
previous history harvesting whiting. The vessels that entered the
whiting fishery in this way would represent new harvesting capacity in
the whiting fishery without displacing any real production from the
groundfish fishery. The Council accurately pointed out that experiences
in other fisheries where limited access programs were imposed usually
resulted in those entering the fishery acquiring the necessary permits
from those who value them the least, and therefore are willing to sell
them for the lowest price. In general, this means that owners who have
been sporadic, low-volume participants in the groundfish fishery will
be the first to sell out, whether they sell to someone owning a vessel
of the same size, or one that is larger. The Council was concerned that
the proposal was not sufficiently conservative to prevent overall
harvesting effort and capacity to increase in these cases, especially
through the entry of very efficient larger vessels into the whiting
fishery. Although the concern that potentially high producers will
purchase permits from historically low producers applies for all vessel
lengths, there is greater concern regarding large vessels entering the
whiting fishery because those new vessels may displace existing whiting
harvesting vessels from the whiting fishery into the fishery for other
groundfish species, which already is considered to be overcapitalized.
Another concern raised by the Council was the suggestion that
current production for large factory trawlers reflected only current
conditions, and that large vessels might change their operating
procedures under the limited entry program and become more efficient.
For example, it was suggested that factory trawlers could remove
processing barriers to improved performance by operating in pairs, with
one vessel catching enough fish to feed the processing lines on both
vessels. Another example relates to the fact that harvesting and
processing in the whiting fishery currently is constrained by the
fragile nature and rapid deterioration of the whiting flesh. Vessels
currently harvesting only whiting might, at some point, switch to
groundfish species with less fragile flesh and increase their proven
production significantly.
To address its concerns about insufficient control over the
harvesting capacities of larger vessels, the Council recommended that
NMFS adopt a numerical rating system that extended the 2.5 exponential
curve all the way to 200 ft (61.0 m). Above 200 ft (61.0 m) the rating
would be the rating for a 200-foot (61.0 m) permit, plus 0.9354 times
the difference between the permit endorsement length and 200 ft (61.0
m) (a linear relationship). Under this formula, a 200-foot (61.0 m)
vessel would need to purchase twenty 60-foot (18.3 m) permits and a
300-foot (91.4 m) vessel, twenty-six 60-foot (18.3 m) permits, compared
to ten permits for either size under the initial NMFS proposal. The
Council recommended a linear slope to determine the number of permits
for vessels over 200 ft (61.0 m), reflecting the belief that vessel
owners would not have built vessels greater than 200 ft (61.0 m) if
they did not believe the larger vessels represented increased
production potential. For purposes of this rulemaking, the rating
system is referred to as Initial Alternative II.
Proposed Numerical Rating Formula (NMFS Preferred Alternative)
Upon reviewing the Council's recommendation and its rationale, NMFS
has initially concluded that it exaggerates the relationship between
vessel length and harvesting capacity for vessels over about 150 ft
(45.7 m). Using an average weekly production of 500 mt for catcher
vessels delivering to motherships in the Pacific whiting fishery as a
proxy for the harvest capacity of a 60-foot (18.3 m) permit, under the
Council's recommendation, it would require, for example, the owner of a
200-foot (61.0 m) vessel to purchase 20 permits. This represents
harvesting capacity four times greater than the demonstrated production
of this class of vessel in the Pacific whiting fishery (maximum of
2,500 mt per week), and about twice the demonstrated production of
large factory trawlers in the Alaska pollock fishery (maximum of 5,000
mt per week), which represents the highest production for these vessels
in any fishery. The owner of a 400-foot (121.9 m) vessel would have to
acquire 32 permits from 60-foot (18.3 m) vessels under the Council's
recommendation. This represents harvesting capacity over six times the
demonstrated production of a factory trawler in the Pacific whiting
fishery, and over three times factory trawler production values for the
Alaska pollock fishery.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
TP25FE94.000
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
On the other hand, NMFS agrees that the propensity for unproductive
or marginally productive permits to pass into the hands of efficient,
productive vessel owners should be considered in the formula for
relating vessel length to harvesting capacity. This is true, however,
for all vessel size classes, and occurs both in the transfer of a
permit to another vessel of the same size or in combining permits for
larger vessels. As a result, a reasonable amount of conservatism is
necessary for all size vessels to ensure that the transfer and
combination of permits does not result in an increase in harvesting
capacity in the overall fishery.
Taking the considerations discussed above into account, NMFS has
revised its initial proposal to base the numerical rating system on a
mathematical expression of fishing power that (1) extends the 2.5
exponentially based relationship initially proposed from 90 ft (27.4
m)(initial proposal) to 150 ft (45.7 m); and (2) uses a linear
relationship between 150 ft (45.7 m) and 400 ft (121.9 m) so that 400
ft (121.9 m) in vessel length would require the purchase of twenty 60-
foot (18.3 m) permits.
NMFS recommends no changes for vessel lengths less than 90 ft (27.4
m) because the production data examined for these vessels confirm that
the 2.5 exponential relationship is appropriate for vessels below 90 ft
(27.4 m). NMFS proposes using the 2.5 exponential curve from 90 ft
(27.4 m) to 150 ft (45.7 m) to account for the potential additional
productivity suggested by the higher production figures from the Alaska
freezer longline fleet. The linear relationship between 150 and 400 ft
(45.7 and 121.9 m) increases gradually, as did the production data from
this class of vessels; this linear increase provides the margin of
safety recommended by the Council to account for unproductive permits
being transferred into the hands of productive vessel owners,
especially in the whiting fishery.
For example, under the proposed rule, the owner of a 200-foot (61.0
m) vessel would have to purchase 12 permits representing harvest
capacity about 2.4 times the production values for a factory trawler in
the Pacific whiting fishery, and representing about the same capacity
(1.2 times) as the production values from the largest factory trawlers
in the Alaska pollock fishery. The owner of a 400-foot (121.9 m) vessel
would have to acquire 20 permits representing harvesting capacity about
four times the production of a factory trawler in the whiting fishery
and twice the production of large factory trawlers in the Alaska
pollock fishery. NMFS believes this degree of conservatism is necessary
for vessels larger than 150 ft (45.7 m) to account for the potential
for these vessels to increase their actual production in the future,
and to account for the potential increase in harvesting capacity in the
whiting sector of the fishery due to the combination of permits for
vessels that have no past history in the whiting fishery.
Because no limited entry permits are being issued with length
endorsements of less than 20 ft (6.1 m), the starting point for the
rating table will reflect all vessels of 20 ft (6.1 m) or less length
overall. The ratings table ends at 400 ft (121.9 m) because the
accumulation of a greater number than 20 permits does not appear to be
justified by production data.
The proposed rating formula is shown graphically in Figure 1 of
this preamble and the exact number of rating points for each 1-foot of
vessel length for vessels between 20 and 400 ft (6.1 and 121.9 m) in
length is shown in Table 1 in the regulatory section of this proposed
rule. The proposal is intended to ensure that harvesting capacity
represented by larger size endorsements does not exceed existing
harvesting capacity by relating vessel length to harvest capacity, by
accounting for the propensity of unproductive permits to be transferred
to more productive vessels, and by recognizing the potential for
increased production suggested by the Alaskan freezer longline data,
and the potential for increased production from larger factory
trawlers. The formula is intended to be conservative and also to apply
equitably to all vessel lengths so that it does not disproportionately
affect only larger or smaller vessels. The proposed rating formula
recognizes that smaller vessels appear to produce at a level closer to
their harvesting capacity, while larger vessels, especially 200 ft
(61.0 m) and larger, may produce considerably below their actual
capacity. As a result, the formula reflects that the harvesting
capacity for larger vessels is potentially greater than they have
produced historically.
The following example illustrates how a vessel owner would use
Table 1 to determine the number of permits from smaller vessels that
would be required to be combined for a single permit for a larger
vessel. A vessel owner with a permit for a 58-foot (17.7 m) vessel who
desired to upgrade to a 90-foot (27.4 m) vessel would have to purchase
permits endorsed for the same gear type, with combined rating points
equal to or greater than the difference between the 58-foot (17.7 m)
vessel (14.32 rating points) and the 90-foot (27.4 m) vessel (42.96
rating points), or 28.64 rating points. Using Table 1, the vessel owner
has a choice of a large number of combinations of permits that can be
purchased to achieve the needed 28.64 rating points. Some examples are
a 58-foot (17.7 m) (14.32) and a 60-foot (18.3 m) (15.59) totalling
29.91 rating points, or a 42-foot (12.8 m) (6.39), 50-foot (15.2 m)
(9.88), and a 55-foot (17.8 m) (12.54) permit for a total of 28.81
rating points. In each case, the additional permits can be combined
with the permit from the original 58-foot (17.7 m) vessel resulting in
a single permit endorsed for a 90-foot (27.4 m) vessel. In this manner,
vessel owners are afforded the necessary flexibility to choose from the
different size permits that may be available on the open market to meet
the requirements for a permit for a larger vessel.
Current regulations implementing Amendment 6 already allow vessel
owners to register a permit to a vessel that is up to 5 ft (1.5 m)
longer than the vessel length endorsed on the permit. Thus, vessel
owners seeking to combine permits for use on larger vessels only have
to obtain permits equivalent to the rating points for a vessel 5 ft
(1.5 m) shorter than the vessel to which the single combined permit
will be registered. Therefore, in the example above, the upgrade to a
90-foot (27.4 m) vessel could be accomplished by combining permits with
22.92 rating points (37.24 points for an 85-foot (25.9 m) vessel minus
14.32 points for the owner's 58-foot (17.7 m) vessel). This should
reduce the overall cost of obtaining additional permits somewhat.
For ease of implementation, NMFS proposes to round the sum of the
rating points for the permits being combined to the next highest whole
integer for the purpose of meeting the required number of rating points
listed in the regulations for a larger permit. For example, if a vessel
owner needs 28.64 rating points, but the particular combination of
permits purchased totals only 28.48 rating points, NMFS will round the
sum of the rating points for the permits purchased to 29 rating points.
Because only vessel permits may be combined, rating points gained from
combining permits that are surplus to qualifying the larger vessel for
a combination permit are not available for any other permit
combination. For purposes of this rulemaking, the second NMFS proposal
is referred to as the NMFS preferred approach. Proposed regulatory text
is offered for this approach.
Figure 1 of this preamble graphically compares the differences
between the NMFS initial proposal (Initial Alternative I), the
Council's proposal (Initial Alternative II), and the NMFS preferred
approach. Public comment is invited on all three.
Classification
This notice of proposed rulemaking is issued under 50 CFR part 663.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has initially
determined that the NMFS preferred approach is consistent with the FMP
and the national standards and other provisions of the Magnuson Act.
The NMFS preferred approach or Initial Alternatives I or II, if
adopted, could have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Although the cost to a vessel owner of
purchasing additional permits to combine for use on a larger vessel
would be offset by the greater fishing effectiveness and larger profit
potential represented by the larger vessel, vessel owners may be
adversely affected by not being able to obtain the appropriate
combination of permits or by having increased permit costs due to the
possible absence of permits for sale endorsed with the appropriate
vessel lengths. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
was prepared.
This rule is not subject to review under Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 663
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 18, 1994.
Charles Karnella,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 663 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 663--PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY
1. The authority citation for part 663 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. Section 663.33(g) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 663.33 Limited entry fishery--General.
* * * * *
(g) Combining limited entry permits. Two or more limited entry
permits with ``A'' gear endorsements for the same type of limited entry
gear may be combined and reissued as a single permit with a larger size
endorsement. The vessel harvest capacity rating for each of the permits
being combined is based on the length overall (in feet) endorsed on
each limited entry permit. The vessel harvest capacity ratings (see
Table 1 of this paragraph) for the length endorsement on each permit
will be added to produce the length rating for the larger permit. The
individual harvest capacity ratings for each limited entry permit will
not be rounded before they are combined. The sum of the harvest
capacity ratings for the permits being combined will be rounded to the
next highest whole number.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
TP25FE94.001
TP25FE94.002
[FR Doc. 94-4231 Filed 2-18-94; 4:27 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
