Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 21385

2000. The notification of intent to

participate should identify the

organization the person represents (if

any), the names of all participants from

that organization planning to

participate, and a phone number at

which the registrant can be reached.

FRA reserves the right to limit active

conference participation to those

persons who have registered in advance.

Issued in Washington, DC on April 18,

2000.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Standards and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 00–10043 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 000331092–0092–01; I.D.

030100F]

RIN 0648–AM42

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; License Limitation

Program for the Scallop Fishery

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to

implement Amendment 4 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Scallop

Fishery off Alaska (FMP), which would

create a license limitation program

(scallop LLP) for the scallop fishery. If

adopted, this program would limit the

number of participants and reduce

fishing capacity in the scallop fishery

off Alaska. This action is proposed to

achieve the conservation and

management goals for the scallop

fishery and is intended to further the

objectives of the FMP.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

must be submitted on or before June 5,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed

rule should be submitted to Sue

Salveson, Assistant Regional

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O.

Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668,

Attn: Lori Gravel. Comments may also

be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907–586–

7465. Comments will not be accepted if

submitted via e-mail or Internet. Courier

or hand delivery of comments may be

made to NMFS in the Federal Building,

Room 453, Juneau, AK. Copies of

Amendment 4 to the Scallop FMP, and

the Environmental Assessment/

Regulatory Impact Review/Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/

RIR/IRFA) prepared for the amendment

are available from the North Pacific

Fishery Management Council, 605 West

4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK

99501–2252; telephone 907–271–2809.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gretchen Harrington, 907–586–7228, or

gretchen.harrington@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The North

Pacific Fishery Management Council

(Council) prepared the FMP under the

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Under the

FMP, management of all aspects of the

scallop fishery, except limited access, is

delegated to the State of Alaska (State).

Federal regulations governing the

scallop fishery appear at 50 CFR parts

600 and 679. State regulations governing

the scallop fishery appear in the Alaska

Administrative Code (AAC) at 5 AAC

Chapter 38—Miscellaneous Shellfish.

State regulations establish guideline

harvest levels (GHL) for different scallop

registration areas, fishing seasons, open

and closed fishing areas, observer

coverage requirements, bycatch limits,

gear restrictions, and measures to limit

processing efficiency (including a ban

on the use of mechanical shucking

machines and a limitation on crew size).

The gear regulations limit vessels to

using no more than two, 15–ft (4.5 m)

dredges, except in Cook Inlet (State

Registration Area H) where vessels are

limited to using a single 6–ft (1.8 m)

scallop dredge.

The Council has submitted

Amendment 4 for Secretarial review,

and a Notice of Availability of the

amendment was published March 8,

2000 (65 FR 12500) with comments on

the FMP amendment invited through

May 8, 2000. Comments may address

the FMP amendment, the proposed rule,

or both, but must be received by May 8,

2000, to be considered in the approval/

disapproval decision on the FMP

amendment.

Management Background and Need for

Action

Historic Management of the Scallop

Fishery

The scallop resource off Alaska has

been commercially exploited for more

than 30 years. Weathervane scallop

stocks off Alaska were first

commercially explored by a few vessels

in 1967. The fishery grew rapidly over

the next 2 years with about 19 vessels

harvesting almost 2 million lb (907.2

metric tons (mt)) of shucked meats.

Since then, vessel participation and

harvests have fluctuated greatly, but

have remained below the peak

participation and harvests experienced

in the late 1960s. Between 1969 and

1991, about 40 percent of the annual

scallop harvest came from State waters.

Since 1991, Alaska scallop harvests

have increasingly occurred in Federal

waters. Before 1990, about two-thirds of

the scallop harvest was taken off Kodiak

Island and about one-third from the

Yakutat area, with harvests from other

areas making minor contributions to

overall landings. The increased harvests

in the 1990s occurred with new

exploitation in the Bering Sea. The

fishery has occurred almost exclusively

in Federal waters in recent years, but

some fishing in State waters occurs off

Yakutat, Dutch Harbor, and Adak.

Before the early 1990s, the Council

concluded that the State’s scallop

management program provided

sufficient conservation and management

of the Alaska scallop resource and did

not need to be duplicated by Federal

regulation. The State concurred with

this position under the premise that all

vessels participating in the Alaska

scallop fishery were registered under

the laws of the State and fell under the

State’s management jurisdiction.

Initial Federal Involvement in the

Fishery

By 1992, fishery participants and

management agencies developed

growing concerns about excessive

fishing capacity and exploitation in the

scallop fishery. The Council was

presented with information indicating

that the stocks of weathervane scallops

were fully exploited and that any

increase in fishing effort could be

detrimental to the stocks. Information

indicated that dramatic changes in age

composition had occurred during the

period 1980–1990, with commensurate

declines in harvest. In the early 1990s,

many fishermen abandoned historical

fishing areas and searched for new areas

to maintain catch levels. Increased

numbers of small scallops were reported

in the catch. These events raised

conservation concerns because scallops

are highly susceptible to local depletion

and boom/bust cycles worldwide.

The perceived need to limit access to

the fishery was the primary motivation

for the Council to begin its

consideration of Federal management of

the scallop fishery in 1992. The Council

believed that Federal action was

necessary because existing State statutes

precluded a State vessel moratorium

21386 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

and, at that time, the State did not have

authority under the Magnuson-Stevens

Act to restrict access in Federal waters.

The Council began analysis of a variety

of options for Federal management of

the scallop fishery in Federal waters off

Alaska, and a vessel moratorium was

proposed as an essential element of a

Federal management regime to stabilize

the size and capacity of the scallop fleet

while the Council considered

permanent limited entry alternatives for

the fishery. In September 1993, the

Council tentatively identified its

preferred alternative for a Federal FMP

for the scallop fishery—a Federal vessel

moratorium and shared management

authority with the State. A draft FMP

and analysis were released to the public

in November 1993.

In April 1994, the Council and its

advisory bodies reviewed the draft FMP,

received public testimony, and adopted

the draft FMP for the scallop fishery,

which proposed to establish a vessel

moratorium and delegate most other

routine management measures to the

State. Under the draft FMP, non-limited

access measures would be delegated to

the State based on the premise that all

vessels fishing for scallops in the

Federal waters off Alaska also would be

registered with the State. The Council

recognized the potential problem of

unregistered vessels fishing in Federal

waters, but noted that all vessels fishing

for scallops in Federal waters were

registered in Alaska and that no

information was available to indicate

that vessels would not continue to

register with the State.

Unregulated Fishing and the Closure of

Federal Waters

During the time proposed regulations

to implement the Council’s proposed

FMP were being developed, a vessel,

which was presumed to have canceled

its State registration, began fishing for

scallops in Federal waters in the Prince

William Sound Registration Area. The

State previously had closed these waters

to fishing by State-registered vessels

because the GHL level of 50,000 lb (22.7

mt) of shucked meats had been taken.

The State was unable to stop this

uncontrolled fishing activity due to

uncertainty whether the vessel was

fishing outside State jurisdiction. The

U.S. Coast Guard boarded the vessel in

question and was informed that 54,000

lb (24.5 mt) of shucked scallop meats

were on board. This amount, combined

with the 50,000 lb (22.7 mt) of shucked

meats already taken by State-registered

vessels meant that the State’s GHL for

the Prince William Sound Registration

Area was exceeded by over 100 percent.

On February 17, 1995, the Council

held an emergency teleconference to

address concerns about uncontrolled

fishing for scallops in Federal waters by

vessels fishing outside the States’s

jurisdiction. The Council requested that

NMFS implement an emergency rule to

close Federal waters to fishing for

scallops to prevent overfishing of the

scallop stocks. NMFS approved the

Council’s request and closed Federal

waters off Alaska to fishing for scallops

by emergency rule on February 23, 1995

(60 FR 11054, March 1, 1995).

After the unregulated fishing event

that warranted the emergency rule, the

Council and NMFS determined that the

Council’s draft FMP was no longer

appropriate. As a result, the draft FMP

was not submitted for review by NMFS.

To respond to the need for Federal

management of the scallop fishery once

the emergency rule expired, the Council

prepared a second draft FMP and

adopted it. That FMP was subsequently

approved by NMFS on July 26, 1995.

The only management measure

authorized and implemented under the

FMP was an interim 1 year closure of

Federal waters off Alaska to fishing for

scallops (60 FR 42070, August 15, 1995).

The interim closure prevented

uncontrolled fishing for scallops in

Federal waters while the Council

developed a Federal scallop

management program. The Council

recommended this approach because

the suite of alternative management

measures necessary to support a

controlled fishery for scallops in Federal

waters could not be prepared, reviewed,

and implemented before the emergency

rule expired.

Amendment 1: State-Federal

Management Regime

During 1995, the Council prepared

Amendment 1 to the FMP to replace the

interim closure with a joint StateFederal management regime.

Amendment 1 was approved by NMFS

on July 10, 1996 (61 FR 38099).

Amendment 1 established a joint StateFederal management regime under

which NMFS implemented Federal

scallop regulations that duplicated most

State scallop regulations, including

definitions of scallop registration areas

and districts, scallop fishing seasons,

closed waters, gear restrictions,

efficiency limits, crab bycatch limits,

scallop catch limits, inseason

adjustments, and observer coverage

requirements. This joint State-Federal

management regime was designed as a

temporary measure to prevent

unregulated fishing in Federal waters

until changes in the Magnuson-Stevens

Act would enable the Council to

delegate management of the fishery to

the State. Federal waters were re-opened

to fishing for scallops on August 1,

1996.

Amendment 2: Vessel Moratorium

On March 5, 1997, NMFS approved

Amendment 2 to the FMP, which

established a temporary moratorium on

the entry of new vessels into the scallop

fishery in Federal waters off Alaska.

NMFS published a final rule

implementing the vessel moratorium on

April 11, 1997 (62 FR 17749). To qualify

its owner for a moratorium permit, a

vessel must have made a legal landing

of scallops during 1991, 1992, or 1993,

or during at least 4 separate years from

1980 through 1990. The moratorium

remains in effect through June 30, 2000,

or until replaced by a permanent limited

access system. Eighteen vessel owners

qualified for moratorium permits under

the Federal vessel moratorium.

Amendment 3: Delegate Management

Authority to the State

While the joint State-Federal

management regime established under

Amendment 1 enabled NMFS to reopen

the EEZ to fishing for scallops, it proved

to be cumbersome in practice. Every

management action, including inseason

openings and closures, had to be

coordinated so that State and Federal

actions were simultaneously effective.

State scallop managers were constrained

in their ability to rapidly implement

management decisions because they had

to coordinate each action with NMFS

and provide sufficient lead-time for

publication of the action in the Federal

Register.

The purpose of maintaining duplicate

regulations at the State and at the

Federal level was to prevent

unregulated fishing by vessels not

registered under the laws of the State.

By 1997, the State-Federal management

regime established under Amendment 1

no longer was necessary to prevent

unregulated fishing for scallops in

Federal waters because the Sustainable

Fisheries Act of 1996 amended section

306 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to

provide authority for the FMP to

delegate to the State management

responsibility for the scallop fishery in

Federal waters off Alaska.

Amendment 3 delegated to the State

the authority to manage all aspects of

the scallop fishery in Federal waters,

except limited access, including the

authority to regulate vessels not

registered under the laws of the State.

The final rule implementing

Amendment 3 was published on July

17, 1998 (63 FR 38501). Amendment 3

simplified scallop management in the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 21387

Federal waters off Alaska by eliminating

the unnecessary duplication of

regulations at the State and Federal

levels.

Amendment 5: Essential Fish Habitat

(EFH)

Amendment 5 to the FMP responds to

new EFH requirements of section 303 of

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The notice

of approval of Amendment 5 was

published on April 26, 1999 (64 FR

20216). This amendment describes and

identifies EFH for the scallop fishery,

includes provisions to minimize to the

extent practicable adverse effects on

such habitat caused by fishing, and

identifies other actions to encourage the

conservation and enhancement of such

habitat.

Amendment 6: Overfishing Definitions

Amendment 6, also required by recent

changes in the Magnuson-Stevens Act,

amended the FMP by redefining

overfishing, optimum yield (OY), and

maximum sustainable yield for the

scallop resource. Amendmentse 6 was

approved on March 3, 1999 (64 FR

11390). This amendment improved

management of the scallop fisheries by

providing the tools to (1) prevent

overfishing; (2) achieve OY on a

continuing basis; and (3) minimize

bycatch. Amendment 6 also added

information to the FMP on the State’s

bycatch monitoring and reduction

programs such as at-sea catch sampling,

area closures, bycatch limits, and gear

restrictions.

Amendment 4: License Limitation

Program

The Council adopted Amendment 4 to

the FMP in February 1999. If approved

and implemented as proposed, an LLP

would replace the existing Federal

moratorium program on the entry of

new vessels to the scallop fishery,

which is scheduled to expire on June

30, 2000.

The Council designed Amendment 4

in response to extensive public

testimony that the scallop fishery

suffered from excessive harvesting

capacity. In 1996, members of the

scallop industry submitted a proposal to

the Council for an LLP. Industry

members proposed an LLP to limit

access to the fishery because they

believed that they would suffer

economic hardship if latent moratorium

permits were activated. ‘‘Latent’’

permits refer to permits for vessels that

received a moratorium permit but that

currently are not active in the fishery.

Public testimony indicated that

fishermen could not break even (i.e.,

their average costs of fishing for scallops

would not at least equal their average

gross income from scallops landed), if

the number of vessels fishing for

scallops increased. This conclusion is

supported by the economic analysis in

the EA/RIR/IRFA for Amendment 4 and

is demonstrated by recent participation

in the fishery of an average of nine

vessels since 1995.

Beginning February 1998, the Council

reviewed participation, and other data

from the scallop fishery, considered

public testimony, and developed a

problem statement and alternatives for

analysis of an LLP to replace the

existing vessel moratorium.

The Council developed six

alternatives and two options for the

LLP. These alternatives ranged from no

action to a program that would issue

nine licenses, which is half the number

of moratorium permits. The alternatives

and options are described in the EA/

RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES). Under the

Council’s preferred alternative the

qualification criteria for initial

allocation of licences, if adopted, would

result in a total of nine licenses. The

Council adopted the most restrictive

alternative and options to create an LLP

that would reduce the number of

participants in the fishery and eliminate

growth in harvesting capacity. The

Council’s intention is to reduce effort to

approach a sustainable fishery with

maximum net benefits to the Nation, as

required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

This proposed rule would implement

the Council’s preferred alternative and

options.

Operational Aspects

1. General

The LLP would limit access to the

commercial scallop fisheries in the

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off

Alaska. A qualified person who applies

as prescribed would receive a license(s)

that would authorize that person to

catch and retain scallops. Initial

allocation of licenses would be based on

the eligibility qualifications discussed

here.

2. Nature of Scallop LLP Licenses and

Qualification Periods

A scallop LLP license is a permit that

grants the person named on the license

(i.e., the license holder) the privilege of

catching and retaining scallops in

Federal waters off Alaska. Once initially

issued using criteria discussed here, a

scallop LLP license would be

transferable, subject to NMFS approval,

to an eligible transferee(s). Each license

would specify certain endorsements and

limitations, including the name and

address of the license holder, the

maximum length overall (MLOA) of the

vessel on which the license could be

used, and (as appropriate) limitations on

scallop dredging gear that could be

deployed from the vessel. A scallop LLP

license would represent a privilege (not

a property right) that could be amended

or revoked at any time without

compensation.

A scallop LLP license would be

initially issued to an eligible applicant

who held, on February 8, 1999 (the date

of Council action), either a State or

Federal moratorium permit and who

used the permit to make legal landings

of scallops in the qualifying period. The

qualifying period for the scallop LLP

would be from January 1, 1996, through

October 9, 1998. Legal landings of

scallops would have to be made in at

least 2 of the 3 calendar years during

this period. A legal landing is defined

in regulations (§ 679.2) as a landing in

compliance with Federal and State

commercial fishing regulations in effect

at the time of the landing.

A license would authorize the license

holder to catch and retain scallops in

Federal waters off Alaska. The license

holder could be an individual or a

corporate person consistent with the

definition of ‘‘person’’ in the MagnusonStevens Act, and the license holder

would not be required to be on board a

vessel when it is catching and retaining

scallops. An original copy of the scallop

LLP license would be required to be

onboard the vessel at that time.

Although a scallop LLP license would

not be vessel specific, the length overall

of any vessel that is catching and

retaining scallops under the terms of the

license would be constrained by the

MLOA specified on the license. In

addition, the license would specify any

gear limitations. The license also would

be transferable, subject to NMFS review

and approval of an application to

transfer the license and the eligibility of

the proposed transferee to receive a

license by transfer.

A scallop LLP license would replace

the existing scallop moratorium permit

and would require possession of a

moratorium permit as a criterion for a

license. To qualify for a Federal scallop

moratorium permit, a vessel must have

made a minimum of 1 legal landing of

scallops harvested from any waters off

Alaska during 1991, 1992, or 1993, or

during at least 4 separate years from

1980 through 1990 (§ 679.4(g)(3)).

The State moratorium qualification

period was established either for a

Statewide moratorium permit or a Cook

Inlet moratorium permit. For the

Statewide moratorium qualification

period, a vessel owner must have

harvested and landed at least 1,000 lb

21388 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(0.45 mt) of scallops from State waters

during 1995 or 1996, and during each of

at least 4 years between 1984 and 1996,

inclusive. For the Cook Inlet

moratorium qualification period, a

person must have harvested and landed

at least 1,000 lbs (0.45 mt) of scallops

from Cook Inlet during 1994 or 1996,

and during each of at least 3 years

between 1984 and 1996, inclusive.

The scallop LLP eligibility criteria

that require an applicant to have held a

moratorium permit and to have made

legal landings of scallops during the

scallop LLP qualifying period are

designed to account for past and recent

participation in the scallop fishery. A

key criterion for qualifying for a scallop

LLP license is being named on a State

or Federal moratorium permit. Hence,

persons who were eligible for a vessel

moratorium permit but did not apply or

receive one could not now be eligible

for a scallop LLP license. Also, the

proposed requirement to have an

original scallop LLP license on board

while catching and retaining scallops

would prevent a license holder from

using more than one vessel at once for

that purpose, unless the license holder

was named on more than one license

(see ‘‘ownership caps’’ below).

3. Gear Endorsements

Generally, the proposed scallop LLP

licenses would have no area or gear

endorsements. Scallop LLP licenses

would authorize their holders to catch

and retain scallops in all waters off

Alaska that are open for scallop fishing.

However, licenses premised on the legal

landings of scallops harvested only from

Cook Inlet (State Registration Area H)

during the qualifying period would have

a gear endorsement that would limit

allowable gear to a single 6–foot (1.8 m)

dredge when fishing for scallops in any

area. Otherwise, licenses premised on

the legal landings of scallops harvested

from other areas outside Cook Inlet

during the qualifying period would have

no gear endorsement. Existing State

regulations limit gear size to two 15–

foot (4.5 m) dredges in all other areas.

The purpose of this restriction is to

prevent expansion in overall fishing

capacity by not allowing relatively small

operations in Cook Inlet to increase

their fishing capacity. Persons who

qualified from Cook Inlet scallop

harvests would be allowed to operate in

any area open to scallop fishing.

4. Vessel Length

The length overall (LOA) of a vessel

is defined at § 679.2. Each scallop LLP

license would specify the maximum

LOA (MLOA) of a vessel that could be

used under the authority of the license.

The specified MLOA would be equal to

the LOA of the longest vessel used by

the applicant to make legal scallop

landings during the qualifying years.

The purpose of the MLOA provision is

to restrict growth of harvesting capacity

in the fishery, thus furthering the goals

of the LLP.

5. Harvest Requirements

A legal landing is defined at § 679.2

as a landing in compliance with Federal

and State commercial fishing

regulations in effect at the time of the

landing. Only legal landings of scallops

would qualify the applicant for a scallop

LLP license. To qualify for a scallop

license, the applicant would be required

to have used his/her moratorium permit

on a qualified vessel to make one legal

landing of scallops in each of any 2

calendar years from January 1, 1996,

through October 9, 1998.

6. Scallop LLP License Recipients

A license would be issued only to an

eligible applicant meeting the eligibility

criteria described here. In addition, an

eligible applicant would have to have

been eligible on February 8, 1999 (the

date of final Council action on the LLP),

to document a fishing vessel under

Chapter 121 of Title 46, U.S.C. This law

establishes criteria regarding the

citizenship of a person who may own a

U.S. fishing vessel. The proposed

regulation would require that the same

citizenship standards apply to the

eligibility for a scallop LLP license.

Actual ownership of a fishing vessel

under this statute on February 8, 1999,

however, would not be required.

7. Application Process for Scallop LLP

Licenses

A one-time application period of no

less than 15 days would be specified by

notification in the Federal Register. If

the LLP is approved, NMFS anticipates

that the application period for LLP

licenses will be in May or June of 2000.

All applications for licenses would have

to be submitted during the time period

specified for applying for a license.

Applications postmarked after the

ending date for the application period

would be denied.

To evaluate and verify an applicant’s

eligibility claim, NMFS would compile

an official LLP record for the scallop

LLP containing information on qualified

persons who hold moratorium permits

and used the permits to participate in

the scallop fishery during the qualifying

period. The official scallop LLP record

would contain only complete and

verifiable information that would be

used for the purpose of determining

eligibility for a license, including

information on vessels that participated

in the scallop fishery during the

relevant time periods, vessel ownership,

and the dates, location, and numbers of

qualifying landings of scallops made by

those vessels.

If a scallop LLP application is

submitted during the application

period, NMFS would compare the

claims on the application with the

official LLP record. If the claims on the

application are supported by the

information in the official LLP record,

the application would be approved and,

following the expiration of the

application period, the licence could be

issued. If the claims are not verified

using information in the official LLP

record, the applicant would be so

notified and would be provided 60 days

to submit information (or evidence) to

support the unverified claims. For

example, an applicant could provide

State fish tickets to verify legal landings

not found in the official LLP record. Or,

an applicant could provide a sales

contract verifying vessel ownership.

Unsubstantiated or incompletely

verified claims would not be accepted.

If an applicant demonstrates that the

claims submitted in the application are

correct and sufficient to qualify the

applicant for a license, NMFS could

issue a license to the applicant at the

conclusion of the evidentiary period.

If information in the application is not

substantiated or verified at the

conclusion of the 60-day evidentiary

period, NMFS would issue an initial

administrative determination (IAD)

including reasons why the application

is not accepted. Applicants then would

be provided with an opportunity to

appeal that IAD to the NMFS Office of

Administrative Appeals, under § 679.43.

During the pendency of an

administrative adjudication leading to a

final agency action, NMFS would issue

an interim (temporary, non-transferable)

licence to an applicant who was

authorized to participate in the fishery

in the year before the IAD is issued and

who makes a credible claim to eligibility

under the scallop LLP regulations. A

decision to withhold an interim licence

could be appealed to the Office of

Administrative Appeals. An applicant

who was issued a license the previous

year would be eligible for a nontransferable interim license pending the

final resolution of his or her claim

pursuant to the license renewal

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 558. The nontransferable interim license would

authorize the applicant to catch and

retain scallops and would be effective

until final agency action. At that time,

the person who appealed would receive

either a transferable license, or no

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 21389

license, depending on the final agency

action.

8. Transfer Process for Scallop LLP

Licenses

The transfer process for scallop LLP

licenses would enable a license holder

to request a transfer of an LLP license

to any person (designated transferee)

who meets the eligibility requirements.

Eligibility requirements would include

(1) the designated transferee being

eligible to document a fishing vessel

under Chapter 121, Title 46, U.S.C., (2)

the parties to the transfer having no

fines, civil penalties, other payments

due and outstanding, or outstanding

permit sanctions resulting from Federal

fishing violations, and (3) the transfer

not causing the designated transferee to

exceed a two-license limit contained in

the Council’s preferred alternative (see

‘‘Ownership Caps’’ below).

A complete application would have to

be submitted to the Administrator,

Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional

Administrator) for approval before a

transfer could occur. Application forms

would be available on request. NMFS

would return incomplete applications to

the applicant and would identify

specific information that is necessary to

make the application complete.

Information that would be required in

the application includes (1)

identification information for all parties

to the transfer, (2) identification number

of the license to be transferred, (3)

declaration that the designated

transferee is a U.S. Citizen, (5) a copy

of the contract or sales agreement for the

transfer, (6) other information the

Regional Administrator may require,

and (7) the notarized signatures of the

parties to the transfer.

This proposed rule also would

provide for transfers pursuant to

requests by court order, operation of

law, or the terms of a security

agreement. This provision considers

that some transfers might not be

voluntarily requested by the license

holder. Under those circumstances, the

Regional Administrator would review

the information in the transfer

application or other document and

determine whether the requested

transfer would conflict with other

provisions of the scallop LLP

regulations.

9. Ownership Caps

A person, corporation, or entity

would be prohibited from holding more

than two scallop licenses at one time. A

person who holds two scallop licenses

could not receive an additional scallop

license by transfer until the number of

scallop licenses which that person holds

is less than two.

The two-license ownership cap is

intended to prevent, as required by

national standard 4 of the MagnusonStevens Act, any person from obtaining

an excessive share of harvest privileges

in the scallop fishery. The Council

determined that holding more than two

scallop LLP licenses would constitute

an excessive share in the context of this

relatively small fishery.

Consistency With Section 303(b)(6) of

the Magnuson-Stevens Act

Any FMP or FMP amendment that

establishes a limited access system to

achieve OY must take into account the

factors listed in section 303(b)(6) of the

Magnuson-Stevens Act. These factors

include (1) present participation in the

fishery, (2) historical fishing practices

in, and dependence on, the fishery, (3)

the economics of the fishery, (4) the

capability of fishing vessels in the

fishery to engage in other fisheries, (5)

the cultural and social framework

relevant to the fishery and any affected

fishing communities, and (6) any other

relevant considerations.

The administrative record for the

scallop LLP is replete with examples of

the Council considering the issues

enumerated in the section 303(b)(6)

guidelines. The requirement for a

moratorium permit and the qualifying

period requirement is an example of the

Council balancing present participation

in the fishery and historical practices in,

and dependence on, the fishery. The

Council chose legal landings in multiple

years, 1996 through 1998, as the

qualification for present participation.

The economics of the fishery was

taken into account primarily through

the breakeven analysis. The breakeven

analysis in the EA/RIR/IRFA provides

an estimate of the scallop harvest

necessary to cover annual operating and

fixed costs of typical scallop fishing

vessels and indicates relative

profitability of an average vessel in the

scallop fishery. The analysis

demonstrates that the breakeven point

depends primarily on two factors, the

exvessel price paid for scallops and the

total landings of scallops. Based on the

analysis, the Council estimated that

about nine vessels would be able to

operate in the fishery at the breakeven

level assuming total landings of 1.3

million lb (590 mt) and an exvessel

price of $6.02 per lb. More vessels

would be able to participate at the

breakeven level if harvest quotas or

prices increased and fewer if they

decreased. Recent landings (1996–97)

have been less than the assumed

breakeven volume although the average

price has been slightly higher than the

assumed breakeven exvessel price.

Based on these recent data, only about

six vessels could participate in the

fishery at the breakeven level.

Overcapitalization in the industry and

excessive harvesting capacity is an

endemic condition in many fisheries

that reduces the value of those fisheries

to the Nation and potentially leads to

other biological and efficiency

problems. Authorizing more vessels to

operate in the scallop fishery than could

on average breakeven, arguably would

be authorizing excess harvesting

capacity. The Council took this matter

into account in consideration of the

economics of the fishery. Hence, the

Council’s recommended qualification

criteria likely would result in more

vessels qualified to operate in the

scallop fishery especially in years of low

scallop abundance; however,

significantly fewer would be authorized

under the LLP than under the current

moratorium.

The concern for the capability of a

vessel displaced from one fishery to

enter another fishery is for the

individual owner of that displaced

vessel and not the fishery as a whole.

Most vessels in the scallop fisheries are

unique; making the necessary

modifications to them so that they could

enter other fisheries may be prohibitive.

Some of the vessels that participate in

the Alaska scallop fishery also

participate in scallop fisheries in other

regions of the country. Therefore,

vessels that do not qualify for a license

under this LLP program may qualify for

licenses to fish for scallops in other

regions, such as the Atlantic scallop

fishery.

The Council carefully evaluated the

cultural and social framework relevant

to the scallop fishery, and the impacts

of the scallop LLP on coastal

communities. Public testimony before

the Council exemplified the need for a

limited access program to ensure a

valuable and productive scallop fishery

in the future.

Fisheries Impact Statement

Section 303(a)(9) of the MagnusonStevens Act requires any FMP or FMP

amendment to include a fishery impact

statement, which assesses, specifies,

and describes the likely effects of the

proposed conservation and management

measures on participants in the affected

fisheries, fishing communities, and

participants in fisheries in adjacent

areas.

The scallop LLP would place

limitations on current participants in

the affected fisheries. First, current

participants in the Cook Inlet scallop

21390 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

fishery would be limited to using a

single 6–ft (1.8 m) dredge in all waters.

Second, vessel replacements and

upgrades would be limited by the

MLOA specified on the license. Third,

and most important, current

participants would have to meet the

specific eligibility criteria of the LLP to

receive a license authorizing

participation in the scallop fishery.

Although the scallop LLP would

exclude some current participants who

did not fish during the qualifying

period, these excluded persons could

gain access to the affected fisheries by

obtaining a license through transfer.

Likewise, new entrants into the fishery

can obtain a licence through transfer.

The GHLs for the affected fisheries are

not expected to change if the scallop

LLP were implemented. Implementation

of the scallop LLP also would not affect

fishery product flow, total revenues

derived from the affected fisheries, or

regional distribution of vessel

ownership. The scallop LLP will

ameliorate, but not totally eliminate,

overcapacity, overcapitalization, and

vessel safety concerns perpetuated

under status quo management.

Due to the geographical location of

the affected fisheries, no scallop

fisheries exist in adjacent areas under

the authority of other regional fishery

management councils. However,

participants in fisheries in other areas

could face increased pressures from new

entrants excluded from the affected

fisheries. This increased pressure is

expected to be nominal, in any case,

because of the increasingly small

number of open access scallop fisheries

available in the EEZ off the coast of the

United States. In fact, the scallop LLP is

intended to prevent just the opposite

effect (i.e., a surge of new entrants to the

scallop fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska)

resulting from persons who have been

excluded from fisheries in other parts of

the EEZ.

Classification

At this time, NMFS has not

determined that this proposed rule is

consistent with the national standards

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other

applicable laws. NMFS, in making that

determination, will take into account

the data, views, and comments received

during the comment period.

This proposed rule has been

determined to be not significant for

purposes of E.O. 12866.

The Council prepared an EA/RIR/

IRFA for the scallop LLP, which

describes the management background,

the purpose and need for action, the

management alternatives, and the socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives. It

estimates the total number of small

entities affected by this action, and

analyzes the economic impact on those

small entities as required by the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA

describes the economic impacts this

proposed rule, if adopted, would have

on small entities. A summary of the

IRFA follows:

All fishing operations that would be

affected by this proposed rule are

considered to be small entities. The

proposed rule would apply to any entity

that wanted to fish for scallops after

June 30, 2000. NMFS estimates this

number to be 18. The two principal

impacts on small fishing enterprises due

to this proposal would be an exclusion

of some existing scallop vessels from the

fishery and a limitation on the entry of

new vessels.

The LLP may restrict the ability of

new, small entities to enter the fishery,

although access is not denied because

the licenses would be transferable. New

entrants could purchase licenses,

however, this would increase the entry

costs into the scallop fishery.

Alternatively, small fishing firms

owning non-qualifying vessels may

experience a decrease in value of their

investment to the extent that the vessel’s

opportunities have been limited. The

impact of license limitation is to restrict

the opportunities of some vessel

owners, yet offer a stabilized economic

environment for affected small

businesses that qualify for continued

participation in the Alaska scallop

fishery. The benefits would accrue to

vessels remaining in the fishery by

preventing a further erosion of pervessel net returns and operating

efficiency.

The scallop LLP also would impact

those small entities that only fished

inside of Cook Inlet during the

qualifying period by limiting the size of

dredge the vessel could operate in the

future to a single 6–ft (1.8 m) dredge.

Those small entities could use their

licenses to harvest scallops statewide

and would not be limited to harvesting

scallops in Cook Inlet.

No known Federal rules duplicate,

overlap, or conflict with the proposed

rule. The LLP would supersede the

existing Federal moratorium program

for the scallop fisheries.

This proposed rule would impose

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements on affected vessels by

requiring collection of information

through license and transfer

applications. These requirements are

necessary to provide information to

NMFS for the implementation and

management of the scallop LLP.

The Council considered the following

alternatives that could reduce economic

impacts on small entities.

The Council considered alternatives

ranging from complete open access to a

variety of limited entry programs with

ranges from 9–11 vessels. The

combinations of individual vessels that

would qualify under the alternatives

also varies. The Council also considered

different criteria for area endorsements

that would have resulted in different

vessels gaining access to different

fishing areas. Because this proposed

rule would address allocation of a

limited resource, alternatives that would

minimize economic impacts on any one

small entity would necessarily increase

economic impacts on all other small

entities. The Council’s preferred

alternative to address the

overcapitalized scallop fishery would

affect small entities more negatively

than the alternatives that were not

preferred.

Options for vessel reconstruction and

replacement include:

No restrictions on reconstruction or

replacement; MLOA of 120 percent of

the LOA of the vessel on January 23,

1993; and MLOA of 120 percent of the

LOA of the vessel on which the permit

was used in 1996 or 1997. The Council’s

preferred alternative would not allow

increases in vessel length. The MLOA

would be the LOA of the qualifying

vessel on February 8, 1999, unless the

moratorium permit was used on a longer

vessel in the recent qualifying period, in

which case the MLOA would be limited

to the LOA of the longest vessel used in

the recent qualifying period.

Notwithstanding any other provision

of the law, no person is required to

respond to, nor shall any person be

subject to a penalty for failure to comply

with, a collection of information subject

to the requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA), unless that

collection of information displays a

valid Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Control Number.

This proposed rule contains

collection-of-information requirements

subject to review and approval by OMB

under the PRA. These collection-ofinformation requirements have been

submitted to OMB for approval. Public

reporting burden for this collection of

information is estimated to be an

average of 2 hours per response for an

application for initial issuance, 1 hour

per response for an application for

transfer, and 4 hours per response for an

appeal. These response times include

the time for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 21391

needed, and completing and reviewing

the collection of information.

Public comment is sought regarding:

Whether this proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

the accuracy of the burden estimate;

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information,

including through the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology. Send comments

on these or any other aspects of the

collection of information to NMFS (see

ADDRESSES), and to OMB at the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC. 20503 (Attn: NOAA

Desk Officer).

The President has directed Federal

agencies to use plain language in their

communications with the public,

including regulations. To comply with

that directive, we seek public comment

on any ambiguity or unnecessary

complexity arising from the language

used in this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and

record keeping requirements.

Dated: April 13, 2000.

Andrew A. Rosenberg,

Deputy Asst. Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For reasons set out in the preamble,

50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF

ALASKA

1. The authority citation for part 679

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et

seq., and 3631 et seq.

2. In § 679.1, paragraphs (j)(3) and

(j)(4) are added to read as follows:

§ 679.1 Purpose and scope.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(3) Regulations in this part implement

the license limitation program for the

commercial scallop fishery in the EEZ

off Alaska.

(4) Regulations in this part govern the

commercial fishing for scallops by

vessels of the United States using

authorized gear within the EEZ off

Alaska.

3. In § 679.2, the definition for

‘‘Scallop License’’ is added in

alphabetical order and the definitions

‘‘Eligible applicant’’, ‘‘License holder’’,

‘‘Maximum LOA (MLOA)’’paragraph (1)

and the first sentence in paragraph (2)

introductory text, and ‘‘Official LLP

record’’are revised, and in the

definition‘‘Qualified Person’’, paragraph

(2) is revised and paragraph (3) is added

to read as follows:

§ 679.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Eligible applicant means a qualified

person who submitted an application

during the application period

announced by NMFS and:

(1) For a groundfish license or crab

species license, who owned a vessel on

June 17, 1995, from which the minimum

number of documented harvests of

license limitation groundfish or crab

species were made in the relevant areas

during the qualifying periods specified

in § 679.4(k)(4) and (k)(5), unless the

fishing history of that vessel was

transferred in conformance with the

provisions in paragraph (2) of this

definition; or

(2) For a groundfish license or crab

species license, to whom the fishing

history of a vessel from which the

minimum number of documented

harvests of license limitation groundfish

or crab species were made in the

relevant areas during the qualifying

periods specified in § 679.4(k)(4) and

(k)(5) has been transferred or retained by

the express terms of a written contract

that clearly and unambiguously

provides that the qualifications for a

license under the LLP have been

transferred or retained; or

(3) For a crab species license, who

was an individual who held a State of

Alaska permit for the Norton Sound

king crab summer fishery in 1993 and

1994, and who made at least one harvest

of red or blue king crab in the relevant

area during the period specified in

§ 679.4(k)(5)(ii)(G), or a corporation that

owned or leased a vessel on June 17,

1995, that made at least one harvest of

red or blue king crab in the relevant area

during the period in § 679.4(k)(5)(ii)(G),

and that was operated by an individual

who was an employee or a temporary

contractor; or

(4) For a scallop license, who qualifies

for scallop license as specified at

§ 679.4(g)(2) of this part; or

(5) Who is an individual that can

demonstrate eligibility pursuant to the

provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973 at 29 U.S.C. 794 (a).

* * * * *

License holder means the person who

is named on a currently valid

groundfish license, crab species license,

or scallop license.

* * * * *

Maximum LOA (MLOA) means:

(1) With respect to the scallop license

limitation program, the MLOA is equal

to the length overall on February 8,

1999, of the longest vessel used to make

legal landings of scallops during the

scallop LLP qualification period January

1, 1996, through October 9, 1998,

specified at § 679.4(g)(2)(iii) of this part.

(2) With respect to the groundfish and

crab species license limitation program,

the LOA of the vessel on June 24, 1992,

unless the vessel was less than 125 ft

(38.1 m) on June 24, 1992, then 1.2

times the LOA of the vessel on June 24,

1992, or 125 ft (38.1 m), whichever is

less. * * *

* * * * *

Official LLP record means the

information prepared by the Regional

Administrator about vessels that were

used to participate in the groundfish or

crab fisheries during qualified periods

for the groundfish and crab License

Limitation Program (LLP) specified at

§ 679.4(k) and in the scallop fisheries

during the qualifying periods for the

scallop LLP specified at § 679.4(g).

Information in the official LLP record

includes vessel ownership information,

documented harvests made from vessels

during the qualification periods, and

vessel characteristics. The official LLP

record is presumed to be correct for the

purpose of determining eligibility for

licenses. An applicant for a license

under the LLP will have the burden of

proving that information submitted in

an application that is inconsistent with

the official LLP record is correct.

* * * * *

Qualified Person means:

* * * * *

(2) With respect to the groundfish and

crab species license limitation program,

a person who was eligible on June 17,

1995, to document a fishing vessel

under Chapter 121, Title 46, U.S.C.

(3) With respect to the scallop license

limitation program, a person who was

eligible on February 8, 1999, to

document a fishing vessel under

Chapter 121, Title 46, U.S.C.

* * * * *

Scallop license means a license issued

by NMFS that authorizes the license

holder to catch and retain scallops

pursuant to the conditions specified on

the license.

* * * * *

4. In § 679.4, paragraph (g) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 679.4 Permits.

* * * * *

21392 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(g) Scallop License Limitation

Program (LLP).--(1) General

requirements. In addition to the permit

and licensing requirements prescribed

in this part, each vessel within the EEZ

off Alaska that is catching and retaining

scallops, must have an original scallop

LLP license on board at all times it is

catching and retaining scallops. This

scallop LLP license, issued by NMFS,

authorizes the person named on the

license to catch and retain scallops in

compliance with regulations of the State

of Alaska and only with a vessel that

does not exceed the MLOA specified on

the license and the gear designation

specified on the license.

(2) Qualifications for a scallop LLP

license. A scallop LLP license will be

issued to an eligible applicant who:

(i) Is a qualified person;

(ii) Was named on a State of Alaska

scallop moratorium permit or Federal

scallop moratorium permit on February

8, 1999;

(iii) Used the moratorium permit held

on February 8, 1999 to make legal

landings of scallops in each of any 2

calendar years from January 1, 1996,

through October 9, 1998; and

(iv) Submitted a complete application

for a scallop license during the

application period specified pursuant to

paragraph (g)(4) of this section.

(3) Scallop license conditions and

endorsements. A scallop license

authorizes the license holder to catch

and retain scallops only if the vessel

length and gear used do not exceed the

vessel length and gear endorsements

specified on the license.

(i) An MLOA will be specified on the

scallop license equal to the LOA on

February 8, 1999, of the longest vessel

used to make legal landings of scallops

during the scallop LLP qualifying period

specified in paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this

section.

(ii) If the eligible applicant was a

moratorium permit holder with a

Scallop Registration Area H (Cook Inlet)

endorsement and did not make a legal

landing of scallops caught outside of

Area H during the qualification period

specified in paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this

section, the license will have a gear

endorsement restricting gear to a single

6 ft (1.8 m) dredge in all areas.

(4) Application for a scallop license.

(i) General. The Regional Administrator

will issue a scallop license to an

applicant if a complete application is

submitted by or on behalf of the

applicant during the specified

application period, and if that applicant

meets all the criteria for eligibility in

this part. An application that is

postmarked or hand delivered after the

ending date for the application period

for the scallop LLP specified in the

Federal Register will be denied. An

application form will be sent to the last

known address of the person identified

as an eligible applicant by the official

LLP record. An application form may be

requested from the Regional

Administrator.

(ii) Application Period. For the

scallop license, an application period of

no less than 15 days will be specified by

notification in the Federal Register and

other information sources deemed

appropriate by the Regional

Administrator.

(iii) Contents of application. To be

complete, an application for a scallop

license must be signed and dated by the

applicant, or the individual representing

the applicant, and contain the following

information, as applicable:

(A) Scallop Moratorium Permit

number under which legal landings of

scallops were made during the

qualification period specified in

paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this section;

(B) Name, business address, telephone

number, FAX number, and social

security number or tax ID number of the

applicant, and whether the applicant is

a U.S. citizen or a U.S. business;

(C) Name of the managing company,

if any;

(D) Evidence of legal landings in the

qualifying years and registration areas;

(E) For the vessel(s) being used as

basis for eligibility for a license, the

name, state registration number (e.g.,

ADF&G number), the USCG

documentation number, and valid

evidence of the LOA on February 8,

1999, of the longest vessel used by the

applicant during the qualification

period specified in paragraph (g)(2)(iii)

of this section.

(iv) Successor-in-interest. If an

applicant is applying as the successorin-interest to an eligible applicant, an

application, to be complete, also must

contain valid evidence proving the

applicant’s status as a successor-ininterest to that eligible applicant and:

(A) Valid evidence of the death of that

eligible applicant at the time of

application, if the eligible applicant was

an individual; or

(B) Valid evidence that the eligible

applicant is no longer in existence at the

time of application, if the eligible

applicant is not an individual.

(v) Application evaluation. The

Regional Administrator will evaluate an

application submitted during the

specified application period and

compare all claims in the application

with the information in the official LLP

record. Claims in the application that

are consistent with information in the

official LLP record will be accepted by

the Regional Administrator. Inconsistent

claims in the application, unless

verified by evidence, will not be

accepted. An applicant who submits

inconsistent claims, or an applicant who

fails to submit the information specified

in paragraphs (g)(4)(iii) and (g)(4)(iv) of

this section, will be provided a 60-day

evidentiary period pursuant to

paragraph (g)(4)(vii) of this section to

submit the specified information,

submit evidence to verify his or her

inconsistent claims, or submit a revised

application with claims consistent with

information in the official LLP record.

An applicant who submits claims that

are inconsistent with information in the

official LLP record has the burden of

proving that the submitted claims are

correct.

(vi) Additional information or

evidence. The Regional Administrator

will evaluate additional information or

evidence to support an applicant’s

inconsistent claims submitted within

the 60-day evidentiary period pursuant

to paragraph (g)(4)(vii) of this section. If

the Regional Administrator determines

that the additional information or

evidence meets the applicant’s burden

of proving that the inconsistent claims

in his or her application are correct, the

official LLP record will be amended and

the information will be used in

determining whether the applicant is

eligible for a license. However, if the

Regional Administrator determines that

the additional information or evidence

does not meet the applicant’s burden of

proving that the inconsistent claims in

his or her application is correct, the

applicant will be notified by an initial

administrative determination, pursuant

to paragraph (g)(4)(viii) of this section,

that the applicant did not meet the

burden of proof to change the

information in the official LLP record.

(vii) 60-day evidentiary period. The

Regional Administrator will specify by

letter a 60-day evidentiary period during

which an applicant may provide

additional information or evidence to

support the claims made in his or her

application, or to submit a revised

application with claims consistent with

information in the official LLP record, if

the Regional Administrator determines

that the applicant did not meet the

burden of proving that the information

on the application is correct through

evidence provided with the application.

Also, an applicant who fails to submit

information as specified in paragraphs

(g)(4)(iii) and (g)(4)(iv) of this section

will have 60 days to provide that

information. An applicant will be

limited to one 60-day evidentiary

period. Additional information or

evidence, or a revised application,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 21393

received after the 60-day evidentiary

period specified in the letter has expired

will not be considered for purposes of

the initial administrative determination.

(viii) Initial administrative

determinations (IAD). The Regional

Administrator will prepare and send an

IAD to the applicant following the

expiration of the 60-day evidentiary

period if the Regional Administrator

determines that the information or

evidence provided by the applicant fails

to support the applicant’s claims and is

insufficient to rebut the presumption

that the official LLP record is correct, or

if the additional information, evidence,

or revised application is not provided

within the time period specified in the

letter that notifies the applicant of his or

her 60-day evidentiary period. The IAD

will indicate the deficiencies in the

application, including any deficiencies

with the information, the evidence

submitted in support of the information,

or the revised application. The IAD will

also indicate which claims cannot be

approved based on the available

information or evidence. An applicant

who receives and IAD may appeal

pursuant to § 679.43. An applicant who

avails himself or herself of the

opportunity to appeal an IAD will not

receive a transferable license until after

the final resolution of that appeal.

(ix) Issuance of a non-transferable

license. The Regional Administrator will

issue a non-transferable license to the

applicant on issuance of an IAD if

required by the license renewal

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 558. A nontransferable license authorizes a person

to catch and retain scallops as specified

on the non-transferable license, and will

have the specific endorsements and

designations based on the claims in his

or her application. A non-transferable

license will expire upon final agency

action.

(5) Transfer of a Scallop License. (i)

General. The Regional Administrator

will approve the transfer of a scallop

license if a complete transfer

application is submitted to Restricted

Access Management, Alaska Region,

NMFS, and if the transfer meets all the

eligibility criteria as specified in

paragraph (g)(5)(ii) of this section. An

application form may be requested from

the Regional Administrator.

(ii) Eligibility criteria for transfers. A

scallop license can be transferred if:

(A) The designated transferee is

eligible to document a fishing vessel

under Chapter 121, Title 46, U.S.C.;

(B) The parties to the transfer do not

have any fines, civil penalties, other

payments due and outstanding, or

outstanding permit sanctions resulting

from Federal fishing violations;

(C) The transfer will not cause the

designated transferee to exceed the

license cap in § 679.7(i); and

(D) The transfer does not violate any

other provision specified in the part.

(iii) Contents of transfer application.

To be complete, an application for a

scallop license transfer must be signed

by the licence holder and the designated

transferee, or the individuals

representing them, and contain the

following information, as applicable:

(A) Name, business address,

telephone number, FAX number, and

social security number or tax ID

number, of the license holder and of the

designated transferee;

(B) License number and total price

being paid for the license;

(C) Certification that the designated

transferee is a U.S. Citizen, or a U.S.

corporation, partnership, or other

association;

(D) A legible copy of a contract or

sales agreement that specifies the

license to be transferred, the license

holder, the designated transferee, the

monetary value or the terms of the

license transfer; and

(E) Other information the Regional

Administrator deems necessary for

measuring program performance.

(iv) Incomplete applications. The

Regional Administrator will return an

incomplete transfer application to the

applicant and identify any deficiencies

if the Regional Administrator

determines that the application does not

meet all the criteria identified in

paragraph (g)(5) of this section.

(v) Transfer by court order, operation

of law, or as part of a security

agreement. The Regional Administrator

will transfer a scallop license based on

a court order, operation of law, or a

security agreement if the Regional

Administrator determines that the

transfer application is complete and the

transfer will not violate any of the

provisions of this section.

5. In § 679.7, paragraphs (i)(3), and

(i)(7) are revised, and new paragraphs

(i)(1)(iv) and (i)(8) are added to read as

follows:

§ 679.7 Prohibitions.

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(1) * * *

(iv) Hold more than two scallop

licenses in the name of that person at

any time.

* * * * *

(3) Conduct directed fishing for crab

species without an original valid crab

license, except as provided in

§ 679.4(k)(2)

* * * * *

(7) Lease a groundfish, crab species,

or scallop license; or

(8) Catch and retain scallops:

(i) Without an original valid scallop

license on board;

(ii) Using a vessel with a MLOA

greater than that specified on the scallop

license;

(iii) Using dredge gear contrary to a

gear limitation specified on the scallop

license.

6. In § 679.43, paragraphs (a) and (p)

are revised to read as follows:

§ 679.43 Determinations and appeals.

(a) General. This section describes the

procedure for appealing initial

administrative determinations made

under part 679 of this title.

* * * * *

(p) Issuance of a non-transferable

license. A non-transferable license will

be issued to a person upon acceptance

of his or her appeal of an initial

administrative determination denying

an application for a license for license

limitation groundfish, crab species

under § 679.4(k) or scallops under

§ 679.4(g). This non-transferable license

authorizes a person to conduct directed

fishing for groundfish, crab species, or

catch and retain scallops and will have

specific endorsements and designations

based on the person’s claims in his or

her application for a license. This nontransferable license expires upon the

resolution of the appeal.

[FR Doc. 00–9749 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F