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

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.

ffort 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

atory 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

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

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

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

xed 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

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

e 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

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

oss 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

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

on (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

, 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

uantity 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

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

t 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)

d 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

t. 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

ersons 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.

ctive 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.

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

onomic

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

uced

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

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

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,

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.

* * * * *

rized 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.

* * * * *

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.

ermit 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