Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendments 20 and 21; Trawl Rationalization Program, 78344-78427 [2010-30527]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78344-78427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30527]



[[Page 78343]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 660



Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 
Management Plan; Amendments 20 and 21; Trawl Rationalization Program; 
Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 78344]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 100212086-0532-05]
RIN 0648-AY68


Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 
Management Plan; Amendments 20 and 21; Trawl Rationalization Program

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing Amendments 20 and 21 to the Pacific Coast 
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which were partially approved 
by the Secretary on August 9, 2010. Amendment 20 establishes a trawl 
rationalization program for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. 
Amendment 20's trawl rationalization program consists of: An individual 
fishing quota (IFQ) program for the shorebased trawl fleet (including 
whiting and non-whiting sectors); and cooperative (coop) programs for 
the at-sea (whiting only) mothership and catcher/processor trawl 
fleets. Amendment 21 establishes fixed allocations for limited entry 
trawl participants. This final rule supplements the final rule 
published on October 1, 2010 (75 FR 60868), and provides additional 
program details, including: Program components applicable to IFQ gear 
switching, observer programs, retention requirements, equipment 
requirements, catch monitors, catch weighing requirements, coop 
permits, coop agreement requirements, first receiver site licenses, 
quota share (QS) accounts, vessel accounts, further tracking and 
monitoring components, and economic data collection requirements.

DATES: This rule is effective January 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Background information and documents, including the final 
environmental impacts statements for Amendment 20 and Amendment 21, are 
available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Web site at 
https://www.pcouncil.org/. NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA), which is summarized in the Classification section of 
this final rule. Copies of the FRFA and the Small Entity Compliance 
Guide are available from William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional 
Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., 
Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or by phone at 206-526-6150. Copies of the 
Small Entity Compliance Guide are also available on the Northwest 
Regional Office Web site at https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
final rule may be submitted to William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional 
Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., 
Seattle, WA 98115-0070, and to OMB by e-mail to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamie Goen, 206-526-4656; (fax) 206-
526-6736; Jamie.Goen@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Amendment 20 trawl rationalization program is a limited access 
privilege program under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (MSA), as reauthorized in 2007. It consists of: (1) An 
IFQ program for the shorebased trawl fleet; and (2) coop programs for 
the mothership and catcher-processor trawl fleets. The trawl 
rationalization program is intended to increase net economic benefits, 
create individual economic stability, provide full utilization of the 
trawl sector allocation, consider environmental impacts, and achieve 
individual accountability of catch and bycatch. Amendment 21 
establishes fixed allocations for limited entry trawl participants. 
These allocations are intended to improve management under the 
rationalization program by streamlining its administration, providing 
stability to the fishery, and addressing halibut bycatch.
    The trawl rationalization program is scheduled to be implemented on 
January 1, 2011. Due to the complexity of the program and the tight 
timeline for implementation, NMFS has issued, or is in the process of 
issuing multiple rulemakings to implement this program. The following 
actions are related to the trawl rationalization program:
     A final rule (75 FR 4684, January 29, 2010) which 
announced that potential participants in the program should review and, 
if necessary, correct their data that will be used for the issuance of 
QS, permits, and endorsements. It also established which data NMFS 
would use and requested ownership information from potential 
participants.
     A notice of availability for Amendments 20 and 21 (75 FR 
26702, May 12, 2010).
     A proposed rule (75 FR 32994, June 10, 2010) followed by a 
final rule (75 FR 60868, October 1, 2010) that implemented Amendments 
20 and 21, focused on provisions deemed necessary to issue permits and 
endorsements in time for use in the 2011 fishery and to have the 2011 
harvest specifications reflect the new allocation scheme. In addition, 
the October 1st rule also restructured the entire Pacific Coast 
groundfish regulations at 50 CFR part 660 from one subpart (Subpart G) 
to five subparts (Subparts C-G).
     A correction to the June 10th proposed rule (75 FR 37744, 
June 30, 2010) which corrected two dates referenced in the preamble to 
the proposed rule regarding the decision date for the FMP amendments 
and the end date for the public comment period.
     The Secretary's review of and decision to partially 
approve Amendments 20 and 21 on August 9, 2010.
     A proposed rule (75 FR 53380, August 31, 2010) which 
proposed for implementation on January 1, 2011, additional program 
details, including: Measures applicable to gear switching for the IFQ 
program, observer programs, retention requirements, equipment 
requirements, catch monitors, catch weighing requirements, coop 
permits, coop agreement requirements, first receiver site licenses, QS 
accounts, vessel accounts, further tracking and monitoring components, 
and economic data collection requirements.
     A correction to the October 1st final rule (75 FR 67032, 
November 1, 2010) to make sure the correct trip limit tables for 2010 
remain effective after November 1, 2010.
    This final rule follows the August 31st proposed rule (75 FR 53380) 
and implements additional program components for the trawl 
rationalization program. The preambles to both the June 10th and August 
31st proposed rules provided more details on the program and are not 
fully repeated here. The preamble to the June 10th proposed rule (75 FR 
32994), called the ``initial issuance'' proposed rule because it 
proposed the requirements for initial issuance of new permits and 
endorsements for the trawl rationalization program, provided detailed 
information on the trawl rationalization program and a general overview 
on the provisions in Amendments 20 and 21. In addition, the

[[Page 78345]]

preamble to the August 31st proposed rule (75 FR 53380), called the 
``program components'' proposed rule because it proposed further 
program details for the trawl rationalization program, provided more 
detail on the additional program components being proposed.
    The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) began scoping on 
trailing actions for the trawl rationalization program in the Fall of 
2010 and intends to continue developing trailing actions at its 2011 
Council meetings on topics including, but not limited to: Cost 
recovery, safe harbors/community fishing associations, the severability 
of MS/CV endorsements from limited entry trawl permits, and 
resubmission of Amendment 21 in response to NMFS' partial disapproval.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS solicited public comment on the proposed rule (75 FR 53380, 
August 31, 2010). The comment period ended September 30, 2010. NMFS 
received 15 individual letters of comments on the proposed rule 
submitted by individuals or organizations.
    Some commenters have incorporated by reference previous comments 
submitted during the Council process or on a rulemaking (notice of 
availability 75 FR 26702, May 12, 2010; proposed rule 75 FR 32994, June 
10, 2010; final rule 75 FR 60868, October 1, 2010) for the initial 
issuance of permits and endorsements and the review of Amendments 20 
and 21. Comments presented to the Council are part of the record and 
were considered by the Council during its deliberation. Comments on the 
previous rulemaking were addressed in the final rule for that 
rulemaking.

General Comments in Support and Opposed

    Comment 1. NMFS received multiple comments expressing general 
support for the proposed rule.
    Response. NMFS acknowledges these comments.
    Comment 2. NMFS received multiple comments expressing general 
disagreement with the proposed rule and amendments.
    Response. NMFS acknowledges these comments.

Comments on Implementation of the Program

    Comment 3. One commenter stated that the program and implementing 
regulations should not be effective until January 1, 2012, in order to 
provide sufficient time for the groundfish industry to plan their 
operations under the new regulatory system.
    Response. This program has been developed by the Council and NMFS 
through a public process for over six years, and ample opportunities 
have been provided for input into the design of the program. The 
starting date for the trawl rationalization program was discussed and 
debated on multiple occasions at Council meetings, and based on the 
input from the public, the Council recommended, and NMFS agreed, to a 
target implementation date of January, 2011. NMFS notes the commenter's 
recommendation, but has determined that implementing the program at the 
earliest practicable date best serves the public interest. NMFS 
disagrees that any delay is necessary.
    Comment 4. One commenter described port outreach efforts and a 
workshop undertaken by the organization designed to complement the 
outreach being conducted by NMFS. These outreach meetings and workshop 
are an effort to speed the transition process to the new trawl 
rationalization program and provide fishermen tools for success under 
the catch shares program. Port outreach meetings were held in seven 
ports, with topics covering ways to reduce observer and operating 
costs, managing quota portfolios, establishing a business plan, and 
managing constraining stocks among others. In addition, the two-day 
informational workshop was attended by over 150 fishery participants; 
panels included topics on regulatory requirements; managing risks 
associated with constraining species and modifying fishing behavior; 
approaches for maximizing opportunity; gear modification; handling 
techniques and behavior changes; mapping and ``hotspot'' management; 
trading, tracking, and financing of quota portfolios; strategies for 
minimizing observer and other costs; and strategies for improving 
revenues.
    Response. NMFS appreciates the commenter's outreach efforts. In 
addition to the outreach efforts by outside organizations, NMFS has 
held a series of public workshops along the West Coast during the 
months of September and October, 2010, to assist program participants 
in transitioning to the new trawl rationalization program. Further 
information on NMFS's outreach efforts is described in the response to 
Comment 5.

Comments on the Rulemaking and Trailing Amendments

    Comment 5. Some commenters stated that the complexity of the 
rulemakings for the trawl rationalization program have made it 
difficult to provide meaningful public input.
    Response. NMFS acknowledges that implementation of the trawl 
rationalization program, and associated rulemakings, has been complex. 
However, NMFS has been making every effort to make the implementation 
process as simple as possible and to explain the process in many public 
forums. While the Council developed the trawl rationalization program 
over several years, the Council and NMFS set an implementation date of 
January 1, 2011, giving NMFS and the Council approximately a year and a 
half to develop regulations and fine tune the program. This is a tight 
timeline for such a complex program which would dramatically change the 
operation and management of the trawl sector. Because of the tight 
timeline, NMFS had to split implementation into several rulemakings, 
focused on timing the rulemakings to allow potential participants the 
most time possible for the different phases of implementation given the 
resources available to implement the program. Early in the rulemaking 
process, NMFS brought forward this approach to the Council at their 
September 2009 meeting. In addition, NMFS published a brochure in 
December 2009 which was mailed out to the industry announcing the 
proposed January 1, 2011 implementation, the rulemaking schedule, and 
some additional details on the first rulemaking.
    The first rulemaking, which spanned late 2009 and early 2010, 
announced that potential participants should be reviewing and, if 
necessary, correcting their data before NMFS used the relevant data for 
initial issuance of permits and endorsements (proposed rule: 74 FR 
47545, September 16, 2009; final rule: 75 FR 4684, January 29, 2010). 
NMFS initially announced that corrections should be done by late-May 
2010 and before the initial issuance proposed rule published. NMFS 
later extended the deadline to July 1 in the initial issuance proposed 
rule (75 FR 32994, June 10, 2010) for both the Pacific Fisheries 
Information Network (PacFIN) dataset and for NMFS' Northwest Fisheries 
Science Center's Pacific whiting observer data from NORPAC (a database 
of North Pacific fisheries and Pacific whiting information) (this was 
later changed to August 1, 2010 for NORPAC data through a public notice 
dated June 22, 2010 (NMFS-SEA-10-08)). This first rulemaking also 
required completion of an ownership interest form. The results of these 
forms would be used, in part, to populate the ownership interest forms 
that would be part of the

[[Page 78346]]

application process. This rulemaking laid the groundwork for the 
application process that would take place in the fall of 2010.
    Soon after the final rule published for this first rulemaking, the 
Council began meetings of its Regulatory Deeming Workgroup (RDW), an 
advisory body to the Council. The RDW held several public meetings 
between February and June 2010 to review the regulations that NMFS was 
developing for the program, to work through implementation details, and 
to bring issues forward to the Council, as needed. NMFS updated the RDW 
at all of their meetings on the implementation process and the status 
of the various rulemakings. The RDW meetings generally preceded Council 
meetings. The Council then discussed the rulemakings, including the 
implementation process and schedule, at all of their meetings to date 
in 2010.
    In the spring of 2010, the NOA for both Amendments 20 and 21 was 
published, announcing an open public comment period on the amendments 
(75 FR 26702, May 12, 2010). Shortly thereafter, the second rulemaking 
was initiated that announced the FMP amendments and the initial 
issuance process for certain new permits and endorsements which 
required a more intensive application process, and thus more time for 
implementation. In addition, this rulemaking reorganized the existing 
groundfish regulations to accommodate the new trawl rationalization 
program. Staggered after this second rulemaking was the third 
rulemaking, the subject of this final rule, which announces additional 
program details for January 1, 2011, including: IFQ gear switching, 
observer programs, retention requirements, equipment requirements, 
catch monitors, catch weighing requirements, coop permits, coop 
agreement requirements, first receiver site licenses, quota share (QS) 
accounts, vessel accounts, further tracking and monitoring components, 
and economic data collection requirements. All of these rulemakings 
have described NMFS' overall approach to the rulemakings and 
implementation.
    To provide support and guidance for the public during this process, 
NMFS has provided outreach along the West Coast in September and 
October 2010. These outreach efforts were used to announce the program 
details and implementation logistics, including the rulemakings and 
public comment periods. In addition, NMFS Office of Law Enforcement has 
provided several additional outreach sessions in October 2010 on 
compliance under the program. NMFS has also created a Web site on the 
trawl rationalization program to keep the interested public up to date 
and published and mailed several fact sheets, each focused on different 
aspects of the program. These fact sheets are also available on the Web 
site. Finally, NMFS has mailed and e-mailed several public notices to 
the industry and interested public regarding the trawl rationalization 
program. So while NMFS acknowledges that this has been a complex 
rulemaking, NMFS believes that the agency has made every effort to keep 
the industry and public informed of our approach and aware of the 
rulemaking process.
    Comment 6. One commenter requested that the Pacific whiting season 
start dates for the shorebased IFQ fishery, the mothership fishery, and 
the catcher-processor fishery be revisited under a trailing amendment. 
The commenter explained that separate season start dates between the 
sectors is no longer needed under a rationalized fishery; staggered 
start dates contradict the intent of the program, undermining the goals 
of the program to increase net economic benefits and create individual 
economic stability.
    Response. Start dates for the Pacific whiting season are not part 
of the program components rule. The Council discussed the Pacific 
whiting season start dates at its April and June 2010 meetings, and 
decided not to modify the season start dates at that time. The Council 
will continue to review management measures in the groundfish trawl 
fisheries after implementation of the rationalization program, and 
recommend changes where deemed appropriate. NMFS welcomes and 
encourages public participation in the Council decision-making process 
to address issues such as this.
    Comment 7. One commenter stated that implementing cost recovery 
through a trailing amendment does not allow the public or policy makers 
to know the full economic ramifications of the program. The commenter 
suggested delaying the program until a cost recovery program has been 
developed.
    Response. Although a recommendation was made by the Council, and 
NMFS agreed, that the cost recovery program would be implemented 
through the Council process as a trailing amendment to the program, 
that does not mean that the ``costs'' associated with cost recovery 
cannot be estimated. Under the MSA, as amended, cost recovery 
associated with program implementation is capped, or restricted to 3 
percent of the value of the fishery. This anticipated cost recovery has 
been considered by NMFS in its record of decision. NMFS encourages 
public participation as the Council develops and recommends the cost 
recovery program to be implemented by NMFS, based on those 
recommendations.
    Comment 8. Some commenters stated that community fishing 
associations (CFAs) should be implemented at the start of the program 
rather than as a trailing amendment. One commenter suggests delaying 
the program until CFAs have been developed.
    Response. NMFS acknowledges that there are members of the public 
who feel that CFAs should be implemented at the start of the program. 
Although the Council considered incorporating provisions for CFAs into 
the alternatives early in the development process, no strong 
recommendation or advocacy was voiced by members of the public or 
representatives on the Trawl Individual Quota Committee, which was 
intended to represent a cross section of interests for the development 
of recommendations on structuring the trawl rationalization program. 
Proposals for including provisions for CFAs in the program emerged 
later on, when the Council was at the point of adopting a preferred 
alternative in November 2008, in part tied to the issue of how to deal 
with QS holding in excess of accumulation limits. Further refinement of 
the preferred alternative, which occurred at Council meetings in 2009, 
included additional consideration of CFA provisions. Specifically, at 
the April 2009 Council meeting, Agenda Item F.4 addressed CFAs, and it 
was at this time that the Council concluded that it would be more 
appropriate for CFA provisions to be implemented through a trailing 
action. However, the moratorium on the transfer of QS during the first 
two years of the program, combined with provisions to allow divestiture 
of QS over accumulation limits during years 3 and 4 of the program, 
were designed to facilitate the transfer of QS to CFAs. The moratorium 
is in part intended to slow the movement of QS holdings out of 
communities during a time when the trailing action for CFAs can be 
developed and implemented in a considered fashion. Recommendations for 
how to structure the CFA provisions in a trailing action are welcome 
and should be brought forward as that proposal is developed. The 
Council is likely to begin developing CFA provisions in 2011 so that 
they could be in place before the QS divestiture period begins.
    Comment 9. One commenter stated that the adaptive management 
program (AMP) should be promptly implemented as a trailing amendment to 
address unforeseen impacts, promote

[[Page 78347]]

bycatch reduction, and promote sustainable fishing practices.
    Response. The AMP was established through the October 1st initial 
issuance final rule (75 FR 60868), and consists of two primary phases. 
For the first two years of the program, the 10 percent AMP share is 
allocated to nonwhiting QS owners to ease the transition to an IFQ 
system. The Council and NMFS will be evaluating the changes that will 
occur after implementation, and will then be able to react as necessary 
in the second phase to address specific objectives for the AMP, 
identified on page 402 of Appendix A of the FEIS ``Rationalization of 
the Pacific Coast Groundfish Limited Entry Trawl Fishery.'' This 
interim situation will also allow for some identification of unforeseen 
impacts associated with this program, which will better inform both the 
Council and NMFS in addressing the issues.

Comments on Policies and Legal Standards

    Comment 10. One commenter incorporated by reference comments they 
had previously made on the initial issuance proposed rule and 
Amendments 20 and 21 on National Standards 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8.
    Response. NMFS's responses to comments 56-68 in the final rule to 
initiate implementation of Amendments 20 and 21 (75 FR 60868, 60884-
60887) describe how Amendments 20 and 21, as well as that final rule, 
comply with National Standards 1, 2, 4, and 8. The explanations 
articulated there equally apply to the instant rule. With regard to 
National Standard 6, the commenter does not provide an explanation of 
why either of the rules or the underlying amendments would be 
inconsistent with National Standard 6. Nevertheless, this response will 
address consistency with National Standard 6.
    National Standard 6 states that conservation and management 
measures must: ``take into account and allow for variations among, and 
contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.'' 16 
U.S.C. 1851(a)(6). The National Standard Guidelines further state that 
every effort should be made to develop FMPs that discuss and take into 
account vicissitudes and that, to the extent practicable, FMPs should 
provide a suitable buffer in favor of conservation. 50 CFR 
600.335(c)(2).
    Amendments 20 and 21 are expected to give fishermen greater 
flexibility in determining when and how to fish, thus giving fishermen 
greater ability to respond individually to unanticipated occurrences. 
The AMP will provide additional management flexibility and will 
facilitate response to unanticipated circumstances. Thus, these 
amendments and the program components implemented through this rule are 
consistent with National Standard 6.
    Comment 11. One commenter stated that the program is inconsistent 
with National Standards 5 and 8 of the MSA.
    Response. As described in NMFS's response to comment 62 in the 
final rule to initiate implementation of Amendments 20 and 21 (75 FR 
60868, 60885), Amendments 20 and 21 were designed to achieve multiple 
objectives and are consistent with National Standard 5. NMFS has 
determined that this rule to implement certain components of those 
amendments is consistent with National Standard 5 for the reasons 
stated in that previous preamble. NMFS's responses to comments 64-67 in 
the final rule to initiate implementation of Amendments 20 and 21 (75 
FR 60868, 60886) explain how Amendments 20 and 21 are consistent with 
National Standard 8. NMFS has determined that this rule to implement 
certain components of those amendments is consistent with National 
Standard 8 for the reasons stated in that previous preamble. See also 
responses to comments in the FEIS for Amendment 20, particularly 
responses to comments 108 and 109.
    Comment 12. One commenter stated that the program should be revised 
to fully retain public control over our public fisheries resources and 
indicated that the statements in the regulations and Amendments that 
NMFS retains the right to modify, revoke, or suspend altogether the 
catch share system are not enough.
    Response. Congress, NMFS, and the Council have been clear and 
explicit that in a limited access privilege program, what is being 
granted is a privilege that is modifiable and revocable at any time 
without compensation to the privilege holder (see Section A-2.3.4 of 
the EIS). NMFS's responses to comments in the FEIS for Amendment 20, 
particularly responses to comments 86 and 87, provide further 
discussion on this issue and are not repeated here. In addition, the 
regulations at Sec. Sec.  660.25 and 660.100 clearly state that any 
permits, endorsements, or amounts of harvest from the trawl 
rationalization program are a privilege that may be revoked, limited, 
or modified at any time.

Comments on Program Costs, Community Impacts, and the Burden on Small 
Businesses

    Comment 13. Some commenters stated NMFS should minimize and 
mitigate impacts on small businesses and small communities; the program 
should not benefit large businesses at the expense of small businesses. 
One commenter stated that the burden of paperwork and costs of the 
program would be too much for small businesses and small communities 
and requested that the paperwork burden be streamlined.
    Response. NMFS responded to similar comments in the October 1st 
final rule (75 FR 60868) about the impacts on small businesses. In 
particular, concerns were raised about negative impacts on deckhands 
and smaller boats; that program costs to fishermen, including the costs 
of entering the fishery and the costs of observers and monitoring are 
too high; that observer rules need to change for trawl and small boats 
to reflect the vastly different bycatch which occurs when mistakes are 
made; about the impact of the allocation formulas on Fort Bragg 
fishermen; concern that average fishermen will not be able to afford to 
participate and that this could lead to increased consolidation and 
leave many ports no longer viable; about negative impacts on 
processors, that small processors will be driven out of business due to 
consolidation; and that it will eliminate the ``mom and pop 
businesses.''
    NMFS has responded to these comments in detail in the October 1st 
initial issuance final rule (75 FR 60868). That response is applicable 
to the comments associated with this rule. In terms of impacts on small 
businesses, the trawl rationalization program is intended to increase 
net economic benefits, create economic stability, provide full 
utilization of the trawl sector allocation, consider environmental 
impacts, and promote conservation through individual accountability for 
catch and bycatch. The allocations of quota under the new program do 
not differ significantly from status quo allocations made biennially in 
terms of total allocations. However, instead of fleetwide quotas, there 
will now be individual allocations of quota shares and quota pounds to 
permit owners. Allocations of overfished species constrain all 
groundfish fishermen, for both large and small operations. In some 
cases, smaller operators may be constrained to a greater extent. This 
was recognized in development of the program, and operators are 
encouraged to work together cooperatively, through mechanisms like 
combining and sharing quota amounts. The program provides for leasing 
of additional quota as needed to facilitate operations. The program 
includes provisions that would have a beneficial impact on small 
entities. It

[[Page 78348]]

would create a management program under which most recent participants 
in the Pacific Coast groundfish limited entry trawl fishery (many of 
which are small entities) would be eligible to continue participating 
in the fishery and under which the fishery itself would experience an 
increase in economic profitability. Small entities choosing to exit the 
fishery should receive financial compensation from selling their permit 
or share of the resource. To prevent a particular individual, 
corporation, or other entity from acquiring an excessive share of the 
total harvest privileges in the program, accumulation limits would 
restrict the amount of harvest privileges that can be held, acquired, 
or used by individuals and vessels. In addition, for the shoreside 
sector of the fishery, an AMP was created to mitigate any adverse 
impacts, including impacts on small entities and communities that might 
result from the program.
    It is expected that the shorebased IFQ fishery will lead to 
consolidation and this may affect small processors, particularly if 
they are in disadvantaged ports. Chapter 4 of the Amendment 20 FEIS 
analyzed the effects on processors from various perspectives: The 
distribution of landings across west coast ports may change as a result 
of fleet consolidation, industry agglomeration, and the comparative 
advantage of ports (a function of bycatch rates in the waters 
constituting the operational area for the port, differences in 
infrastructure, and other factors). In particular, the Council analysis 
indicated that processors associated with disadvantaged communities may 
see trawl groundfish volumes decline. The analysis highlights that 
those processors receiving landings from Central California or Neah Bay 
may see a reduction in trawl caught groundfish if the market is able to 
redirect activity toward more efficient and advantaged ports. However, 
in addition to increased landings that are expected to result from the 
IFQ program, small processors and disadvantaged communities may benefit 
from the control limits, vessel limits, and adaptive management 
policies. Control limits will limit the ability of large processors to 
obtain shares of the fisheries while the AMP processes will allow the 
Council to consider the impacts on small processors and disadvantaged 
communities when allocating the AMP quota (10 percent of the total non-
whiting trawl quotas). Although vessel accumulation limits tend to 
lower economic efficiency and restrict profitability for the average 
vessel, they could help retain vessels in communities because more 
vessels would remain.
    Another process by which small processors and disadvantaged 
communities may benefit will be the future development of CFAs. Some of 
the potential benefits of CFAs include: Ensuring access to the fishery 
resource in a particular area or community to benefit the local fishing 
economy; enabling the formation of risk pools and sharing monitoring 
and other costs; ensuring that fish delivered to a local area will 
benefit local processors and businesses; providing a local source of 
QSs for new entrants and others wanting to increase their participation 
in the fishery; increasing local accountability and responsibility for 
the resource; and benefiting other providers and users of local fishery 
infrastructure.
    In summary, the major impacts of this rule appear to be on 
shoreside processors which are a mix of large and small processors, and 
on shorebased trawlers which are also a mix of large and small 
companies. The non-whiting shorebased trawlers are currently operating 
at a loss or at best are ``breaking even.'' The new rationalization 
program would lead to profitability, but with a reduction of about 50 
percent of the fleet. This program would lead to major changes in the 
fishery. To help mitigate against these changes, as discussed above, 
the agency has announced its intent, subject to available Federal 
funding, that participants would initially be responsible for 10 
percent of the cost of hiring observers and catch monitors. The 
industry proportion of the costs of hiring observers and catch monitors 
would be increased every year so that by 2014, once the fishery has 
transitioned to the rationalization program, the industry would be 
responsible for 100 percent of the cost of hiring the observers and 
catch monitors. NMFS believes that an incrementally reduced subsidy to 
industry funding would enhance the observer and catch monitor program's 
stability, ensure 100 percent observer and catch monitor coverage, and 
facilitate the industries' successful transition to the new quota 
system. In addition, to help mitigate against negative impacts of this 
program, the Council has adopted an AMP where starting in year 3 of the 
program, 10 percent of non-whiting QS would be set aside every year to 
address community impacts and industry transition needs. After 
reviewing the initial effects of IFQ programs in other parts of the 
world, the Council had placed a short term QS trading prohibition so 
that fishermen can learn from their experiences and not make premature 
sales of their QS. The Council is also envisioning future regulatory 
processes that would allow community fisheries associations to be 
established to help aid communities and fishermen.
    NMFS has taken a hard look at the reporting burdens of the program 
and, given the program requirements, reduced the burden on small 
businesses to the extent possible. For instance, in the IFQ fishery, 
transactions for QS accounts and vessel accounts will be done online, 
reducing the paperwork burden. The QS permit renewal process will be 
the same as the current limited entry permit renewal process and during 
the same time period because initially most QS permit owners would 
already be familiar with the limited entry permit renewal process. 
Similarly, in the mothership sector, the MS/CV-endorsed permit renewal 
will be combined with their declaration of intent to obligate to a 
mothership processor so that both are done on the same form at the same 
time. To the extent possible, NMFS will send out permit renewal forms 
and other associated forms, such as the ownership interest form, pre-
filled to reduce the burden on respondents. For the EDC, the survey 
design has sought to avoid duplication of data collection, and was 
developed from meetings with industry participants to discuss making 
survey questions easily understandable and consistent with the record 
keeping practices of survey respondents to reduce the burden on 
respondents. For the trawl monitoring requirements, NMFS has reduced 
the burden of the catch monitoring plans for first receivers by only 
requiring essential information needed to assure adequate catch 
accounting. To reduce the burden of requiring electronic fish tickets, 
fish ticket software will be provided at no cost, and will use a 
standard operating system and common software already owned by most 
businesses; fish ticket software will be compatible with the existing 
fish ticket requirements in each of the three states; and the software 
can be used to print a paper copy for submission to the state, when 
state law allows. To reduce costs, NMFS has determined that a person 
certified as both an observer and a catch monitor can serve in both 
capacities, within limitations on hours worked. After consideration of 
all these efforts and the requirements of the program, NMFS has 
determined that the remaining reporting requirements are necessary.
    Comment 14. One commenter expressed concerns that the inequitable 
distribution of overfished species QS, such as Canary Rockfish, 
disproportionately impacts California,

[[Page 78349]]

while favoring Washington and Oregon; that the program should not 
result in an unfair allocation between the states; and that the program 
should be designed to result in an even consolidation between states 
and between the sectors (non-whiting shorebased IFQ, whiting shorebased 
IFQ, mothership sector, and catcher/processor sector).
    Response. With respect to the effects on the States including 
industry consolidation effects, NMFS acknowledges that this program may 
have different impacts on different states and on different 
communities. As mentioned above, one of the potential purposes of the 
AMP is to address differential impacts upon communities and thus the 
states. National Standard 4 requires that when it becomes necessary to 
allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States 
fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) Fair and equitable to all such 
fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) 
carried out in such a manner that no particular individual, 
corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such 
privileges. The National Standard 4 guidelines at Sec.  
600.325(c)(3)(i)(B) state that: ``An allocation of fishing privileges 
may impose a hardship on one group if it is outweighed by the total 
benefits received by another group or groups. An allocation need not 
preserve the status quo in the fishery to qualify as fair and 
equitable, if a restructuring of fishing privileges would maximize 
overall benefits. The Council should make an initial estimate of the 
relative benefits and hardships imposed by the allocation, and compare 
its consequences with those of alternative allocation schemes, 
including the status quo.''
    Thus, the Councils are given wide latitude to determine what is 
equitable within a particular fishery and to create the appropriate 
management measures to accomplish the goals of an FMP. The issue of 
allocation of overfished species was addressed extensively in the 
response to comments in the October 1st final rule. (75 FR 60868, 
comments 29 and 31.) Generally speaking, the Council evaluated the 
impacts of its allocation decisions and adequately determined that, 
after weighing the costs and benefits of its proposed scheme, the 
allocations selected were to the overall benefit of the fishery and its 
participants.
    Comment 15. One commenter stated that NMFS has not adopted criteria 
for participation in CFAs as required by law and improperly excluded 
CFAs from initial allocations. The commenter further stated that the 10 
percent set aside for the AMP would not be enough to meet the needs of 
CFAs, smaller vessels idled by the program, processors, or new 
entrants. Another commenter stated that the 10 percent set aside for 
the AMP should be used to mitigate transition impacts and be used as an 
incentive pool for conservation results and to improve the program.
    Response. NMFS responded to a similar comment in the October 31st 
final rule (75 FR 60868, comment 41) which is incorporated here by 
reference. NMFS disagrees that communities have been excluded from 
initial allocations. Communities have not been precluded from acquiring 
groundfish limited entry trawl permits, which would make them eligible 
for the initial allocation of QS associated with a permit. 
Additionally, the Council's preferred alternative includes a very broad 
definition of who may own quota shares, so communities are not 
precluded from acquiring quota once the program is implemented. Just as 
non-trawl fishermen currently need to obtain a trawl-endorsed limited 
entry permit to participate in the trawl fishery, under the trawl catch 
shares program, a trawl permit and quota pounds is all that is needed 
to participate.
    NMFS also disagrees with the statement that the Council and NMFS 
did not follow the law with regard to CFAs. NMFS created the trawl 
rationalization program, including allocation to an AMP, consistent 
with the MSA and with communities in mind. The trawl catch shares 
program includes several ways to participate beyond the initial 
issuance of quota share. The AMP specifically reserves 10 percent of 
the non-whiting shoreside quota share to allocate in such a manner as 
to promote a wide range of important objectives, beginning with year 3 
of the program. The objectives for this program are: Community 
stability, processor stability, conservation, unintended/unforeseen 
consequences of IFQ management, and facilitation of new entrants. NMFS 
agrees with the commenter's statement that the 10 percent set aside for 
the AMP should be used to mitigate transition impacts. During the first 
2 years of the program, the AMP will help mitigate transition impacts 
by distributing the resulting to QP to trawlers with non-whiting QS to 
help them as they adjust to the new program, begin to work together and 
pool their resources, and adjust to new costs. In ongoing years, the 
AMP will help mitigate impacts of the program and promote conservation 
following the objectives for the AMP stated above.
    In addition to the AMP, the Council is also developing provisions 
for community involvement through CFAs as a trailing amendment. The 
trawl catch shares program includes a moratorium on the transfer of 
quota share during the first two years of the program (quota pounds 
will be able to be transferred during the moratorium), combined with 
provisions to require divestiture of quota share over accumulation 
limits during years 3 and 4 of the program. The moratorium is in part 
intended to slow the movement of quota share holdings out of 
communities during a time when the trailing action for community 
fishing associations can be developed and implemented in a considered 
fashion. Recommendations for how to structure the CFA provisions in a 
trailing action are welcome and should be brought forward as that 
proposal is developed by the Council. Moreover, the Council 
specifically acknowledged flexibility to adapt to changing 
circumstances, including provisions for a comprehensive review of the 
program that includes a community advisory committee, to evaluate 
effectiveness in relation to the original program goals and objectives, 
scheduled for year five of the program. The trawl rationalization 
program has addressed and continues to address directly these issues 
and ways to improve the program.
    Comment 16. One commenter stated that the rapid increase in value 
of QS and QP will make it hard for communities and CFAs to participate 
in the program. The commenter further stated that NMFS' new measure to 
allow limited entry trawl permit transfers during a window of time 
before the permit and endorsement application period will foster quick 
inflation of QS value.
    Response. NMFS appreciates the commenter's insight into the value 
of QS based on NMFS providing a window of opportunity for limited entry 
permit transfers before the permit and endorsement application period. 
NMFS' intent in providing this window in the October 31st initial 
issuance final rule (75 FR 60868) was solely to provide some additional 
flexibility for potential participants in the program in making their 
business decisions before being locked into their business arrangement 
for the next 2 years. As stated in the preamble to the final initial 
issuance rule, NMFS believes this change is consistent with the 
Council's intent to provide an opportunity for entry level participants 
to obtain a qualifying trawl limited entry permit prior to initial 
issuance with reasonable certainty of anticipated QS that would be 
issued on the basis of that permit. Further, for

[[Page 78350]]

permit owners that have qualifying history that would exceed control 
limits, this change will provide an opportunity to divest permits prior 
to calculation of QS and any redistribution of QS.

Comments on the Observer and Catch Monitor Programs

    Comment 17. Some commenters stated that alternatives should be 
explored to reduce the industry and taxpayer costs of the program, such 
as not requiring the industry to pay for observer (i.e., the government 
should pay as part of its enforcement mandate), requiring less than 100 
percent observer coverage, allowing the use of cameras, or measures to 
reduce observer costs below $350-500 per day. Another commenter agreed 
with NMFS that an observer can also be a catch monitor to reduce costs 
but also to gain data tracking efficiencies. A third commenter stated 
support for 100 percent observer coverage and rigorous observer and 
catch monitor training requirements.
    Response. Less than 100 percent observer coverage and the use of 
cameras to supplement or substitute for observer coverage were 
considered by the Council during the program's development, but were 
rejected. Full and independent accountability of all catch is key to 
the success of the catch shares program especially programs using 
individual fishing quotas. NMFS has recognized the increased costs to 
the industry and is therefore planning to subsidize the cost of 
observer coverage for at least the first year, subject to 
appropriations (see response to Comment 22). The defraying of cost via 
this subsidy will give the fleet time to develop cost cutting measures 
with other industry members in their port and with the observer 
provider companies. NMFS recognizes the importance of reigning in costs 
to the industry and the public and will continue to investigate and 
implement efficiencies when practical. One such efficiency is that a 
person can be trained and certified as both an observer and as a catch 
monitor. That person could act in both capacities even for the same 
vessel's offload, subject to maximum work hour requirements and other 
limitations, which may provide some cost savings.
    Comment 18. The Pacific Fishery Management Council commented in 
agreement with the conflict of interest regulations as proposed by NMFS 
under Alternative 2 for the observer and catch monitor regulations. 
Another commenter supported rigorous conflict of interest provisions.
    Response. In the August 31st proposed rule (75 FR 53380), NMFS 
provided two alternative sections addressing conflict of interest 
provisions applicable to observers and catch monitors; Alternative 1 
provided provisions as deemed by the Council, Alternative 2 presented 
the NMFS-proposed language. NMFS provided its rationale for the NMFS-
proposed alternative in the proposed rule, and explained that the NMFS-
proposed conflict of interest provisions are consistent with existing 
language in NMFS policy statement 04-109-01 and current standards in 
the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program. NMFS specifically requested 
comment on which provisions to include in the final rule and NMFS 
received no comments in disagreement with the NMFS-proposed alternative 
included in the final rule.
    Comment 19. One commenter stated that Morro Bay, California, will 
not have enough trawlers to support a catch monitor.
    Response. NMFS responded to a similar comment regarding costs of 
monitoring in the October 31st final rule (75 FR 60873, comment 22). As 
stated in the response to the prior comment: ``Analyses indicate that 
the program benefits will outweigh the program costs. The EIS 
anticipates that the value of the fishery will increase through a 
variety of mechanisms, including increased efficiency of existing 
vessels, the transfer of effort to the most efficient vessels, and 
increased retention of target species. The program includes 
opportunities for adaptive management if actual impacts differ from 
projected impacts. [* * *] To aid the fishing industry during the 
transition to a rationalized fishery, the agency has announced its 
intent, subject to available Federal funding, to cover a portion of the 
initial cost of hiring observers and catch monitors. As stated by the 
agency, participants would initially be responsible for 10 percent of 
the cost of hiring observers and catch monitors, with that amount 
increased every year so that by 2014, the industry would be responsible 
for 100 percent of the cost of hiring the observers and catch 
monitors.''
    Landings monitoring is an essential component to the 
rationalization program developed by the Council. Thus, industry 
members and catch monitor providers need to work together to resolve 
local implementation issues such as the development of cost-effective 
deployment of catch monitors in Morro Bay. One potential solution 
provided for in this final rule would be to contract with providers for 
the services of observers that are also certified as catch monitors. 
Such ``dual certified'' observers, which would already be on board the 
vessel participating in the Shorebased IFQ Program, could assume the 
catch monitor role for the IFQ first receiver. Coordination between the 
fishing vessel, the IFQ first receiver, and the observer/catch monitor 
provider will help alleviate concerns of program costs under 
circumstances such as those presented at Morro Bay. NMFS anticipates 
that further opportunities to reduce costs will develop with experience 
under the program. See also the response to Comment 20.
    Comment 20. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) commented 
that it supports an ongoing dialogue with NMFS and the states about the 
use of state employees as observers or catch monitors within the trawl 
rationalization program, provided that such dialogue includes a 
mechanism to reimburse the states for the use of state employees.
    Response. NMFS acknowledges the comment and plans to continue its 
dialogue with the states regarding the use of state employees as 
observers and/or catch monitors. Initial discussions conducted thus far 
indicate that the states are interested in providing some catch monitor 
services. If state employees serve as catch monitors, NMFS anticipates 
that reimbursement for costs associated with such services would be a 
component of legal contracts entered into between the states and the 
IFQ first receivers or vessels to which the states provide services. 
NMFS looks forward to continued discussions with the states to support 
coordination of the trawl rationalization program with state employees.
    Comment 21. Some commenters asked for clarification of the terms, 
``authorized officer,'' ``authorized person,'' and ``NMFS staff'' with 
regard to the catch monitor and observer regulations. One commenter 
stated that persons authorized access to first receiver facilities 
should include state-authorized employees, both law enforcement and 
non-law enforcement, and Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 
staff. Both of these types of personnel are involved in the monitoring 
and enforcement of the groundfish fishery. The commenter also noted 
inconsistent use of the terms ``authorized officer'' and ``authorized 
person'' in the regulations and recommended a consistent and 
encompassing use of the term ``authorized person.'' Another commenter 
asked that the term ``NMFS staff'' be defined and should be more

[[Page 78351]]

narrow than any employee of NMFS. The commenter suggested a definition.
    Response. NMFS appreciates the comments and how they highlight the 
variety of management and enforcement persons that are involved in the 
program. However, NMFS disagrees that further definitions are necessary 
at this time. NMFS believes that the current use of the terms is 
appropriate and serves to distinguish the different persons that must 
have access to, or accomplish other duties in connection to program 
management and enforcement. ``Authorized officer'' is a term already 
defined under the MSA in regulations found at 50 CFR part 600. The term 
is focused exclusively on enforcement officers, both state and Federal, 
and includes NOAA agents and officers, state officers acting under a 
JEA with NOAA and USCG boarding officers. This term is important for 
use involving inspection and enforcement activities. ``Authorized 
person'' is not defined but was included to identify persons other than 
enforcement officers and NMFS staff who are authorized to conduct 
duties related to the program. The term includes catch monitors as they 
are not NMFS staff, but are employees of contractors. These persons 
have authority to conduct duties pursuant to the program regulations. 
NMFS staff are those persons who have authority to conduct duties under 
the program regulations, as well. As for state employees, these persons 
have independent authority under state laws to enter the facility and 
do their jobs.
    Comment 22. One commenter asked if NMFS' offer to cover up to 90 
percent of the costs of the observer program during the first year of 
the program was for all sectors of the fishery, or only the Shorebased 
IFQ Program.
    Response. There is no assurance or guarantee that NMFS will provide 
funding, as the funding depends on Congressional appropriation. 
However, assuming that an appropriation is made and those funds are 
made available to the program and not otherwise restricted, NMFS NWR 
would apply these funds to help defray both the observer and catch 
monitor program costs. Further, NMFS would make the funds available to 
all three sectors (MS, C/P, and Shorebased) not just the Shorebased IFQ 
program.
    Comment 23. One commenter suggested that language on the catch 
monitor program stating that ``monitors have access to telephone lines 
during the times that Pacific whiting was being processed'' may be an 
artifact of previous regulations for catch monitors. The commenter 
suggested that NMFS re-examine whether this language should apply to 
more species than Pacific whiting.
    Response. NMFS agrees with the comment and, upon further review, 
has determined that this requirement is no longer necessary. The 
commenter was correct that catch monitors may need access to more 
species that just Pacific whiting for the Shorebased IFQ Program. In 
addition, any phone may be used, a cell phone or a telephone. However, 
the IFQ first receiver will not have to provide catch monitors with 
access to a phone while IFQ species are being processed. That is the 
responsibility of the catch monitor provider as stated at Sec.  
660.17(e)(8)(i)(A). NMFS is removing this language from the IFQ first 
receiver responsibilities at Sec.  660.140(i)(4). See the section on 
``Changes from the Proposed Rule.''

Comments on the Economic Data Collection (EDC) Program

    Comment 24. Some commenters stated that the economic data 
collection questionnaire was too detailed and burdensome for small 
businesses. One of those commenters suggested that if it is an annual 
questionnaire, it should be simplified to collect only crucial 
information. If the detailed questionnaire is continued, it should be 
collected periodically, not annually. Another commenter stated that the 
EDC program is too narrow and will not capture the effects of the trawl 
rationalization program on jobs, businesses, and communities.
    Response. In developing the trawl catch share program, NMFS is 
striking a balance. NMFS believes the importance and benefits of this 
program outweighs the burden on small businesses. The statute 
authorizing LAP programs such as this, Section 303A of the MSA, 
requires periodic reviews. In order to do that, NMFS must collect both 
baseline and annual information to judge the effectiveness of the 
program for the 5 year review. NMFS will continue to work through the 
Council process to make any necessary changes to the program to assure 
that that program does collect information needed by the Council meets 
the requirements of the MSA and the Council including providing 
assessments on the impacts of the program on jobs, businesses, and 
communities.
    NMFS' authority to collect economic information is limited to those 
vessels and processors harvesting and processing fish that are 
regulated under the MSA. Although NMFS could ask for economic 
information from persons or entities that are not directly regulated 
under a fishery program, it would be unable to require submission of 
the information. This is a critical difference and NMFS cannot 
establish a voluntary economic information program that would certainly 
be rejected by non-fishery industry persons and entities. NMFS could 
not ensure confidentiality of voluntarily submitted information and 
this problem would mean NMFS would never receive information or receive 
information that was incomplete or unreliable. An incomplete or 
unreliable database would be unusable.
    Regarding a commenter's concern over the EDC program not capturing 
the effects of the trawl rationalization program on lost jobs, closed 
businesses, and devastated communities, the Northwest Fisheries Science 
Center will conduct voluntary interviews through the Trawl 
Rationalization Program Human Dimensions Study to try and capture some 
of these other effects of the program.
    Comment 25. One commenter agreed with NMFS' definition of 
``processor'' for the EDC Program.
    Response. NMFS acknowledges this commenter's concurrence with the 
proposed definition for ``processor'' for the EDC program.
    Comment 26. One commenter expressed concerns about the EDC audit 
process, in particular the potential use of a third-party auditor to 
examine EDC submissions. The comment focused on the handling of 
``extremely sensitive commercial information''. The comment 
acknowledges that NMFS states that submitted information is 
confidential, but the comment suggests that there are no standards or 
rules in place to ensure confidentiality. Further, the comment 
questions whether NMFS can ask for tax information and require its 
submission to a third-party auditor and whether this practice may 
violate IRS rules.
    Response. While NMFS understands the concern about information 
confidentiality, this issue was highlighted in the proposed rule and 
NMFS explained that the EDC program will ensure information 
confidentiality. Information submitted to NMFS pursuant to the trawl 
program is considered confidential not only under the MSA, which 
specifically states that submitted information is confidential and not 
disclosable, but also there are at least two other Federal acts that 
NMFS uses to hold commercial and financial information confidential, 
namely the FOIA and Trade Secrets Act. NMFS has promulgated regulations 
that describe information confidentiality and processes to ensure its 
confidentiality at 50 CFR 600.405. Further, NMFS follows a detailed 
policy-based process, titled NAO 216-100, directing specifically

[[Page 78352]]

how NMFS employees and contractors ensure information confidentiality. 
NMFS personnel as well as any third-party contractor, such as an 
auditor, are required to retain information confidentiality. Should 
information be mishandled and inappropriately disclosed, both civil and 
criminal sanctions could be applied depending on the circumstances. To 
further ensure the confidentiality of information submitted to third-
parties such as auditors, NMFS wrote regulatory language at section 
660.114(e) describing the EDC audit procedures that indicates that any 
information required for verification of economic data, including that 
provided to a third-party auditor, is considered a required submission 
to NMFS. In other economic information collection programs, such as 
those found in the North Pacific crab and Bering sea trawl groundfish 
programs, NMFS has adopted the use of professional auditors to evaluate 
economic and financial information. Due to resource limitations, NMFS 
has no choice but to contract for these special services and cannot 
provide them ``in-house.'' Finally, NMFS--like private institutions--
can require submission of financial documents, including tax reporting 
forms, if necessary to ensure that its program receives reliable, 
verifiable information. If this was not the case, NMFS could not carry-
out Congress' intent that commercial and financial information be 
collected and evaluated for this limited access program's future 
evaluation and potential effectiveness.
    Comment 27. One commenter suggested revised wording for the 
economic data collection program regulations at Sec.  660.114 to 
require only one owner of a processor to submit the required data, if 
the processor is owned by more than one person. The commenter stated 
that not all owners may have access to the level of detail required on 
the forms and the additional burden of requiring all owners to submit 
the data is unnecessary.
    Response. NMFS agrees, but does not conclude that a change in the 
proposed rule text is necessary. NMFS is aware that some processors are 
owned by more than one person. However, a processor can be considered a 
single person or entity and thus would report its information on one 
form. Thus, NMFS requires only one EDC form from a processor provided 
that the form provides all relevant and complete information from the 
processor. All owners of a processor, however, are subject to the risk 
that with the filing of one form for the processor, that the form may 
not be timely filed or properly completed by whoever is identified as 
the responsible party for submitting it on behalf of the processor and 
thus, all the owners.
    Comment 28. One commenter suggested that the language in Sec.  
660.114, for the trawl fishery economic data collection program, should 
be revised to read ``holder'' of a first receiver site license rather 
than ``owner'' because the license is a privilege and conveys no 
ownership rights.
    Response. NMFS agrees with the commenter that first receiver site 
licenses are a privilege and not a right, but declines to change the 
term from ``owner'' to ``holder'' as the commenter suggests. The 
regulations at Sec.  660.100 clearly state that any privileges 
(including IFQ first receiver site licenses) in the trawl 
rationalization program may be revoked, limited, or modified at any 
time. In order to take delivery of groundfish caught in the Shorebased 
IFQ Program, an IFQ first receiver would need to have a first receiver 
site license. ``IFQ first receivers'' are defined in the October 31st 
final rule (75 FR 60868) at Sec.  660.111 as ``persons who first 
receive, purchase, or take custody, control, or possession of catch 
onshore directly from a vessel that harvested the catch while fishing 
under the Shorebased IFQ Program described at Sec.  660.140, subpart 
D.'' For the first receiver site license owner, the term ``license 
owner'' is defined at Sec.  660.11 as ``a person who is the owner of 
record with NMFS, SFD, Permits Office of a License issued under Sec.  
660.140, subpart D'' and is cross-referenced from the ``permit owner'' 
definition.

Comments on Ownership and Transfer

    Comment 29. One commenter asked if an estate completes probate 
court during the first two years of the program, can ownership of the 
limited entry trawl permit and QS permit be transferred from the estate 
administrator to a beneficiary.
    Response. The proposed rule states that ``[d]uring the first 2 
years after implementation of the program, QS or IBQ cannot be 
transferred to another QS permit owne