AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Proposed rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

NMFS proposes this measure to enact a range of Follow-on Actions identified in the course of conducting the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program 5-Year Review. These actions are intended to complete outstanding elements of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program, respond to problems identified after implementing the program, and modify outdated regulations. This action proposes regulations in accordance with Amendment 21-4 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, and would revise elements in four areas of the Catch Share Program.

DATES:

Comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than October 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0106 by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/​#!docketDetail;​D=​NOAA-NMFS-2019-0106, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

Mail: Colin Sayre, Sustainable Fisheries Division, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.

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).

Electronic Access

This proposed rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register website at https://www.federalregister.gov. Background information and documents are available at the NMFS West Coast Region website at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/​fisheries/​groundfish/​index.html and at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org/​groundfish/​fishery-management-plan/​groundfish-amendments-in-development/​.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Colin Sayre, phone: 206-526-4656, or email: colin.sayre@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Summary of the Proposed Regulations

A. At-sea Whiting Fishery Set-Aside Bycatch Management

B. Shorebased Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Trawl Sector Quota Transfers

C. Catcher Processor (C/P) Permit Accumulation Limits

D. New Data Collections

1. C/P Endorsed Permit Ownership Interest

2. Quota Share Permit Owner Participation and Economic Data

E. Clarifications to Cost Recovery Regulatory Text

F. Technical Corrections

III. Classification

IV. Description of Regulated Entities

VI. Collection of Information Requirements

I. Background

The proposed action would complete outstanding elements of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program (Catch Share Program), respond to problems identified after Catch Share Program implementation, and modify outdated regulations. The proposed measures would: Allow the at-sea whiting sector to more fully and efficiently harvest its allocation through more flexible set-aside management of constraining bycatch species; improve utilization of Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) and overall economic efficiency for the shorebased IFQ trawl sector; ensure fair and equitable access to resources in the event of at-sea Pacific Whiting Catcher-Processor (C/P) coop failure; and provide a more robust evaluation of Catch Share Program performance. This action also includes clarifying non-substantive changes to the regulatory language for the Cost Recovery Program.

The Council deemed the proposed regulations necessary and appropriate to implement these actions in an August, 23rd, 2019, letter from Council Executive Director, Chuck Tracy, to Regional Administrator Barry Thom. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS is required to publish proposed rules for comment after preliminarily determining whether they are consistent with applicable law. We are seeking comment on the proposed regulations in this action and whether they are consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law.

Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program

On January 1, 2011, NMFS implemented the Catch Share Program through Amendment 20 and Amendment 21 (75 FR 60867; October 1, 2010) to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. Amendment 20 established a limited entry IFQ system for shorebased trawl vessels and cooperatives for the at-sea Pacific whiting mothership (MS) and C/P sectors. The intent of the Catch Share Program was to increase net economic benefits and create economic stability for individual trawl fishery participants, provide full utilization of the trawl sector allocation, and achieve individual accountability for catch and bycatch in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. Amendment 21 established fixed allocations for limited entry trawl participants. These allocations are intended to improve management under the Catch Share Program by streamlining its administration, providing stability to the fishery, and addressing bycatch.

Catch Share Program 5-Year Review Follow-On Actions

Section 303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires periodic reviews of limited access privilege programs (LAPPs), such as the Catch Share Program, starting five years after implementation. This review provides managers with information to determine whether Catch Share Program outcomes have been consistent with program goals and objectives and expected environmental impacts. Starting with implementation of the Catch Share Program in 2011, NMFS collected both baseline and annual socioeconomic data to judge the effectiveness of the Catch Share Program for the 5-Year Review. The Council approved the final version of the first 5-Year Review at its November 2017 meeting.

To aid in reviewing and refining the Catch Share Program, the Council appointed an ad hoc committee called the Community Advisory Board (CAB) at its September 2016 meeting. The CAB provides the perspective of fishing communities on Catch Share Program performance, potential improvements, and other advice the Council requests to inform the program review. In May 2017, the CAB developed a list of issues for the Council to consider for rulemakings after completing the 5-Year Review. At its June 2017 meeting, the CAB provided the Council with a priority list of follow-on actions from which six were selected for further development. The action issues the CAB selected were: Meeting the at-sea whiting fishery bycatch needs; trawl sablefish area-management; revising shoreside IFQ accumulation limits to increase attainment; meeting shoreside IFQ sector harvest complex needs; setting limits on fixed-gear gear switching; and setting C/P sector accumulation limits on permit ownership and harvesting/processing.

At its November 2017 meeting, in a single package, called the “Follow-on Actions,” the Council adopted the 5-Year Review document and provided preliminary guidance for developing a range of alternatives from a subset of the action issues selected by the CAB, as follows:

• Adjust the management approach and FMP formulas for previously-overfished non-whiting stocks caught in the at-sea Pacific whiting fishery;
• Revise individual species annual quota pound (QP) vessel limits;
• Allow post-season QP trading and provide post-season relief from vessel QP limits;
• Eliminate the September 1 expiration for QP that have not been moved to a vessel account;
• Establish accumulation limits for C/P-endorsed permit ownership and processing amount;
• Require the submission of C/P-endorsed permit ownership information during the annual permit renewal process; and
• Require Quota Share (QS) permit owners to provide information on ownership and participation to the NMFS Northwest Fishery Science Center Economic Data Collection Program.

At its November 2017 meeting, the Council decided to analyze alternatives for a range of action issues identified for follow-on action as part of 2019-2020 biennial Pacific Coast groundfish harvest specifications (83 FR 66638; December 27, 2018), and deferred several others issues for consideration in future groundfish actions. In March 2018, the CAB provided input and recommendations as the Council adopted a final range of alternatives to be included in the follow-on actions for analysis. At its September 2018 meeting, the Council adopted preliminary preferred alternatives for each issue included in the Follow-on Action package. The Council selected the final preferred alternatives for the remaining follow-on actions to be included in Amendment 21-4 at its November 2018 meeting.

Concurrent with this proposed rule, NMFS also published a Notice of Availability to announce the proposed Amendment 21-4 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. The Notice of Availability requests public review and comment on proposed changes to the Council FMP document (84 FR 45706; August 30, 2019).

II. Summary of Proposed Regulations

A. At-Sea Whiting Fishery Set-Aside Bycatch Management

The Pacific Coast groundfish FMP accounts for non-whiting groundfish bycatch in the at-sea Pacific whiting C/P and MS sectors in a number of different ways. For most stocks, the Council recommends an expected annual bycatch level for the at-sea Pacific whiting fishery, and deducts it before allocating catch to the trawl sector. These deductions, known as set-asides, do not require closure of the at-sea Pacific whiting sectors, nor do they require any other management action if catch exceeds the expected amount of a set-aside. However, as a part of Amendment 21, the Council set formal allocations for four species, all of which were overfished at the time. The Council established allocations of these stocks for the at-sea Pacific whiting fishery in order to constrain catch. If catch in the at-sea C/P sector or MS sector exceeds the allocation for these stocks, NMFS is required to automatically close the sector. Canary rockfish, widow rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, and Pacific ocean perch (POP) were managed as allocations for the at-sea Pacific whiting fishery under Amendment 21.

In the past five years, the at-sea sectors have encountered these species with greater frequency as stocks increased under rebuilding efforts. In October of 2014 the MS sector experienced an unexpectedly large bycatch of darkblotched rockfish in a single haul that caused the sector to exceed its allocation for this species. The automatic closure provision in regulations at 50 CFR 660.60(d)(1) requires NMFS to close the at-sea Pacific whiting MS or C/P sectors when a non-whiting groundfish species with allocations is reached or projected to be reached. This early fishery closure left a significant portion of the MS sector's Pacific whiting allocation unattained. NMFS took inseason action to reapportion darkblotched rockfish from the C/P sector in order to reopen and allow the MS sector to fully attain its whiting allocation (79 FR 67095; November 12, 2014).

In 2018 widow rockfish was reapportioned from the MS cooperative sector to the C/P cooperative sector to avoid a fishery closure similar to the one that occurred in 2014 (83 FR 5952; September 15, 2018). In January 2018 the final rule for Amendment 21-3 (83 FR 757; January 8, 2018) converted darkblotched rockfish and POP from allocations to set-asides. Formulas in the regulations at § 660.55(c)(1)(i)(A) and (B) are used to determine set-aside amounts of darkblotched rockfish and POP. To ensure the action did not increase the risk of exceeding darkblotched rockfish or POP annual catch limits (ACLs), the final rule for Amendment 21-3 also added exceedance of the set-aside amount, plus an available buffer reserve for unforeseen catch events, to the list of circumstances requiring automatic closure for the at-sea sectors (MS and C/P). In the 2019-20 biennial harvest specifications and management measures (December 12, 2018; 83 FR 63970), the Council recommended, and NMFS approved, an action that removed the requirement that NMFS automatically close the at-sea sector if the set-asides for darkblotched rockfish or POP are exceeded. Amendment 21-3 further increased the flexibility of at-sea sectors to target their whiting allocation and provided economic relief from automatic fishery closures. Under regulations at § 660.150(c)(2)(B) and § 660.160(c)(3) NMFS still has the authority to take inseason action should a sector's catch of species exceed its set-aside amount with risk of exceeding harvest specifications, cause unforeseen impact on another fishery, or result in other conservation concerns.

In the at-sea Pacific whiting fishery, bycatch of canary rockfish and widow rockfish are currently managed as allocations. Under this management approach each at-sea sector receives allocations of canary rockfish and widow rockfish bycatch, and automatic closure of an at-sea sector is required if the allocation is exceeded. The amount of canary rockfish bycatch available to the at-sea sectors is determined and allocated each biennium. The available widow rockfish bycatch allocation is determined using a set formula in the groundfish FMP and regulations at § 660.55(c)(1)(i)(C).

This proposed action would remove the allocations of widow rockfish and canary rockfish and instead create set-asides in the at-sea sectors, consistent with set-aside management for POP and darkblotched rockfish. This action would also remove from the regulations formulas used to determine set-aside or allocation amounts for darkblotched rockfish, POP, and widow rockfish, and instead use the biennial specification process to determine set-aside amounts available to the at-sea Pacific whiting sectors. The Council recommended using the existing FMP formulas to establish initial amounts in the biennial harvest specifications and management measure process. The status quo methods for determining set-asides or allocations available for harvest of these rockfish species, and changes proposed by Amendment 21-4 are provided in Table 1.

Changing the method used to determine set-asides from set formulas to management through the biennial specifications process would provide greater flexibility to managers when determining bycatch amounts for these four rockfish species, allowing managers to appropriately anticipate bycatch in the at-sea whiting sector within the process of setting biennial harvest specifications and management measures. As with previous changes to bycatch management for the at-sea Pacific whiting fishery, this action would reduce the risk of constraining attainment of the full at-sea sector whiting allocation in the event that bycatch limits of these rockfish species are exceeded. Under the proposed set-aside management, the sector would not automatically close, and other management measures would not be required if bycatch of these species exceeds set-aside amounts. If catch of any of these four species exceeds the set-aside and there is risk of exceeding a harvest specification, unforeseen impact on other fisheries, or conservation concerns, NMFS and the Council may take inseason action (e.g., time or area closures) to slow catch in the trawl fishery. Currently, all other non-whiting species in the Pacific whiting fishery are managed as set-asides with amounts set during the biennial specifications process. Expected bycatch levels set during the specification process are generally high enough to cover maximum Pacific whiting fishery bycatch each year without risk to other harvest guidelines. Set-aside amounts of darkblotched rockfish and POP determined in the 2019-20 harvest specifications are higher than have historically been caught by the at-sea sector. In addition, the biomass for both canary rockfish and widow rockfish has increased greatly in recent years as a result of rebuilding efforts. Therefore, the Council determined it is unlikely that catch in the at-sea Pacific whiting sectors will exceed set-asides for these four rockfish species at a level that would result in overfishing.

B. Shorebased IFQ Trawl Sector Quota Transfers

The proposed measures would adjust the quota trading provisions for participants in the shorebased IFQ sector. The changes would allow for post-season quota trading, remove the annual vessel limit for post-season trades, and remove a quota transfer deadline.

Currently, shorebased IFQ fishery participants who have caught more than their available QP for any stock or stock complex during a given fishing year enter the following fishing year with their vessel accounts in deficit. Participants must cover deficits with the following year's QP allocation. In most fishing years, there are remaining unused QP available in other vessel accounts at the end of the fishing year. The proposed action would expand the quota trading provision to allow participants to cover deficits after the end of the fishing year by either (1) using QP from the immediately following fishing year (status quo) or (2) trading with other participants to acquire surplus QP from the fishing year in which the deficit occurred (base year), or a combination of both methods. After the end of the groundfish fishing year on December 31st, QS permit owners would be able to trade surplus QP to QS permit owners with a deficit of QP from the base fishing year during a post-season transfer period. The post-season trading window would last from January 1st until on or about March 14th of the immediately following fishing year; NMFS would provide fishery participants advance notice of the dates of the post-season trading window through public notice. Surplus QP traded during the post-season trading window could only be transferable for the purpose of curing vessel account deficits, and would not be eligible for fishing. For example, a QS permit owner starts the 2020 fishing year with 2,000 quota pounds of POP quota on January 1, and ends the year on December 31 with POP catch totaling 2,250 quota pounds, accruing a deficit of 250 quota pounds. The QS permit owner would be able to choose to use 250 quota pounds of their 2021 POP quota allocation to cover the deficit, or to purchase unused 2020 POP quota left over from other QS permit owners during the post-season trading window; the QS permit owner would also be able to choose a combination of both of these options.

The post-season trading provision interacts with existing carryover provisions in regulations at § 660.140(e)(5). Surplus QP and QP deficits at the end of a fishing year can be carried-over to the following fishing year. The surplus carryover limit is the amount of surplus QP from the base year that can be fished in the immediately following fishing year. Surplus QP carryover is limited to a maximum of 10 percent of a QS permit owner's total allocation for a stock or stock complex, provided that total carryover for the stock or stock complex does not exceed the ABC for the following year, consistent with provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 Guidelines. The deficit carryover limit is the amount of deficit QP that a vessel may carry into the following fishing year without violating the carryover regulations. The deficit carryover limit is a maximum of 10 percent of a QS permit owners total cumulative QP (used and unused) in the vessel account 30 days after the date the deficit is documented. Under the current regulations, a QS permit owner that has 25 percent of their total QP for a given stock unused after December 31 may carryover and fish unused QP equal to 10 percent of the base year's total, forgoing the remaining 15 percent from the base year. There is no limit on the amount of deficit QP that QS permit owners carryover from the base year into the following fishing year, and all deficits require pound-for-pound payback before the vessel is considered eligible to fish in the shorebased IFQ fishery in the following year. As an example of the interaction between the proposed post-season trading provision and surplus carryover, a QS permit owner with a QP surplus of 25 percent for a given stock, rather than forgoing 15 percent of the surplus QP over the carryover limit, may instead trade the unused QP to another QS permit owner with a deficit for the same given stock. The trade described in this example would occur during the post-season trading window (January 1st to on or about March 14th of each year), and prior to NMFS issuing carryover surplus QP into the following year vessel accounts. The carryover provisions for QP surplus and deficits will remain in place, allowing QS permit owners the option to either conduct post-season trading or use surplus carryover to maximize opportunities to use surplus QP and cover QP deficits.

An additional component of this proposed action would also allow vessels to cover end-of-the-year deficits that exceed the annual vessel limit with post-season QP trading, QP allocation for the following fishing year, or a combination, without restriction from the annual QP vessel limit of the base or following year. The Catch Share Program initially included annual vessel limits to ensure no individual or entity acquired excess, or otherwise unfair access, to fishing privileges. Deficits exceeding the annual QP vessel limit have occurred in the fishery when an unexpectedly high bycatch event known as a “lightning-strike” takes place. These events are extremely rare and can result from unpredictable and dense congregations of a single bycatch species in one area where trawling occurs. Though infrequent, lightning-strike hauls over the annual QP vessel limit can greatly impact the ability of the affected QS permit owner to operate in subsequent years. QS permit owners are required to cover the QP deficits that result from lighting strikes, but are also constrained by the annual QP vessel limit from the base fishing year. For this reason, the QS permit owner must forego fishing until they cover the QP deficit with QP from the following fishing year under the base year annual QP vessel limit, in some cases over multiple fishing years. This action would allow QS permit owners with deficits exceeding the annual QP vessel limit to cover the deficit by trading post-season for available unused QP, or to use their QP allocations from the following fishing year to cure the deficit. While QS permit owners would no longer be limited by the annual vessel QP limits in curing deficits, they would violate the carryover regulations if the deficit exceeds the deficit carryover limit. Vessels affected by lightning-strike hauls would have the ability to cover deficits more easily, and return to fishing in a shorter timeframe under the proposed action.

Finally, this action would eliminate the September 1st quota transfer deadline for shorebased IFQ fishery participants. Current regulations in § 660.140 (d) require QS permit owners to transfer QP from a QS account to a vessel account by September 1st. Each year, QS permit owners receive disbursements of a percentage of the total allocations for each IFQ stock or stock complex directly to QS accounts. This allocated percentage is expressed in QPs and cannot be fished until the QP is transferred to a vessel account. Any unused QP that have not been transferred from a QS account to a vessel account expire September 1 of the year they were issued. The proposed action would make unused QP in QS accounts available for transfer to a vessel account, for trading and fishing, until December 31st of the fishing year for which they were issued. Under the proposed action, unused QP would remain in a QS account after January 1st and would be available for transfer to a vessel account for use in post-season trading in the following year until the end of the post-season trading period.

This proposed action would help reduce the overall costs of participation in the shorebased IFQ sector and ensure the maximum amount of annual IFQ allocations are used to harvest fish rather than to cover the base year's QP deficits. The Council's analysis of these proposed measures did not indicate that they are likely to encourage participants to engage in fishing practices that regularly exceed annual QP vessel limits. Because QS permit owners are still required to cover deficits pound-for-pound, fishing into deficit would carry the cost of purchasing QP to cover deficits the following fishing year.

C. Catcher Processor (C/P) Permit Accumulation Limits

The proposed action would establish a limit of five at-sea whiting C/P permits that any individual or entity may own or control in the event the C/P sector cooperative fails. When developing a limited access privilege program, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the Council “ensure that limited access privilege holders do not acquire an excessive share of the total limited access privileges in the program by—(i) establishing a maximum share, expressed as a percentage of the total limited access privileges, that a limited access privilege holder is permitted to hold, acquire, or use; and (ii) establishing any other limitations or measures necessary to prevent an inequitable concentration of limited access privileges.” During implementation of the Catch Share Program, accumulation limits were included for the shorebased IFQ sector and the at-sea MS sector, to meet requirements under Section 303A(c)(5)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, no maximum share of limited access privileges in the C/P sector was established.

At the time of the Catch Share Program's development, the C/P sector had a single voluntary coop that divided by agreement among coop members the entire catch allocated to this sector. The Council and NMFS decided that the rationalization program adopted through Amendment 20 would incorporate the voluntary coop structure already in place and require the annual issuance of a coop permit for the privilege of harvesting the allocated catch in this particular sector. In the event the coop failed in the future, Amendment 20 provided for the management of the CP sector with an IFQ program. The previously existing self-organized coop did not include accumulation limits, and none were added when the coop was incorporated as a LAPP through Amendment 20.

During the Catch Share program 5-year review, the Council discussed C/P coop sector accumulation limits and adopted a June 13, 2017, control date to support future consideration of accumulation limits (83 FR 18259; April 26, 2018). In this proposed action, an accumulation limit of owning or controlling a maximum of five C/P-endorsed permits would be applied to the C/P sector only in the event that the current C/P cooperative fails and NMFS subsequently implements an IFQ system for the C/P sector. NMFS will determine that the cooperative has failed after any C/P-endorsed permits owners withdraw from the coop, one or more members voluntarily choose to dissolve the coop, or the coop agreement is no longer valid. The designated coop manager is required to notify NMFS of the failure, or the Regional Administrator may conduct an independent investigation to determine whether coop failure has occurred. Under the proposed action, after receiving notification from the coop manager or if NMFS has made an independent determination of a coop failure, NMFS will begin the process of implementing an IFQ program for the at-sea C/P sector. Through public notice, NMFS will announce the date on which an IFQ program will become effective for the C/P sector. Before that date, a publicly announced divestiture period will be provided in which any entities that control C/P-endorsed permits must take action to comply with the C/P accumulation limit. The proposed rule for this action provides regulatory language that sets forth criteria for the purpose of determining ownership or control a person or entity has over a C/P endorsed permit. This language is modeled after the regulatory language currently applicable to the shorebased IFQ sector. After NMFS implements the IFQ-based C/P fishery, no individual or entity may own or control more than five C/P-endorsed permits, and no person or entity may own or control any quota associated with permits in excess of the five permit limit. Any individual or entity found to own or control more than five C/P-endorsed permits will be required to divest ownership of any excess permits following a divestiture period. Upon determination of a coop failure, a divestiture period will occur starting with the date the coop failed and ending on the date an IFQ program is implemented for the C/P whiting sector. Prior to the date an IFQ program is implemented, there will be a divestiture period during which any person owning more than five C/P-endorsed permits will be required to divest of excess permits. After the date in which an IFQ program is implemented, any C/P-endorsed permits in excess of the accumulation limit may be revoked by NMFS and associated QS redistributed to other C/P-endorsed permit owners.

The Council also considered whether to limit the amount of at-sea whiting allocation a single entity or individual possessing a C/P permit could process with the intent that no single entity could process an excessive proportion of the sector allocation for Pacific whiting. After taking into account analysis and public comments, the Council selected the status quo (“No Action” alternative) as the final preferred alternative for C/P processing limits. Under the status quo, a single entity may process up to 100 percent of the C/P sector whiting allocation. This decision was made to maintain the flexibility that the coop system provides. Currently three fishing companies control the ten C/P endorsed permits in the coop; if one company's vessels were unable to make it to the fishing grounds, it is possible that a processing limit could impede another company's harvest of fish on behalf of the absent vessels, thereby restricting full attainment of the at-sea sectors' whiting allocation. The Council also determined C/P permit accumulation limits and conversion to IFQ system in the event of coop failure would achieve the same goal as processing accumulation limits in the absence of the cooperative management structure.

D. New Data Collections

1. C/P Endorsed Permit Ownership Interest

The proposed action would establish a data collection for C/P permit owners. The Catch Share Program requires mandatory submission of ownership information from catcher vessels and MS vessels at the time of permit application or renewal. The data collection, known as the Trawl Identification of Ownership Interest form, helps NMFS enforce accumulation limits and ensures no individual or entity obtains excessive limited access privileges. When the Catch Share Program was established, it did not include an accumulation limit and consequently did not require a collection of ownership information. This action would establish a requirement for the at-sea whiting C/P sector permit owners to complete the Trawl Identification of Ownership Interest form annually during C/P endorsed permit renewal.

The form is used to collect basic trawl vessel or permit owner information, such as vessel name, permit number, owner name and legal address, and the names and addresses of other individuals and entities that have an ownership interest and percentage of ownership for the vessel or permit. This proposed rule would also support future consideration by the Council in the event accumulation limits are required for the at-sea C/P sector as described in Section C of this preamble.

2. Quota Share Permit Owner Participation and Economic Data

The proposed action would establish an economic data collection for quota share (QS) permit owners. Currently, any owners, charterers, or lessees of any vessel, shorebased processor, and first receiver sites participating in the Catch Share Program are required to submit annual Economic Data Collection (EDC) forms. The information collected through EDC forms includes but is not limited to annual data related to costs, earnings, value, labor, operations, physical characteristics, ownership and leasing information for vessels, first receiver sites or processors. The EDC forms also include questions related to costs and earnings from quota trading (including sales and leases) and the pattern of owner participation in the fishery. However, these forms do not currently collect information from QS permit owners who are not also owners, charterers or lessees of vessels, shorebased processors, or first receiver sites.

Some participants in the Catch Share Program owned a vessel in the past, and received an allocation of IFQ and associated QS permit when the program was first implemented in 2011, but have since sold their vessel while retaining their QS permit. Reducing the number of active vessels was one of the intended outcomes of rationalizing the trawl fishery under the Catch Share Program, and the Council anticipated that some participants would own and trade quota, but not actively fish or process catch. The Catch Share Program was designed to provide historic fishery participants who exited the fishery continued benefits through QS ownership. The existing EDC form was designed to collect detailed economic data on only active fishery participation associated with vessel, processor, or first receiver ownership; the same level of economic and participation data is not currently collected from the category of QS permit owner that does not also own or operate a vessel or shorebased processor/first receiver. Because historic fishery participants are not required to complete an EDC form, the Council and NMFS lack knowledge about how economic benefits from these inactive or non-fishing permit owners impact fishing communities.

This action would create a mandatory requirement for all categories of QS permit owners to complete an EDC Quota Share Permit Owner urvey form that collects information related to QS permit owner annual participation in the fishery, and costs and earnings related to QS permit ownership. This survey will be collected electronically via webform during the online QS permit application and renewal process. Information collected on this survey will provide NMFS and the Council with better understanding of Catch Share Program performance, economic costs and benefits conferred to fishery dependent communities. Better evaluation of program performance will support the sustained fishing community participation in the Catch Share Program, and to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on fishing communities.

E. Clarifications to Cost Recovery Regulatory Text

On March 20, 2014, NMFS published a Public Notice (NMFS-SEA-14-12) discussing two clarifications to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Cost Recovery Program that went into effect in January 2014 (78 FR 75268; December 11, 2013). This proposed rule would implement regulatory language necessary to reflect these two program clarifications. The first proposed adjustment clarifies that the deposit principal may be used to refund cost recovery payments made by credit card through Pay.gov. The second proposed clarification specifies that in the C/P sector only retained fish, and not discards, are used in calculating ex-vessel revenue as it relates to determining cost recovery fees.

F. Technical Corrections

In addition to proposed regulatory changes to implement the Council's recommendations, this rule also proposes minor technical corrections. Specifically, these minor technical corrections remove obsolete baseline dates that were included during implementation of the Catch Share Program, such as the years when initial trawl allocations were issued, the first date on which quota transfers were permitted, and the dates when economic data collections were initiated.

Correction and Clarification for the Amendment 21-4 Notice of Availability

NMFS is making the following correction and clarification to text published in the Notice of Availability (NOA) on August 30, 2019 (84 CFR 45706). On page 45708 of the NOA, language stating “The proposed FMP amendment is intended to allow the Council increased flexibility to adjust bycatch limits inseason for the at-sea whiting sectors . . .” should omit the word “inseason ”, because the Council does not adjust set-asides through inseason action. The Council can adjust set-asides during each biennial harvest specification cycle, as described earlier in the same paragraph in the NOA and also in this preamble in section II, A, “At-sea Whiting Fishery Set-Aside Bycatch Management.”

We are also clarifying the meaning of the language on page 45708 of the NOA that describes Quota Share permit owners who would be responsible for completing EDC forms under the proposed rule. Following is the NOA language, as clarified, with additional language noted in italics: “The proposed action would also require all Quota Share permit owners, including those that do not also own charter or lease a vessel, shorebased processor or first receiver site to submit participation and quota cost/earning information through a subset of the Catch Share Economic Data Collection program.”

III. Classification

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. In making the final determination, NMFS will consider the data, views, and comments received during the public comment period.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603). The IRFA describes the economic impact 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 is contained in the SUMMARY section and at the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

The RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires government agencies to assess the effects that regulatory alternatives would have on small entities, defined as any business/organization independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates). A small harvesting business has combined annual receipts of $11 million ^[1] or less for all affiliated operations worldwide.

A small fish-processing business is one that employs 750 or fewer persons for all affiliated operations worldwide. NMFS is applying this standard to C/Ps for the purposes of this rulemaking, because these vessels earn the majority of their revenue from selling processed fish.

For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is one that has annual receipts not in excess of $7.5 million. A wholesale business servicing the fishing industry is a small business if it employs 100 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide.

For the purposes of this rulemaking, a nonprofit organization is determined to be “not dominant in its field of operation” if it is considered small under one of the following SBA size standards: Environmental, conservation, or professional organizations are considered small if they have combined annual receipts of $15 million or less, and other organizations are considered small if they have combined annual receipts of $7.5 million or less. The RFA defines small governmental jurisdictions as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than 50,000.

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 is to aid the agency in considering all reasonable regulatory alternatives that would minimize the economic impact on affected small entities.

Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered

This action proposes changes to the Catch Share Program intended to complete outstanding elements of the program, respond to problems identified after implementing the program, and modify outdated regulations. A complete description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in Amendment 21-4, and elsewhere in the preamble to this proposed rule, and are not repeated here.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Applies, and Estimate of Economic Impacts by Entity Size and Industry

For the purpose of the RFA analysis, this proposed rule will impact entities that own quota share permits and entities that both process and harvest groundfish. For RFA purposes NMFS classifies a business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on the holdings of first receiver permits in the West Coast Region permits database, 22 non-whiting quota share permit owners are estimated to be primarily engaged in seafood product preparation and packaging. According to the NMFS size standard, three of the entities that own three first receiver permits are considered small. These small processing entities were issued 1.7 percent of the non-whiting QP issued in 2018, the most recent year available. Some of these small processing entities also own groundfish permits, required on both catcher vessels and C/Ps, which would be regulated by the proposed rule; three small entities primarily engaged in seafood processing own two limited entry groundfish permits.

Limited entry groundfish permit vessels are required to self-report size across all affiliated entities. Of the businesses that earn the majority of their revenue from commercial fishing, 30 groundfish vessel permits are owned by seven entities that are considered large according to the SBA size standard and as self-reported on groundfish permits and first receiver site license permits. Six of these seven large processing entities were issued 10.2 percent of the non-whiting QP issued in 2018 across sixteen quota share permits.

Entities that are not registered as trusts, estates, governments, or non-profits are assumed to earn the majority of their revenue from commercial fishing.This definition is used for 124 QS permit owners, who collectively received 76.5 percent of the quota pounds issued in 2018. Of 118 trawl endorsed permits, 117 are owned by commercial fishing entities in 2019; 5 of these entities self-reported as large. Of the businesses who earn the majority of their revenue from commercial fishing, one that self-reported as large, owns four groundfish permits and one quota share permit. Many groundfish trawl permit owners also own quota share permits; however, it is not possible with available data to tabulate unique ownership across quota share permits and groundfish permits, so the numbers provided likely represent the maximum number of entities impacted.

The RFA recognizes and defines a small governmental jurisdiction as any government or district with a population of less than 50,000 persons. According to the public IFQ Account database as of June 19, 2018, the City of Monterey owns quota shares of ten species. The U.S. Census estimates the population of Monterey to be 28,454 as of July 1, 2017, so the City of Monterey would be considered a small governmental jurisdiction under the RFA definition. The City of Monterey received 0.5 percent of the quota pounds issued for 2018, according to the public IFQ Account database.

According to the public IFQ Account database, six not-for-profit organizations own quota share in the Catch Share Program and would be impacted by this proposed rule. The RFA defines a small organization as any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field. NMFS uses the SBA size standards to determine whether a not-for-profit organization is a “small organization.” By SBA size standards, a small organization has combined annual receipts of $15 million or less for environmental, conservation, or professional organizations, and $7.5 million or less for other organizations.

Five of these not-for-profit organizations would be considered small by the RFA definition and the SBA size standard, using 2016 annual receipts of $120-500 thousand dollars, as reported on IRS form 990. One not-for-profit organization self-reported as large, based on fiscal year 2017 receipts of $1.1 billion. Collectively, the five small not-for-profit organizations received 7.2 percent of the non-whiting quota pounds issued in 2018 (issued annually through a separate rulemaking process) and the large not-for-profit organization received 0.5 percent. The large not-for-profit organization also owned two limited entry trawl permits that would be impacted by the management measures of the rule. The small not-for-profits owned 3 permits.

Finally, 11 personal or family trusts/estates owned quota share permits and would potentially be impacted by the trawl sector allocation under this proposed rule. All of these are assumed to be smaller than the RFA size standard. Collectively, these eight small entities received 4.2 percent of the non-whiting quota pounds issued for 2018. Five of these entities owned five groundfish permits.

This action is expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; however, the effects on the regulated small entities identified in this analysis are expected to range from neutral to positive. Under the proposed action, small entities would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to large entities, and the regulations would not reduce the profits for any small entities. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared to support this conclusion.

Description of Record-Keeping, and Reporting, Requirements of This Proposed Rule

This proposed rule would require modifications to current recordkeeping and reporting requirements for two information collections. Under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program Permit and License Information Collection (OMB Control Number 0648-0620) C/P-endorsed permit owners would be required by the proposed rule to submit annual ownership interest information via the Trawl Identification of Ownership Interest form. Under the West Coast Groundfish Trawl Economic Data Collection (OMB Control Number 0648-0618) a new Quota Share Permit Owner survey form would be implemented by this proposed rule, and all owners of a quota share permit would be required to submit the completed form annually. A description of the revision for the two existing information collection requirements follows.

C/P Endorsed Permit Ownership Interest Form

The modifications would require C/P endorsed permit owners to complete Trawl Owner Identification of Interest forms during annual permit renewal under OMB Control Number 0648-0620. Currently there are 10 C/P endorsed permits approved by NMFS in the Catch Share program. These permits are held by three companies with no single company owning more than five permits. As each company is a controlling entity, three is the minimum number of affected entities that would be expected to require submission of one Trawl Identification of Ownership Interest form for each C/P endorsed permit. The requested change in information collection would require from C/P permit owners the same level of ownership interest identification as required of mothership and catcher vessel permit owners. The current cooperative structure of the C/P sector helps to ensure no single entity acquires excessive privilege in the sector. However, in the event of a coop failure, it would be necessary to set accumulation limits, which would require NMFS to track ownership interest in C/P endorsed permits. Additionally, NMFS does not anticipate any new fishery entrants will apply for C/P endorsed permits, nor will NMFS approve any new C/P endorsed permits.

Economic Data Collection From Quota Share Permit Owners

The proposed action would require changes to the Catch Share Program Economic Data Collection OMB Control Number 0648-0618. The proposed rule would change reporting requirements for owners of quota share permits to submit information to the Catch Share Program Economic Data Collection (EDC) Program. Participants in the Catch Share Program who own, lease or charter vessels, shorebased processors, or first receiver sites are required to submit annual economic data to the EDC Program through survey forms corresponding to these characteristics of participation. The EDC Program currently does not require submission of forms from quota share permit owners who do not also own, lease or charter vessels, shorebased processors, or first receiver sites. The proposed rule would add a requirement for submission of EDC forms from all participants who own a quota share permit, including those who do not otherwise participate in the fishery other than by owning a quota share permit. Quota share permit owners will submit this form electronically via webform during the annual quota share account application and renewal process. The proposed submission deadline for the Quota Share Permit Owner survey will be November 30th in order to align with other quota share account application and renewal materials, rather than September 1st, as is required for other EDC forms.

Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed Rule

The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

This rule is not expected to result in adverse impacts to small entities. Thus, there are no significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would minimize adverse economic impacts on small entities. The Council did consider alternatives to the proposed rule which would have had a lower level of benefits to small entities; however, the Council did not consider alternatives that would have had greater benefits to small entities, as these would not have been consistent with other applicable laws.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Collection-of-Information Requirements

This action contains a revision of two existing information collection requirements, which have previously been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The changes under this proposed rule are subject to review and approval by OMB. NMFS has submitted these requirements to OMB for approval under Control Number 0648-0620 Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program Permit and License Information Collection, and under Control Number 0648-0618 West Coast Groundfish Trawl Economic Data Collection.

Under this proposed rule, modifications to OMB Control Number 0648-0620 would require completion of the Trawl Identification of Ownership Interest form by three different fishing companies that own the 10 at-sea Pacific Whiting C/P-endorsed limited entry permits. The public reporting burden is expected to require approximately 3.5 minutes to complete each form once per year during C/P-endorsed permit renewal. In the first year, respondents may require more time to complete the forms, requiring a one-time estimate of 45 minutes per form for a total annual burden increase of 7.5 hours in the first year, and 35 minutes in following years. The total copy costs per form under this collection would be $0.35, for a total increase of $3.5 to annual public burden costs.

Based on 2018 data from EDC responses and the public QS permit database, the public reporting burden for the change in requirement under Control Number 0648-0618 is expected to include approximately 178 Quota Share permit owners. The new reporting requirement would add to the EDC collection approximately 73 new respondents who are QS permit owners, who are not also owners, charterers, or lessees of vessels, or processors and other first receiver sites, and as a result have not previously completed EDC forms. Current burden time estimates for the EDC are approximately 8 hours per year and include questions relating to both QS permit ownership and vessel operations. The new form would collect more detailed QS permit ownership information than in prior years, increasing the total public burden hours. The new QS Permit owner survey is expected to take approximately 1 hour, once per year, for all 178 respondents to complete, adding 178 hours to the total (for an increase from 2,224 hours to 2,402 hours) These forms would be collected electronically during the QS permit renewal process, thereby reducing the mailing costs to respondents. Respondents would be asked to retain a copy of the survey for their records (at $0.20 per survey), and would increase total costs by $36 (from $4,120 to $4,156).

Public comment is sought regarding: Whether the proposed collection of information requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden statement; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collected information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES), and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202-395-5806.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirement of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: https://www.cio.noaa.gov/​services_​programs/​prasubs.html.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

• Fisheries
• Fishing, and Indians

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

1. 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 § 660.55:

a. Revise paragraphs (a), (c)(1), (d), and (j), and

b. Remove and reserve paragraph (f)(2).

The revisions read as follows:

3. In § 660.60:

a. Revise paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(1) introductory text, and (d)(1)(i);

b. Remove paragraph (d)(1)(iii);

c. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) through (vii) as (d)(1)(iii) through (vi), respectively.

The revisions read as follows:

4. In Table 1b to part 660, subpart C—2019, Allocations by Species or Species Group, Remove footnotes '‘c’ through ‘f’, and redesignate footnote ‘g’ as ‘c’.

Table 1d to Part 660, Subpart C—At-Sea Whiting Fishery Annual Set-Asides, 2019 [Removed]

5. Remove Table 1d to part 660, subpart C—At-Sea Whiting Fishery Annual Set-Asides, 2019, and footnotes.

Table 1e to Part 660, Subpart C—Whiting and Non-Whiting Initial Issuance Allocation Percentage for IFQ Decided Through the Harvest Specifications, 2011 [Redesignated]

6. Redesignate Table 1e to part 660, subpart C—Whiting and non-whiting initial issuance allocation percentage for IFQ decided through the harvest specifications, 2011 as Table 1d to part 660, subpart C—Whiting and non-whiting initial issuance allocation percentage for IFQ decided through the harvest specifications, 2011.

Table 2d to Part 660, Subpart C—At-Sea Whiting Fishery Annual Set-Asides, 2020 [Removed]

7. Remove Table 2d to Part 660, Subpart C—At-Sea Whiting Fishery Annual Set-Asides, 2020 and Beyond and footnotes

8. In § 660.111, amend the definition of Ex-vessel value by revising paragraph (3) to read as follows:

9. In § 660.113, add paragraph (b)(1)(iv), and revise paragraphs (d)(5)(ii)(A)( 2), (d)(5)(ii)(A)(4) and (5) to read as follows:

10. In § 660.114, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as follows:

11. In § 660.115, revise paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(B) and (C) to read as follows:

12. In § 660.140, revise paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) introductory text, (d)(2)(iii) introductory text, paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(D), (d)(3)(ii)(B)( 2), (d)(3)(ii)(B)(3), (e)(3)(iii)(A) and (B), paragraphs (e)(4)(i) introductory text, and paragraphs (e)(4)(ii), and (e)(5) to read as follows:

13. In § 660.150 revise paragraphs (c) and (d)(1)(iii)(A)( 1)(v) to read as follows:

14. In § 660.160:

a. Revise paragraph (c)(1) introductory text, paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(3)(i) and (ii);

b. Remove paragraph (c)(3)(iii);

c. Remove and reserve paragraph (c)(5);

d. Revise paragraphs (c)(6), (c)(7), and (d)(1)(iii)(A)(1)( iii), and paragraph (e)(1) introductory text;

e. Add paragraph (e)(1)(iv);

f. Revise paragraph (h)(1) introductory text, and paragraphs (h)(2) through (4);

g. Add paragraph (h)(5).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

Footnotes