Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Process for Divestiture of Excess Quota Shares in the Individual Fishing Quota Fishery, 69138-69143 [2015-28412]
Download as PDF
69138
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Assistant Secretary’s findings and/or
order, and there are no other pending
objections, the Assistant Secretary’s
findings and/or order will become the
final order of the Secretary. If the ARB
approves a request to withdraw a
petition for review of an ALJ decision,
and there are no other pending petitions
for review of that decision, the ALJ’s
decision will become the final order of
the Secretary. If objections or a petition
for review are withdrawn because of
settlement, the settlement must be
submitted for approval in accordance
with paragraph (d) of this section.
(d)(1) Investigative settlements. At any
time after the filing of a complaint, and
before the findings and/or order are
objected to or become a final order by
operation of law, the case may be settled
if OSHA, the complainant, and the
respondent agree to a settlement.
OSHA’s approval of a settlement
reached by the respondent and the
complainant demonstrates OSHA’s
consent and achieves the consent of all
three parties.
(2) Adjudicatory settlements. At any
time after the filing of objections to the
Assistant Secretary’s findings and/or
order, the case may be settled if the
participating parties agree to a
settlement and the settlement is
approved by the ALJ if the case is before
the ALJ, or by the ARB if the ARB has
accepted the case for review. A copy of
the settlement will be filed with the ALJ
or the ARB, as the case may be.
(e) Any settlement approved by
OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB will
constitute the final order of the
Secretary and may be enforced in
United States district court pursuant to
§ 1982.113.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 1982.112
Judicial review.
(a) Within 60 days after the issuance
of a final order under §§ 1982.109 and
1982.110, any person adversely affected
or aggrieved by the order may file a
petition for review of the order in the
United States Court of Appeals for the
circuit in which the violation allegedly
occurred or the circuit in which the
complainant resided on the date of the
violation.
(b) A final order is not subject to
judicial review in any criminal or other
civil proceeding.
(c) If a timely petition for review is
filed, the record of a case, including the
record of proceedings before the ALJ,
will be transmitted by the ARB or the
ALJ, as the case may be, to the
appropriate court pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
and the local rules of such court.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
§ 1982.113
Judicial enforcement.
(a) Whenever any person has failed to
comply with a preliminary order of
reinstatement, or a final order, including
one approving a settlement agreement,
issued under NTSSA, the Secretary may
file a civil action seeking enforcement of
the order in the United States district
court for the district in which the
violation was found to have occurred.
Whenever any person has failed to
comply with a preliminary order of
reinstatement, or a final order, including
one approving a settlement agreement,
issued under NTSSA, a person on
whose behalf the order was issued may
file a civil action seeking enforcement of
the order in the appropriate United
States district court.
(b) Whenever a person has failed to
comply with a preliminary order of
reinstatement, or a final order, including
one approving a settlement agreement,
issued under FRSA, the Secretary may
file a civil action seeking enforcement of
the order in the United States district
court for the district in which the
violation was found to have occurred.
complaint must also be served on the
OSHA official who issued the findings
and/or preliminary order, the Assistant
Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor,
Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S.
Department of Labor.
§ 1982.115
of rules.
Special circumstances; waiver
In special circumstances not
contemplated by the provisions of these
rules, or for good cause shown, the ALJ
or the ARB on review may, upon
application, after three-days notice to all
parties, waive any rule or issue such
orders that justice or the administration
of NTSSA or FRSA requires.
[FR Doc. 2015–28040 Filed 11–6–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 150721634–5999–02]
§ 1982.114 District court jurisdiction of
retaliation complaints.
RIN 0648–BF11
(a) If there is no final order of the
Secretary, 210 days have passed since
the filing of the complaint, and there is
no showing that there has been delay
due to the bad faith of the complainant,
the complainant may bring an action at
law or equity for de novo review in the
appropriate district court of the United
States, which will have jurisdiction over
such an action without regard to the
amount in controversy. At the request of
either party, the action shall be tried by
the court with a jury.
(b) A proceeding under paragraph (a)
of this section shall be governed by the
same legal burdens of proof specified in
§ 1982.109. An employee prevailing in a
proceeding under paragraph (a) shall be
entitled to all relief necessary to make
the employee whole, including, where
appropriate: Reinstatement with the
same seniority status that the employee
would have had, but for the retaliation;
any back pay with interest; and payment
of compensatory damages, including
compensation for any special damages
sustained as a result of the retaliation,
including litigation costs, expert witness
fees, and reasonable attorney fees. The
court may also order punitive damages
in an amount not to exceed $250,000.
(c) Within 7 days after filing a
complaint in federal court, a
complainant must file with the
Assistant Secretary, the ALJ, or the ARB,
depending upon where the proceeding
is pending, a copy of the file-stamped
complaint. In all cases, a copy of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery;
Process for Divestiture of Excess
Quota Shares in the Individual Fishing
Quota Fishery
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In January 2011, NMFS
implemented the trawl rationalization
program (a catch share program) for the
Pacific coast groundfish limited entry
trawl fishery. The program was
implemented through Amendment 20 to
the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) and the
corresponding implementing
regulations. Amendment 20 established
the trawl rationalization program, which
includes an Individual Fishing Quota
program for limited entry trawl
participants. Under current regulations,
quota share permit owners must divest
quota share holdings that exceed
accumulation limits by November 30,
2015. This final rule makes narrow
procedural additions to regulations to
clarify how divestiture and revocation
of excess quota share will occur in
November 2015, and establishes
procedures for the future if divestiture
becomes necessary.
DATES: Effective November 4, 2015.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09NOR1.SGM
09NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
NMFS prepared a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA),
which is summarized in the
Classification section of this final rule.
NMFS also prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
for the proposed rule. Copies of the
IRFA, FRFA and the Small Entity
Compliance Guide are available from
William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional
Administrator, West Coast 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 available
on the West Coast Region’s Web site at
https://
www.westcoast.fisheries.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 the West Coast
Region and by email to OIRA_
Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to
(202) 395–7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Towne, 206–526–4140,
sarah.towne@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Background
NMFS implemented a trawl
rationalization program in 2011 for the
Pacific coast groundfish limited entry
trawl fishery. Amendment 20 to the
FMP established the program and was
approved in 2010 and implemented
through two rulemakings: the first
published on October 1, 2010 (75 FR
60868) and implemented the initial
quota share allocations; the second
published December 15, 2010 (75 FR
78344).
The shorebased trawl sector is
managed under an individual fishing
quota (IFQ) program where quota share
(QS) permit owners hold QS and
individual bycatch quota (IBQ) shares
for up to 30 IFQ species. Current
regulations set accumulation limits on
the amount of QS or IBQ that a person,
individually or collectively, may own or
control in the shorebased IFQ program.
There are individual control limits for
each of the 30 IFQ species, as well as
an aggregate nonwhiting control limit
across species. Consistent with the trawl
rationalization program, some QS
permit owners were initially allocated
an amount of QS and/or IBQ that
exceeded one or more of the control
limits, based on their catch history
during the qualifying years. The
regulations provide these QS permit
owners an adjustment period to hold the
excess shares, but they must completely
divest of any excess QS or IBQ by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
November 30, 2015. For any QS permit
owner who does not divest of his excess
shares by the deadline, the regulations
specify that NMFS will revoke his
excess QS or IBQ and redistribute it to
other QS permit owners in proportion to
their current QS or IBQ holdings, up to
the control limits.
This action adds the revocation
protocols for cases where QS permit
owners do not voluntarily divest of QS
holdings in excess of the control limits
by the divestiture deadline, adds an
option where QS permit owners who
exceed the aggregate nonwhiting control
limit can abandon excess QS to NMFS,
and establishes procedures if divestiture
becomes necessary in 2016 and beyond.
NMFS published a proposed rule for
this action on September 2, 2015 (80 FR
53088). The preamble to the proposed
rule provides more background and
information on accumulation limits and
divestiture, and describes the method
for revoking and redistributing QS in
excess of the accumulation limits after
the divestiture deadline, as well as the
method and deadline for abandonment,
which are not repeated here.
Response to Comments
The comment period on the proposed
rule ended on October 2, 2015. NMFS
received two comment letters, one from
a processors’ association and one from
a harvester/processor company. The
first letter addressed the proposed
abandonment procedure. The second
letter opposed the process for
proportional revocation and
redistribution of excess QS and
requested that NMFS retract and
reevaluate the aggregate control limit
that was adopted in 2010 as part of
Amendment 20. Comments from both
letters are addressed below.
Comment 1: The commenter
supported the proposed QS
abandonment option for permit owners
over the aggregate nonwhiting control
limit, but requested that NMFS add an
abandonment option for those cases
where a permit owner exceeds one or
more individual species control limits
across multiple permits. The commenter
noted that such an option would be
simpler and provide more flexibility
than the proportional reduction method
described in the proposed rule, and
would create less work for NMFS while
still meeting the objective of ownership
caps.
Response: Under the existing
regulations, QS permit owners who
exceed an individual species control
limit across multiple permits have the
ability to divest themselves of
individual species shares presently, and
if they do not divest by the deadline,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69139
NMFS will only revoke excess shares of
that species. Thus there is no need to
provide an option for abandonment at
the individual species level. On the
other hand, if a QS permit owner who
exceeds the aggregate nonwhiting
control limit does not divest by the
deadline, NMFS will revoke some
shares of each non-widow species
contributing to the aggregate
calculation, up to 27 species (revocation
of widow species will not occur until
widow reallocation is complete). NMFS
agrees with the Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) that an
abandonment option for the aggregate
nonwhiting control limit is appropriate
because proportional reduction of 27
species would be cumbersome, and
could result in high value species being
automatically revoked, while divestiture
of an individual species, whether across
multiple QS permits or not, does not
necessitate an abandonment option.
Comment 2: The commenter
supported the proposed notification
process for QS permit owners who may
exceed an accumulation limit in 2016
and beyond, but asked NMFS to
consider a deadline longer than 60 days.
Response: NMFS agrees and has
modified the final rule to implement a
90-day deadline for divestiture if NMFS
determines that a QS permit owner
exceeds an accumulation limit in 2016
or beyond (instead of the 60-day
deadline in the proposed rule). In
addition, if a QS permit owner was
found to exceed the control limit for
aggregate nonwhiting holdings in 2016
or beyond, the QS permit owner may
abandon QS to NMFS within 60 days of
notification by NMFS (instead of the 30day deadline in the proposed rule).
Comment 3: The commenter asked
NMFS to reconsider the proportional
revocation of QS at the individual
species level and across multiple QS
permits because it is unfair, inefficient,
and unaligned with conservation goals.
The commenter also opposed
proportional revocation for the aggregate
nonwhiting control limit. The
commenter asserted that proportional
revocation is inconsistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Response: Revocation of QS or IBQ in
excess of the accumulation limits was
approved and implemented under
Amendment 20 and is beyond the scope
of this rulemaking. This rulemaking
adds specifics for revocation when a QS
permit owner exceeds a control limit
across multiple permits or exceeds the
aggregate nonwhiting control limit. If a
QS permit owner exceeds an individual
species control limit in just one QS
permit, NMFS will revoke excess QS or
E:\FR\FM\09NOR1.SGM
09NOR1
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
69140
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
IBQ at the species level. There will be
no proportional method necessary, just
a simple revocation of the excess
amount. However, if a QS permit owner
exceeds an individual species control
limit across multiple permits after the
divestiture deadline, under this
rulemaking NMFS will revoke QS or
IBQ for that species from each permit
contributing to the overage, in
proportion to the amount the QS
percentage from each permit contributes
to the total QS percentage owned. If a
QS permit owner exceeds the aggregate
nonwhiting control limit after the
divestiture deadline, under this
rulemaking NMFS will revoke QS at the
species level in proportion to the
amount of the aggregate overage divided
by the aggregate total owned.
Proportional revocation will only be
used in cases where QS permit owners
do not voluntarily divest of their excess
QS or IBQ by the divestiture deadline,
whether across multiple permits or at
the aggregate nonwhiting control limit
level. The choice is completely in the
hands of participants: Sell or trade or
otherwise divest by the deadline, or
excess QS or IBQ across multiple
permits or above the aggregate
nonwhiting control limit will be
revoked proportionally.
By the November 30, 2015 divestiture
deadline, QS permit owners initially
allocated excess shares could have held
excess QS or IBQ for nearly 5 years (the
IFQ program began on January 11, 2011)
and will have had nearly 2 years to
divest of excess shares (QS trading
began on January 1, 2014). NMFS agrees
with the Council that proportional
revocation is a fair method to revoke QS
or IBQ after the divestiture deadline,
whether across multiple permits or if
someone exceeds the aggregate
nonwhiting control limit.
Comment 4: The commenter asserted
that the proportional redistribution of
abandoned or revoked QS to all other
QS permit owners is economically
inefficient, harmful to conservation
goals, and reduces the fishery’s ability
to harvest the optimum yield. They also
state that NMFS should have considered
how proportional redistribution satisfies
the objectives of MSA, the Fishery
Ecosystem Plan (FEP), and Amendments
20 and 21 to the Pacific Coast
Groundfish FMP. In addition, they
suggest that NMFS should auction
abandoned or revoked QS.
Response: Proportional redistribution
was approved and implemented under
Amendment 20 and is beyond the scope
of this rulemaking. If excess QS is
abandoned to NMFS by the
abandonment deadline (in the case of
QS in excess of the aggregate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
nonwhiting control limit), or if QS or
IBQ is revoked by NMFS after the
divestiture deadline, NMFS will
redistribute the abandoned or revoked
QS or IBQ to all other QS permit owners
in proportion to their current share
holdings. Proportional redistribution of
abandoned or revoked QS or IBQ will
only be used in cases where QS permit
owners choose to abandon QS or do not
voluntarily divest of their excess QS or
IBQ by the divestiture deadline. The
choice is completely in the hands of
participants to sell or trade or otherwise
divest excess QS or IBQ prior to the
divestiture deadline, abandon excess QS
to NMFS for species of their choosing if
they are over the aggregate nonwhiting
control limit, and/or have excess QS or
IBQ revoked by NMFS if they do not
divest by the divestiture deadline.
NMFS agrees with the Council that
proportional redistribution of
abandoned or revoked excess QS or IBQ
to current QS permit owners is a fair
outcome.
The implementation of an auction for
abandoned or revoked QS is also
outside of the scope of this rulemaking.
This is an administrative rule to add to
existing procedures for the revocation
and redistribution of excess QS after the
divestiture deadline. While NMFS
agrees that an auction for revocation and
redistribution of QS or IBQ in 2016 or
beyond may be worthy of consideration,
this proposal needs to make its way
through the Council process. The
commenter can choose to participate in
the 5-year review to pursue this issue.
(The response to Comment 6 provides
more information about how to
participate in the 5-year review.)
Comment 5: The commenter asserted
that NMFS’ decision to proceed with the
existing divestiture deadline of
November 30, 2015, instead of delaying
divestiture until after the widow
rockfish reallocation, is unreasonable
and violates the MSA and the APA
because NMFS did not address that
decision in the proposed rule.
Response: NMFS brought this issue
with several alternatives to the Council
for consideration in November 2014 and
April 2015 (see the November 2014
Agenda Item J.2.b NMFS Report; the
November 2014 Agenda Item J.2.b
Supplemental NMFS Report 2; and the
April 2015 Agenda Item E.6.a NMFS
Report). After much Council-level
discussion of the alternatives for
delaying both the individual and
aggregate control limits until after the
widow reallocation, the Council did not
modify its original decision and the
divestiture requirement and deadline
remain in place, with widow rockfish
excluded until reallocation is complete.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
All participants have been on notice
about the divestiture requirement since
2010, and many have been planning
how to divest or have already divested
down to the control limits. Because the
reallocation of widow rockfish will only
affect one IFQ species, it is not overly
complicated to exclude widow rockfish
from the divestiture deadline and
address divestiture of that species as
part of the widow reallocation process.
Comment 6: The commenter asserted
that the aggregate control limit of 2.7%
for the nonwhiting, shorebased
groundfish fishery established under
Amendment 20 in 2010 violates the
APA, MSA and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
requested that NMFS retract and
properly evaluate the aggregate
nonwhiting control limit in a manner
consistent with all laws.
Response: The aggregate control limit
of 2.7% for the nonwhiting, shorebased
groundfish fishery was approved by
NMFS in 2010 and is beyond the scope
of this rulemaking, which addresses
final implementation aspects of the
control limits. Further, NMFS does not
agree that the 2.7% nonwhiting control
limit violates applicable law and should
be retracted. The MSA requires
specification of maximum shares,
expressed as a percentage of the total
limited access privileges, which a
limited access privilege holder is
permitted to hold, acquire, or use, such
that no privilege holder may acquire an
excessive share of the total privileges in
the program. This requirement is similar
to National Standard 4, which requires
fair and equitable allocations that are
reasonably calculated to promote
conservation and carried out so no
individual or entity acquires an
excessive share of the privileges. The
Council, including its advisory
committees, considered over several
years various options and analyses in
developing the control limits that were
ultimately approved by NMFS in 2010.
The accumulation limits were
developed based on a review of past
participation in the fishery, available
policy guidance on excessive shares and
market control, and the concept of
distributing quota and fishing activity
among more participants in order to
address concerns such as community
impacts and the program’s potential
effects on new entrants. The choice of
the control limits represents a balance
between these sometimes competing
interests.
No comments specific to the aggregate
control limit of 2.7% for the
nonwhiting, shorebased groundfish
fishery were submitted to NMFS during
the 2010 rulemaking to implement the
E:\FR\FM\09NOR1.SGM
09NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
program. As discussed above, all
participants have been aware of the
control limits and the requirement to
divest since 2010. One of the significant
issues for the Council and NMFS was
whether, once the required
accumulation limits were adopted, there
should be an adjustment period for
participants who owned or controlled
excess QS. The Council adopted and
NMFS approved a divestiture period to
occur during years 3 and 4 of the
program, after considerable discussion
and public comment. The divestiture
period was extended due to unrelated
litigation that resulted in
reconsideration of the initial allocation
of Pacific whiting because the agency
and Council determined that no
transfers of Pacific whiting shares
should occur until resolution of the
initial allocation. Thus, participants
have had nearly 5 years to prepare for
this divestiture requirement.
The Council and NMFS have initiated
a 5-year review of the trawl
rationalization program. If the
commenter wishes that this program
review include an examination of the
impacts and appropriateness of the
nonwhiting aggregate control limit, the
commenter should participate in the
program review. The 5-year review is
next scheduled for discussion at the
Council level at the June 23–28, 2016,
meeting in Tacoma, WA. The
commenter may submit a comment for
the 5-year program review to the open
comment section of the briefing book for
any Council meeting prior to June 2016,
or may submit a comment to the briefing
book under the trawl rationalization
program five-year review agenda item
for the June 2016 Council meeting.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
In response to comments, NMFS
changed the deadline to divest in 2016
or beyond from 60 days from the date
of notification by NMFS to 90 days from
the date of notification by NMFS.
Linked with this deadline change,
NMFS also changed the deadline to
abandon QS in excess of the aggregate
nonwhiting control limit from 30 days
from the date of notification by NMFS
to 60 days from the date of notification
by NMFS, to provide more time for QS
permit owners to determine if they
would like to use the abandonment
option.
Classification
Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(a) and
305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
NMFS Assistant Administrator has
determined that this final rule is
consistent with the Pacific Coast
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
Groundfish FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, and other applicable law.
The need to implement these
measures in a timely manner constitutes
good cause under authority contained in
5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the thirty
day waiting period and make the rule
effective immediately upon filing for
public inspection by the Office of the
Federal Register. It would be impractical
to have to wait thirty days before the
rule is effective because all QS permit
owners must be made aware of the
clarified divestiture protocols in this
final rule prior to the November 30,
2015 divestiture deadline. There is also
a public interest need to implement this
action immediately to allow QS permit
owners who exceed the aggregate
nonwhiting control limit the ability and
flexibility to abandon excess QS of the
species of their choosing to NMFS by
the November 15, 2015 deadline.
Otherwise NMFS will revoke excess QS
for these permit owners according to the
procedures established in this rule.
Finally, the final rule only makes minor
procedural modifications to clarify
existing divestiture and revocation
regulations.
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) was prepared. The FRFA
incorporates the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of
the significant issues raised by the
public comments in response to the
IRFA, and NMFS responses to those
comments, and a summary of the
analyses completed to support the
action are addressed below. NMFS also
prepared a Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR) for this action. A copy of the RIR/
FRFA is available from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES). A summary of the FRFA,
per the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604(a)
follows:
NMFS, pursuant to section 604 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, has prepared
a FRFA. The FRFA incorporates the
initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) prepared for the proposed rule
and proposed specifications. The
analysis in the IRFA is not repeated here
in its entirety. A description of the
action, why it is being considered, and
the legal basis for this action are
contained in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION Background section of the
preamble and in the preamble of the
proposed rule.
NMFS did not receive any comments
on the IRFA. This final rule will affect
small entities. There are 138 quota
shareholders potentially directly
affected by the aggregate species limits
as reductions of excess shares will be
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69141
taken from the quota share percentages
listed on the permit. At the first level of
ownership and based on affiliations,
there are 96 unique businesses. Even if
some first-level owners are persons,
they are considered businesses for
purposes for determining the effects on
small businesses. These QS holders
must direct quota pounds to various
vessel accounts so that quota pounds
can be fished. Quite frequently they also
own limited entry permits, the vessels
attached to these permits, or processing
facilities. As compared to secondary
owners or investors, first-level quota
shareholders are active participants in
the fishery, and thus are businesses for
purposes of this rule. Also, when
renewing their quota share permits, all
quota shareholders must respond to
questions of whether they consider
themselves a large or small business. All
138 quota shareholders are businesses.
Of these businesses, 15 are large. There
are nine entities affected by the control
limit for one or more individual species.
These entities are affected only in the
sense that NMFS is showing how it will
calculate excess shares across multiple
permits. There are three or less affected
entities by the aggregate species limit
divestiture rules. When combined, there
are nine unique entities affected by this
rule—seven small and two large.
Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are being modified by this
final rule. NMFS is amending the
supporting statement for the Pacific
Coast groundfish trawl rationalization
program permit and license information
collection Office of Management and
Business (OMB) Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) requirements (number 0648–
0620) to reflect the abandonment
protocols described in the preamble to
this final rule. NMFS requests any
comments on the PRA abandonment
protocol, including whether those minor
paperwork protocols described above
would unnecessarily burden any QS
owners.
There are no significant alternatives to
the rule that accomplish the stated
objectives of applicable statutes and that
minimize any of the significant
economic impact of the proposed rule
on small entities. Inclusion of the
abandonment process and the extension
of divestiture and abandonment
deadlines should aid small businesses
in meeting the other divestiture
requirements. There are no relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this action.
This final rule contains a collectionof-information requirement subject to
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and
which has been approved by OMB
under control number 0648–0620.
E:\FR\FM\09NOR1.SGM
09NOR1
69142
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Public reporting burden for QS permit
owners who exceed the aggregate
nonwhiting control limit and wish to
abandon QS to NMFS is estimated to
average 10 minutes per response,
including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding these burden
estimates or any other aspect of this data
collection, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
ADDRESSES) and by email to OIRA_
Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to
202–395–7285.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, and no person shall be
subject to penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175,
this rule was developed after
meaningful collaboration with tribal
officials from the area covered by the
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. Under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C.
1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of
the Pacific Council must be a
representative of an Indian tribe with
federally recognized fishing rights from
the area of the Council’s jurisdiction.
The regulations do not require the tribes
to change from their current practices.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian
fisheries.
Dated: November 3, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended
as follows:
PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST
COAST STATES
1. The authority citation for part 660
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16
U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.
2. In § 660.140, revise paragraph
(d)(4)(v) to read as follows:
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
§ 660.140
Shorebased IFQ Program.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(v) Divestiture. Accumulation limits
will be calculated by first calculating
the aggregate non-whiting QS limit and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
then the individual species QS or IBQ
control limits. For QS permit owners
(including any person who has
ownership interest in the owner named
on the permit) that are found to exceed
the accumulation limits during the
initial issuance of QS permits, an
adjustment period will be provided
during which they will have to
completely divest their QS or IBQ in
excess of the accumulation limits. QS or
IBQ will be issued for amounts in excess
of accumulation limits only for owners
of limited entry permits as of November
8, 2008, if such ownership has been
registered with NMFS by November 30,
2008. The owner of any permit acquired
after November 8, 2008, or if acquired
earlier, not registered with NMFS by
November 30, 2008, will only be eligible
to receive an initial allocation for that
permit of those QS or IBQ that are
within the accumulation limits; any QS
or IBQ in excess of the accumulation
limits will be redistributed to the
remainder of the initial recipients of QS
or IBQ in proportion to each recipient’s
initial allocation of QS or IBQ for each
species. Any person that qualifies for an
initial allocation of QS or IBQ in excess
of the accumulation limits will be
allowed to receive that allocation, but
must divest themselves of the QS
(except for widow rockfish QS) or IBQ
in excess of the accumulation limits by
November 30, 2015, according to the
procedure provided under paragraph
(d)(4)(v)(A) of this section. If NMFS
identifies that a QS permit owner
exceeds the accumulation limits in 2016
or beyond, the QS permit owner must
divest of the QS or IBQ in excess of the
accumulation limits according to the
procedure provided under paragraph
(d)(4)(v)(B) of this section. Owners of
QS or IBQ in excess of the control limits
may receive and use the QP or IBQ
pounds associated with that excess, up
to the time their divestiture is
completed.
(A) Divestiture and redistribution
process in 2015. QS permit owners in
excess of the control limit for aggregate
nonwhiting QS holdings may abandon
QS to NMFS by November 15, 2015
using the procedure provided under
paragraph (d)(4)(v)(C) of this section. QS
permit owners must divest themselves
of any QS or IBQ in excess of the
accumulation limits by November 30,
2015, except for widow rockfish QS,
which cannot be transferred as
described in paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(B)(2) of
this section. After the November 30,
2015 divestiture deadline, NMFS will
revoke all QS or IBQ held by a person
(including any person who has
ownership interest in the owner names
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
on the permit) in excess of the
accumulation limits following the
procedures specified under paragraphs
(d)(4)(v)(D) through (G) of this section.
All abandoned or revoked shares will be
redistributed to all other QS permit
owners in proportion to their QS or IBQ
holdings on or about January 1, 2016,
based on current ownership records,
except that no person will be allocated
an amount of QS or IBQ that would put
that person over an accumulation limit.
(B) Divestiture and redistribution
process in 2016 and beyond. Any
person owning or controlling QS or IBQ
must comply with the accumulation
limits, even if that control is not
reflected in the ownership records
available to NMFS as specified under
paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (iii) of this
section. If NMFS identifies that a QS
permit owner exceeds an accumulation
limit in 2016 or beyond, NMFS will
notify the QS permit owner that he or
she has 90 days to divest of the excess
QS or IBQ. In the case that a QS permit
owner exceeds the control limit for
aggregate nonwhiting QS holdings, the
QS permit owner may abandon QS to
NMFS within 60 days of the notification
by NMFS, using the procedure provided
under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(C) of this
section. After the 90-day divestiture
period, NMFS will revoke all QS or IBQ
held by a person (including any person
who has ownership interest in the
owner names on the permit) in excess
of the accumulation limits following the
procedures specified under paragraphs
(d)(4)(v)(D) through (G) of this section.
All abandoned or revoked shares will be
redistributed to all other QS permit
owners in proportion to their QS or IBQ
holdings on or about January 1 of the
following calendar year, based on
current ownership records, except that
no person will be allocated an amount
of QS or IBQ that would put that person
over an accumulation limit.
(C) Abandonment of QS. QS permit
owners that are over the control limit for
aggregate nonwhiting QS holdings may
voluntarily abandon QS if they notify
NMFS in writing by the applicable
deadline specified under paragraph
(d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section. The
written abandonment request must
include the following information: QS
permit number, IFQ species, and the QS
percentage to be abandoned. Either the
QS permit owner or an authorized
representative of the QS permit owner
must sign the request. QS permit owners
choosing to utilize the abandonment
option will permanently relinquish to
NMFS any right to the abandoned QS,
and the QS will be redistributed as
described under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A)
E:\FR\FM\09NOR1.SGM
09NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
or (B) of this section. No compensation
will be due for any abandoned shares.
(D) Revocation. NMFS will revoke QS
from any QS permit owner who exceeds
an accumulation limit after the
divestiture deadline specified under
paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this
section. NMFS will follow the
revocation approach summarized in the
following table and explained under
paragraphs (d)(4)(v)(E) through (G) of
this section:
If, after the divestiture deadline, a QS permit owner exceeds . . .
Then . . .
An individual species control limit (non-widow until reallocation is complete) in one QS permit.
An individual species control limit (non-widow until reallocation is complete) across multiple QS permits.
NMFS will revoke excess QS at the species level.
The control limit for aggregate nonwhiting QS holdings ..........................
(E) Revocation of excess QS or IBQ
from one QS permit. In cases where a
person has not divested to the control
limits for individual species (nonwidow until reallocation is complete) in
one QS permit by the deadline specified
under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of
this section, NMFS will revoke excess
QS at the species level in order to get
that person to the limits. NMFS will
redistribute the revoked QS following
the process specified in paragraph
(d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section. No
compensation will be due for any
revoked shares.
(F) Revocation of excess QS or IBQ
from multiple QS permits. In cases
where a person has not divested to the
control limits for individual species
(non-widow QS until reallocation is
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
69143
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 Nov 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
NMFS will revoke QS at the species level in proportion to the amount
the QS percentage from each permit contributes to the total QS percentage owned.
NMFS will revoke QS at the species level in proportion to the amount
of the aggregate overage divided by the aggregate total owned. Until
widow reallocation is complete, the proportion will be adjusted to
hold widow QS at a constant level while bringing the aggregate percentage owned to 2.700%, using normal rounding rules.
complete) across QS permits by the
deadline specified under paragraph
(d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section, NMFS
will revoke QS at the species level in
proportion to the amount the QS
percentage from each permit contributes
to the total QS percentage owned.
NMFS will redistribute the revoked QS
following the process specified in
paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this
section. No compensation will be due
for any revoked shares.
(G) Revocation of QS in excess of the
control limit for aggregate nonwhiting
QS holdings. In cases where a QS permit
owner has not divested to the control
limit for aggregate nonwhiting QS
holdings by the deadline specified
under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of
this section, NMFS will revoke QS at
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
the species level in proportion to the
amount of the aggregate overage divided
by the aggregate total owned. Until
widow reallocation is complete and
transfer of widow is allowed, widow
will continue to be included in the
aggregate calculation, but the proportion
will be adjusted to hold widow QS at a
constant level while bringing the
aggregate percentage owned to 2.700%,
using normal rounding rules. NMFS
will redistribute the revoked QS
following the process in paragraph
(d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section. No
compensation will be due for any
revoked shares.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–28412 Filed 11–4–15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\09NOR1.SGM
09NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69138-69143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28412]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 150721634-5999-02]
RIN 0648-BF11
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Process for Divestiture of Excess
Quota Shares in the Individual Fishing Quota Fishery
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In January 2011, NMFS implemented the trawl rationalization
program (a catch share program) for the Pacific coast groundfish
limited entry trawl fishery. The program was implemented through
Amendment 20 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
(FMP) and the corresponding implementing regulations. Amendment 20
established the trawl rationalization program, which includes an
Individual Fishing Quota program for limited entry trawl participants.
Under current regulations, quota share permit owners must divest quota
share holdings that exceed accumulation limits by November 30, 2015.
This final rule makes narrow procedural additions to regulations to
clarify how divestiture and revocation of excess quota share will occur
in November 2015, and establishes procedures for the future if
divestiture becomes necessary.
DATES: Effective November 4, 2015.
[[Page 69139]]
ADDRESSES: NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA), which is summarized in the Classification section of this final
rule. NMFS also prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) for the proposed rule. Copies of the IRFA, FRFA and the Small
Entity Compliance Guide are available from William W. Stelle, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, West Coast 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 available on the West Coast Region's
Web site at https://www.westcoast.fisheries.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 the West Coast Region and by email to
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Towne, 206-526-4140,
sarah.towne@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NMFS implemented a trawl rationalization program in 2011 for the
Pacific coast groundfish limited entry trawl fishery. Amendment 20 to
the FMP established the program and was approved in 2010 and
implemented through two rulemakings: the first published on October 1,
2010 (75 FR 60868) and implemented the initial quota share allocations;
the second published December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78344).
The shorebased trawl sector is managed under an individual fishing
quota (IFQ) program where quota share (QS) permit owners hold QS and
individual bycatch quota (IBQ) shares for up to 30 IFQ species. Current
regulations set accumulation limits on the amount of QS or IBQ that a
person, individually or collectively, may own or control in the
shorebased IFQ program. There are individual control limits for each of
the 30 IFQ species, as well as an aggregate nonwhiting control limit
across species. Consistent with the trawl rationalization program, some
QS permit owners were initially allocated an amount of QS and/or IBQ
that exceeded one or more of the control limits, based on their catch
history during the qualifying years. The regulations provide these QS
permit owners an adjustment period to hold the excess shares, but they
must completely divest of any excess QS or IBQ by November 30, 2015.
For any QS permit owner who does not divest of his excess shares by the
deadline, the regulations specify that NMFS will revoke his excess QS
or IBQ and redistribute it to other QS permit owners in proportion to
their current QS or IBQ holdings, up to the control limits.
This action adds the revocation protocols for cases where QS permit
owners do not voluntarily divest of QS holdings in excess of the
control limits by the divestiture deadline, adds an option where QS
permit owners who exceed the aggregate nonwhiting control limit can
abandon excess QS to NMFS, and establishes procedures if divestiture
becomes necessary in 2016 and beyond.
NMFS published a proposed rule for this action on September 2, 2015
(80 FR 53088). The preamble to the proposed rule provides more
background and information on accumulation limits and divestiture, and
describes the method for revoking and redistributing QS in excess of
the accumulation limits after the divestiture deadline, as well as the
method and deadline for abandonment, which are not repeated here.
Response to Comments
The comment period on the proposed rule ended on October 2, 2015.
NMFS received two comment letters, one from a processors' association
and one from a harvester/processor company. The first letter addressed
the proposed abandonment procedure. The second letter opposed the
process for proportional revocation and redistribution of excess QS and
requested that NMFS retract and reevaluate the aggregate control limit
that was adopted in 2010 as part of Amendment 20. Comments from both
letters are addressed below.
Comment 1: The commenter supported the proposed QS abandonment
option for permit owners over the aggregate nonwhiting control limit,
but requested that NMFS add an abandonment option for those cases where
a permit owner exceeds one or more individual species control limits
across multiple permits. The commenter noted that such an option would
be simpler and provide more flexibility than the proportional reduction
method described in the proposed rule, and would create less work for
NMFS while still meeting the objective of ownership caps.
Response: Under the existing regulations, QS permit owners who
exceed an individual species control limit across multiple permits have
the ability to divest themselves of individual species shares
presently, and if they do not divest by the deadline, NMFS will only
revoke excess shares of that species. Thus there is no need to provide
an option for abandonment at the individual species level. On the other
hand, if a QS permit owner who exceeds the aggregate nonwhiting control
limit does not divest by the deadline, NMFS will revoke some shares of
each non-widow species contributing to the aggregate calculation, up to
27 species (revocation of widow species will not occur until widow
reallocation is complete). NMFS agrees with the Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) that an abandonment option for the
aggregate nonwhiting control limit is appropriate because proportional
reduction of 27 species would be cumbersome, and could result in high
value species being automatically revoked, while divestiture of an
individual species, whether across multiple QS permits or not, does not
necessitate an abandonment option.
Comment 2: The commenter supported the proposed notification
process for QS permit owners who may exceed an accumulation limit in
2016 and beyond, but asked NMFS to consider a deadline longer than 60
days.
Response: NMFS agrees and has modified the final rule to implement
a 90-day deadline for divestiture if NMFS determines that a QS permit
owner exceeds an accumulation limit in 2016 or beyond (instead of the
60-day deadline in the proposed rule). In addition, if a QS permit
owner was found to exceed the control limit for aggregate nonwhiting
holdings in 2016 or beyond, the QS permit owner may abandon QS to NMFS
within 60 days of notification by NMFS (instead of the 30-day deadline
in the proposed rule).
Comment 3: The commenter asked NMFS to reconsider the proportional
revocation of QS at the individual species level and across multiple QS
permits because it is unfair, inefficient, and unaligned with
conservation goals. The commenter also opposed proportional revocation
for the aggregate nonwhiting control limit. The commenter asserted that
proportional revocation is inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act
(MSA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Response: Revocation of QS or IBQ in excess of the accumulation
limits was approved and implemented under Amendment 20 and is beyond
the scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking adds specifics for
revocation when a QS permit owner exceeds a control limit across
multiple permits or exceeds the aggregate nonwhiting control limit. If
a QS permit owner exceeds an individual species control limit in just
one QS permit, NMFS will revoke excess QS or
[[Page 69140]]
IBQ at the species level. There will be no proportional method
necessary, just a simple revocation of the excess amount. However, if a
QS permit owner exceeds an individual species control limit across
multiple permits after the divestiture deadline, under this rulemaking
NMFS will revoke QS or IBQ for that species from each permit
contributing to the overage, in proportion to the amount the QS
percentage from each permit contributes to the total QS percentage
owned. If a QS permit owner exceeds the aggregate nonwhiting control
limit after the divestiture deadline, under this rulemaking NMFS will
revoke QS at the species level in proportion to the amount of the
aggregate overage divided by the aggregate total owned.
Proportional revocation will only be used in cases where QS permit
owners do not voluntarily divest of their excess QS or IBQ by the
divestiture deadline, whether across multiple permits or at the
aggregate nonwhiting control limit level. The choice is completely in
the hands of participants: Sell or trade or otherwise divest by the
deadline, or excess QS or IBQ across multiple permits or above the
aggregate nonwhiting control limit will be revoked proportionally.
By the November 30, 2015 divestiture deadline, QS permit owners
initially allocated excess shares could have held excess QS or IBQ for
nearly 5 years (the IFQ program began on January 11, 2011) and will
have had nearly 2 years to divest of excess shares (QS trading began on
January 1, 2014). NMFS agrees with the Council that proportional
revocation is a fair method to revoke QS or IBQ after the divestiture
deadline, whether across multiple permits or if someone exceeds the
aggregate nonwhiting control limit.
Comment 4: The commenter asserted that the proportional
redistribution of abandoned or revoked QS to all other QS permit owners
is economically inefficient, harmful to conservation goals, and reduces
the fishery's ability to harvest the optimum yield. They also state
that NMFS should have considered how proportional redistribution
satisfies the objectives of MSA, the Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP), and
Amendments 20 and 21 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. In addition,
they suggest that NMFS should auction abandoned or revoked QS.
Response: Proportional redistribution was approved and implemented
under Amendment 20 and is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. If
excess QS is abandoned to NMFS by the abandonment deadline (in the case
of QS in excess of the aggregate nonwhiting control limit), or if QS or
IBQ is revoked by NMFS after the divestiture deadline, NMFS will
redistribute the abandoned or revoked QS or IBQ to all other QS permit
owners in proportion to their current share holdings. Proportional
redistribution of abandoned or revoked QS or IBQ will only be used in
cases where QS permit owners choose to abandon QS or do not voluntarily
divest of their excess QS or IBQ by the divestiture deadline. The
choice is completely in the hands of participants to sell or trade or
otherwise divest excess QS or IBQ prior to the divestiture deadline,
abandon excess QS to NMFS for species of their choosing if they are
over the aggregate nonwhiting control limit, and/or have excess QS or
IBQ revoked by NMFS if they do not divest by the divestiture deadline.
NMFS agrees with the Council that proportional redistribution of
abandoned or revoked excess QS or IBQ to current QS permit owners is a
fair outcome.
The implementation of an auction for abandoned or revoked QS is
also outside of the scope of this rulemaking. This is an administrative
rule to add to existing procedures for the revocation and
redistribution of excess QS after the divestiture deadline. While NMFS
agrees that an auction for revocation and redistribution of QS or IBQ
in 2016 or beyond may be worthy of consideration, this proposal needs
to make its way through the Council process. The commenter can choose
to participate in the 5-year review to pursue this issue. (The response
to Comment 6 provides more information about how to participate in the
5-year review.)
Comment 5: The commenter asserted that NMFS' decision to proceed
with the existing divestiture deadline of November 30, 2015, instead of
delaying divestiture until after the widow rockfish reallocation, is
unreasonable and violates the MSA and the APA because NMFS did not
address that decision in the proposed rule.
Response: NMFS brought this issue with several alternatives to the
Council for consideration in November 2014 and April 2015 (see the
November 2014 Agenda Item J.2.b NMFS Report; the November 2014 Agenda
Item J.2.b Supplemental NMFS Report 2; and the April 2015 Agenda Item
E.6.a NMFS Report). After much Council-level discussion of the
alternatives for delaying both the individual and aggregate control
limits until after the widow reallocation, the Council did not modify
its original decision and the divestiture requirement and deadline
remain in place, with widow rockfish excluded until reallocation is
complete. All participants have been on notice about the divestiture
requirement since 2010, and many have been planning how to divest or
have already divested down to the control limits. Because the
reallocation of widow rockfish will only affect one IFQ species, it is
not overly complicated to exclude widow rockfish from the divestiture
deadline and address divestiture of that species as part of the widow
reallocation process.
Comment 6: The commenter asserted that the aggregate control limit
of 2.7% for the nonwhiting, shorebased groundfish fishery established
under Amendment 20 in 2010 violates the APA, MSA and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and requested that NMFS retract and
properly evaluate the aggregate nonwhiting control limit in a manner
consistent with all laws.
Response: The aggregate control limit of 2.7% for the nonwhiting,
shorebased groundfish fishery was approved by NMFS in 2010 and is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which addresses final
implementation aspects of the control limits. Further, NMFS does not
agree that the 2.7% nonwhiting control limit violates applicable law
and should be retracted. The MSA requires specification of maximum
shares, expressed as a percentage of the total limited access
privileges, which a limited access privilege holder is permitted to
hold, acquire, or use, such that no privilege holder may acquire an
excessive share of the total privileges in the program. This
requirement is similar to National Standard 4, which requires fair and
equitable allocations that are reasonably calculated to promote
conservation and carried out so no individual or entity acquires an
excessive share of the privileges. The Council, including its advisory
committees, considered over several years various options and analyses
in developing the control limits that were ultimately approved by NMFS
in 2010. The accumulation limits were developed based on a review of
past participation in the fishery, available policy guidance on
excessive shares and market control, and the concept of distributing
quota and fishing activity among more participants in order to address
concerns such as community impacts and the program's potential effects
on new entrants. The choice of the control limits represents a balance
between these sometimes competing interests.
No comments specific to the aggregate control limit of 2.7% for the
nonwhiting, shorebased groundfish fishery were submitted to NMFS during
the 2010 rulemaking to implement the
[[Page 69141]]
program. As discussed above, all participants have been aware of the
control limits and the requirement to divest since 2010. One of the
significant issues for the Council and NMFS was whether, once the
required accumulation limits were adopted, there should be an
adjustment period for participants who owned or controlled excess QS.
The Council adopted and NMFS approved a divestiture period to occur
during years 3 and 4 of the program, after considerable discussion and
public comment. The divestiture period was extended due to unrelated
litigation that resulted in reconsideration of the initial allocation
of Pacific whiting because the agency and Council determined that no
transfers of Pacific whiting shares should occur until resolution of
the initial allocation. Thus, participants have had nearly 5 years to
prepare for this divestiture requirement.
The Council and NMFS have initiated a 5-year review of the trawl
rationalization program. If the commenter wishes that this program
review include an examination of the impacts and appropriateness of the
nonwhiting aggregate control limit, the commenter should participate in
the program review. The 5-year review is next scheduled for discussion
at the Council level at the June 23-28, 2016, meeting in Tacoma, WA.
The commenter may submit a comment for the 5-year program review to the
open comment section of the briefing book for any Council meeting prior
to June 2016, or may submit a comment to the briefing book under the
trawl rationalization program five-year review agenda item for the June
2016 Council meeting.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
In response to comments, NMFS changed the deadline to divest in
2016 or beyond from 60 days from the date of notification by NMFS to 90
days from the date of notification by NMFS. Linked with this deadline
change, NMFS also changed the deadline to abandon QS in excess of the
aggregate nonwhiting control limit from 30 days from the date of
notification by NMFS to 60 days from the date of notification by NMFS,
to provide more time for QS permit owners to determine if they would
like to use the abandonment option.
Classification
Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(a) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this
final rule is consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
The need to implement these measures in a timely manner constitutes
good cause under authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the
thirty day waiting period and make the rule effective immediately upon
filing for public inspection by the Office of the Federal Register. It
would be impractical to have to wait thirty days before the rule is
effective because all QS permit owners must be made aware of the
clarified divestiture protocols in this final rule prior to the
November 30, 2015 divestiture deadline. There is also a public interest
need to implement this action immediately to allow QS permit owners who
exceed the aggregate nonwhiting control limit the ability and
flexibility to abandon excess QS of the species of their choosing to
NMFS by the November 15, 2015 deadline. Otherwise NMFS will revoke
excess QS for these permit owners according to the procedures
established in this rule. Finally, the final rule only makes minor
procedural modifications to clarify existing divestiture and revocation
regulations.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The
FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a
summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in
response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to those comments, and a
summary of the analyses completed to support the action are addressed
below. NMFS also prepared a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for this
action. A copy of the RIR/FRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
A summary of the FRFA, per the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604(a) follows:
NMFS, pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
has prepared a FRFA. The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) prepared for the proposed rule and proposed
specifications. The analysis in the IRFA is not repeated here in its
entirety. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and
the legal basis for this action are contained in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION Background section of the preamble and in the preamble of
the proposed rule.
NMFS did not receive any comments on the IRFA. This final rule will
affect small entities. There are 138 quota shareholders potentially
directly affected by the aggregate species limits as reductions of
excess shares will be taken from the quota share percentages listed on
the permit. At the first level of ownership and based on affiliations,
there are 96 unique businesses. Even if some first-level owners are
persons, they are considered businesses for purposes for determining
the effects on small businesses. These QS holders must direct quota
pounds to various vessel accounts so that quota pounds can be fished.
Quite frequently they also own limited entry permits, the vessels
attached to these permits, or processing facilities. As compared to
secondary owners or investors, first-level quota shareholders are
active participants in the fishery, and thus are businesses for
purposes of this rule. Also, when renewing their quota share permits,
all quota shareholders must respond to questions of whether they
consider themselves a large or small business. All 138 quota
shareholders are businesses. Of these businesses, 15 are large. There
are nine entities affected by the control limit for one or more
individual species. These entities are affected only in the sense that
NMFS is showing how it will calculate excess shares across multiple
permits. There are three or less affected entities by the aggregate
species limit divestiture rules. When combined, there are nine unique
entities affected by this rule--seven small and two large.
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements are being modified by this
final rule. NMFS is amending the supporting statement for the Pacific
Coast groundfish trawl rationalization program permit and license
information collection Office of Management and Business (OMB)
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements (number 0648-0620) to
reflect the abandonment protocols described in the preamble to this
final rule. NMFS requests any comments on the PRA abandonment protocol,
including whether those minor paperwork protocols described above would
unnecessarily burden any QS owners.
There are no significant alternatives to the rule that accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that minimize any of
the significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
Inclusion of the abandonment process and the extension of divestiture
and abandonment deadlines should aid small businesses in meeting the
other divestiture requirements. There are no relevant Federal rules
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been
approved by OMB under control number 0648-0620.
[[Page 69142]]
Public reporting burden for QS permit owners who exceed the aggregate
nonwhiting control limit and wish to abandon QS to NMFS is estimated to
average 10 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding these burden
estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by
email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this rule was developed after
meaningful collaboration with tribal officials from the area covered by
the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16
U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council
must be a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized
fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. The
regulations do not require the tribes to change from their current
practices.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian fisheries.
Dated: November 3, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended
as follows:
PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES
0
1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and
16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 660.140, revise paragraph (d)(4)(v) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.140 Shorebased IFQ Program.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(v) Divestiture. Accumulation limits will be calculated by first
calculating the aggregate non-whiting QS limit and then the individual
species QS or IBQ control limits. For QS permit owners (including any
person who has ownership interest in the owner named on the permit)
that are found to exceed the accumulation limits during the initial
issuance of QS permits, an adjustment period will be provided during
which they will have to completely divest their QS or IBQ in excess of
the accumulation limits. QS or IBQ will be issued for amounts in excess
of accumulation limits only for owners of limited entry permits as of
November 8, 2008, if such ownership has been registered with NMFS by
November 30, 2008. The owner of any permit acquired after November 8,
2008, or if acquired earlier, not registered with NMFS by November 30,
2008, will only be eligible to receive an initial allocation for that
permit of those QS or IBQ that are within the accumulation limits; any
QS or IBQ in excess of the accumulation limits will be redistributed to
the remainder of the initial recipients of QS or IBQ in proportion to
each recipient's initial allocation of QS or IBQ for each species. Any
person that qualifies for an initial allocation of QS or IBQ in excess
of the accumulation limits will be allowed to receive that allocation,
but must divest themselves of the QS (except for widow rockfish QS) or
IBQ in excess of the accumulation limits by November 30, 2015,
according to the procedure provided under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) of
this section. If NMFS identifies that a QS permit owner exceeds the
accumulation limits in 2016 or beyond, the QS permit owner must divest
of the QS or IBQ in excess of the accumulation limits according to the
procedure provided under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(B) of this section. Owners
of QS or IBQ in excess of the control limits may receive and use the QP
or IBQ pounds associated with that excess, up to the time their
divestiture is completed.
(A) Divestiture and redistribution process in 2015. QS permit
owners in excess of the control limit for aggregate nonwhiting QS
holdings may abandon QS to NMFS by November 15, 2015 using the
procedure provided under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(C) of this section. QS
permit owners must divest themselves of any QS or IBQ in excess of the
accumulation limits by November 30, 2015, except for widow rockfish QS,
which cannot be transferred as described in paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(B)(2)
of this section. After the November 30, 2015 divestiture deadline, NMFS
will revoke all QS or IBQ held by a person (including any person who
has ownership interest in the owner names on the permit) in excess of
the accumulation limits following the procedures specified under
paragraphs (d)(4)(v)(D) through (G) of this section. All abandoned or
revoked shares will be redistributed to all other QS permit owners in
proportion to their QS or IBQ holdings on or about January 1, 2016,
based on current ownership records, except that no person will be
allocated an amount of QS or IBQ that would put that person over an
accumulation limit.
(B) Divestiture and redistribution process in 2016 and beyond. Any
person owning or controlling QS or IBQ must comply with the
accumulation limits, even if that control is not reflected in the
ownership records available to NMFS as specified under paragraphs
(d)(4)(i) and (iii) of this section. If NMFS identifies that a QS
permit owner exceeds an accumulation limit in 2016 or beyond, NMFS will
notify the QS permit owner that he or she has 90 days to divest of the
excess QS or IBQ. In the case that a QS permit owner exceeds the
control limit for aggregate nonwhiting QS holdings, the QS permit owner
may abandon QS to NMFS within 60 days of the notification by NMFS,
using the procedure provided under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(C) of this
section. After the 90-day divestiture period, NMFS will revoke all QS
or IBQ held by a person (including any person who has ownership
interest in the owner names on the permit) in excess of the
accumulation limits following the procedures specified under paragraphs
(d)(4)(v)(D) through (G) of this section. All abandoned or revoked
shares will be redistributed to all other QS permit owners in
proportion to their QS or IBQ holdings on or about January 1 of the
following calendar year, based on current ownership records, except
that no person will be allocated an amount of QS or IBQ that would put
that person over an accumulation limit.
(C) Abandonment of QS. QS permit owners that are over the control
limit for aggregate nonwhiting QS holdings may voluntarily abandon QS
if they notify NMFS in writing by the applicable deadline specified
under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section. The written
abandonment request must include the following information: QS permit
number, IFQ species, and the QS percentage to be abandoned. Either the
QS permit owner or an authorized representative of the QS permit owner
must sign the request. QS permit owners choosing to utilize the
abandonment option will permanently relinquish to NMFS any right to the
abandoned QS, and the QS will be redistributed as described under
paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A)
[[Page 69143]]
or (B) of this section. No compensation will be due for any abandoned
shares.
(D) Revocation. NMFS will revoke QS from any QS permit owner who
exceeds an accumulation limit after the divestiture deadline specified
under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section. NMFS will follow
the revocation approach summarized in the following table and explained
under paragraphs (d)(4)(v)(E) through (G) of this section:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, after the divestiture deadline, a
QS permit owner exceeds . . . Then . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An individual species control limit NMFS will revoke excess QS at
(non-widow until reallocation is the species level.
complete) in one QS permit.
An individual species control limit NMFS will revoke QS at the
(non-widow until reallocation is species level in proportion to
complete) across multiple QS permits. the amount the QS percentage
from each permit contributes
to the total QS percentage
owned.
The control limit for aggregate NMFS will revoke QS at the
nonwhiting QS holdings. species level in proportion to
the amount of the aggregate
overage divided by the
aggregate total owned. Until
widow reallocation is
complete, the proportion will
be adjusted to hold widow QS
at a constant level while
bringing the aggregate
percentage owned to 2.700%,
using normal rounding rules.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(E) Revocation of excess QS or IBQ from one QS permit. In cases
where a person has not divested to the control limits for individual
species (non-widow until reallocation is complete) in one QS permit by
the deadline specified under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this
section, NMFS will revoke excess QS at the species level in order to
get that person to the limits. NMFS will redistribute the revoked QS
following the process specified in paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of
this section. No compensation will be due for any revoked shares.
(F) Revocation of excess QS or IBQ from multiple QS permits. In
cases where a person has not divested to the control limits for
individual species (non-widow QS until reallocation is complete) across
QS permits by the deadline specified under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or
(B) of this section, NMFS will revoke QS at the species level in
proportion to the amount the QS percentage from each permit contributes
to the total QS percentage owned. NMFS will redistribute the revoked QS
following the process specified in paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of
this section. No compensation will be due for any revoked shares.
(G) Revocation of QS in excess of the control limit for aggregate
nonwhiting QS holdings. In cases where a QS permit owner has not
divested to the control limit for aggregate nonwhiting QS holdings by
the deadline specified under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this
section, NMFS will revoke QS at the species level in proportion to the
amount of the aggregate overage divided by the aggregate total owned.
Until widow reallocation is complete and transfer of widow is allowed,
widow will continue to be included in the aggregate calculation, but
the proportion will be adjusted to hold widow QS at a constant level
while bringing the aggregate percentage owned to 2.700%, using normal
rounding rules. NMFS will redistribute the revoked QS following the
process in paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section. No
compensation will be due for any revoked shares.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-28412 Filed 11-4-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P