Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cost Recovery Program for North Pacific Halibut, Sablefish, and Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Individual Fishing Quota Programs, 26728-26732 [E6-6925]
Download as PDF
26728
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Therefore, setting the quota at 4 million
lb (1,814 mt) would enable additional
incidental catch to be landed. The
Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s
review of the proposed measure
concluded that the higher quota would
not significantly alter the rebuilding
period (no more than 1 or 2 years),
though continued low recruitment
could change this conclusion.
The NMFS proposal is identical to the
NEFMC proposal, except for the
duration of the specifications, with the
NMFS proposal setting the
specifications for three years, instead of
one. There would be an administrative
benefit to setting the specifications for a
period of 3 years. Although in the
intervening years, the Council and
NMFS would be monitoring the status
of the dogfish stock to determine if any
changes to the specifications are
warranted, the annual review under this
proposal will be less administratively
burdensome to the Councils and NMFS
than the specifications process. If
changes in stock status require a
modification to the specifications, the
Councils could initiate that process.
Setting the specifications for 3 years
also would give fishermen the
opportunity to have a longer time
horizon for business planning.
This rulemaking would change the
language in the regulations that sets the
possession limit for dogfish at 300 lb
(136 kg) for period 2 of the fishery, to
600 lb (272 kg). This change is necessary
in order to modify the possession limits
through this action.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Classification
This action is authorized by 50 CFR
part 648 and has been determined to be
not significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866.
An IRFA was prepared, as required by
section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, which describes the economic
impacts this proposed rule, if adopted,
would have on small entities. A copy of
the IRFA can be obtained from the
Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via
the Internet at https://
www.nero.noaa.gov. A summary of the
analysis follows:
Statement of Objective and Need
A description of the reasons why this
action is being considered, and the
objectives of and legal basis for this
action, is contained in the preamble to
this proposed rule and is not repeated
here.
Description and Estimate of Number of
Small Entities to Which the Rule Will
Apply
All of the potentially affected
businesses are considered small entities
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:03 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
under the standards described in NMFS
guidelines because they have gross
receipts that do not exceed $3.5 million
annually. Information from the 2004
fishing year was used to evaluate
impacts of this action, as that is the
most recent year for which data are
complete. According to NMFS permit
file data, 2,911 vessels possessed
Federal spiny dogfish permits in 2004,
while 180 of these vessels contributed to
overall landings.
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
This action does not contain any new
collection-of-information, reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements. It does not duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with any other
Federal rules.
Minimizing Significant Economic
Impacts on Small Entities
The IRFA considered three
alternatives. The action recommended
in this proposed rule includes a
commercial quota of 4 million lb (1,814
mt), and the possession limit at 600 lb
(272 kg), for both quota periods, for a
period of three years. Alternative 2 is
the MAFMC proposal, which includes a
2 million lb (907 mt) quota with
possession limits of 600 lb (272 kg) in
both quota periods, for a period of three
years. Alternative 3 is the NEFMC
proposal, which includes a commercial
quota of 4 million lb (1,814 mt), with
possession limits of 600 lb (272 kg) in
both quota periods, for a period of one
year.
Based on NMFS dealer reports, spiny
dogfish landings in fishing year 2004
were roughly 1.5 million lb (680 mt).
These landings occurred at a time when
the Federal and state management
measures for spiny dogfish were
identical, with a quota of 4 million lb
(1,814 mt), and the possession limits for
periods 1 and 2 set at 600 lb (272 kg)
and 300 lb (136 kg), respectively. This
shows that the U.S. commercial spiny
dogfish landings are controlled more by
the possession limits than the overall
quota, unless the quota is set so low as
to be constraining.
All three of the alternatives to the noaction alternative considered could lead
to a slight increase in revenues to
individual fishermen from the sale of
dogfish. This is because all three of the
alternatives would increase the
possession limit in quota period 2 to
600 lb (272 kg). Setting the possession
limit at 600 lb (272 kg) throughout the
year, as opposed to 600 (272 kg) and 300
lb (136 kg) in periods 1 and 2
respectively, would allow fishermen to
land higher amounts of dogfish in the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
second period as compared to what was
landed in fishing year 2004. If the 1,124
fishing trips that landed spiny dogfish
in period 2 of FY2004 had all landed
600 lb (272 kg), periodic landings would
have increased from 320,000 lb (145 mt)
to 560,000 lb (254 mt), for a net increase
of 240,000 lb (109 mt), which, at the
average price of 0.17 cents per pound of
dogfish, equals roughly an addition
$41,000 in net revenue.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 2, 2006.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out above, 50 CFR
part 648 is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE
NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In § 648.235, paragraph (b) is
revised as follows:
§ 648.235 Possession and landing
restrictions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Quota Period 2. From November 1
through April 30, vessels issued a valid
Federal spiny dogfish permit specified
under § 648.4(a)(11) may:
(1) Possess up to 600 lb (272 kg) of
spiny dogfish per trip; and
(2) Land only one trip of spiny
dogfish per calendar day.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E6–6931 Filed 5–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 679 and 680
[Docket No. 060424108–6108–01; I.D.
040706A]
RIN 0648–AT43
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Cost Recovery
Program for North Pacific Halibut,
Sablefish, and Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Crab Individual Fishing Quota
Programs
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
Background
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes an
amendment to the Individual Fishing
Quota (IFQ) Cost Recovery Program for
the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI)
Crab Rationalization Programs. This
action modifies the procedure NMFS
uses to publish notification of
adjustment of the IFQ fee percentage for
the IFQ Cost Recovery Program in the
Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and the Crab
Rationalization Programs. This action is
necessary to provide timely and
efficient notice of fee obligations while
maintaining compliance with the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
This action is intended to improve the
fee collection methods required for all
Alaska IFQ programs under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and is
necessary to promote the objectives of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act with respect
to the IFQ fisheries managed by NMFS
in the Alaska Region.
DATES: Written comments must be
received no later than June 7, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue
Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Walsh. Comments may be
submitted by:
• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802.
• Hand Delivery to the Federal
Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room
420A, Juneau, AK.
• Fax: 907–586–7557.
• E-mail: 0648–AT43@noaa.gov.
Include in the subject line of the e-mail
the following document identifier: IFQ
Cost Recovery RIN 0648–AT43. E-mail
comments, with or without attachments,
are limited to five megabytes.
• Webform at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions at that site for submitting
comments.
Copies of the Categorical Exclusion
(CE), regulatory impact review (RIR),
and regulatory flexibility certification
prepared for this action are available
from NMFS at the above address or by
calling the Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907–
586–7228.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bubba Cook, 907–586–7425 or
bubba.cook@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:03 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
NMFS, Alaska Region, administers
the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and the
Crab Rationalization Programs in the
North Pacific. These programs are
limited access systems authorized by
section 303(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines
IFQ as a Federal permit under a limited
access system to harvest a quantity of
fish, expressed by a unit or units
representing a percentage of the total
allowable catch of a fishery that may be
received or held for exclusive use by a
person. The Halibut and Sablefish
Program and the Crab Rationalization
Program meet this statutory definition of
IFQ and are therefore subject to cost
recovery fees under section 304(d)(2) of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
In 1996, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
was amended (by Public Law 104–297)
to require, among other things, that the
Secretary of Commerce ‘‘collect a fee to
recover the actual costs directly related
to the management and enforcement of
any . . . individual fishing quota
program’’ (section 304(d)(2)(A)). The
upper limits on these fees, fee collection
times, and fee deposit locations are
specified by section 304(d)(2) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Section
303(d)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
allows NMFS to reserve up to 25
percent of the fees collected for use in
an IFQ loan program to aid in financing
the purchase of IFQ or quota share (QS)
by entry-level and small-vessel
fishermen.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies
the following with respect to the
imposition of cost recovery fees:
1. Fees must recover actual costs
directly related to management and
enforcement of the IFQ Program;
2. Fees must not exceed 3 percent of
the ex-vessel value of fish harvested
under any such program;
3. Fees are in addition to any other
fees charged under the MagnusonStevens Act;
4. With the exception of money
reserved for the Halibut and Sablefish
IFQ and the Crab Rationalization loan
program, fees must be deposited in the
Limited Access System Administrative
Fund (LASAF) in the U.S. Treasury; and
5. Fees must be collected during one
of the following times: when landing;
when filing a landing report; when
selling the fish during a fishing season;
or in the last quarter of the calendar year
in which the fish were harvested.
The Halibut and Sablefish IFQ
Program and the Crab Rationalization
Program are the only IFQ fisheries off
Alaska currently subject to the cost
recovery requirements of the Magnuson-
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26729
Stevens Act. Fishing under the Halibut
and Sablefish IFQ Program began in
March 1995 through regulations set
forth at 50 CFR part 679. Fishing under
the Crab Rationalization Program began
in August 2005 through regulations set
forth at 50 CFR part 680.
This action would only affect the
methods by which NMFS calculates fee
percentages and provides notice under
the cost recovery provisions of the
Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program and
Crab Rationalization Program.
Specifically, this action proposes a
structure for public notification of the
fee percentage. Calculation of the fee
percentage under this proposed action
would become a ministerial duty
conducted by NMFS. This proposed
action would not affect the ex-vessel
value determination under either
program nor would it affect the current
structure or administration of the
standard prices calculated for the
Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program or
the Catcher/Processor ex-vessel values
calculated for the Crab Rationalization
Program. However, NMFS would make
minor changes to the current fee
regulations to ensure full compliance
with the APA (5 U.S.C. 501 et seq., 701
et seq.) while improving administrative
efficiency.
Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Cost
Recovery
On March 20, 2000, NMFS published
regulations (65 FR 14919) implementing
the IFQ Cost Recovery Program for IFQ
landings of halibut and sablefish (set
forth at 50 CFR 679.45). Under the
regulations, an IFQ permit holder incurs
a cost recovery fee liability for every
pound of IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish
that is landed under his or her IFQ
permit(s). The IFQ permit holder is
responsible for self-collecting the fee
liability for all IFQ halibut and IFQ
sablefish landings on his or her
permit(s). The IFQ permit holder also is
responsible for submitting a fee liability
payment to NMFS on or before the due
date of January 31, following the year in
which the IFQ landings were made. For
each permit, the dollar amount of the
fee due is determined by multiplying
the annual IFQ fee percentage (3 percent
or less) by the ex-vessel value of each
IFQ landing. If the permit holder has
more than one permit, the total amounts
of each permit are added.
Section 304(d)(2)(B) of the MagnusonStevens Act sets a maximum fee of 3
percent of the ex-vessel value of fish
harvested under an IFQ program.
Current regulations allow NMFS to
reduce the fee percentage if actual
management and enforcement costs are
recoverable through a lesser percentage.
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
26730
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules
NMFS will not know the actual annual
costs of IFQ-related management and
enforcement until after the end of each
Federal fiscal year (September 30). If the
management and enforcement costs
total less than the 3 percent fee, NMFS
will reduce the fee percentage for the
new Federal fiscal year. Fishermen will
not know at the time they sell their IFQ
fish exactly what fee percentage will be
applied to their IFQ landings made from
February (season opening) through
September (Federal fiscal year-end).
Therefore, NMFS encourages IFQ permit
holders to set aside the full 3 percent
throughout the fishing year so a lump
sum payment may be made by January
31 of the following calendar year. Early
payments are allowed but do not relieve
a permit holder of associated reporting
requirements.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Crab Rationalization Cost Recovery
Section 313(j) of the MagnusonStevens Act provides supplementary
authority to section 304(d)(2)(A) and
additional detail for cost recovery
provisions specific to the Crab
Rationalization Program. As a quota
program, the Crab Rationalization
Program must follow the statutory
provisions set forth by section 304(d)
and section 313(j) of the MagnusonStevens Act.
Section 313(j) requires the Secretary
to approve a cost recovery program for
the Crab Rationalization Program,
conducted in accordance with the
existing Halibut and Sablefish IFQ cost
recovery program. Similar to the Halibut
and Sablefish IFQ cost recovery
program, the Crab Rationalization cost
recovery program allows for the
collection of actual management and
enforcement costs up to 3 percent of exvessel gross revenues and a loan
program using 25 percent of the fees
collected.
Section 313(j) includes specific cost
recovery requirements to accommodate
the crab processing industry and to
address problems experienced under the
Halibut and Sablefish IFQ cost recovery
program. This section provides NMFS
the authority to collect 133 percent of
the actual costs of management and
enforcement. By collecting 133 percent,
25 percent of that amount can be set
aside for the IFQ loan program and the
remaining 75 percent more fully
reimburses the management and
enforcement costs of the program.
Additionally, section 313(j) requires
cost recovery fees to be paid in equal
shares by the harvesting and processing
sectors. Catcher/Processors, a
combination of both sectors, pay the full
fee percentage.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:03 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
NMFS developed the Crab
Rationalization cost recovery program to
conform with statutory requirements
and to partially compensate the agency
for the unique added costs of
management and enforcement of the
Crab Rationalization Program. Key
provisions of the Crab Rationalization
cost recovery program include: (1) a
new definition and application of ‘‘fee
liability≥; (2) the establishment of a
Registered Crab Receiver (RCR) permit
system to streamline management and
reporting; (3) the establishment of a
‘‘crab fishing year’’ for biological and
administrative purposes; and (4) a new
administrative process that requires the
collection and submission of fees by
RCRs rather than requiring separate
billings to each person that receives a
crab allocation (crab allocation holder).
The crab allocations include IFQ, Crew
IFQ, Individual Processing Quota (IPQ),
Community Development Quota (CDQ),
and the Adak community allocation.
In the crab rationalization fishery, a
crab allocation holder generally incurs a
cost recovery fee liability for every
pound of crab landed. The RCR permit
holder must collect any fee liability of
the crab allocation holder landing crab.
Additionally, the RCR permit holder
must self-collect their own fee liability
for all crab delivered to the RCR. The
RCR permit holder is responsible for
submitting this payment to NMFS on or
before the due date of July 31, following
the crab fishing year in which payment
for the crab is made. The dollar amount
of the fee due is determined by
multiplying the fee percentage (not to
exceed 3 percent) by the ex-vessel value
of crab debited from the allocation.
Specific details on the Crab
Rationalization cost recovery program
may be found in the implementing
regulations for the Crab Rationalization
Program set forth at 50 CFR 680.44, and
published March 2, 2005, at 70 FR
10174.
The Crab Rationalization Program
established a fee percentage calculation
structure similar to the Halibut and
Sablefish IFQ Program. To budget their
costs, fishermen need to know the fee
percentage that would apply to any crab
deducted from a crab allocation in a
crab fishing year at the time of sale.
Based on preliminary calculations,
however, NMFS determined that 3
percent of ex-vessel value will not be
enough to cover the management and
enforcement costs of the Program.
Hence, NMFS began the cost recovery
program using the maximum of 3
percent. NMFS will reduce the fee in
subsequent seasons if calculated to be
less than 3 percent.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Overpayment of Fees
In the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and
Crab Rationalization Programs, the fee
percentage calculation adjusts for
overpayment of the management and
enforcement costs through a variable
that considers the account balance in
the LASAF account. Separate accounts
are designated within the LASAF to
ensure that funds from one program’s
cost recovery only pay for the costs
directly related to the management and
enforcement of that program, and not
other IFQ programs.
The Proposed Change
This proposed action, if approved,
would accomplish three goals:
1. Inform the public of the equation
and all factors used to calculate the fee
percentage, thereby allowing the public
to comment on the methodology used to
conduct the standard calculation of the
fee percentage;
2. Calculation of direct program costs
(DPC) through a new, independentlydeveloped timekeeping system that
automatically calculates management
costs by individual employee; and
3. Publish an annual fee percentage by
Federal Register notice, rather than by
proposed and final rulemaking. This
action would make the publication of
the Federal Register notice announcing
the fee percentage a ministerial duty
performed by NMFS. The determination
of the fee percentage would become
simply an administrative calculation
rather than the current and more
complicated process of changing the
default percentage.
Under the current cost recovery
programs for the Halibut and Sablefish
IFQ and the Crab Rationalization
Programs, the fee percentage is
calculated according to the following
general equation:
[100 (DPC-AB) /V]/ (1–NPR)
‘‘DPC’’ represents the direct program
costs for the applicable IFQ program for
the previous fiscal year. ‘‘AB’’ is the end
of the fiscal year LASAF account
balance for the applicable IFQ program.
‘‘V’’ is the estimated ex-vessel value of
the catch subject to the cost recovery fee
liability for the current year. V is based
on the value reported by an established
port or port group as reported by the
fishery participants, which is
subsequently summed and applied by
NMFS. ‘‘NPR’’ is the calculated
nonpayment rate based on the previous
year as determined by subtracting the
percentage of IFQ holders subject to a
fee liability who do not pay from the
percentage of IFQ holders subject to a
fee liability. NPR, AB, and V are
variables taken directly from sources
which NMFS has no ability to change.
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
This proposal would simplify the
current calculation by eliminating or
consolidating some variables. The NPR
variable would be eliminated because it
has had negligible effect on the overall
calculation of the percentage since the
inception of the program. The changes
proposed by this action primarily affect
the DPC variable. First, as part of this
action, the AB variable would be
automatically incorporated into the DPC
variable rather than treated separately.
Second, NMFS is adopting a new time
and attendance management system that
will more efficiently and accurately
track individual management
responsibilities. The new management
system will remove all NMFS discretion
in determining the DPC for any IFQ
program. Therefore, in conjunction with
the calculation of other variables used to
calculate the fee percentage, the
determination of DPC will be
determined by formula. NMFS would
then apply the automatically calculated
DPC to the fee percentage formula to
achieve the fee percentage for the
prescribed fee period.
DPC Calculation
Prior to this proposed action, the DPC
calculation became an automated
process managed by the Operations,
Management, and Information (OMI)
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS. The
new process receives time allocation
information from all personnel who
engage in management or enforcement
associated with any IFQ program. This
information also is distinguished
according to the specific IFQ program
(i.e., Crab Rationalization or Halibut and
Sablefish).
For instance, a NMFS employee
working on a regulation for the Halibut
and Sablefish IFQ Program would
record the amount of time he or she
spends on that IFQ program in a special
timekeeping program by 15–minute
intervals over each two-week pay
period. The timekeeping program would
document and sum the specific time
expended by that NMFS employee on
work directly related to the management
of the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ
Program. The time expended by that
NMFS employee would be
automatically multiplied by his or her
hourly rate-of-pay to achieve the
management costs of that individual for
the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program.
The NMFS employee’s management
costs then would be automatically
added with other employee’s costs and
added to any other documented costs
incurred by NMFS (e.g., printing,
training, and supply costs). Enforcement
costs would continue to be calculated
based on agents’ salaries as dedicated
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:03 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
full time to IFQ enforcement plus any
other documented costs incurred by
NMFS Enforcement (e.g., training,
equipment, and travel costs). OMI
would then add all individual DPCs to
achieve the DPC variable.
This action also proposes to revise
existing regulatory text to clarify the
public’s obligations under the
regulations and to clarify how the fee
percentage will be calculated by
substituting terms such as ‘‘shall’’ and
‘‘must’’ regarding NMFS duties in
places where ‘‘would,’’ ‘‘will,’’ or ‘‘may’’
were previously used.
APA Compliance
The APA requires Federal agencies to
advise the public through a notice in the
Federal Register of the terms or
substance of a proposed substantive rule
and provide the public a period to
comment. This is the ‘‘notice and
comment’’ requirement of the APA. The
requirement is designed to give
interested persons, through written
submissions or oral presentations, an
opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process. Generally, the
procedural safeguards of the APA help
ensure that government agencies are
accountable to the public and their
decisions are reasoned. This proposed
rule would provide substantive
elements that are subject to the APA’s
notice and comment procedures and is
intended to provide the public with a
meaningful opportunity to comment on
the proposed provisions.
If this proposal is implemented, the
fee percentage calculation would
become a simple administrative
calculation subject to a statutory
maximum fee cap (3 percent) rather
than a maximum fee value subject to a
reduction. As a result of this regulatory
change, subsequent administrative
calculations of the fee percentage would
be published in the Federal Register as
a notice because they would have no
substantive effect beyond the
requirements of the existing regulations
and would only serve to inform the
public of their preexisting duty to pay
fees. This change in methodology would
make the cost recovery fee calculation
process more compliant with the APA.
Classification
NMFS has determined that the
proposed rule is consistent with the
associated FMPs and preliminarily
determined that the rule is consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and
other applicable laws.
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26731
NMFS prepared a Regulatory Impact
Review (RIR) to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives. The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council considered all
quantitative and qualitative measures
and chose a preferred alternative based
on those measures that maximize net
benefits to the affected public.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of
the Department of Commerce certified
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration that this
proposed rule, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Section 304(d)(2) of the MagnusonStevens Act directs the Secretary of
Commerce collect a fee to recover the
actual costs directly related to the
management and enforcement of any
individual fishing quota program and
that such fee shall not exceed 3 percent
of the ex-vessel value of fish harvested
under the program. The proposed rule
would only explain the process for
notifying the public of fee obligations
and would not substantively change the
amount of fees owed by any regulated
entities. The proposed rule would
clarify the regulations governing the
methods NMFS uses to determine the
appropriate level of cost recovery fees to
collect. The proposed rule will not
affect the definitions of the costs that
NMFS is required to recover under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act or the size or
distribution of the cost recovery fees
that fishermen are expected to pay.
Additionally, the proposed rule will not
directly regulate, impose, or change any
obligations of entities, and will thus not
directly regulate any small entities. The
proposed regulatory change is not
expected to change the size or
distribution of the cost recovery fees
imposed on fishermen and should not
impose any economic impact on small
entities.
The two criteria recommended to
determine significant economic impact
are the disproportionality and
profitability of the action. The proposed
action would not place a substantial
number of small entities at a
disadvantage relative to large entities,
and it does not reduce the profit for
small entities. No entities appear to be
directly regulated by this action. The
economic analysis in the RIR describes
the proposed rule and its operation in
detail. It is apparent from the
description of the rule that it would not
have significant economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities. As
a result, an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required and has not
been prepared.
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
26732
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules
According to NOAA Administrative
Order (NAO) 216–6, including the
criteria used to determine significance,
this rule would not have a significant
effect, individually or cumulatively, on
the human environment beyond those
effects identified in previous NEPA
analyses. An Environmental Assessment
(EA) was prepared for the final rule
implementing the original Halibut and
Sablefish IFQ Cost Recovery Program
regulations (65 FR 14919, March 15,
2000) and an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) was prepared for the
final rule implementing the Crab
Rationalization Program (70 FR 10174,
March 2, 2005). These NEPA documents
analyzed all potential and cumulative
environmental impacts of the cost
recovery systems. The scope of these
analyses includes the potential
environmental impacts of this proposed
rule. Based on the nature of the
proposed rule and the previous
environmental analyses, this proposed
rule is categorically excluded from the
requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement, in
accordance with Section 5.05b of NAO
216–6. Copies of the EA for the original
Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Cost
Recovery Program, the EIS for the
original Crab Rationalization Program,
and the categorical exclusion for this
action are available from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 679 and
680
Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
Dated: May 2, 2006.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR parts 679 and 680 are
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.; 1540(f);
1801 et seq.; 1851 note; 3631 et seq.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
2. In § 679.45 paragraph (d) is revised
to read as follows:
§ 679.45
IFQ cost recovery program.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) IFQ fee percentage—(1)
Established percentage. The annual IFQ
fee percentage is the amount as
determined by the factors and
methodology described in paragraph
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:47 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
(d)(2) of this section. This amount will
be announced by publication in the
Federal Register in accordance with
paragraph (d)(3) of this section. This
amount must not exceed 3 percent
pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1854(d)(2)(B).
(2) Calculating fee percentage value.
Each year NMFS shall calculate and
publish the fee percentage according to
the following factors and methodology:
(i) Factors. NMFS must use the
following factors to determine the fee
percentage:
(A) The catch to which the IFQ fee
will apply;
(B) The ex-vessel value of that catch;
and
(C) The costs directly related to the
management and enforcement of the
IFQ program.
(ii) Methodology. NMFS must use the
following equation to determine the fee
percentage:
100 (DPC / V)
where:
‘‘DPC’’ is the direct program costs for
the IFQ fishery for the previous fiscal
year, and ‘‘V’’ is the ex-vessel value of
the catch subject to the IFQ fee for the
current year.
(3) Publication—(i) General. During or
before the last quarter of each year,
NMFS shall publish the IFQ fee
percentage in the Federal Register.
NMFS shall base any calculations on the
factors and methodology in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section.
(ii) Effective period. The calculated
IFQ fee percentage shall remain in effect
through the end of the calendar year in
which it was determined.
(4) Applicable percentage. The IFQ
permit holder must use the IFQ fee
percentage in effect at the time an IFQ
landing is made to calculate his or her
fee liability for such landed IFQ pounds.
The IFQ permit holder must use the IFQ
percentage in effect at the time an IFQ
retro-payment is received by the IFQ
permit holder to calculate his or her IFQ
fee liability for the IFQ retro-payment.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 680—SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF
THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
OFF ALASKA
3. The authority citation for part 680
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1862.
4. In § 680.44 paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)
and (c)(1) through (3) are revised;
paragraph (c)(4) is removed; and
paragraph (c)(5) is redesignated as
paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:
§ 680.44
Cost recovery.
[FR Doc. E6–6925 Filed 5–5–06; 8:45 am]
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00027
(iii) NMFS will provide a summary to
all RCR permit holders during the last
quarter of the crab fishing year. The
summary will explain the fee liability
determination including the current fee
percentage, details of raw crab pounds
debited from CR allocations by permit,
port or port-group, species, date, and
prices.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Established percentage. The crab
fee percentage is the amount as
determined by the factors and
methodology described in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section. This amount will
be announced by publication in the
Federal Register in accordance with
paragraph (c)(3) of this section. This
amount must not exceed 3 percent
pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1854(d)(2)(B).
(i) The calculated crab fee percentage
will be divided equally between the
harvesting and processing sectors.
(ii) Catcher/Processors must pay the
full crab fee percentage determined by
the fee percentage calculation for all CR
crab debited from a CR allocation.
(2) Calculating fee percentage value.
Each year NMFS shall calculate and
publish the fee percentage according to
the following factors and methodology:
(i) Factors. NMFS must use the
following factors to determine the fee
percentage:
(A) The catch to which the crab cost
recovery fee will apply;
(B) The ex-vessel value of that catch;
and
(C) The costs directly related to the
management and enforcement of the
Crab Rationalization Program.
(ii) Methodology. NMFS must use the
following equations to determine the fee
percentage:
Harvesting and Processing Sectors:
[100 (DPC/ V)] 0.5
Catcher/Processors: 100 (DPC /V)
Where:
‘‘DPC’’ is the direct program costs for
the Crab Rationalization Program for the
previous fiscal year, and
‘‘V’’ is the ex-vessel value of the catch
subject to the crab cost recovery fee
liability for the current year.
(3) Publication—(i) General. During
the first quarter of each crab fishing
year, NMFS shall calculate the crab fee
percentage based on the calculations
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
(ii) Effective period. The calculated
IFQ fee percentage remains in effect
through the end of the crab fishing year
in which it was determined.
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26728-26732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6925]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 679 and 680
[Docket No. 060424108-6108-01; I.D. 040706A]
RIN 0648-AT43
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cost
Recovery Program for North Pacific Halibut, Sablefish, and Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Crab Individual Fishing Quota Programs
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
[[Page 26729]]
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes an amendment to the Individual Fishing Quota
(IFQ) Cost Recovery Program for the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Crab Rationalization Programs.
This action modifies the procedure NMFS uses to publish notification of
adjustment of the IFQ fee percentage for the IFQ Cost Recovery Program
in the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and the Crab Rationalization Programs.
This action is necessary to provide timely and efficient notice of fee
obligations while maintaining compliance with the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA). This action is intended to improve the fee
collection methods required for all Alaska IFQ programs under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) and is necessary to promote the objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act with respect to the IFQ fisheries managed by NMFS
in the Alaska Region.
DATES: Written comments must be received no later than June 7, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS,
Attn: Ellen Walsh. Comments may be submitted by:
Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th
Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
Fax: 907-586-7557.
E-mail: 0648-AT43@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of
the e-mail the following document identifier: IFQ Cost Recovery RIN
0648-AT43. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to
five megabytes.
Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for
submitting comments.
Copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), regulatory impact review
(RIR), and regulatory flexibility certification prepared for this
action are available from NMFS at the above address or by calling the
Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907-586-7228.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bubba Cook, 907-586-7425 or
bubba.cook@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NMFS, Alaska Region, administers the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and
the Crab Rationalization Programs in the North Pacific. These programs
are limited access systems authorized by section 303(b) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines IFQ as a Federal
permit under a limited access system to harvest a quantity of fish,
expressed by a unit or units representing a percentage of the total
allowable catch of a fishery that may be received or held for exclusive
use by a person. The Halibut and Sablefish Program and the Crab
Rationalization Program meet this statutory definition of IFQ and are
therefore subject to cost recovery fees under section 304(d)(2) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
In 1996, the Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended (by Public Law 104-
297) to require, among other things, that the Secretary of Commerce
``collect a fee to recover the actual costs directly related to the
management and enforcement of any . . . individual fishing quota
program'' (section 304(d)(2)(A)). The upper limits on these fees, fee
collection times, and fee deposit locations are specified by section
304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Section 303(d)(4) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act allows NMFS to reserve up to 25 percent of the
fees collected for use in an IFQ loan program to aid in financing the
purchase of IFQ or quota share (QS) by entry-level and small-vessel
fishermen.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies the following with respect to
the imposition of cost recovery fees:
1. Fees must recover actual costs directly related to management
and enforcement of the IFQ Program;
2. Fees must not exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of fish
harvested under any such program;
3. Fees are in addition to any other fees charged under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act;
4. With the exception of money reserved for the Halibut and
Sablefish IFQ and the Crab Rationalization loan program, fees must be
deposited in the Limited Access System Administrative Fund (LASAF) in
the U.S. Treasury; and
5. Fees must be collected during one of the following times: when
landing; when filing a landing report; when selling the fish during a
fishing season; or in the last quarter of the calendar year in which
the fish were harvested.
The Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program and the Crab Rationalization
Program are the only IFQ fisheries off Alaska currently subject to the
cost recovery requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Fishing under
the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program began in March 1995 through
regulations set forth at 50 CFR part 679. Fishing under the Crab
Rationalization Program began in August 2005 through regulations set
forth at 50 CFR part 680.
This action would only affect the methods by which NMFS calculates
fee percentages and provides notice under the cost recovery provisions
of the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program and Crab Rationalization
Program. Specifically, this action proposes a structure for public
notification of the fee percentage. Calculation of the fee percentage
under this proposed action would become a ministerial duty conducted by
NMFS. This proposed action would not affect the ex-vessel value
determination under either program nor would it affect the current
structure or administration of the standard prices calculated for the
Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program or the Catcher/Processor ex-vessel
values calculated for the Crab Rationalization Program. However, NMFS
would make minor changes to the current fee regulations to ensure full
compliance with the APA (5 U.S.C. 501 et seq., 701 et seq.) while
improving administrative efficiency.
Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Cost Recovery
On March 20, 2000, NMFS published regulations (65 FR 14919)
implementing the IFQ Cost Recovery Program for IFQ landings of halibut
and sablefish (set forth at 50 CFR 679.45). Under the regulations, an
IFQ permit holder incurs a cost recovery fee liability for every pound
of IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish that is landed under his or her IFQ
permit(s). The IFQ permit holder is responsible for self-collecting the
fee liability for all IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings on his or
her permit(s). The IFQ permit holder also is responsible for submitting
a fee liability payment to NMFS on or before the due date of January
31, following the year in which the IFQ landings were made. For each
permit, the dollar amount of the fee due is determined by multiplying
the annual IFQ fee percentage (3 percent or less) by the ex-vessel
value of each IFQ landing. If the permit holder has more than one
permit, the total amounts of each permit are added.
Section 304(d)(2)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act sets a maximum fee
of 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of fish harvested under an IFQ
program. Current regulations allow NMFS to reduce the fee percentage if
actual management and enforcement costs are recoverable through a
lesser percentage.
[[Page 26730]]
NMFS will not know the actual annual costs of IFQ-related management
and enforcement until after the end of each Federal fiscal year
(September 30). If the management and enforcement costs total less than
the 3 percent fee, NMFS will reduce the fee percentage for the new
Federal fiscal year. Fishermen will not know at the time they sell
their IFQ fish exactly what fee percentage will be applied to their IFQ
landings made from February (season opening) through September (Federal
fiscal year-end). Therefore, NMFS encourages IFQ permit holders to set
aside the full 3 percent throughout the fishing year so a lump sum
payment may be made by January 31 of the following calendar year. Early
payments are allowed but do not relieve a permit holder of associated
reporting requirements.
Crab Rationalization Cost Recovery
Section 313(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides supplementary
authority to section 304(d)(2)(A) and additional detail for cost
recovery provisions specific to the Crab Rationalization Program. As a
quota program, the Crab Rationalization Program must follow the
statutory provisions set forth by section 304(d) and section 313(j) of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Section 313(j) requires the Secretary to approve a cost recovery
program for the Crab Rationalization Program, conducted in accordance
with the existing Halibut and Sablefish IFQ cost recovery program.
Similar to the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ cost recovery program, the
Crab Rationalization cost recovery program allows for the collection of
actual management and enforcement costs up to 3 percent of ex-vessel
gross revenues and a loan program using 25 percent of the fees
collected.
Section 313(j) includes specific cost recovery requirements to
accommodate the crab processing industry and to address problems
experienced under the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ cost recovery program.
This section provides NMFS the authority to collect 133 percent of the
actual costs of management and enforcement. By collecting 133 percent,
25 percent of that amount can be set aside for the IFQ loan program and
the remaining 75 percent more fully reimburses the management and
enforcement costs of the program. Additionally, section 313(j) requires
cost recovery fees to be paid in equal shares by the harvesting and
processing sectors. Catcher/Processors, a combination of both sectors,
pay the full fee percentage.
NMFS developed the Crab Rationalization cost recovery program to
conform with statutory requirements and to partially compensate the
agency for the unique added costs of management and enforcement of the
Crab Rationalization Program. Key provisions of the Crab
Rationalization cost recovery program include: (1) a new definition and
application of ``fee liability; (2) the establishment of a
Registered Crab Receiver (RCR) permit system to streamline management
and reporting; (3) the establishment of a ``crab fishing year'' for
biological and administrative purposes; and (4) a new administrative
process that requires the collection and submission of fees by RCRs
rather than requiring separate billings to each person that receives a
crab allocation (crab allocation holder). The crab allocations include
IFQ, Crew IFQ, Individual Processing Quota (IPQ), Community Development
Quota (CDQ), and the Adak community allocation.
In the crab rationalization fishery, a crab allocation holder
generally incurs a cost recovery fee liability for every pound of crab
landed. The RCR permit holder must collect any fee liability of the
crab allocation holder landing crab. Additionally, the RCR permit
holder must self-collect their own fee liability for all crab delivered
to the RCR. The RCR permit holder is responsible for submitting this
payment to NMFS on or before the due date of July 31, following the
crab fishing year in which payment for the crab is made. The dollar
amount of the fee due is determined by multiplying the fee percentage
(not to exceed 3 percent) by the ex-vessel value of crab debited from
the allocation. Specific details on the Crab Rationalization cost
recovery program may be found in the implementing regulations for the
Crab Rationalization Program set forth at 50 CFR 680.44, and published
March 2, 2005, at 70 FR 10174.
The Crab Rationalization Program established a fee percentage
calculation structure similar to the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program.
To budget their costs, fishermen need to know the fee percentage that
would apply to any crab deducted from a crab allocation in a crab
fishing year at the time of sale. Based on preliminary calculations,
however, NMFS determined that 3 percent of ex-vessel value will not be
enough to cover the management and enforcement costs of the Program.
Hence, NMFS began the cost recovery program using the maximum of 3
percent. NMFS will reduce the fee in subsequent seasons if calculated
to be less than 3 percent.
Overpayment of Fees
In the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and Crab Rationalization Programs,
the fee percentage calculation adjusts for overpayment of the
management and enforcement costs through a variable that considers the
account balance in the LASAF account. Separate accounts are designated
within the LASAF to ensure that funds from one program's cost recovery
only pay for the costs directly related to the management and
enforcement of that program, and not other IFQ programs.
The Proposed Change
This proposed action, if approved, would accomplish three goals:
1. Inform the public of the equation and all factors used to
calculate the fee percentage, thereby allowing the public to comment on
the methodology used to conduct the standard calculation of the fee
percentage;
2. Calculation of direct program costs (DPC) through a new,
independently-developed timekeeping system that automatically
calculates management costs by individual employee; and
3. Publish an annual fee percentage by Federal Register notice,
rather than by proposed and final rulemaking. This action would make
the publication of the Federal Register notice announcing the fee
percentage a ministerial duty performed by NMFS. The determination of
the fee percentage would become simply an administrative calculation
rather than the current and more complicated process of changing the
default percentage.
Under the current cost recovery programs for the Halibut and
Sablefish IFQ and the Crab Rationalization Programs, the fee percentage
is calculated according to the following general equation:
[100 (DPC-AB) /V]/ (1-NPR)
``DPC'' represents the direct program costs for the applicable IFQ
program for the previous fiscal year. ``AB'' is the end of the fiscal
year LASAF account balance for the applicable IFQ program. ``V'' is the
estimated ex-vessel value of the catch subject to the cost recovery fee
liability for the current year. V is based on the value reported by an
established port or port group as reported by the fishery participants,
which is subsequently summed and applied by NMFS. ``NPR'' is the
calculated nonpayment rate based on the previous year as determined by
subtracting the percentage of IFQ holders subject to a fee liability
who do not pay from the percentage of IFQ holders subject to a fee
liability. NPR, AB, and V are variables taken directly from sources
which NMFS has no ability to change.
[[Page 26731]]
This proposal would simplify the current calculation by eliminating
or consolidating some variables. The NPR variable would be eliminated
because it has had negligible effect on the overall calculation of the
percentage since the inception of the program. The changes proposed by
this action primarily affect the DPC variable. First, as part of this
action, the AB variable would be automatically incorporated into the
DPC variable rather than treated separately. Second, NMFS is adopting a
new time and attendance management system that will more efficiently
and accurately track individual management responsibilities. The new
management system will remove all NMFS discretion in determining the
DPC for any IFQ program. Therefore, in conjunction with the calculation
of other variables used to calculate the fee percentage, the
determination of DPC will be determined by formula. NMFS would then
apply the automatically calculated DPC to the fee percentage formula to
achieve the fee percentage for the prescribed fee period.
DPC Calculation
Prior to this proposed action, the DPC calculation became an
automated process managed by the Operations, Management, and
Information (OMI) Division, Alaska Region, NMFS. The new process
receives time allocation information from all personnel who engage in
management or enforcement associated with any IFQ program. This
information also is distinguished according to the specific IFQ program
(i.e., Crab Rationalization or Halibut and Sablefish).
For instance, a NMFS employee working on a regulation for the
Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program would record the amount of time he or
she spends on that IFQ program in a special timekeeping program by 15-
minute intervals over each two-week pay period. The timekeeping program
would document and sum the specific time expended by that NMFS employee
on work directly related to the management of the Halibut and Sablefish
IFQ Program. The time expended by that NMFS employee would be
automatically multiplied by his or her hourly rate-of-pay to achieve
the management costs of that individual for the Halibut and Sablefish
IFQ Program. The NMFS employee's management costs then would be
automatically added with other employee's costs and added to any other
documented costs incurred by NMFS (e.g., printing, training, and supply
costs). Enforcement costs would continue to be calculated based on
agents' salaries as dedicated full time to IFQ enforcement plus any
other documented costs incurred by NMFS Enforcement (e.g., training,
equipment, and travel costs). OMI would then add all individual DPCs to
achieve the DPC variable.
This action also proposes to revise existing regulatory text to
clarify the public's obligations under the regulations and to clarify
how the fee percentage will be calculated by substituting terms such as
``shall'' and ``must'' regarding NMFS duties in places where ``would,''
``will,'' or ``may'' were previously used.
APA Compliance
The APA requires Federal agencies to advise the public through a
notice in the Federal Register of the terms or substance of a proposed
substantive rule and provide the public a period to comment. This is
the ``notice and comment'' requirement of the APA. The requirement is
designed to give interested persons, through written submissions or
oral presentations, an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking
process. Generally, the procedural safeguards of the APA help ensure
that government agencies are accountable to the public and their
decisions are reasoned. This proposed rule would provide substantive
elements that are subject to the APA's notice and comment procedures
and is intended to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to
comment on the proposed provisions.
If this proposal is implemented, the fee percentage calculation
would become a simple administrative calculation subject to a statutory
maximum fee cap (3 percent) rather than a maximum fee value subject to
a reduction. As a result of this regulatory change, subsequent
administrative calculations of the fee percentage would be published in
the Federal Register as a notice because they would have no substantive
effect beyond the requirements of the existing regulations and would
only serve to inform the public of their preexisting duty to pay fees.
This change in methodology would make the cost recovery fee calculation
process more compliant with the APA.
Classification
NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the
associated FMPs and preliminarily determined that the rule is
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) to assess all costs
and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. The North Pacific
Fishery Management Council considered all quantitative and qualitative
measures and chose a preferred alternative based on those measures that
maximize net benefits to the affected public.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Section 304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act directs the Secretary of
Commerce collect a fee to recover the actual costs directly related to
the management and enforcement of any individual fishing quota program
and that such fee shall not exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of
fish harvested under the program. The proposed rule would only explain
the process for notifying the public of fee obligations and would not
substantively change the amount of fees owed by any regulated entities.
The proposed rule would clarify the regulations governing the methods
NMFS uses to determine the appropriate level of cost recovery fees to
collect. The proposed rule will not affect the definitions of the costs
that NMFS is required to recover under the Magnuson-Stevens Act or the
size or distribution of the cost recovery fees that fishermen are
expected to pay. Additionally, the proposed rule will not directly
regulate, impose, or change any obligations of entities, and will thus
not directly regulate any small entities. The proposed regulatory
change is not expected to change the size or distribution of the cost
recovery fees imposed on fishermen and should not impose any economic
impact on small entities.
The two criteria recommended to determine significant economic
impact are the disproportionality and profitability of the action. The
proposed action would not place a substantial number of small entities
at a disadvantage relative to large entities, and it does not reduce
the profit for small entities. No entities appear to be directly
regulated by this action. The economic analysis in the RIR describes
the proposed rule and its operation in detail. It is apparent from the
description of the rule that it would not have significant economic
impacts on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not
been prepared.
[[Page 26732]]
According to NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, including the
criteria used to determine significance, this rule would not have a
significant effect, individually or cumulatively, on the human
environment beyond those effects identified in previous NEPA analyses.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for the final rule
implementing the original Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Cost Recovery
Program regulations (65 FR 14919, March 15, 2000) and an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for the final rule implementing the
Crab Rationalization Program (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005). These NEPA
documents analyzed all potential and cumulative environmental impacts
of the cost recovery systems. The scope of these analyses includes the
potential environmental impacts of this proposed rule. Based on the
nature of the proposed rule and the previous environmental analyses,
this proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirement to
prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement,
in accordance with Section 5.05b of NAO 216-6. Copies of the EA for the
original Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Cost Recovery Program, the EIS for
the original Crab Rationalization Program, and the categorical
exclusion for this action are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 679 and 680
Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: May 2, 2006.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 679 and 680
are 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.; 1540(f); 1801 et seq.; 1851
note; 3631 et seq.
2. In Sec. 679.45 paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 679.45 IFQ cost recovery program.
* * * * *
(d) IFQ fee percentage--(1) Established percentage. The annual IFQ
fee percentage is the amount as determined by the factors and
methodology described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. This amount
will be announced by publication in the Federal Register in accordance
with paragraph (d)(3) of this section. This amount must not exceed 3
percent pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1854(d)(2)(B).
(2) Calculating fee percentage value. Each year NMFS shall
calculate and publish the fee percentage according to the following
factors and methodology:
(i) Factors. NMFS must use the following factors to determine the
fee percentage:
(A) The catch to which the IFQ fee will apply;
(B) The ex-vessel value of that catch; and
(C) The costs directly related to the management and enforcement of
the IFQ program.
(ii) Methodology. NMFS must use the following equation to determine
the fee percentage:
100 (DPC / V)
where:
``DPC'' is the direct program costs for the IFQ fishery for the
previous fiscal year, and ``V'' is the ex-vessel value of the catch
subject to the IFQ fee for the current year.
(3) Publication--(i) General. During or before the last quarter of
each year, NMFS shall publish the IFQ fee percentage in the Federal
Register. NMFS shall base any calculations on the factors and
methodology in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(ii) Effective period. The calculated IFQ fee percentage shall
remain in effect through the end of the calendar year in which it was
determined.
(4) Applicable percentage. The IFQ permit holder must use the IFQ
fee percentage in effect at the time an IFQ landing is made to
calculate his or her fee liability for such landed IFQ pounds. The IFQ
permit holder must use the IFQ percentage in effect at the time an IFQ
retro-payment is received by the IFQ permit holder to calculate his or
her IFQ fee liability for the IFQ retro-payment.
* * * * *
PART 680--SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF
ALASKA
3. The authority citation for part 680 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1862.
4. In Sec. 680.44 paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (c)(1) through (3)
are revised; paragraph (c)(4) is removed; and paragraph (c)(5) is
redesignated as paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 680.44 Cost recovery.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) NMFS will provide a summary to all RCR permit holders during
the last quarter of the crab fishing year. The summary will explain the
fee liability determination including the current fee percentage,
details of raw crab pounds debited from CR allocations by permit, port
or port-group, species, date, and prices.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Established percentage. The crab fee percentage is the amount
as determined by the factors and methodology described in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section. This amount will be announced by publication in
the Federal Register in accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this
section. This amount must not exceed 3 percent pursuant to 16 U.S.C.
1854(d)(2)(B).
(i) The calculated crab fee percentage will be divided equally
between the harvesting and processing sectors.
(ii) Catcher/Processors must pay the full crab fee percentage
determined by the fee percentage calculation for all CR crab debited
from a CR allocation.
(2) Calculating fee percentage value. Each year NMFS shall
calculate and publish the fee percentage according to the following
factors and methodology:
(i) Factors. NMFS must use the following factors to determine the
fee percentage:
(A) The catch to which the crab cost recovery fee will apply;
(B) The ex-vessel value of that catch; and
(C) The costs directly related to the management and enforcement of
the Crab Rationalization Program.
(ii) Methodology. NMFS must use the following equations to
determine the fee percentage:
Harvesting and Processing Sectors: [100 (DPC/ V)] 0.5
Catcher/Processors: 100 (DPC /V)
Where:
``DPC'' is the direct program costs for the Crab Rationalization
Program for the previous fiscal year, and
``V'' is the ex-vessel value of the catch subject to the crab cost
recovery fee liability for the current year.
(3) Publication--(i) General. During the first quarter of each crab
fishing year, NMFS shall calculate the crab fee percentage based on the
calculations described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(ii) Effective period. The calculated IFQ fee percentage remains in
effect through the end of the crab fishing year in which it was
determined.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6-6925 Filed 5-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S