[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