Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Widow Rockfish Reallocation in the Individual Fishing Quota Fishery, 42295-42307 [2016-15217]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Larry Gonzalez, Air Planning and
Development Branch, Air and Waste
Management Division, EPA Region 7,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS
66219; telephone number: (913) 551–
7041; email address: gonzalez.larry@
epa.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
document proposes to take action on a
revision to the SIP for Kansas
concerning allocations of allowances
used in the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) 1 Federal trading program
for annual emissions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX). We have published a direct final
rule approving the State’s SIP revision
(s) in the Rules and Regulations section
of this Federal Register, because we
view this as a noncontroversial action
and anticipate no relevant adverse
comment. We have explained our
reasons for this action in the preamble
to the direct final rule. If we receive no
adverse comment, we will not take
further action on this proposed rule. If
we receive adverse comment, we will
withdraw the direct final rule and it will
not take effect. We would address all
public comments in any subsequent
final rule based on this proposed rule.
We do not intend to institute a second
comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must
do so at this time. For further
information, please see the information
provided in the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
Large electricity generating units in
Kansas are subject to a CSAPR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) that requires
the units to participate in the Federal
CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program.2
Each of CSAPR’s Federal trading
programs includes default provisions
governing the allocation among
participating units of emission
allowances used for compliance under
that program. CSAPR also provides a
process for the submission and approval
of SIP revisions to replace EPA’s default
allocations with state-determined
allocations.
The SIP revision approved in the
direct final rule incorporates into
Kansas’s SIP state regulations
establishing state-determined allowance
allocations to replace EPA’s default
allocations to Kansas units of CSAPR
NOX Annual allowances issued for the
control periods in 2017 through 2019.
EPA is approving the SIP revision
because it meets the requirements of the
CAA and EPA’s regulations for approval
of an abbreviated SIP revision replacing
EPA’s default allocations of CSAPR
emission allowances with statedetermined allocations. Approval of the
SIP revision does not alter any provision
of the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading
Program as applied to Kansas units
other than the allowance allocation
provisions, and the FIP requiring the
units to participate in that program (as
modified by the SIP revision) remains in
place. Because the SIP revision
addresses only the control periods in
2017 through 2019, absent submission
and approval of a further SIP revision,
allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual
allowances for control periods in 2020
and later years will be made pursuant to
the default allocation provisions.
Large electricity generating units in
Kansas are also subject to an additional
CSAPR FIP requiring them to participate
in the Federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2
Trading Program. Kansas’ SIP submittal
does not seek to replace the default
allocations of CSAPR SO2 Group 2
allowances to Kansas units. Approval of
this SIP revision concerning another
CSAPR trading program has no effect on
the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading
Program as applied to Kansas units, and
the FIP requiring the units to participate
in that program remains in place.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
1 Federal
Implementation Plans; Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and
Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August
8, 2011), (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and
52.39 and subparts AAAAA through DDDDD of 40
CFR part 97).
2 EPA has proposed to replace the terms
‘‘Transport Rule’’ and ‘‘TR’’ in the text of the Code
of Federal Regulations with the updated terms
‘‘Cross-State Air Pollution Rule’’ and ‘‘CSAPR.’’ 80
FR 75706, 75759 (December 3, 2015). EPA uses the
updated terms here.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Jun 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42295
Dated: June 16, 2016.
Mark Hague,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2016–15039 Filed 6–28–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 150902809–6536–01]
RIN 0648–BF12
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery;
Widow Rockfish Reallocation in the
Individual Fishing Quota Fishery
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
In January 2011, NMFS
implemented the trawl rationalization
program, a type of catch share program,
for the Pacific coast groundfish fishery’s
limited entry trawl fleet, which includes
an individual fishing quota program for
limited entry trawl participants. At the
time of implementation, the widow
rockfish stock was overfished and quota
shares were allocated to quota share
permit owners in the individual fishing
quota program using an overfished
species formula. Now that the widow
rockfish stock has been rebuilt, NMFS
proposes to reallocate quota shares to
initial recipients based on a target
species formula that will more closely
represent the fishing history of permit
owners when widow rockfish was a
targeted species. Through this rule,
NMFS also proposes to allow the
trading of widow rockfish quota shares,
set a deadline for divestiture in case the
reallocation of widow rockfish puts any
QS permit owner over an accumulation
limit, and remove the daily vessel limit
for widow rockfish since it is no longer
an overfished species.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be received on or before July 29,
2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2016–0037, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
42296
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20160037, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional
Administrator, West Coast Region,
NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE.,
Seattle, WA 98115–0070; Attn: Sarah
Towne.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter
‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish
to remain anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Towne, 206–526–4140,
sarah.towne@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Background
In January 2011, NMFS implemented
a trawl rationalization program, which
is a catch share program, for the Pacific
coast groundfish limited entry trawl
fishery. The program was implemented
through Amendments 20 and 21 to the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan and the
corresponding implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 660.
Amendment 20 established the trawl
rationalization program that consists of:
an individual fishing quota (IFQ)
program for the shorebased trawl fleet
(including whiting and nonwhiting
sectors), and cooperative programs for
the at-sea mothership and catcher/
processor trawl fleets (whiting only).
Amendment 21 set long-term allocations
for the limited entry trawl sectors of
certain groundfish species.
In the IFQ fishery, NMFS initially
allocated quota shares (QS) based on
allocation formulas developed through
the Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Council). Target species QS was
allocated using limited entry trawl
permit catch history. Overfished species
QS was allocated based on QS of 11
target species, area of catch based on
logbook data, and average bycatch ratios
from observer data. The widow rockfish
stock was overfished at the time of
initial allocation, so widow rockfish QS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Jun 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
was allocated to QS permit owners
using the overfished species formula.
Amendment 20 states that when an
overfished species is rebuilt, there may
be a reallocation of QS to facilitate the
reestablishment of historic fishing
opportunities. In its May 2012 Status of
the Stocks Report, NMFS officially
declared widow rockfish rebuilt. Based
on the 2011 stock assessment results,
which indicated that widow was rebuilt,
the Council decided that it would
consider a reallocation of widow
rockfish QS. In June 2012 QS for all
species was not yet transferrable, but the
Council placed a moratorium on the
future transfer of widow rockfish QS
until the reallocation could be
considered, to protect permit owners
from trading an asset that the Council
might redistribute. In November 2014
the Council adopted a range of
alternatives for widow rockfish QS
reallocation, and in April 2015 made a
final recommendation to NMFS to
reallocate widow rockfish using a
modified target species formula.
Accumulation limits in the IFQ
program cap the amount of QS or
individual bycatch quota (IBQ) that a
person, individually or collectively,
may own or control (QS and IBQ control
limits), and set limits on the amount of
quota pounds (QP) that a vessel may
catch or hold in its vessel account
during the year (annual vessel limits).
Overfished species such as widow
rockfish also have QP vessel limits (also
called daily limits) that restrict the
amount of available overfished species
QP that a vessel account can hold on
any given day.
Proposed Action
NMFS proposes this rule to: (1)
Reallocate widow rockfish QS in the
shorebased IFQ fishery to more closely
reflect historic target fishing
opportunities; (2) remove the
moratorium on widow QS trading once
reallocation and any appeals are
completed; (3) set a divestiture deadline
in case the reallocation puts any QS
permit owner over the widow rockfish
QS control limit or the aggregate
nonwhiting control limit; and (4)
remove the overfished species daily
vessel limit for widow rockfish that
restricts the amount of available QP that
any vessel owner can hold on a given
day. Each of these proposed actions is
described in further detail below.
Widow Rockfish Reallocation
In 2011, NMFS initially allocated QS
for 29 different species to limited entry
trawl permit owners in the form of a
new QS permit and associated online
account (lingcod was later subdivided
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
into two areas, so there are currently 30
IFQ species). Each year NMFS allocates
QPs to QS permit owners in their online
accounts, based on the amount of QS
each permit owner holds and the
current sector allocation. QS permit
owners must transfer these pounds to a
vessel account in order for them to be
fished, and when a vessel goes out
fishing in the IFQ program, the landings
and discards are debited against their
vessel account much like a check being
debited against a checking account. In
addition to transferring annual pounds
to vessel accounts, QS permit owners
can also permanently transfer shares
between QS accounts (for all species
except widow rockfish, pending the
widow rockfish reallocation). When a
QS permit owner transfers QS, they are
permanently transferring their ability to
access and use that percentage of the
annual sector allocation. For example, if
QS permit owner A sold all of their
sablefish South of 36° N to permit
owner B, permit owner A would no
longer be allocated any sablefish South
of 36° N. QPs in future years.
The QS and IBQ that was initially
allocated in 2011 was calculated in four
different groups, with four different
allocation formulas: 21 target species in
‘‘Group 1;’’ 6 incidentally caught
overfished species, including widow
rockfish, in ‘‘Group 2;’’ canary
rockfish—an incidentally-caught
overfished species calculated using a
different formula than Group 2
species—in ‘‘Group 3;’’ and Pacific
halibut IBQ in ‘‘Group 4.’’
The widow rockfish stock was
overfished at the time of initial
allocation, and therefore widow QS was
calculated using a Group 2 formula.
Because the Group 2 formula was based
on the amount of target species (Group
1 species) QS the permit owner
received, the Group 2 QS allocations
purposely did not reflect the historical
fishing efforts of fishermen who may
have targeted those Group 2 species
before they became overfished; instead
the goal was to address the QS
recipient’s need to cover incidental
catch of those overfished species based
on their allocations of target species.
Consistent with Amendment 20, and
at the urging of some fishermen who
were interested in a redistribution of
widow rockfish QS to reflect target
history instead of bycatch needs, the
Council adopted a range of widow
reallocation alternatives for
consideration in November 2014,
including: Alternative 1—status quo (no
reallocation); Alternative 2—a
reallocation based on the Group 1
species formula used at the time of
initial allocation, with two suboptions
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules
to determine the split of widow rockfish
QS between whiting and nonwhiting
trips; Alternative 3—a reallocation
based on nonwhiting groundfish
revenue as a basis for recent
participation; and Alternative 4—a
reallocation that was a mix between
Alternatives 1 and 2, where a portion of
widow QS would not be reallocated,
and a portion would be reallocated
using the formula from Alternative 2. In
April 2015, the Council selected the
midpoint between the two Alternative 2
suboptions to establish a final
alternative, Alternative 5.
In coming to its final preferred
alternative, Alternative 5, the Council
took into account the expected impacts
of each alternative on harvesters,
processors, workers, investments, and
communities, using the most recent data
available, as reflected in the
environmental assessment. The Council
considered the geographic distribution
of impacts among the communities in
Washington, Oregon, and California.
The Council chose to blend the
Alternative 2 suboptions, which set
proportions for reallocating widow
rockfish based on whiting and
nonwhiting trips, to balance impacts to
the whiting and nonwhiting fisheries.
Of all the alternatives, the Council’s
final preferred alternative moves the
most directly toward reestablishing the
targeted widow rockfish fishery and is
therefore expected to better achieve
optimum yield and more immediately
benefit struggling communities.
The proposed action would reallocate
widow rockfish QS to individual QS
permit owners in the IFQ program using
the formula the Council selected in its
final preferred alternative. This formula
is very similar to the Group 1 species
calculation that was initially used to
allocate target species QS in 2011.
Specifically, NMFS would reallocate
widow rockfish in two parts: One
portion based on the history of permits
retired in the 2003 buyback program,
divided equally among qualified limited
entry trawl permits, and the other
portion based on widow rockfish
landings history. NMFS would continue
to hold 10 percent of the total widow
QS aside for the adaptive management
program (AMP).
For the portion of the reallocation
resulting from the buyback, this rule
proposes to use landings history from
Federal limited entry groundfish
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Jun 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
permits that were retired through the
2003 Federal buyback program. NMFS
would calculate the total buyback
permit history as a percent of the total
fleet history from 1994–2003, separately
for whiting and nonwhiting trips. The
whiting and nonwhiting QS pools
associated with the buyback permits
would be divided equally among all
qualifying limited entry permits.
For the portion of the reallocation
resulting from widow rockfish landings
history, this rule proposes to allocate
one pool of QS based on the amount of
Pacific whiting QS allocated for each
permit, and the other pool based on the
amount of widow rockfish caught on
nonwhiting trips between 1994 and
2002, dropping the three lowest years.
The Council’s final preferred alternative
excluded 2003 from nonwhiting trip
history since widow rockfish was
managed for rebuilding from late 2002–
2012, and the 2003 regulations aimed to
eliminate widow targeting. Because only
a few nonwhiting vessels made widow
landings in 2003 and because the
proposed reallocation formula
calculates history based on a limited
entry trawl permit’s share of the fleet
total for each year, a relatively small
amount of widow landed by a single
permit in 2003 would constitute a large
portion of the fleet total for that year
and have a disproportionate effect on
the widow QS reallocation. The Council
decided that this disproportionate
allocation would be unfair, and that
fishermen who harvested widow in the
nonwhiting fishery when it was
overfished should not be rewarded with
additional QS from those trips. The
Council therefore excluded 2003 from
the nonwhiting landings history portion
of the allocation formula.
The Council’s final preferred
alternative reallocates widow rockfish
based on the Group 1 species
calculation that was initially used to
allocate target species QS in 2011. For
the portion of the reallocation resulting
from the buyback, the 1994–2003 period
reflects the years used for Group 1
species at the time of initial allocation.
For the portion of the reallocation
resulting from widow rockfish landings
history, 2003 was dropped from the
nonwhiting pool for the reasons
described above. 2003 landings would
have a minimal impact on the amount
of buyback QS allocated equally because
all landings would be summed across
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42297
all years and the buyback portion would
be a subset of that total. Therefore no
adjustment was made to the years used
for the buyback portion (1994–2003). In
contrast, 2003 landings would have a
disproportionate impact on the portion
of widow QS reallocated based on
nonwhiting landings history because
each permit’s portion of landings is
determined for each year. Instead of
being spread equally (like buyback QS),
including 2003 would allocate a
disproportionate amount of widow QS
directly to fishermen who targeted
widow rockfish in the nonwhiting
fishery when widow rockfish was
overfished, as described above. For
these reasons, 2003 history is included
in all parts of the formula except the
nonwhiting pool of the landings history
portion.
To determine how much of the total
QS for each limited entry permit’s
widow rockfish landings history would
be based on whiting trips versus
nonwhiting trips, NMFS proposes to
weigh each pool according to the initial
issuance allocation formula specified in
Amendment 21 and current regulations
at § 660.140(d)(8)(iv)(A)(10) (which
anticipated widow rockfish rebuilding).
The formula states that 10 percent or
500 metric tons (mt), whichever is
greater, will be allocated to the whiting
sectors (shorebased and at-sea whiting),
and the remaining amount will be
allocated to the nonwhiting shorebased
sector.
By blending the two suboptions for
Alternative 2, the Council established a
one-time annual catch limit (ACL) value
for widow of 2,569 metric tons (mt) to
use for the initial issuance allocation
formula. This ACL value is needed to
determine the harvest guideline amount,
limited entry trawl allocation, and
whiting and nonwhiting sector
allocations. The whiting sector
allocation is then subdivided into
shorebased and at-sea sector allocations.
The shorebased whiting and nonwhiting allocations can then be
compared in order to set the percentages
NMFS would use to weigh whiting and
nonwhiting history in the reallocation
formula. Figure 1 below walks through
the entire calculation from the ACL
value to the shorebased whiting and
nonwhiting percentages that NMFS
proposes to use for widow reallocation,
and a full description of the calculation
follows.
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules
NMFS proposes to use an ACL value
of 2,569 mt, the midpoint of the two
Alternative 2 suboptions as given in the
Council’s final preferred alternative, in
order to determine how much of the
total QS for each limited entry permit’s
widow rockfish landings history would
be based on whiting trips versus
nonwhiting trips. NMFS proposes to use
a set-aside amount of 120 mt, the same
value used for the widow rockfish setaside in 2016 (in Table 2a to 50 CFR
part 660, subpart C), to determine the
harvest guidelines amount. NMFS
would subtract the set-aside amount
(120 mt) from the ACL (2,569 mt) in
order to determine the harvest guideline
amount (2,449 mt).
Next, NMFS proposes to use a limited
entry trawl/non-limited entry trawl split
of 91 percent and 9 percent,
respectively, the same split percentages
used in the 2015–2016 harvest
specifications (in Tables 1b and 2b to 50
CFR part 660, subpart C), to determine
the limited entry trawl and non-limited
entry trawl allocations. NMFS would
multiply the harvest guidelines (2,449
mt) by 91 percent in order to determine
the limited entry trawl allocation
(2,228.59 mt), and by 9 percent in order
to determine the non-limited entry trawl
allocation (220.41 mt).
As described above, NMFS proposes
to use the initial issuance allocation
formula specified in Amendment 21 and
current regulations at
§ 660.140(d)(8)(iv)(A)(10) to determine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Jun 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
how much of the limited entry trawl
allocation (2,228.59 mt) would be
allocated to the whiting and nonwhiting
sectors. The formula states that 10
percent or 500 mt, whichever is greater,
will be allocated to the whiting sectors
(shorebased and at-sea whiting), and the
remaining amount will be allocated to
the shorebased nonwhiting sector. 500
mt is greater than 10 percent of the
limited entry trawl allocation (222.859
mt), so NMFS would allocate 500 mt to
the whiting sectors. The remaining
amount of the limited entry trawl
allocation, 1,728.59 mt, would be
allocated to the shorebased nonwhiting
sector.
NMFS proposes to further divide the
whiting allocation into shorebased and
at-sea whiting sector allocations using a
split of 42 percent and 58 percent,
respectively, as specified in
Amendment 21 and current regulations
at § 660.55(f)(2). NMFS would allocate
42 percent of 500 mt (210 mt) to the
shorebased whiting sector, and 58
percent of 500 mt (290 mt) to the at-sea
whiting sectors.
Next, NMFS proposes to combine the
shorebased whiting and nonwhiting
allocations to determine the total
shorebased sector allocation. Based on
the proposed calculation above, the 210
mt shorebased whiting sector allocation
would be added to the 1,728.59 mt
shorebased nonwhiting sector
allocation, for a total shorebased sector
allocation of 1,938.59 mt. The
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
shorebased whiting sector allocation is
10.833 percent of the total shorebased
sector allocation (210 mt divided by
1,938.59 mt). The shorebased
nonwhiting sector allocation is 89.167
percent of the total shorebased sector
allocation (1,728.59 mt divided by
1,938.59 mt). NMFS proposes to use
these percentages to determine how
much of the total QS for each limited
entry permit’s widow rockfish landings
history would be based on whiting trips
versus nonwhiting trips.
Different ACLs cause different QS
amounts to be allocated based on
whiting and nonwhiting trips. The
Alternative 2 suboptions, suboptions a
and b, set two different ACL levels
(2,000 mt and 3,790 mt, respectively),
and the Council chose the midpoint of
those suboptions (2,569 mt) in order to
balance the impacts of widow rockfish
reallocation to the shorebased whiting
and nonwhiting fisheries. The midpoint
ACL was chosen such that each limited
entry trawl permit would receive QS
based on whiting and nonwhiting
landing trip history in an amount that
is the midpoint of what their QS would
have been under suboptions a and b
(2,569 mt), rather than the midpoint
between 2,000 mt and 3,790 mt (2,895
mt). Table 1 below shows the whiting/
nonwhiting split outcomes of each of
the Alternative 2 suboptions, and the
Council’s final preferred alternative
whiting/nonwhiting split, which is the
midpoint of suboptions a and b.
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
EP29JN16.000
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
42298
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules
42299
TABLE 1—WHITING/NONWHITING SPLIT SUBOPTIONS AND FINAL PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
[Midpoint of suboptions]
Alt 2—
suboption a
(mt)
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
ACL ..............................................................................................................................................
Set Asides ....................................................................................................................................
Harvest Guidelines (= ACL ¥ set asides) ..................................................................................
Limited Entry Trawl (= 91% of harvest guidelines) .....................................................................
Non-Limited Entry Trawl (= 9% of harvest guidelines) ...............................................................
Whiting Sectors (= 10% of limited entry trawl allocation, or 500 mt, whichever is greater) .......
Shorebased Nonwhiting (remaining LE trawl) .............................................................................
At-Sea Whiting (= 58% of whiting sector allocation) ...................................................................
Shorebased Whiting (= 42% of whiting sector allocation) ..........................................................
Total Shorebased Allocation (= shorebased nonwhiting + shorebased whiting) ........................
Whiting trip percentage for widow rockfish QS landings history .................................................
Nonwhiting trip percentage for widow rockfish QS landings history ...........................................
Eligibility
QS permit owners are only eligible for
a reallocation of widow rockfish if they
are one of the 128 original QS permit
owners who initially received a QS
permit in 2011 based on limited entry
trawl permit ownership. The 10
shorebased whiting processors who
received initial QS permits with an
allocation of Pacific whiting only are
not eligible to receive reallocated widow
rockfish QS. Those QS permit owners
who have obtained a QS permit since
2014 when NMFS accepted new QS
permit applications are not eligible to
receive reallocated widow rockfish QS.
However, since 2011, NMFS has
received several U.S. court orders
directing NMFS to transfer assets of a
deceased person to a beneficiary. For
those new QS permits to which NMFS
administratively transferred widow
rockfish QS based on a U.S. court order,
NMFS will reallocate widow rockfish
QS directly to these new QS permits
because the shares were transferred
through a legal process to a beneficiary.
Limited entry trawl permit owners who
did not apply for and receive a QS
permit in 2011 are not eligible for
reallocated widow rockfish QS; instead
any history accruing to their permit will
be redistributed among all other QS
permit owners in proportion to their
reallocated widow rockfish QS. If any
QS permit owner submits a complete
widow rockfish QS reallocation
application but does not renew their QS
permit and account for 2017, NMFS
would still reallocate widow rockfish
QS to the permit owner but, as stated
currently in regulation, would not
allocate QP for any species to a nonrenewed permit. The permit owner
could renew for the following year,
which would enable him or her to
receive and transfer QP.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Jun 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
Past landings history associated with
each limited entry trawl permit will
accrue to the current QS permit owner
who received initial QS for that limited
entry permit, even if the limited entry
trawl permit ownership has changed
since 2011. For example, if the fictitious
company XYZ Fishing owned two
limited entry trawl permits in 2010:
Permit A and Permit B, they would have
received a QS permit (QS Permit #1) in
2011 with an initial issuance of QS that
was based on the history of limited
entry trawl Permits A and B. For the
purposes of widow rockfish
reallocation, the linkage between
limited entry trawl Permits A and B and
QS Permit #1 will remain in place, so
that QS Permit #1 will be reallocated
widow rockfish QS based on the history
from limited entry trawl Permits A and
B, regardless of who owns those limited
entry trawl permits now. If XYZ Fishing
sold both limited entry trawl permits in
2013, and therefore no longer owns
them at the time widow rockfish is
reallocated, the company would still
receive the reallocated widow rockfish
QS from limited entry Permits A and B
to QS Permit #1.
Based on the Council’s action, NMFS
proposes to reallocate widow rockfish
based on the limited entry permit and
QS permit relationship described above
because the limited entry permit
ownership was severed from the QS
permit ownership at the time QS
permits became effective in 2011. After
that time, limited entry trawl permits
could be sold without any effect on the
QS holdings, and QS percentages could
be transferred without any effect on the
limited entry permit. It is likely that QS
permit owners would not have sold
their limited entry trawl permits if they
thought they would not receive the
reallocated widow rockfish QS, and
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2,000
120
1,880
1,710.8
169.2
500
1,210.8
290
210
1,420.8
14.780%
85.220%
Alt 2—
suboption b
(mt)
3,790
120
3,670
3,339.7
330.3
500
2,839.7
290
210
3,049.7
6.886%
93.114%
Final
preferred
alternative—
midpoint
(mt)
2,569
120
2,449
2,228.59
220.41
500
1,728.59
290
210
1,938.59
10.833%
89.167%
similarly, it is likely that any persons
who purchased a limited entry trawl
permit did not believe that they would
receive any future QS as part of the
purchase.
For purposes of the widow rockfish
reallocation calculation, NMFS intends
to use landings data from the Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission’s
PacFIN database. Although QS permit
owners had the opportunity to review
and revise their data in 2009, they may
not have reviewed their widow rockfish
history closely at that time, since widow
rockfish was overfished and the QS
allocation used a Group 2 formula that
was not based on widow landings.
NMFS wants to provide an opportunity
for this review before we ‘‘freeze’’ the
database for purposes of reallocation.
‘‘Freezing’’ the database means that
NMFS intends to extract a dataset of the
PacFIN database as of July 27, 2016, and
will use that dataset for the reallocation
of widow rockfish. QS permit owners
have been on notice since 2012 that
widow rockfish might be reallocated,
and have been able to review their fish
ticket data since that time. NMFS also
specified at the April 2016 Council
meeting that we intended to use
landings data from the PacFIN database
to calculate the reallocated widow
rockfish QS, and that we planned to
provide permit owners the opportunity
to review their widow catch data before
we take a snapshot of the database for
the purpose of reallocation.
If QS permit owners in the shorebased
trawl IFQ program have concerns over
the accuracy of their widow rockfish
data in the PacFIN database, they
should contact the state in which they
landed those fish to correct any errors.
Any revisions to an entity’s fish tickets
would have to be approved by the state
in order to be accepted, and must be
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
42300
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
completed as of the date we freeze the
database in order for the updated
information to be used for the widow
rockfish reallocation formula. State
contacts are as follows: (1)
Washington—Marjorie Morningstar
(360–902–2854, marjorie.morningstar@
dfw.wa.gov); (2) Oregon—Nadine
Hurtado (503–947–6247,
nadine.hurtado@state.or.us); and (3)
California—Marine Fisheries Statistical
Unit (562–342–7130).
Application Process
After NMFS freezes the database for
the purpose of reallocation, and
assuming the final rule publishes, we
will mail prefilled applications and
widow rockfish reallocation QS
amounts to each eligible QS permit
owner (calculated using the formula in
the final rule). On the application, the
applicant (the QS permit owner) must:
(1) Indicate whether or not they accept
NMFS’ calculation of the reallocated
widow rockfish QS for each limited
entry trawl permit, (2) provide a written
description of what part of the
reallocation formula requires correction
and credible information to support the
request for correction if they do not
accept the calculation, and (3) sign, date
and declare that the information in the
application is true, correct and
complete. NMFS proposes that
complete, certified applications would
be due to NMFS West Coast Region on
or before September 15, 2016, that
mailed applications would be
postmarked no later than September 15,
2016, and that hand-delivered
applications would be received no later
than 5 p.m. on September 15, 2016.
NMFS would not accept or review any
applications postmarked or received in
person after the application deadline,
and any QS permit owner who does not
submit an application would not be
eligible to receive reallocated widow
rockfish QS. NMFS would not accept
applications by email. NMFS would
redistribute the shares from any
incomplete or non-submitted
applications to all other QS permit
owners who are eligible for a
reallocation of widow rockfish QS in
proportion to their reallocated widow
QS amount.
Assuming the rule will be final, for all
complete, certified applications that
were received by the application
deadline date, NMFS would issue an
initial administrative determination
(IAD) on or before October 1, 2016. In
the IAD, NMFS would inform the
applicant whether or not their
application for reallocated widow
rockfish QS was approved. Applicants
would have 60 calendar days from the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Jun 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
date of the IAD to appeal the decision.
If any appeals were received, NMFS
would reallocate widow QS amounts in
2017 consistent with all of the IADs and
await any action resulting from an
appeal until 2018. More information is
provided below about how the appeals
process would affect the widow rockfish
QS trading start date and the divestiture
deadline.
If an application is approved, the QS
permit owner would receive a 2017 QS
permit showing the new widow rockfish
QS amount in December 2016, and the
new QS percentage would show in the
associated QS account on or about
January 1, 2017. The 2017 IFQ sector
allocation for widow rockfish would be
allocated to QS accounts on or about
January 1, 2017, based on the
reallocated widow rockfish QS amount.
Widow Rockfish QS Trading
Widow rockfish QS has not been
transferrable at any time since the start
of the IFQ program in 2011. The Council
and NMFS initially placed a two-year
moratorium on QS trading for all IFQ
species in order to create stability
during the transition to a new
management system. In 2012, the
Council decided to reconsider the initial
widow rockfish QS allocations, and
halted future trading of widow rockfish
QS until the reconsideration could be
completed. In August 2012, NMFS
delayed QS trading for all species for an
additional year in response to unrelated
litigation that required the Council and
NMFS to reconsider the initial
allocation of Pacific whiting. In 2013
NMFS put into regulation a moratorium
for the transfer of widow rockfish QS
until the reallocation could be
considered and implemented, but QS
trading for all other IFQ species began
on January 1, 2014. Since that time, QS
permit owners have been able to transfer
QS for all species except widow
rockfish.
NMFS proposes to lift the moratorium
on the transfer of widow rockfish QS
once the reallocation is completed and
any resulting appeals have been
processed; successful appeals could
affect all reallocation amounts. Under
the proposed rule, once QS permit
owners have their reallocated QS
percentages, and can be sure those
percentages would not change as the
result of an appeal, permit owners could
begin trading. If NMFS does not receive
any appeals by the appeals deadline, we
propose to lift the moratorium on
widow rockfish QS trading for January
1, 2017. If NMFS receives any appeals
by the deadline, we propose to lift the
moratorium on widow rockfish QS
trading for January 1, 2018, because that
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
is the date when any appeal outcome
that might cause a change in widow
allocations would be finalized. NMFS
proposes to announce the official start
date of widow rockfish QS trading
through a public notice in December
2016, once we are able to determine
whether appeals have been submitted.
Deadline for Divestiture
Control limits in the IFQ program cap
the amount of QS or IBQ that a person,
individually or collectively, may own or
control. Amendment 20 and
implementing regulations set individual
control limits for each of the 30 IFQ
species, as well as an aggregate limit of
2.7 percent across nonwhiting species.
The individual control limit for widow
rockfish is 5.1 percent. Consistent with
the trawl rationalization program, some
QS permit owners were initially
allocated an amount of QS and IBQ that
exceeded one or more of the control
limits, based on their catch history
during the qualifying years. The
regulations provided these QS permit
owners an adjustment period to hold the
excess shares, but required divestiture
of excess QS by November 30, 2015, for
all species except widow rockfish,
because widow rockfish QS was being
considered for reallocation and could
not be traded.
When NMFS reallocates widow
rockfish, we propose to allocate the full
amount the applicant qualifies for, even
if it pushes the permit owner over the
5.1 percent control limit for widow, or
the 2.7 percent nonwhiting aggregate
limit. NMFS would allow the QS permit
owner an adjustment period to hold the
excess shares and divest, consistent
with the process that was used during
initial allocation in 2011. Should the
reallocation of widow rockfish put any
QS permit owner over a QS control
limit, NMFS, based on the Council’s
recommendation, proposes to set a
divestiture deadline of November 30 in
the year widow rockfish QS becomes
transferrable. If NMFS does not receive
any appeals on the reallocation, widow
QS would become transferrable on or
about January 1, 2017, and any QS
permit owner who exceeded the control
limit as the result of the reallocation
would have until November 30, 2017, to
divest of their excess holdings. If NMFS
does receive one or more appeals,
widow QS would become transferrable
on or about January 1, 2018, and any QS
permit owner who exceeded the control
limit as the result of the reallocation
would have until November 30, 2018, to
divest of their excess holdings. QS
trading occurs between January 1
through November 30 each year, but
trading is halted in the month of
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules
December so that NMFS can set QP
allocations based on the static year-end
amount of QS and mail QS permits that
are effective January 1 of the following
year. This 11-month adjustment period
would allow the permit owner to benefit
from one year of holding excess QS, and
from the sale or gifting of such an
excess, but they would be required to
divest of their excess in a timely
manner, consistent with existing
regulatory procedures.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Widow Rockfish Daily Vessel Limit
Vessel limits in vessel accounts
restrict the amount of QPs that any
vessel can catch or hold. Annual QP
vessel limits are a set percentage of the
IFQ sector allocation, and NMFS
calculates and publishes a table
annually showing the quota pound
equivalents. For example, the annual QP
vessel limit for widow rockfish is 8.5
percent of the current year’s sector
allocation. In 2016, the IFQ sector
allocation for widow rockfish is
3,131,931 pounds, so the maximum
amount any vessel owner can catch or
bring into their vessel account in 2016
is 8.5 percent of the sector allocation, or
266,214 pounds. Unused QP vessel
limits, also called ‘‘daily vessel limits,’’
only apply to overfished species and
cap the amount of overfished species
QPs any vessel account can have sitting
available in their account on a given
day. For example, the daily QP vessel
limit for widow rockfish is 5.1 percent,
or 159,728 pounds in 2016, which is
lower than the annual QP vessel limit.
So if a vessel account owner held the
full daily vessel limit amount (159,728
pounds) available in their account and
then caught 20,000 pounds, they would
have 139,728 available QPs and could
bring in 20,000 more, up to the daily
and annual vessel limit.
The Council and NMFS established
daily vessel limits to prevent hoarding
of available overfished species QPs in
any one vessel account, since the IFQ
sector allocations of some overfished
species are so low. Now that widow
rockfish is rebuilt, and the ACL has
increased, NMFS proposes to remove
the daily vessel limit since daily vessel
limits only apply to overfished species.
NMFS would remove the daily vessel
limit for widow rockfish only, and
would not change widow’s annual
vessel limit or the vessel limit of any
other species. This change would better
reflect the status of widow rockfish as
rebuilt, and allow fishermen to hold the
full annual vessel limit at any time if
they chose to do so, in line with every
other non-overfished IFQ species.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Jun 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
Classification
Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and
305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
(MSA), the NMFS Assistant
Administrator has determined that this
proposed rule is consistent with the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan, other provisions of
the MSA, and other applicable law,
subject to further consideration after
public comment.
The Council prepared an
environmental assessment (EA) for this
action. The draft EA is available on the
Council’s Web site at https://
www.pcouncil.org/ or on NMFS’ Web
site at https://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/
fisheries/groundfish_catch_shares/
rules_regulations/trawl_regulations_
compliance_guides.html.
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 (OMB Control
No. 0648–0620) to include an
application form for widow rockfish
reallocation. NMFS estimates the public
reporting burden for this collection of
information to average one hour per
form, including the time for reviewing
instructions, reviewing data and
calculations for reallocated widow
rockfish QS, and completing the form.
NMFS requests any comments on the
addition of the widow rockfish
reallocation application form to the PRA
package, including whether the
paperwork would unnecessarily burden
any QS permit owners.
Pursuant to the procedures
established to implement section 6 of
Executive Order 12866, the Office of
Management and Budget has
determined that this proposed rule is
not significant.
This proposed rule was developed
after meaningful collaboration, through
the Council process, with the tribal
representative on the Council. The
proposed regulations have no direct
effect on the tribes.
NMFS prepared an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) for this rule,
as required by section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The
IRFA describes the economic impact
that this proposed rule, if adopted,
would have on small entities. A
description of the action, why it is being
considered, and the legal basis for this
action are contained in the preamble
and in the SUMMARY section of the
preamble. A Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR) was also prepared on the action
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42301
and is included as part of the IRFA. A
copy of the IRFA is available from
NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and per the
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604(a), a
summary of the IRFA follows:
When an agency proposes regulations,
the RFA requires the agency to prepare
and make available for public comment
an IRFA that describes the impact on
small businesses, non-profit enterprises,
local governments, and other small
entities. The IRFA aids the agency in
considering all reasonable regulatory
alternatives that would minimize the
economic impact on affected small
entities.
The Small Business Administration
defines a ‘‘small’’ harvesting business as
one with combined annual receipts of
$11 million or less for all affiliated
operations worldwide. For related fishprocessing businesses, a small business
is one that employs 750 or fewer
persons for all affiliated operations
worldwide.
This rule affects 128 QS permit
owners who have received widow quota
shares. When renewing their QS
permits, permit owners are asked if they
considered themselves small businesses
based on the SBA definitions of small
businesses provided above. Based on
their responses, NMFS estimates that
there are 110 small businesses affected
by this rule.
In January 2011, NMFS implemented
the trawl rationalization program (a
catch share program) for the Pacific
coast groundfish limited entry trawl
fishery, which includes an individual
fishing quota program for limited entry
trawl participants. At the time of
implementation, the widow rockfish
stock was overfished and quota shares
were allocated to quota share permit
owners in the individual fishing quota
program using an overfished species
formula. Now that widow rockfish has
been rebuilt, NMFS proposes to
reallocate quota shares to initial
recipients based on a target species
formula that will more closely represent
the fishing history of permit owners
when widow rockfish was a targeted
species. Through this rule NMFS also
proposes to allow the trading of widow
rockfish quota shares, set a deadline for
divestiture in case the reallocation of
widow rockfish puts any QS permit
owner over an accumulation limit, and
remove the daily vessel limit for widow
rockfish since it is no longer an
overfished species. The reallocation of
widow rockfish and lifting of the
moratorium are the major measures
analyzed below. Setting the divestiture
deadline is administrative in nature,
while elimination of the daily limit is
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
42302
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules
already required because widow is no
longer an overfished species.
The Council adopted a range of
widow rockfish reallocation alternatives
for consideration in November 2014
including: Alternative 1—status quo (no
reallocation), Alternative 2—reallocate
widow using same formula (Group I
species formula) that was used for other
target species at the at the time of initial
allocation, Alternative 3—reallocate
widow based on nonwhiting groundfish
revenue as a basis for recent
participation, and Alternative 4—
reallocate widow by blending
Alternatives 1 and 2, where a portion of
widow QS would not be reallocated,
and a portion would be reallocated
using the formula from Alternative 2. In
April 2015, the Council selected
Alternative 2 as its final preferred
alternative, and blended two suboptions
for the alternative into a final suboptionAlternative 5.
In assessing these alternatives, the
Council took into account expected
impacts of each alternative on
harvesters, processors, workers,
investments, and communities, using
the most recent data available, as
reflected in the environmental
assessment. The Council recognized its
final decision as drawing a balance
between impacts to the whiting and
nonwhiting fishery, not allocating too
much away from any one sector, reestablishing historic fisheries, and the
geographic distribution of impacts
among the communities in Washington,
Oregon, and California. This action is
part of an overall program designed to
ensure that conservation objectives are
met and is focused on mitigating some
of the distributional effects of those
conservation measures. As compared to
Alternatives 3 or 4, Alternative 2 and
the Council’s final preferred alternative,
Alternative 5, move most directly
toward reestablishing the targeted
widow rockfish fishery and is therefore
expected to better achieve the OY and
more immediately benefit struggling
communities.
The economic dimensions of the
fishery are as follows. Annual widow
rockfish ex-vessel revenues in the
shorebased trawl sector ranged from $5
million to $6 million (inflation adjusted)
in the mid-1990s. Annual ex-vessel
revenues in the pre-trawl rationalization
rebuilding era (2002–2010) averaged
about $0.1 million. Since the start of
trawl rationalization (2011–2014),
annual ex-vessel values averaged $0.3
million. (Widow rockfish was
determined to be rebuilt in 2011 and
was no longer managed under a
rebuilding plan beginning in the 2013–
2014 biennial harvest specifications).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Jun 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
Estimated widow catch has increased
every year: in 2013, approximately 400
mt were caught; in 2014, approximately
650 mt were caught; and in 2015, about
840 mt were caught. With an ex-vessel
price of $0.41 per pound, the total
revenues earned in the 2015 fishery are
about $760,000. The 2016 sector
allocation for widow is similar to 2015,
and recognizing past growth of the
fishery, landings may reach 1,000 mt.
Widow rockfish is just one of many
species landed on the West Coast.
During 2015, landings of groundfish,
crab, salmon, and other species,
generated $335 million in ex-vessel
revenues. 2015 groundfish ex-vessel
revenues were about $64 million with
IFQ revenues estimated at $42 million.
Widow rockfish ex-vessel revenues were
about $760,000, constituting a very
small percentage of total groundfish exvessel revenues.
If the Council increases the 2017 ACL
from 2,000 mt (No Action) to 13,508 mt
(Alternative 1), revenues could grow to
$9.0 million if prices do not change, the
number of non-whiting mid-water
trawlers rapidly increases, and if
processors could process the increased
widow rockfish landings and find the
proper markets. These changes would
yield an increase of $23.1 million in
total West Coast income impacts, and an
increase of an estimated 320 jobs.
This rulemaking proposes to
reallocate widow rockfish QS and allow
those shares to be traded. With trading,
QS will flow to those QS holders that
most efficiently can use the QS—by
using the associated QP to support their
own vessels, selling or leasing the QP to
other vessels, or by selling the QS to
others. At the fishery level, in the long
run, the alternatives reviewed here will
not have a major effect on the overall
amount of fish landed and processed
across all the groundfish fishing
communities.
At the individual quota share holder
level, this rule affects the starting point
by which QS is traded and the amounts
that can be traded by individual QS
holders. Depending on the alternative,
the total amount of QS that is to be
reallocated in the IFQ fishery ranges
from 0% (Alternative 1, Status Quo,
Bycatch) to 28.2% (Alternative 5,
Alternative 2 Midpoint). Based on exvessel price of $0.41 per pound, and
projected sector allocations of 12,000 mt
based on 2017 ACL of 13,500 mt, and
projected attainment rate of 80%, the
annual value of the quota pounds
associated with a potential transfer of
28.2% of the quota shares is about $2.5
million. Depending on the alternative,
the potential transfer of QS among
communities ranges from 0 to 18%. The
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
annual value of quota pounds associated
with QS being transferred is about $1.5
million based on the 2017 ACL.
The proposed 2017–18 ACLs of
13,500 mt and 13,800 mt are six times
higher than 2015–2016 ACLs. From a
fishery-wide perspective, there should
not be any negative impacts on
communities, QS holders, or processors
because of the increase in ACLs. This
huge increase in the ACLs provides
increased opportunities for all of these
participants.
However, with any reallocation
scheme there are some that are
negatively impacted. The maximum
reduction for a QS holder under either
Alternative 2 or 5 is about 1.9%. Based
on 2015 revenues of $760,000, the QP
associated with this reduction would
have a value of $15,000. Under the 2017
ACL, estimated revenues are $9.0
million, and a loss of 1.9% would be
worth about $175,000. At an individual
level, these two values represent
maximum 2015 losses ($15,000) versus
maximum potential future losses should
the high ACL be implemented, prices
stay constant, and 80 percent of the
sector allocation be harvested
($175,000). Others will be positively
impacted. The maximum increase for a
QS holder under any alternative is about
2%.
NMFS does not believe that small
businesses as a class of QS holders will
be negatively impacted by the proposed
reallocation of widow rockfish QS. The
reallocation options in large part
decrease widow QS holdings for some
small businesses while increasing QS
holdings for other small businesses,
based on historical reliance on widow
rockfish as a target species. Trading of
widow QS should also be beneficial to
all small businesses as it gives these
businesses the option to buy, sell, or
lease their widow QS. Setting the
divesture deadline gives any affected
entities time to sell off their excess QS.
Eliminating the no-longer-needed daily
vessel limit for widow rockfish provides
more flexibility to small businesses.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries.
Dated: June 23, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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:
a. Revise paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(B)(2)
and (d)(4)(v);
■ b. Add paragraph (d)(9); and
■ c. Revise paragraph (e)(4)(i) to read as
follows:
■
■
§ 660.140
Shorebased IFQ Program.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
(2) Transfer of QS or IBQ between QS
accounts. Beginning January 1, 2014, QS
permit owners may transfer QS (except
for widow rockfish QS) or IBQ to
another owner of a QS permit, subject
to accumulation limits and approval by
NMFS. Beginning January 1, 2017 (if
there are no appeals to the reallocation
of widow rockfish), or January 1, 2018
(if there are appeals to the reallocation
of widow rockfish), QS permit owners
may transfer widow rockfish QS to
another owner of a QS permit, subject
to accumulation limits and approval by
NMFS. NMFS will announce the QS
transfer date for widow rockfish prior to
January 1, 2017. QS or IBQ cannot be
transferred to a vessel account. Owners
of non-renewed QS permits may not
transfer QS. QP in QS accounts cannot
be transferred between QS accounts.
NMFS will allocate QP based on the QS
percentages as listed on a QS permit
that was renewed during the previous
October 1 through November 30 renewal
period. QS transfers will be recorded in
the QS account but will not become
effective for purposes of allocating QPs
until the following year. QS or IBQ may
not be transferred between December 1
through December 31 each year. Any QS
transaction that is pending as of
December 1 will be administratively
retracted. NMFS will allocate QP for the
following year based on the QS
percentages as of December 1 of each
year.
*
*
*
*
*
(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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Jun 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
ownership interest in the owner named
on the permit) that are found to exceed
the accumulation limits during the
reallocation of widow rockfish QS, an
adjustment period will be provided
during which they will have to
completely divest their QS or IBQ in
excess of the accumulation limits. 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)(A) or (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 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 for a reason
other than the reallocation of widow
rockfish, 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 90day 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.
(B) Divestiture and redistribution
process for the reallocation of widow
rockfish. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42303
under paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (iii) of
this section. If the reallocation of widow
rockfish puts any QS permit owner over
an accumulation limit, the QS permit
owner will have until widow rockfish
becomes transferrable to divest of their
excess widow rockfish QS. In the case
that a QS permit owner exceeds the
control limit for aggregate nonwhiting
QS holdings as the result of the
reallocation of widow rockfish, the
permit owner may abandon QS to
NMFS by November 15 of the year
widow rockfish becomes transferrable,
using the procedure provided under
paragraph (d)(4)(v)(C) of this section.
After the widow rockfish reallocation
divestiture period, NMFS will revoke all
QS and 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)
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:
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
42304
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules
If, after the divestiture deadline, a QS permit owner exceeds . . .
Then . . .
An individual species control limit in one QS permit ...............................
An individual species control limit across multiple QS permits ...............
NMFS will revoke excess QS at the species level.
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.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
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 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
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. 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.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) Reallocation of widow rockfish QS.
(i) Additional definitions. The following
definitions are applicable to paragraph
(d)(9) of this section and apply to terms
used for the purposes of reallocation of
widow rockfish QS:
(A) Nonwhiting trip means a fishing
trip where less than 50 percent by
weight of all fish reported on the state
landing receipt is whiting.
(B) PacFIN means the Pacific
Fisheries Information Network of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Jun 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission.
(C) Relative history means the
landings history of a permit for a
species, year, and area subdivision,
divided by the total fleet history of the
sector for that species, year, and area
subdivision, as appropriate.
(D) Whiting trip means a fishing trip
where greater than or equal to 50
percent by weight of all fish reported on
the state landing receipt is whiting.
(ii) Eligibility criteria for receiving
reallocated widow rockfish QS. Only the
owner of an original QS permit (nonshoreside processor) to which QS was
initially allocated in 2011 is eligible to
receive reallocated widow rockfish QS
based on the history of the limited entry
trawl permit(s) that accrued to that QS
permit, regardless of current limited
entry permit ownership. For those new
QS permits to which widow rockfish
was administratively transferred by
NMFS under U.S. court order, NMFS
will reallocate widow rockfish QS
directly to the new QS permit. Any
limited entry trawl permit owners who
did not submit an initial application for
a QS permit will not be eligible to
receive reallocated widow rockfish QS.
(iii) Steps for widow rockfish QS
reallocation formula. The widow
rockfish QS reallocation formula is
applied in the following steps:
(A) First, for each limited entry trawl
permit, NMFS will determine a
preliminary QS allocation for nonwhiting trips.
(B) Second, for each limited entry
trawl permit, NMFS will determine a
preliminary QS allocation for whiting
trips.
(C) Third, for each limited entry trawl
permit, NMFS will combine the
amounts resulting from paragraphs
(d)(9)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(D) Fourth, NMFS will reduce the
total widow QS reallocated to QS permit
owners by 10 percent as a set aside for
AMP.
(iv) Reallocation formula for specific
widow rockfish QS amounts.
(A) Reallocation formula rules. The
following rules will be applied to data
for the purpose of calculating the initial
reallocation of widow rockfish QS:
(1) Limited entry trawl permits will be
assigned catch history or relative history
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
based on the landing history of the
vessel(s) associated with the permit at
the time the landings were made.
(2) The relevant PacFIN dataset
includes species compositions based on
port sampled data and applied to data
at the vessel level.
(3) Only landings of widow rockfish
which were caught in the exclusive
economic zone or adjacent state waters
off Washington, Oregon and California
will be used for calculating the
reallocation of widow rockfish QS.
(4) History from limited entry trawl
permits that have been combined with
a permit that qualified for a C/P
endorsement and which has shorebased
permit history will not be included in
the preliminary QS and IBQ allocation
formula, other than in the determination
of fleet history used in the calculation
of relative history for permits that do
not have a C/P endorsement.
(5) History of illegal landings and
landings made under non-whiting EFPs
that are in excess of the cumulative
limits in place for the non-EFP fishery
will not count toward the allocation of
QS.
(6) The limited entry trawl permit’s
landings history includes the landings
history of permits that have been
previously combined with that permit.
(7) If two or more limited entry trawl
permits have been simultaneously
registered to the same vessel, NMFS will
split the landing history evenly between
all such limited entry trawl permits
during the time they were
simultaneously registered to the vessel.
(8) Unless otherwise noted, the
calculation for the reallocation of
widow rockfish QS under paragraph
(d)(9) will be based on state landing
receipts (fish tickets) as recorded in the
relevant PacFIN dataset on July 27,
2016.
(9) For limited entry trawl permits,
landings under provisional ‘‘A’’ permits
that did not become ‘‘A’’ permits and
‘‘B’’ permits will not count toward the
reallocation of widow QS, other than in
the determination of fleet history used
in the calculation of relative history for
permits that do not have a C/P
endorsement.
(10) For limited entry trawl permits,
NMFS will calculate the reallocation of
widow rockfish QS separately based on
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules
whiting trips and nonwhiting trips, and
will weigh each calculation according to
a split between whiting trips and
nonwhiting trips of 10.833 percent for
whiting trips and 89.167 percent for
nonwhiting trips, which is a one-time
proportion necessary for the reallocation
formula.
(B) Preliminary widow rockfish QS
reallocation for nonwhiting trips. The
preliminary reallocation process in
paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(A) of this section
follows a two-step process, one to
allocate a pool of QS equally among all
eligible limited entry permits and the
other to allocate the remainder of the
preliminary QS based on permit history.
Through these two processes,
preliminary QS totaling 100 percent will
be allocated. In later steps, this will be
adjusted and reduced as indicated in
paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(C) and (D) to
determine the QS allocation.
(1) QS to be allocated equally. The
pool of QS for equal allocation will be
determined using the nonwhiting trip
landings history from Federal limited
entry groundfish permits that were
retired through the Federal buyback
program (i.e., buyback program) (68 FR
42613, July 18, 2003). The nonwhiting
trip QS pool associated with the
buyback permits will be the buyback
permit history as a percent of the total
fleet history for the 1994 to 2003
nonwhiting trip reallocation period. The
calculation will be based on total
absolute pounds with no dropped years
and no other adjustments. The QS pool
associated with the buyback permits
will be divided equally among all
qualifying limited entry permits.
(2) QS to be allocated based on each
permit’s history. The pool of QS for
allocation based on limited entry trawl
permit nonwhiting trip history will be
the QS remaining after subtracting out
the QS allocated equally. This pool will
be allocated to each qualifying limited
entry trawl permit based on the permit’s
relative nonwhiting trip history from
1994 through 2002, dropping the three
lowest years. For each limited entry
trawl permit, NMFS will calculate
relative history using the following
methodology. First, NMFS will sum the
permit’s widow rockfish landings on
nonwhiting trips for each year in the
reallocation period. Second, NMFS will
divide each permit’s annual sum by the
shoreside limited entry trawl fleet’s
annual sum. NMFS will then calculate
a total relative history for each permit
by adding all relative histories for the
permit together and subtracting the
three years with the lowest relative
history for the permit. The result for
each permit will be divided by the
aggregate sum of all total relative
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Jun 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
histories of all qualifying limited entry
trawl permits. NMFS will then multiply
the result from this calculation by the
amount of QS in the pool to be allocated
based on each permit’s history.
(C) Preliminary widow rockfish QS
reallocation for whiting trips. The
preliminary reallocation process in
paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(B) of this section
follows a two-step process, one to
allocate a pool of QS equally among all
eligible limited entry permits and the
other to allocate the remainder of the
preliminary QS based on permit history.
Through these two processes,
preliminary QS totaling 100 percent will
be allocated. In later steps, this will be
adjusted and reduced as indicated in
paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(C) and (D) to
determine the QS allocation.
(1) QS to be allocated equally. The
pool of QS for equal allocation will be
determined using whiting trip landings
history from Federal limited entry
groundfish permits that were retired
through the Federal buyback program
(i.e., buyback program) (68 FR 42613,
July 18, 2003). The whiting trip QS pool
associated with the buyback permits
will be the buyback permit history as a
percent of the total fleet history for the
1994 to 2003 whiting trip reallocation
period. The calculation will be based on
total absolute pounds with no dropped
years and no other adjustments. The QS
pool associated with the buyback
permits will be divided equally among
all qualifying limited entry permits.
(2) QS to be allocated based on each
permit’s history. The pool of QS for
allocation based on each limited entry
trawl permit’s whiting trip history will
be the QS remaining after subtracting
out the QS allocated equally. Widow
rockfish QS for this pool will be
allocated pro-rata based on each limited
entry trawl permit’s whiting QS from
whiting trips that was established in
2010 and used to allocate the whiting
trip portion of whiting QS at the time of
initial implementation in 2011. Pro-rata
means a percent that is equal to the
percent of whiting QS from whiting
trips.
(D) QS from limited entry permits
calculated separately for non-whiting
trips and whiting trips. NMFS will
calculate the portion of widow QS a
limited entry trawl permit receives
based on non-whiting trips and whiting
trips separately, and will weight each
preliminary QS in proportion to the
one-time reallocation percentage
between whiting trips and non-whiting
trips of 10.833 percent and 89.167
percent, respectively.
(1) Nonwhiting trips. To determine
the amount of widow QS for nonwhiting trips for each limited entry
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42305
trawl permit, NMFS will multiply the
preliminary QS for the permit from
paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(A) of this section by
the one-time reallocation percentage of
89.167 percent for non-whiting trips.
(2) Whiting trips. To determine the
amount of widow QS for whiting trips
for each limited entry trawl permit,
NMFS will multiply the preliminary QS
for the permit from paragraph
(d)(9)(iii)(B) of this section by the onetime reallocation percentage of 10.833
percent for whiting trips.
(E) QS for each limited entry trawl
permit. For each limited entry trawl
permit, NMFS will add the results for
the permit from paragraphs
(d)(9)(iv)(D)(1) and (D)(2) of this section
in order to determine the total QS
widow for that permit.
(F) Adjustment for AMP set-aside.
NMFS will reduce the widow QS
reallocated to each permit owner by a
proportional amount that is equivalent
to a reduction of 10 percent across all
widow reallocation recipients’ holdings
as a set aside for AMP.
(v) Widow rockfish QS reallocation
application. Persons may apply for
issuance of reallocated widow rockfish
QS by completing and submitting a
prequalified application. A
‘‘prequalified application’’ is a partially
pre-filled application where NMFS has
preliminarily determined the landings
history for each limited entry trawl
permit that qualifies the applicant for a
reallocation of widow QS. The
application package will include a
prequalified application (with landings
history). The completed application
must be either postmarked or handdelivered to NMFS within normal
business hours no later than September
15, 2016. If an applicant fails to submit
a completed application by the deadline
date, they forgo the opportunity to
receive reallocated widow rockfish QS
and their percentage will be
redistributed to other QS permit owners
in proportion to their reallocated widow
QS amount.
(vi) Corrections to the application. If
an applicant does not accept NMFS’
calculation in the prequalified
application either in part or whole, the
applicant must identify in writing to
NMFS which parts the applicant
believes to be inaccurate, and must
provide specific credible information to
substantiate any requested corrections.
The completed application and specific
credible information must be provided
to NMFS in writing by the application
deadline. Written communication must
either be post-marked or hand-delivered
to NMFS within normal business hours
no later than September 15, 2016.
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
42306
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Requests for corrections may only be
granted for the following reasons:
(A) Errors in NMFS’ use or
application of data, including:
(1) Errors in NMFS’ use or application
of landings data from PacFIN;
(2) Errors in NMFS’ application of the
reallocation formula;
(3) Errors in identification of the QS
permit owner, permit combinations, or
vessel registration as listed in NMFS
permit database;
(vii) Submission of the application
and application deadline.
(A) Submission of the application.
Submission of the complete, certified
application includes, but is not limited
to, the following:
(1) The applicant is required to sign
and date the application and declare
that the contents are true, correct and
complete.
(2) The applicant must certify that
they qualify to own reallocated widow
rockfish QS.
(3) The applicant must indicate they
accept NMFS’ calculation of reallocated
widow rockfish QS provided in the
prequalified application, or provide a
written statement and credible
information if they do not accept NMFS’
calculation.
(4) NMFS may request additional
information of the applicant as
necessary to make an IAD on reallocated
widow rockfish QS.
(B) Application deadline. A complete,
certified application must be either
postmarked or hand-delivered within
normal business hours to NMFS, West
Coast Region, Permits Office, Bldg. 1,
7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA
98115, no later than September 15,
2016. NMFS will not accept or review
any applications received or postmarked
after the application deadline. There are
no hardship exemptions for this
deadline.
(viii) Initial Administrative
Determination (IAD). NMFS will issue
an IAD for all complete, certified
applications received by the application
deadline date. If NMFS approves an
application for reallocated widow
rockfish QS, the IAD will say so, and the
applicant will receive a 2017 QS permit
specifying the reallocated amount of
widow rockfish QS the applicant has
qualified for in December 2016. If NMFS
disapproves or partially disapproves an
application, the IAD will provide the
reasons. As part of the IAD, NMFS will
indicate to the best of its knowledge
whether the QS permit owner qualifies
for QS or IBQ in amounts that exceed
the accumulation limits and are subject
to divestiture provisions given at
paragraph (d)(4)(v) of this section. If the
applicant does not appeal the IAD
within 60 calendar days of the date on
the IAD, the IAD becomes the final
decision of the Regional Administrator
acting on behalf of the Secretary of
Commerce.
(ix) Appeals. For reallocated widow
rockfish QS issued under this section,
the appeals process and timelines are
specified at § 660.25(g), subpart C. For
the reallocation of widow rockfish QS,
the bases for appeal are described in
paragraph (d)(9)(vi) of this section.
Items not subject to appeal include, but
are not limited to, the accuracy of
permit landings data in the relevant
PacFIN dataset on July 27, 2016.
(e) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Vessel limits. For each IFQ species
or species group specified in this
paragraph, vessel accounts may not
have QP or IBQ pounds in excess of the
QP vessel limit (annual limit) in any
year, and, for species covered by unused
QP vessel limits (daily limit), may not
have QP or IBQ pounds in excess of the
unused QP vessel limit at any time. The
QP vessel limit (annual limit) is
calculated as all QPs transferred in
minus all QPs transferred out of the
vessel account. The unused QP vessel
limits (daily limit) is calculated as
unused available QPs plus any pending
outgoing transfer of QPs.
QP Vessel
limit
(annual limit)
(in percent)
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Species category
Arrowtooth flounder .................................................................................................................................................
Bocaccio S. of 40°10′ N. lat. ...................................................................................................................................
Canary rockfish ........................................................................................................................................................
Chilipepper S. of 40°10′ N. lat. ................................................................................................................................
Cowcod S. of 40°10′ N. lat. .....................................................................................................................................
Darkblotched rockfish ..............................................................................................................................................
Dover sole ................................................................................................................................................................
English sole .............................................................................................................................................................
Lingcod:
N. of 40°10′ N. lat. ............................................................................................................................................
S. of 40°10′ N. lat. ............................................................................................................................................
Longspine thornyhead:
N. of 34°27′ N. lat. ............................................................................................................................................
Minor rockfish complex N. of 40°10′ N. lat.:
Shelf species ....................................................................................................................................................
Slope species ...................................................................................................................................................
Minor rockfish complex S. of 40°10′ N. lat.:
Shelf species ....................................................................................................................................................
Slope species ...................................................................................................................................................
Other flatfish complex ..............................................................................................................................................
Pacific cod ...............................................................................................................................................................
Pacific halibut (IBQ) N. of 40°10′ N. lat. .................................................................................................................
Pacific ocean perch N. of 40°10′ N. lat. ..................................................................................................................
Pacific whiting (shoreside) .......................................................................................................................................
Petrale sole ..............................................................................................................................................................
Sablefish:
N. of 36° N. lat. (Monterey north) .....................................................................................................................
S. of 36° N. lat. (Conception area) ...................................................................................................................
Shortspine thornyhead:
N. of 34°27′ N. lat. ............................................................................................................................................
S. of 34°27′ N. lat. ............................................................................................................................................
Splitnose rockfish S. of 40°10′ N. lat. .....................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Jun 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
Unused QP
Vessel limit
(daily limit)
(in percent)
20
15.4
10
15
17.7
6.8
3.9
7.5
........................
13.2
4.4
........................
17.7
4.5
........................
........................
5.3
13.3
........................
........................
9
........................
7.5
7.5
........................
........................
13.5
9
15
20
14.4
6
15
4.5
........................
........................
........................
........................
5.4
4
........................
........................
4.5
15
........................
........................
9
9
15
........................
........................
........................
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules
QP Vessel
limit
(annual limit)
(in percent)
Species category
Starry flounder .........................................................................................................................................................
Widow rockfish .........................................................................................................................................................
Yelloweye rockfish ...................................................................................................................................................
Yellowtail rockfish N. of 40°10′ N. lat. .....................................................................................................................
Non-whiting groundfish species ...............................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–15217 Filed 6–28–16; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Jun 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
20
8.5
11.4
7.5
3.2
42307
Unused QP
Vessel limit
(daily limit)
(in percent)
........................
........................
5.7
........................
........................
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42295-42307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15217]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 150902809-6536-01]
RIN 0648-BF12
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Widow Rockfish Reallocation in the
Individual Fishing Quota Fishery
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In January 2011, NMFS implemented the trawl rationalization
program, a type of catch share program, for the Pacific coast
groundfish fishery's limited entry trawl fleet, which includes an
individual fishing quota program for limited entry trawl participants.
At the time of implementation, the widow rockfish stock was overfished
and quota shares were allocated to quota share permit owners in the
individual fishing quota program using an overfished species formula.
Now that the widow rockfish stock has been rebuilt, NMFS proposes to
reallocate quota shares to initial recipients based on a target species
formula that will more closely represent the fishing history of permit
owners when widow rockfish was a targeted species. Through this rule,
NMFS also proposes to allow the trading of widow rockfish quota shares,
set a deadline for divestiture in case the reallocation of widow
rockfish puts any QS permit owner over an accumulation limit, and
remove the daily vessel limit for widow rockfish since it is no longer
an overfished species.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
July 29, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2016-0037, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
[[Page 42296]]
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0037, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to William W. Stelle, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way
NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070; Attn: Sarah Towne.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Towne, 206-526-4140,
sarah.towne@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In January 2011, NMFS implemented a trawl rationalization program,
which is a catch share program, for the Pacific coast groundfish
limited entry trawl fishery. The program was implemented through
Amendments 20 and 21 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management
Plan and the corresponding implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 660.
Amendment 20 established the trawl rationalization program that
consists of: an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for the
shorebased trawl fleet (including whiting and nonwhiting sectors), and
cooperative programs for the at-sea mothership and catcher/processor
trawl fleets (whiting only). Amendment 21 set long-term allocations for
the limited entry trawl sectors of certain groundfish species.
In the IFQ fishery, NMFS initially allocated quota shares (QS)
based on allocation formulas developed through the Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council). Target species QS was allocated using
limited entry trawl permit catch history. Overfished species QS was
allocated based on QS of 11 target species, area of catch based on
logbook data, and average bycatch ratios from observer data. The widow
rockfish stock was overfished at the time of initial allocation, so
widow rockfish QS was allocated to QS permit owners using the
overfished species formula.
Amendment 20 states that when an overfished species is rebuilt,
there may be a reallocation of QS to facilitate the reestablishment of
historic fishing opportunities. In its May 2012 Status of the Stocks
Report, NMFS officially declared widow rockfish rebuilt. Based on the
2011 stock assessment results, which indicated that widow was rebuilt,
the Council decided that it would consider a reallocation of widow
rockfish QS. In June 2012 QS for all species was not yet transferrable,
but the Council placed a moratorium on the future transfer of widow
rockfish QS until the reallocation could be considered, to protect
permit owners from trading an asset that the Council might
redistribute. In November 2014 the Council adopted a range of
alternatives for widow rockfish QS reallocation, and in April 2015 made
a final recommendation to NMFS to reallocate widow rockfish using a
modified target species formula.
Accumulation limits in the IFQ program cap the amount of QS or
individual bycatch quota (IBQ) that a person, individually or
collectively, may own or control (QS and IBQ control limits), and set
limits on the amount of quota pounds (QP) that a vessel may catch or
hold in its vessel account during the year (annual vessel limits).
Overfished species such as widow rockfish also have QP vessel limits
(also called daily limits) that restrict the amount of available
overfished species QP that a vessel account can hold on any given day.
Proposed Action
NMFS proposes this rule to: (1) Reallocate widow rockfish QS in the
shorebased IFQ fishery to more closely reflect historic target fishing
opportunities; (2) remove the moratorium on widow QS trading once
reallocation and any appeals are completed; (3) set a divestiture
deadline in case the reallocation puts any QS permit owner over the
widow rockfish QS control limit or the aggregate nonwhiting control
limit; and (4) remove the overfished species daily vessel limit for
widow rockfish that restricts the amount of available QP that any
vessel owner can hold on a given day. Each of these proposed actions is
described in further detail below.
Widow Rockfish Reallocation
In 2011, NMFS initially allocated QS for 29 different species to
limited entry trawl permit owners in the form of a new QS permit and
associated online account (lingcod was later subdivided into two areas,
so there are currently 30 IFQ species). Each year NMFS allocates QPs to
QS permit owners in their online accounts, based on the amount of QS
each permit owner holds and the current sector allocation. QS permit
owners must transfer these pounds to a vessel account in order for them
to be fished, and when a vessel goes out fishing in the IFQ program,
the landings and discards are debited against their vessel account much
like a check being debited against a checking account. In addition to
transferring annual pounds to vessel accounts, QS permit owners can
also permanently transfer shares between QS accounts (for all species
except widow rockfish, pending the widow rockfish reallocation). When a
QS permit owner transfers QS, they are permanently transferring their
ability to access and use that percentage of the annual sector
allocation. For example, if QS permit owner A sold all of their
sablefish South of 36[deg] N to permit owner B, permit owner A would no
longer be allocated any sablefish South of 36[deg] N. QPs in future
years.
The QS and IBQ that was initially allocated in 2011 was calculated
in four different groups, with four different allocation formulas: 21
target species in ``Group 1;'' 6 incidentally caught overfished
species, including widow rockfish, in ``Group 2;'' canary rockfish--an
incidentally-caught overfished species calculated using a different
formula than Group 2 species--in ``Group 3;'' and Pacific halibut IBQ
in ``Group 4.''
The widow rockfish stock was overfished at the time of initial
allocation, and therefore widow QS was calculated using a Group 2
formula. Because the Group 2 formula was based on the amount of target
species (Group 1 species) QS the permit owner received, the Group 2 QS
allocations purposely did not reflect the historical fishing efforts of
fishermen who may have targeted those Group 2 species before they
became overfished; instead the goal was to address the QS recipient's
need to cover incidental catch of those overfished species based on
their allocations of target species.
Consistent with Amendment 20, and at the urging of some fishermen
who were interested in a redistribution of widow rockfish QS to reflect
target history instead of bycatch needs, the Council adopted a range of
widow reallocation alternatives for consideration in November 2014,
including: Alternative 1--status quo (no reallocation); Alternative 2--
a reallocation based on the Group 1 species formula used at the time of
initial allocation, with two suboptions
[[Page 42297]]
to determine the split of widow rockfish QS between whiting and
nonwhiting trips; Alternative 3--a reallocation based on nonwhiting
groundfish revenue as a basis for recent participation; and Alternative
4--a reallocation that was a mix between Alternatives 1 and 2, where a
portion of widow QS would not be reallocated, and a portion would be
reallocated using the formula from Alternative 2. In April 2015, the
Council selected the midpoint between the two Alternative 2 suboptions
to establish a final alternative, Alternative 5.
In coming to its final preferred alternative, Alternative 5, the
Council took into account the expected impacts of each alternative on
harvesters, processors, workers, investments, and communities, using
the most recent data available, as reflected in the environmental
assessment. The Council considered the geographic distribution of
impacts among the communities in Washington, Oregon, and California.
The Council chose to blend the Alternative 2 suboptions, which set
proportions for reallocating widow rockfish based on whiting and
nonwhiting trips, to balance impacts to the whiting and nonwhiting
fisheries. Of all the alternatives, the Council's final preferred
alternative moves the most directly toward reestablishing the targeted
widow rockfish fishery and is therefore expected to better achieve
optimum yield and more immediately benefit struggling communities.
The proposed action would reallocate widow rockfish QS to
individual QS permit owners in the IFQ program using the formula the
Council selected in its final preferred alternative. This formula is
very similar to the Group 1 species calculation that was initially used
to allocate target species QS in 2011. Specifically, NMFS would
reallocate widow rockfish in two parts: One portion based on the
history of permits retired in the 2003 buyback program, divided equally
among qualified limited entry trawl permits, and the other portion
based on widow rockfish landings history. NMFS would continue to hold
10 percent of the total widow QS aside for the adaptive management
program (AMP).
For the portion of the reallocation resulting from the buyback,
this rule proposes to use landings history from Federal limited entry
groundfish permits that were retired through the 2003 Federal buyback
program. NMFS would calculate the total buyback permit history as a
percent of the total fleet history from 1994-2003, separately for
whiting and nonwhiting trips. The whiting and nonwhiting QS pools
associated with the buyback permits would be divided equally among all
qualifying limited entry permits.
For the portion of the reallocation resulting from widow rockfish
landings history, this rule proposes to allocate one pool of QS based
on the amount of Pacific whiting QS allocated for each permit, and the
other pool based on the amount of widow rockfish caught on nonwhiting
trips between 1994 and 2002, dropping the three lowest years. The
Council's final preferred alternative excluded 2003 from nonwhiting
trip history since widow rockfish was managed for rebuilding from late
2002-2012, and the 2003 regulations aimed to eliminate widow targeting.
Because only a few nonwhiting vessels made widow landings in 2003 and
because the proposed reallocation formula calculates history based on a
limited entry trawl permit's share of the fleet total for each year, a
relatively small amount of widow landed by a single permit in 2003
would constitute a large portion of the fleet total for that year and
have a disproportionate effect on the widow QS reallocation. The
Council decided that this disproportionate allocation would be unfair,
and that fishermen who harvested widow in the nonwhiting fishery when
it was overfished should not be rewarded with additional QS from those
trips. The Council therefore excluded 2003 from the nonwhiting landings
history portion of the allocation formula.
The Council's final preferred alternative reallocates widow
rockfish based on the Group 1 species calculation that was initially
used to allocate target species QS in 2011. For the portion of the
reallocation resulting from the buyback, the 1994-2003 period reflects
the years used for Group 1 species at the time of initial allocation.
For the portion of the reallocation resulting from widow rockfish
landings history, 2003 was dropped from the nonwhiting pool for the
reasons described above. 2003 landings would have a minimal impact on
the amount of buyback QS allocated equally because all landings would
be summed across all years and the buyback portion would be a subset of
that total. Therefore no adjustment was made to the years used for the
buyback portion (1994-2003). In contrast, 2003 landings would have a
disproportionate impact on the portion of widow QS reallocated based on
nonwhiting landings history because each permit's portion of landings
is determined for each year. Instead of being spread equally (like
buyback QS), including 2003 would allocate a disproportionate amount of
widow QS directly to fishermen who targeted widow rockfish in the
nonwhiting fishery when widow rockfish was overfished, as described
above. For these reasons, 2003 history is included in all parts of the
formula except the nonwhiting pool of the landings history portion.
To determine how much of the total QS for each limited entry
permit's widow rockfish landings history would be based on whiting
trips versus nonwhiting trips, NMFS proposes to weigh each pool
according to the initial issuance allocation formula specified in
Amendment 21 and current regulations at Sec. 660.140(d)(8)(iv)(A)(10)
(which anticipated widow rockfish rebuilding). The formula states that
10 percent or 500 metric tons (mt), whichever is greater, will be
allocated to the whiting sectors (shorebased and at-sea whiting), and
the remaining amount will be allocated to the nonwhiting shorebased
sector.
By blending the two suboptions for Alternative 2, the Council
established a one-time annual catch limit (ACL) value for widow of
2,569 metric tons (mt) to use for the initial issuance allocation
formula. This ACL value is needed to determine the harvest guideline
amount, limited entry trawl allocation, and whiting and nonwhiting
sector allocations. The whiting sector allocation is then subdivided
into shorebased and at-sea sector allocations. The shorebased whiting
and non-whiting allocations can then be compared in order to set the
percentages NMFS would use to weigh whiting and nonwhiting history in
the reallocation formula. Figure 1 below walks through the entire
calculation from the ACL value to the shorebased whiting and nonwhiting
percentages that NMFS proposes to use for widow reallocation, and a
full description of the calculation follows.
[[Page 42298]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN16.000
NMFS proposes to use an ACL value of 2,569 mt, the midpoint of the
two Alternative 2 suboptions as given in the Council's final preferred
alternative, in order to determine how much of the total QS for each
limited entry permit's widow rockfish landings history would be based
on whiting trips versus nonwhiting trips. NMFS proposes to use a set-
aside amount of 120 mt, the same value used for the widow rockfish set-
aside in 2016 (in Table 2a to 50 CFR part 660, subpart C), to determine
the harvest guidelines amount. NMFS would subtract the set-aside amount
(120 mt) from the ACL (2,569 mt) in order to determine the harvest
guideline amount (2,449 mt).
Next, NMFS proposes to use a limited entry trawl/non-limited entry
trawl split of 91 percent and 9 percent, respectively, the same split
percentages used in the 2015-2016 harvest specifications (in Tables 1b
and 2b to 50 CFR part 660, subpart C), to determine the limited entry
trawl and non-limited entry trawl allocations. NMFS would multiply the
harvest guidelines (2,449 mt) by 91 percent in order to determine the
limited entry trawl allocation (2,228.59 mt), and by 9 percent in order
to determine the non-limited entry trawl allocation (220.41 mt).
As described above, NMFS proposes to use the initial issuance
allocation formula specified in Amendment 21 and current regulations at
Sec. 660.140(d)(8)(iv)(A)(10) to determine how much of the limited
entry trawl allocation (2,228.59 mt) would be allocated to the whiting
and nonwhiting sectors. The formula states that 10 percent or 500 mt,
whichever is greater, will be allocated to the whiting sectors
(shorebased and at-sea whiting), and the remaining amount will be
allocated to the shorebased nonwhiting sector. 500 mt is greater than
10 percent of the limited entry trawl allocation (222.859 mt), so NMFS
would allocate 500 mt to the whiting sectors. The remaining amount of
the limited entry trawl allocation, 1,728.59 mt, would be allocated to
the shorebased nonwhiting sector.
NMFS proposes to further divide the whiting allocation into
shorebased and at-sea whiting sector allocations using a split of 42
percent and 58 percent, respectively, as specified in Amendment 21 and
current regulations at Sec. 660.55(f)(2). NMFS would allocate 42
percent of 500 mt (210 mt) to the shorebased whiting sector, and 58
percent of 500 mt (290 mt) to the at-sea whiting sectors.
Next, NMFS proposes to combine the shorebased whiting and
nonwhiting allocations to determine the total shorebased sector
allocation. Based on the proposed calculation above, the 210 mt
shorebased whiting sector allocation would be added to the 1,728.59 mt
shorebased nonwhiting sector allocation, for a total shorebased sector
allocation of 1,938.59 mt. The shorebased whiting sector allocation is
10.833 percent of the total shorebased sector allocation (210 mt
divided by 1,938.59 mt). The shorebased nonwhiting sector allocation is
89.167 percent of the total shorebased sector allocation (1,728.59 mt
divided by 1,938.59 mt). NMFS proposes to use these percentages to
determine how much of the total QS for each limited entry permit's
widow rockfish landings history would be based on whiting trips versus
nonwhiting trips.
Different ACLs cause different QS amounts to be allocated based on
whiting and nonwhiting trips. The Alternative 2 suboptions, suboptions
a and b, set two different ACL levels (2,000 mt and 3,790 mt,
respectively), and the Council chose the midpoint of those suboptions
(2,569 mt) in order to balance the impacts of widow rockfish
reallocation to the shorebased whiting and nonwhiting fisheries. The
midpoint ACL was chosen such that each limited entry trawl permit would
receive QS based on whiting and nonwhiting landing trip history in an
amount that is the midpoint of what their QS would have been under
suboptions a and b (2,569 mt), rather than the midpoint between 2,000
mt and 3,790 mt (2,895 mt). Table 1 below shows the whiting/nonwhiting
split outcomes of each of the Alternative 2 suboptions, and the
Council's final preferred alternative whiting/nonwhiting split, which
is the midpoint of suboptions a and b.
[[Page 42299]]
Table 1--Whiting/Nonwhiting Split Suboptions and Final Preferred Alternative
[Midpoint of suboptions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final
Alt 2-- Alt 2-- preferred
suboption a suboption b alternative--
(mt) (mt) midpoint (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACL............................................................. 2,000 3,790 2,569
Set Asides...................................................... 120 120 120
Harvest Guidelines (= ACL - set asides)......................... 1,880 3,670 2,449
Limited Entry Trawl (= 91% of harvest guidelines)............... 1,710.8 3,339.7 2,228.59
Non-Limited Entry Trawl (= 9% of harvest guidelines)............ 169.2 330.3 220.41
Whiting Sectors (= 10% of limited entry trawl allocation, or 500 500 500 500
mt, whichever is greater)......................................
Shorebased Nonwhiting (remaining LE trawl)...................... 1,210.8 2,839.7 1,728.59
At-Sea Whiting (= 58% of whiting sector allocation)............. 290 290 290
Shorebased Whiting (= 42% of whiting sector allocation)......... 210 210 210
Total Shorebased Allocation (= shorebased nonwhiting + 1,420.8 3,049.7 1,938.59
shorebased whiting)............................................
Whiting trip percentage for widow rockfish QS landings history.. 14.780% 6.886% 10.833%
Nonwhiting trip percentage for widow rockfish QS landings 85.220% 93.114% 89.167%
history........................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility
QS permit owners are only eligible for a reallocation of widow
rockfish if they are one of the 128 original QS permit owners who
initially received a QS permit in 2011 based on limited entry trawl
permit ownership. The 10 shorebased whiting processors who received
initial QS permits with an allocation of Pacific whiting only are not
eligible to receive reallocated widow rockfish QS. Those QS permit
owners who have obtained a QS permit since 2014 when NMFS accepted new
QS permit applications are not eligible to receive reallocated widow
rockfish QS. However, since 2011, NMFS has received several U.S. court
orders directing NMFS to transfer assets of a deceased person to a
beneficiary. For those new QS permits to which NMFS administratively
transferred widow rockfish QS based on a U.S. court order, NMFS will
reallocate widow rockfish QS directly to these new QS permits because
the shares were transferred through a legal process to a beneficiary.
Limited entry trawl permit owners who did not apply for and receive a
QS permit in 2011 are not eligible for reallocated widow rockfish QS;
instead any history accruing to their permit will be redistributed
among all other QS permit owners in proportion to their reallocated
widow rockfish QS. If any QS permit owner submits a complete widow
rockfish QS reallocation application but does not renew their QS permit
and account for 2017, NMFS would still reallocate widow rockfish QS to
the permit owner but, as stated currently in regulation, would not
allocate QP for any species to a non-renewed permit. The permit owner
could renew for the following year, which would enable him or her to
receive and transfer QP.
Past landings history associated with each limited entry trawl
permit will accrue to the current QS permit owner who received initial
QS for that limited entry permit, even if the limited entry trawl
permit ownership has changed since 2011. For example, if the fictitious
company XYZ Fishing owned two limited entry trawl permits in 2010:
Permit A and Permit B, they would have received a QS permit (QS Permit
#1) in 2011 with an initial issuance of QS that was based on the
history of limited entry trawl Permits A and B. For the purposes of
widow rockfish reallocation, the linkage between limited entry trawl
Permits A and B and QS Permit #1 will remain in place, so that QS
Permit #1 will be reallocated widow rockfish QS based on the history
from limited entry trawl Permits A and B, regardless of who owns those
limited entry trawl permits now. If XYZ Fishing sold both limited entry
trawl permits in 2013, and therefore no longer owns them at the time
widow rockfish is reallocated, the company would still receive the
reallocated widow rockfish QS from limited entry Permits A and B to QS
Permit #1.
Based on the Council's action, NMFS proposes to reallocate widow
rockfish based on the limited entry permit and QS permit relationship
described above because the limited entry permit ownership was severed
from the QS permit ownership at the time QS permits became effective in
2011. After that time, limited entry trawl permits could be sold
without any effect on the QS holdings, and QS percentages could be
transferred without any effect on the limited entry permit. It is
likely that QS permit owners would not have sold their limited entry
trawl permits if they thought they would not receive the reallocated
widow rockfish QS, and similarly, it is likely that any persons who
purchased a limited entry trawl permit did not believe that they would
receive any future QS as part of the purchase.
For purposes of the widow rockfish reallocation calculation, NMFS
intends to use landings data from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission's PacFIN database. Although QS permit owners had the
opportunity to review and revise their data in 2009, they may not have
reviewed their widow rockfish history closely at that time, since widow
rockfish was overfished and the QS allocation used a Group 2 formula
that was not based on widow landings. NMFS wants to provide an
opportunity for this review before we ``freeze'' the database for
purposes of reallocation. ``Freezing'' the database means that NMFS
intends to extract a dataset of the PacFIN database as of July 27,
2016, and will use that dataset for the reallocation of widow rockfish.
QS permit owners have been on notice since 2012 that widow rockfish
might be reallocated, and have been able to review their fish ticket
data since that time. NMFS also specified at the April 2016 Council
meeting that we intended to use landings data from the PacFIN database
to calculate the reallocated widow rockfish QS, and that we planned to
provide permit owners the opportunity to review their widow catch data
before we take a snapshot of the database for the purpose of
reallocation.
If QS permit owners in the shorebased trawl IFQ program have
concerns over the accuracy of their widow rockfish data in the PacFIN
database, they should contact the state in which they landed those fish
to correct any errors. Any revisions to an entity's fish tickets would
have to be approved by the state in order to be accepted, and must be
[[Page 42300]]
completed as of the date we freeze the database in order for the
updated information to be used for the widow rockfish reallocation
formula. State contacts are as follows: (1) Washington--Marjorie
Morningstar (360-902-2854, marjorie.morningstar@dfw.wa.gov); (2)
Oregon--Nadine Hurtado (503-947-6247, nadine.hurtado@state.or.us); and
(3) California--Marine Fisheries Statistical Unit (562-342-7130).
Application Process
After NMFS freezes the database for the purpose of reallocation,
and assuming the final rule publishes, we will mail prefilled
applications and widow rockfish reallocation QS amounts to each
eligible QS permit owner (calculated using the formula in the final
rule). On the application, the applicant (the QS permit owner) must:
(1) Indicate whether or not they accept NMFS' calculation of the
reallocated widow rockfish QS for each limited entry trawl permit, (2)
provide a written description of what part of the reallocation formula
requires correction and credible information to support the request for
correction if they do not accept the calculation, and (3) sign, date
and declare that the information in the application is true, correct
and complete. NMFS proposes that complete, certified applications would
be due to NMFS West Coast Region on or before September 15, 2016, that
mailed applications would be postmarked no later than September 15,
2016, and that hand-delivered applications would be received no later
than 5 p.m. on September 15, 2016. NMFS would not accept or review any
applications postmarked or received in person after the application
deadline, and any QS permit owner who does not submit an application
would not be eligible to receive reallocated widow rockfish QS. NMFS
would not accept applications by email. NMFS would redistribute the
shares from any incomplete or non-submitted applications to all other
QS permit owners who are eligible for a reallocation of widow rockfish
QS in proportion to their reallocated widow QS amount.
Assuming the rule will be final, for all complete, certified
applications that were received by the application deadline date, NMFS
would issue an initial administrative determination (IAD) on or before
October 1, 2016. In the IAD, NMFS would inform the applicant whether or
not their application for reallocated widow rockfish QS was approved.
Applicants would have 60 calendar days from the date of the IAD to
appeal the decision. If any appeals were received, NMFS would
reallocate widow QS amounts in 2017 consistent with all of the IADs and
await any action resulting from an appeal until 2018. More information
is provided below about how the appeals process would affect the widow
rockfish QS trading start date and the divestiture deadline.
If an application is approved, the QS permit owner would receive a
2017 QS permit showing the new widow rockfish QS amount in December
2016, and the new QS percentage would show in the associated QS account
on or about January 1, 2017. The 2017 IFQ sector allocation for widow
rockfish would be allocated to QS accounts on or about January 1, 2017,
based on the reallocated widow rockfish QS amount.
Widow Rockfish QS Trading
Widow rockfish QS has not been transferrable at any time since the
start of the IFQ program in 2011. The Council and NMFS initially placed
a two-year moratorium on QS trading for all IFQ species in order to
create stability during the transition to a new management system. In
2012, the Council decided to reconsider the initial widow rockfish QS
allocations, and halted future trading of widow rockfish QS until the
reconsideration could be completed. In August 2012, NMFS delayed QS
trading for all species for an additional year in response to unrelated
litigation that required the Council and NMFS to reconsider the initial
allocation of Pacific whiting. In 2013 NMFS put into regulation a
moratorium for the transfer of widow rockfish QS until the reallocation
could be considered and implemented, but QS trading for all other IFQ
species began on January 1, 2014. Since that time, QS permit owners
have been able to transfer QS for all species except widow rockfish.
NMFS proposes to lift the moratorium on the transfer of widow
rockfish QS once the reallocation is completed and any resulting
appeals have been processed; successful appeals could affect all
reallocation amounts. Under the proposed rule, once QS permit owners
have their reallocated QS percentages, and can be sure those
percentages would not change as the result of an appeal, permit owners
could begin trading. If NMFS does not receive any appeals by the
appeals deadline, we propose to lift the moratorium on widow rockfish
QS trading for January 1, 2017. If NMFS receives any appeals by the
deadline, we propose to lift the moratorium on widow rockfish QS
trading for January 1, 2018, because that is the date when any appeal
outcome that might cause a change in widow allocations would be
finalized. NMFS proposes to announce the official start date of widow
rockfish QS trading through a public notice in December 2016, once we
are able to determine whether appeals have been submitted.
Deadline for Divestiture
Control limits in the IFQ program cap the amount of QS or IBQ that
a person, individually or collectively, may own or control. Amendment
20 and implementing regulations set individual control limits for each
of the 30 IFQ species, as well as an aggregate limit of 2.7 percent
across nonwhiting species. The individual control limit for widow
rockfish is 5.1 percent. Consistent with the trawl rationalization
program, some QS permit owners were initially allocated an amount of QS
and IBQ that exceeded one or more of the control limits, based on their
catch history during the qualifying years. The regulations provided
these QS permit owners an adjustment period to hold the excess shares,
but required divestiture of excess QS by November 30, 2015, for all
species except widow rockfish, because widow rockfish QS was being
considered for reallocation and could not be traded.
When NMFS reallocates widow rockfish, we propose to allocate the
full amount the applicant qualifies for, even if it pushes the permit
owner over the 5.1 percent control limit for widow, or the 2.7 percent
nonwhiting aggregate limit. NMFS would allow the QS permit owner an
adjustment period to hold the excess shares and divest, consistent with
the process that was used during initial allocation in 2011. Should the
reallocation of widow rockfish put any QS permit owner over a QS
control limit, NMFS, based on the Council's recommendation, proposes to
set a divestiture deadline of November 30 in the year widow rockfish QS
becomes transferrable. If NMFS does not receive any appeals on the
reallocation, widow QS would become transferrable on or about January
1, 2017, and any QS permit owner who exceeded the control limit as the
result of the reallocation would have until November 30, 2017, to
divest of their excess holdings. If NMFS does receive one or more
appeals, widow QS would become transferrable on or about January 1,
2018, and any QS permit owner who exceeded the control limit as the
result of the reallocation would have until November 30, 2018, to
divest of their excess holdings. QS trading occurs between January 1
through November 30 each year, but trading is halted in the month of
[[Page 42301]]
December so that NMFS can set QP allocations based on the static year-
end amount of QS and mail QS permits that are effective January 1 of
the following year. This 11-month adjustment period would allow the
permit owner to benefit from one year of holding excess QS, and from
the sale or gifting of such an excess, but they would be required to
divest of their excess in a timely manner, consistent with existing
regulatory procedures.
Widow Rockfish Daily Vessel Limit
Vessel limits in vessel accounts restrict the amount of QPs that
any vessel can catch or hold. Annual QP vessel limits are a set
percentage of the IFQ sector allocation, and NMFS calculates and
publishes a table annually showing the quota pound equivalents. For
example, the annual QP vessel limit for widow rockfish is 8.5 percent
of the current year's sector allocation. In 2016, the IFQ sector
allocation for widow rockfish is 3,131,931 pounds, so the maximum
amount any vessel owner can catch or bring into their vessel account in
2016 is 8.5 percent of the sector allocation, or 266,214 pounds. Unused
QP vessel limits, also called ``daily vessel limits,'' only apply to
overfished species and cap the amount of overfished species QPs any
vessel account can have sitting available in their account on a given
day. For example, the daily QP vessel limit for widow rockfish is 5.1
percent, or 159,728 pounds in 2016, which is lower than the annual QP
vessel limit. So if a vessel account owner held the full daily vessel
limit amount (159,728 pounds) available in their account and then
caught 20,000 pounds, they would have 139,728 available QPs and could
bring in 20,000 more, up to the daily and annual vessel limit.
The Council and NMFS established daily vessel limits to prevent
hoarding of available overfished species QPs in any one vessel account,
since the IFQ sector allocations of some overfished species are so low.
Now that widow rockfish is rebuilt, and the ACL has increased, NMFS
proposes to remove the daily vessel limit since daily vessel limits
only apply to overfished species. NMFS would remove the daily vessel
limit for widow rockfish only, and would not change widow's annual
vessel limit or the vessel limit of any other species. This change
would better reflect the status of widow rockfish as rebuilt, and allow
fishermen to hold the full annual vessel limit at any time if they
chose to do so, in line with every other non-overfished IFQ species.
Classification
Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act (MSA), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that
this proposed rule is consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Management Plan, other provisions of the MSA, and other
applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
The Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for this
action. The draft EA is available on the Council's Web site at https://www.pcouncil.org/ or on NMFS' Web site at https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/groundfish_catch_shares/rules_regulations/trawl_regulations_compliance_guides.html.
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 (OMB Control No. 0648-0620) to include an
application form for widow rockfish reallocation. NMFS estimates the
public reporting burden for this collection of information to average
one hour per form, including the time for reviewing instructions,
reviewing data and calculations for reallocated widow rockfish QS, and
completing the form. NMFS requests any comments on the addition of the
widow rockfish reallocation application form to the PRA package,
including whether the paperwork would unnecessarily burden any QS
permit owners.
Pursuant to the procedures established to implement section 6 of
Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget has
determined that this proposed rule is not significant.
This proposed rule was developed after meaningful collaboration,
through the Council process, with the tribal representative on the
Council. The proposed regulations have no direct effect on the tribes.
NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
this rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule,
if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action,
why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are
contained in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) was also prepared on the action and is
included as part of the IRFA. A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS
(see ADDRESSES) and per the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604(a), a summary
of the IRFA follows:
When an agency proposes regulations, the RFA requires the agency to
prepare and make available for public comment an IRFA that describes
the impact on small businesses, non-profit enterprises, local
governments, and other small entities. The IRFA aids the agency in
considering all reasonable regulatory alternatives that would minimize
the economic impact on affected small entities.
The Small Business Administration defines a ``small'' harvesting
business as one with combined annual receipts of $11 million or less
for all affiliated operations worldwide. For related fish-processing
businesses, a small business is one that employs 750 or fewer persons
for all affiliated operations worldwide.
This rule affects 128 QS permit owners who have received widow
quota shares. When renewing their QS permits, permit owners are asked
if they considered themselves small businesses based on the SBA
definitions of small businesses provided above. Based on their
responses, NMFS estimates that there are 110 small businesses affected
by this rule.
In January 2011, NMFS implemented the trawl rationalization program
(a catch share program) for the Pacific coast groundfish limited entry
trawl fishery, which includes an individual fishing quota program for
limited entry trawl participants. At the time of implementation, the
widow rockfish stock was overfished and quota shares were allocated to
quota share permit owners in the individual fishing quota program using
an overfished species formula. Now that widow rockfish has been
rebuilt, NMFS proposes to reallocate quota shares to initial recipients
based on a target species formula that will more closely represent the
fishing history of permit owners when widow rockfish was a targeted
species. Through this rule NMFS also proposes to allow the trading of
widow rockfish quota shares, set a deadline for divestiture in case the
reallocation of widow rockfish puts any QS permit owner over an
accumulation limit, and remove the daily vessel limit for widow
rockfish since it is no longer an overfished species. The reallocation
of widow rockfish and lifting of the moratorium are the major measures
analyzed below. Setting the divestiture deadline is administrative in
nature, while elimination of the daily limit is
[[Page 42302]]
already required because widow is no longer an overfished species.
The Council adopted a range of widow rockfish reallocation
alternatives for consideration in November 2014 including: Alternative
1--status quo (no reallocation), Alternative 2--reallocate widow using
same formula (Group I species formula) that was used for other target
species at the at the time of initial allocation, Alternative 3--
reallocate widow based on nonwhiting groundfish revenue as a basis for
recent participation, and Alternative 4--reallocate widow by blending
Alternatives 1 and 2, where a portion of widow QS would not be
reallocated, and a portion would be reallocated using the formula from
Alternative 2. In April 2015, the Council selected Alternative 2 as its
final preferred alternative, and blended two suboptions for the
alternative into a final suboption-Alternative 5.
In assessing these alternatives, the Council took into account
expected impacts of each alternative on harvesters, processors,
workers, investments, and communities, using the most recent data
available, as reflected in the environmental assessment. The Council
recognized its final decision as drawing a balance between impacts to
the whiting and nonwhiting fishery, not allocating too much away from
any one sector, re-establishing historic fisheries, and the geographic
distribution of impacts among the communities in Washington, Oregon,
and California. This action is part of an overall program designed to
ensure that conservation objectives are met and is focused on
mitigating some of the distributional effects of those conservation
measures. As compared to Alternatives 3 or 4, Alternative 2 and the
Council's final preferred alternative, Alternative 5, move most
directly toward reestablishing the targeted widow rockfish fishery and
is therefore expected to better achieve the OY and more immediately
benefit struggling communities.
The economic dimensions of the fishery are as follows. Annual widow
rockfish ex-vessel revenues in the shorebased trawl sector ranged from
$5 million to $6 million (inflation adjusted) in the mid-1990s. Annual
ex-vessel revenues in the pre-trawl rationalization rebuilding era
(2002-2010) averaged about $0.1 million. Since the start of trawl
rationalization (2011-2014), annual ex-vessel values averaged $0.3
million. (Widow rockfish was determined to be rebuilt in 2011 and was
no longer managed under a rebuilding plan beginning in the 2013-2014
biennial harvest specifications). Estimated widow catch has increased
every year: in 2013, approximately 400 mt were caught; in 2014,
approximately 650 mt were caught; and in 2015, about 840 mt were
caught. With an ex-vessel price of $0.41 per pound, the total revenues
earned in the 2015 fishery are about $760,000. The 2016 sector
allocation for widow is similar to 2015, and recognizing past growth of
the fishery, landings may reach 1,000 mt.
Widow rockfish is just one of many species landed on the West
Coast. During 2015, landings of groundfish, crab, salmon, and other
species, generated $335 million in ex-vessel revenues. 2015 groundfish
ex-vessel revenues were about $64 million with IFQ revenues estimated
at $42 million. Widow rockfish ex-vessel revenues were about $760,000,
constituting a very small percentage of total groundfish ex-vessel
revenues.
If the Council increases the 2017 ACL from 2,000 mt (No Action) to
13,508 mt (Alternative 1), revenues could grow to $9.0 million if
prices do not change, the number of non-whiting mid-water trawlers
rapidly increases, and if processors could process the increased widow
rockfish landings and find the proper markets. These changes would
yield an increase of $23.1 million in total West Coast income impacts,
and an increase of an estimated 320 jobs.
This rulemaking proposes to reallocate widow rockfish QS and allow
those shares to be traded. With trading, QS will flow to those QS
holders that most efficiently can use the QS--by using the associated
QP to support their own vessels, selling or leasing the QP to other
vessels, or by selling the QS to others. At the fishery level, in the
long run, the alternatives reviewed here will not have a major effect
on the overall amount of fish landed and processed across all the
groundfish fishing communities.
At the individual quota share holder level, this rule affects the
starting point by which QS is traded and the amounts that can be traded
by individual QS holders. Depending on the alternative, the total
amount of QS that is to be reallocated in the IFQ fishery ranges from
0% (Alternative 1, Status Quo, Bycatch) to 28.2% (Alternative 5,
Alternative 2 Midpoint). Based on ex-vessel price of $0.41 per pound,
and projected sector allocations of 12,000 mt based on 2017 ACL of
13,500 mt, and projected attainment rate of 80%, the annual value of
the quota pounds associated with a potential transfer of 28.2% of the
quota shares is about $2.5 million. Depending on the alternative, the
potential transfer of QS among communities ranges from 0 to 18%. The
annual value of quota pounds associated with QS being transferred is
about $1.5 million based on the 2017 ACL.
The proposed 2017-18 ACLs of 13,500 mt and 13,800 mt are six times
higher than 2015-2016 ACLs. From a fishery-wide perspective, there
should not be any negative impacts on communities, QS holders, or
processors because of the increase in ACLs. This huge increase in the
ACLs provides increased opportunities for all of these participants.
However, with any reallocation scheme there are some that are
negatively impacted. The maximum reduction for a QS holder under either
Alternative 2 or 5 is about 1.9%. Based on 2015 revenues of $760,000,
the QP associated with this reduction would have a value of $15,000.
Under the 2017 ACL, estimated revenues are $9.0 million, and a loss of
1.9% would be worth about $175,000. At an individual level, these two
values represent maximum 2015 losses ($15,000) versus maximum potential
future losses should the high ACL be implemented, prices stay constant,
and 80 percent of the sector allocation be harvested ($175,000). Others
will be positively impacted. The maximum increase for a QS holder under
any alternative is about 2%.
NMFS does not believe that small businesses as a class of QS
holders will be negatively impacted by the proposed reallocation of
widow rockfish QS. The reallocation options in large part decrease
widow QS holdings for some small businesses while increasing QS
holdings for other small businesses, based on historical reliance on
widow rockfish as a target species. Trading of widow QS should also be
beneficial to all small businesses as it gives these businesses the
option to buy, sell, or lease their widow QS. Setting the divesture
deadline gives any affected entities time to sell off their excess QS.
Eliminating the no-longer-needed daily vessel limit for widow rockfish
provides more flexibility to small businesses.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries.
Dated: June 23, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
[[Page 42303]]
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:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(B)(2) and (d)(4)(v);
0
b. Add paragraph (d)(9); and
0
c. Revise paragraph (e)(4)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.140 Shorebased IFQ Program.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
(2) Transfer of QS or IBQ between QS accounts. Beginning January 1,
2014, QS permit owners may transfer QS (except for widow rockfish QS)
or IBQ to another owner of a QS permit, subject to accumulation limits
and approval by NMFS. Beginning January 1, 2017 (if there are no
appeals to the reallocation of widow rockfish), or January 1, 2018 (if
there are appeals to the reallocation of widow rockfish), QS permit
owners may transfer widow rockfish QS to another owner of a QS permit,
subject to accumulation limits and approval by NMFS. NMFS will announce
the QS transfer date for widow rockfish prior to January 1, 2017. QS or
IBQ cannot be transferred to a vessel account. Owners of non-renewed QS
permits may not transfer QS. QP in QS accounts cannot be transferred
between QS accounts. NMFS will allocate QP based on the QS percentages
as listed on a QS permit that was renewed during the previous October 1
through November 30 renewal period. QS transfers will be recorded in
the QS account but will not become effective for purposes of allocating
QPs until the following year. QS or IBQ may not be transferred between
December 1 through December 31 each year. Any QS transaction that is
pending as of December 1 will be administratively retracted. NMFS will
allocate QP for the following year based on the QS percentages as of
December 1 of each year.
* * * * *
(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
reallocation of widow rockfish QS, an adjustment period will be
provided during which they will have to completely divest their QS or
IBQ in excess of the accumulation limits. 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)(A)
or (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 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 for a
reason other than the reallocation of widow rockfish, 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.
(B) Divestiture and redistribution process for the reallocation of
widow rockfish. 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 the reallocation of widow
rockfish puts any QS permit owner over an accumulation limit, the QS
permit owner will have until widow rockfish becomes transferrable to
divest of their excess widow rockfish QS. In the case that a QS permit
owner exceeds the control limit for aggregate nonwhiting QS holdings as
the result of the reallocation of widow rockfish, the permit owner may
abandon QS to NMFS by November 15 of the year widow rockfish becomes
transferrable, using the procedure provided under paragraph
(d)(4)(v)(C) of this section. After the widow rockfish reallocation
divestiture period, NMFS will revoke all QS and 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) 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:
[[Page 42304]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, after the divestiture deadline, a
QS permit owner exceeds . . . Then . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An individual species control limit in NMFS will revoke excess QS at
one QS permit. the species level.
An individual species control limit NMFS will revoke QS at the
across multiple QS permits. species level in proportion to
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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 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 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.
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.
* * * * *
(9) Reallocation of widow rockfish QS. (i) Additional definitions.
The following definitions are applicable to paragraph (d)(9) of this
section and apply to terms used for the purposes of reallocation of
widow rockfish QS:
(A) Nonwhiting trip means a fishing trip where less than 50 percent
by weight of all fish reported on the state landing receipt is whiting.
(B) PacFIN means the Pacific Fisheries Information Network of the
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
(C) Relative history means the landings history of a permit for a
species, year, and area subdivision, divided by the total fleet history
of the sector for that species, year, and area subdivision, as
appropriate.
(D) Whiting trip means a fishing trip where greater than or equal
to 50 percent by weight of all fish reported on the state landing
receipt is whiting.
(ii) Eligibility criteria for receiving reallocated widow rockfish
QS. Only the owner of an original QS permit (non-shoreside processor)
to which QS was initially allocated in 2011 is eligible to receive
reallocated widow rockfish QS based on the history of the limited entry
trawl permit(s) that accrued to that QS permit, regardless of current
limited entry permit ownership. For those new QS permits to which widow
rockfish was administratively transferred by NMFS under U.S. court
order, NMFS will reallocate widow rockfish QS directly to the new QS
permit. Any limited entry trawl permit owners who did not submit an
initial application for a QS permit will not be eligible to receive
reallocated widow rockfish QS.
(iii) Steps for widow rockfish QS reallocation formula. The widow
rockfish QS reallocation formula is applied in the following steps:
(A) First, for each limited entry trawl permit, NMFS will determine
a preliminary QS allocation for non-whiting trips.
(B) Second, for each limited entry trawl permit, NMFS will
determine a preliminary QS allocation for whiting trips.
(C) Third, for each limited entry trawl permit, NMFS will combine
the amounts resulting from paragraphs (d)(9)(iii)(A) and (B) of this
section.
(D) Fourth, NMFS will reduce the total widow QS reallocated to QS
permit owners by 10 percent as a set aside for AMP.
(iv) Reallocation formula for specific widow rockfish QS amounts.
(A) Reallocation formula rules. The following rules will be applied
to data for the purpose of calculating the initial reallocation of
widow rockfish QS:
(1) Limited entry trawl permits will be assigned catch history or
relative history based on the landing history of the vessel(s)
associated with the permit at the time the landings were made.
(2) The relevant PacFIN dataset includes species compositions based
on port sampled data and applied to data at the vessel level.
(3) Only landings of widow rockfish which were caught in the
exclusive economic zone or adjacent state waters off Washington, Oregon
and California will be used for calculating the reallocation of widow
rockfish QS.
(4) History from limited entry trawl permits that have been
combined with a permit that qualified for a C/P endorsement and which
has shorebased permit history will not be included in the preliminary
QS and IBQ allocation formula, other than in the determination of fleet
history used in the calculation of relative history for permits that do
not have a C/P endorsement.
(5) History of illegal landings and landings made under non-whiting
EFPs that are in excess of the cumulative limits in place for the non-
EFP fishery will not count toward the allocation of QS.
(6) The limited entry trawl permit's landings history includes the
landings history of permits that have been previously combined with
that permit.
(7) If two or more limited entry trawl permits have been
simultaneously registered to the same vessel, NMFS will split the
landing history evenly between all such limited entry trawl permits
during the time they were simultaneously registered to the vessel.
(8) Unless otherwise noted, the calculation for the reallocation of
widow rockfish QS under paragraph (d)(9) will be based on state landing
receipts (fish tickets) as recorded in the relevant PacFIN dataset on
July 27, 2016.
(9) For limited entry trawl permits, landings under provisional
``A'' permits that did not become ``A'' permits and ``B'' permits will
not count toward the reallocation of widow QS, other than in the
determination of fleet history used in the calculation of relative
history for permits that do not have a C/P endorsement.
(10) For limited entry trawl permits, NMFS will calculate the
reallocation of widow rockfish QS separately based on
[[Page 42305]]
whiting trips and nonwhiting trips, and will weigh each calculation
according to a split between whiting trips and nonwhiting trips of
10.833 percent for whiting trips and 89.167 percent for nonwhiting
trips, which is a one-time proportion necessary for the reallocation
formula.
(B) Preliminary widow rockfish QS reallocation for nonwhiting
trips. The preliminary reallocation process in paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(A)
of this section follows a two-step process, one to allocate a pool of
QS equally among all eligible limited entry permits and the other to
allocate the remainder of the preliminary QS based on permit history.
Through these two processes, preliminary QS totaling 100 percent will
be allocated. In later steps, this will be adjusted and reduced as
indicated in paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(C) and (D) to determine the QS
allocation.
(1) QS to be allocated equally. The pool of QS for equal allocation
will be determined using the nonwhiting trip landings history from
Federal limited entry groundfish permits that were retired through the
Federal buyback program (i.e., buyback program) (68 FR 42613, July 18,
2003). The nonwhiting trip QS pool associated with the buyback permits
will be the buyback permit history as a percent of the total fleet
history for the 1994 to 2003 nonwhiting trip reallocation period. The
calculation will be based on total absolute pounds with no dropped
years and no other adjustments. The QS pool associated with the buyback
permits will be divided equally among all qualifying limited entry
permits.
(2) QS to be allocated based on each permit's history. The pool of
QS for allocation based on limited entry trawl permit nonwhiting trip
history will be the QS remaining after subtracting out the QS allocated
equally. This pool will be allocated to each qualifying limited entry
trawl permit based on the permit's relative nonwhiting trip history
from 1994 through 2002, dropping the three lowest years. For each
limited entry trawl permit, NMFS will calculate relative history using
the following methodology. First, NMFS will sum the permit's widow
rockfish landings on nonwhiting trips for each year in the reallocation
period. Second, NMFS will divide each permit's annual sum by the
shoreside limited entry trawl fleet's annual sum. NMFS will then
calculate a total relative history for each permit by adding all
relative histories for the permit together and subtracting the three
years with the lowest relative history for the permit. The result for
each permit will be divided by the aggregate sum of all total relative
histories of all qualifying limited entry trawl permits. NMFS will then
multiply the result from this calculation by the amount of QS in the
pool to be allocated based on each permit's history.
(C) Preliminary widow rockfish QS reallocation for whiting trips.
The preliminary reallocation process in paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(B) of
this section follows a two-step process, one to allocate a pool of QS
equally among all eligible limited entry permits and the other to
allocate the remainder of the preliminary QS based on permit history.
Through these two processes, preliminary QS totaling 100 percent will
be allocated. In later steps, this will be adjusted and reduced as
indicated in paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(C) and (D) to determine the QS
allocation.
(1) QS to be allocated equally. The pool of QS for equal allocation
will be determined using whiting trip landings history from Federal
limited entry groundfish permits that were retired through the Federal
buyback program (i.e., buyback program) (68 FR 42613, July 18, 2003).
The whiting trip QS pool associated with the buyback permits will be
the buyback permit history as a percent of the total fleet history for
the 1994 to 2003 whiting trip reallocation period. The calculation will
be based on total absolute pounds with no dropped years and no other
adjustments. The QS pool associated with the buyback permits will be
divided equally among all qualifying limited entry permits.
(2) QS to be allocated based on each permit's history. The pool of
QS for allocation based on each limited entry trawl permit's whiting
trip history will be the QS remaining after subtracting out the QS
allocated equally. Widow rockfish QS for this pool will be allocated
pro-rata based on each limited entry trawl permit's whiting QS from
whiting trips that was established in 2010 and used to allocate the
whiting trip portion of whiting QS at the time of initial
implementation in 2011. Pro-rata means a percent that is equal to the
percent of whiting QS from whiting trips.
(D) QS from limited entry permits calculated separately for non-
whiting trips and whiting trips. NMFS will calculate the portion of
widow QS a limited entry trawl permit receives based on non-whiting
trips and whiting trips separately, and will weight each preliminary QS
in proportion to the one-time reallocation percentage between whiting
trips and non-whiting trips of 10.833 percent and 89.167 percent,
respectively.
(1) Nonwhiting trips. To determine the amount of widow QS for non-
whiting trips for each limited entry trawl permit, NMFS will multiply
the preliminary QS for the permit from paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(A) of this
section by the one-time reallocation percentage of 89.167 percent for
non-whiting trips.
(2) Whiting trips. To determine the amount of widow QS for whiting
trips for each limited entry trawl permit, NMFS will multiply the
preliminary QS for the permit from paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(B) of this
section by the one-time reallocation percentage of 10.833 percent for
whiting trips.
(E) QS for each limited entry trawl permit. For each limited entry
trawl permit, NMFS will add the results for the permit from paragraphs
(d)(9)(iv)(D)(1) and (D)(2) of this section in order to determine the
total QS widow for that permit.
(F) Adjustment for AMP set-aside. NMFS will reduce the widow QS
reallocated to each permit owner by a proportional amount that is
equivalent to a reduction of 10 percent across all widow reallocation
recipients' holdings as a set aside for AMP.
(v) Widow rockfish QS reallocation application. Persons may apply
for issuance of reallocated widow rockfish QS by completing and
submitting a prequalified application. A ``prequalified application''
is a partially pre-filled application where NMFS has preliminarily
determined the landings history for each limited entry trawl permit
that qualifies the applicant for a reallocation of widow QS. The
application package will include a prequalified application (with
landings history). The completed application must be either postmarked
or hand-delivered to NMFS within normal business hours no later than
September 15, 2016. If an applicant fails to submit a completed
application by the deadline date, they forgo the opportunity to receive
reallocated widow rockfish QS and their percentage will be
redistributed to other QS permit owners in proportion to their
reallocated widow QS amount.
(vi) Corrections to the application. If an applicant does not
accept NMFS' calculation in the prequalified application either in part
or whole, the applicant must identify in writing to NMFS which parts
the applicant believes to be inaccurate, and must provide specific
credible information to substantiate any requested corrections. The
completed application and specific credible information must be
provided to NMFS in writing by the application deadline. Written
communication must either be post-marked or hand-delivered to NMFS
within normal business hours no later than September 15, 2016.
[[Page 42306]]
Requests for corrections may only be granted for the following reasons:
(A) Errors in NMFS' use or application of data, including:
(1) Errors in NMFS' use or application of landings data from
PacFIN;
(2) Errors in NMFS' application of the reallocation formula;
(3) Errors in identification of the QS permit owner, permit
combinations, or vessel registration as listed in NMFS permit database;
(vii) Submission of the application and application deadline.
(A) Submission of the application. Submission of the complete,
certified application includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) The applicant is required to sign and date the application and
declare that the contents are true, correct and complete.
(2) The applicant must certify that they qualify to own reallocated
widow rockfish QS.
(3) The applicant must indicate they accept NMFS' calculation of
reallocated widow rockfish QS provided in the prequalified application,
or provide a written statement and credible information if they do not
accept NMFS' calculation.
(4) NMFS may request additional information of the applicant as
necessary to make an IAD on reallocated widow rockfish QS.
(B) Application deadline. A complete, certified application must be
either postmarked or hand-delivered within normal business hours to
NMFS, West Coast Region, Permits Office, Bldg. 1, 7600 Sand Point Way
NE., Seattle, WA 98115, no later than September 15, 2016. NMFS will not
accept or review any applications received or postmarked after the
application deadline. There are no hardship exemptions for this
deadline.
(viii) Initial Administrative Determination (IAD). NMFS will issue
an IAD for all complete, certified applications received by the
application deadline date. If NMFS approves an application for
reallocated widow rockfish QS, the IAD will say so, and the applicant
will receive a 2017 QS permit specifying the reallocated amount of
widow rockfish QS the applicant has qualified for in December 2016. If
NMFS disapproves or partially disapproves an application, the IAD will
provide the reasons. As part of the IAD, NMFS will indicate to the best
of its knowledge whether the QS permit owner qualifies for QS or IBQ in
amounts that exceed the accumulation limits and are subject to
divestiture provisions given at paragraph (d)(4)(v) of this section. If
the applicant does not appeal the IAD within 60 calendar days of the
date on the IAD, the IAD becomes the final decision of the Regional
Administrator acting on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce.
(ix) Appeals. For reallocated widow rockfish QS issued under this
section, the appeals process and timelines are specified at Sec.
660.25(g), subpart C. For the reallocation of widow rockfish QS, the
bases for appeal are described in paragraph (d)(9)(vi) of this section.
Items not subject to appeal include, but are not limited to, the
accuracy of permit landings data in the relevant PacFIN dataset on July
27, 2016.
(e) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Vessel limits. For each IFQ species or species group specified
in this paragraph, vessel accounts may not have QP or IBQ pounds in
excess of the QP vessel limit (annual limit) in any year, and, for
species covered by unused QP vessel limits (daily limit), may not have
QP or IBQ pounds in excess of the unused QP vessel limit at any time.
The QP vessel limit (annual limit) is calculated as all QPs transferred
in minus all QPs transferred out of the vessel account. The unused QP
vessel limits (daily limit) is calculated as unused available QPs plus
any pending outgoing transfer of QPs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QP Vessel Unused QP
limit (annual Vessel limit
Species category limit) (in (daily limit)
percent) (in percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowtooth flounder..................... 20 ..............
Bocaccio S. of 40[deg]10' N. lat........ 15.4 13.2
Canary rockfish......................... 10 4.4
Chilipepper S. of 40[deg]10' N. lat..... 15 ..............
Cowcod S. of 40[deg]10' N. lat.......... 17.7 17.7
Darkblotched rockfish................... 6.8 4.5
Dover sole.............................. 3.9 ..............
English sole............................ 7.5 ..............
Lingcod:
N. of 40[deg]10' N. lat............. 5.3 ..............
S. of 40[deg]10' N. lat............. 13.3 ..............
Longspine thornyhead:
N. of 34[deg]27' N. lat............. 9 ..............
Minor rockfish complex N. of 40[deg]10'
N. lat.:
Shelf species....................... 7.5 ..............
Slope species....................... 7.5 ..............
Minor rockfish complex S. of 40[deg]10'
N. lat.:
Shelf species....................... 13.5 ..............
Slope species....................... 9 ..............
Other flatfish complex.................. 15 ..............
Pacific cod............................. 20 ..............
Pacific halibut (IBQ) N. of 40[deg]10' 14.4 5.4
N. lat.................................
Pacific ocean perch N. of 40[deg]10' N. 6 4
lat....................................
Pacific whiting (shoreside)............. 15 ..............
Petrale sole............................ 4.5 ..............
Sablefish:
N. of 36[deg] N. lat. (Monterey 4.5 ..............
north).............................
S. of 36[deg] N. lat. (Conception 15 ..............
area)..............................
Shortspine thornyhead:
N. of 34[deg]27' N. lat............. 9 ..............
S. of 34[deg]27' N. lat............. 9 ..............
Splitnose rockfish S. of 40[deg]10' N. 15 ..............
lat....................................
[[Page 42307]]
Starry flounder......................... 20 ..............
Widow rockfish.......................... 8.5 ..............
Yelloweye rockfish...................... 11.4 5.7
Yellowtail rockfish N. of 40[deg]10' N. 7.5 ..............
lat....................................
Non-whiting groundfish species.......... 3.2 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-15217 Filed 6-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P