82 FR 36111 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 148 (August 3, 2017)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 148 (August 3, 2017)
| Page Range | 36111-36113 | |
| FR Document | 2017-16376 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 148 (Thursday, August 3, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 36111-36113] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-16376] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 680 RIN 0648-BG84 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendment 48 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/ Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP) to NMFS for review. If approved, Amendment 48 would revise the Crab FMP to specify how NMFS determines the amount of limited access privileges held and used by groups in the Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program (CDQ Program) for the purposes of managing the excessive share limits under the Crab Rationalization (CR) Program. Amendment 48 is necessary to make the Crab FMP consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens [[Page 36112]] Act) requirements and NMFS' current method of managing excessive share limits for CDQ groups in the CR Program. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Crab FMP, and other applicable laws. DATES: Submit comments on or before October 2, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS- 2017-0038, by any one of the following methods.Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0038, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668. 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 be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), 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 copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for Amendment 48 may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), RIR, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Social Impact Assessment prepared for the CR Program are available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keeley Kent, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP is available for public review and comment. NMFS manages the king and Tanner crab fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) under the Crab FMP. The Council prepared, and NMFS approved, the Crab FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the Crab FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 680. The CR Program was implemented on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 10174). The CR Program established a limited access privilege program for nine crab fisheries in the BSAI and assigned quota share (QS) to persons based on their historic participation in one or more of those nine BSAI crab fisheries during a specific period. Each year, a person who holds QS may receive an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the annual total allowable catch. This annual exclusive harvest privilege is called individual fishing quota (IFQ). NMFS also issued processor quota share (PQS) under the CR Program. Each year PQS yields an exclusive privilege to process a portion of the IFQ in each of the nine BSAI crab fisheries. This annual exclusive processing privilege is called individual processor quota (IPQ). Only a portion of the QS issued yields IFQ that is required to be delivered to a processor with IPQ; this IFQ is called Class A IFQ. Each year there is a one-to-one match of the pounds of Class A IFQ with the total pounds of IPQ issued in each crab fishery. The CDQ Program was established by the Council and NMFS in 1992, and in 1996, authorization for the Program was incorporated into the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The purpose of the CDQ Program is (1) to provide eligible western Alaska villages with the opportunity to participate and invest in fisheries in the BSAI, (2) to support economic development in western Alaska, (3) to alleviate poverty and provide economic and social benefits for residents of western Alaska, and (4) to achieve sustainable and diversified local economies in western Alaska (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(A)). Section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act describes the CDQ Program and identifies the villages eligible to participate in the CDQ Program through the six entities specified in Section 305(i)(1)(D) as the CDQ groups (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)). Regulations at 50 CFR 679.2 define the term ``CDQ group'' as an entity identified as eligible for the CDQ Program under 16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(D). The CDQ Program receives annual apportionments of total allowable catches (TACs) for a variety of commercially valuable species in the BSAI groundfish, crab, and halibut fisheries, which are in turn allocated among the six different CDQ groups. In addition to their allocations under the CDQ Program, CDQ groups participate in the AFA and CR Program fisheries by purchasing QS and PQS or through ownership of vessels or processors that participate in the fisheries. The CDQ groups have purchased both QS and PQS under the CR Program. Section 303A(c)(5)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council and NMFS to establish excessive share limits for limited access privilege (LAP) programs to prevent excessive accumulation of privileges by participants in the LAP programs (16 U.S.C. 1853a(c)(5)(D)). The intent of these limits is to prevent excessive consolidation in the harvesting and processing sectors in order to maintain an appropriate distribution of economic and social benefits for fishery participants and communities. Because determination of excessive shares must consider the specific circumstances of each fishery, the Council has implemented different excessive share limits in the LAP programs in Alaska's fisheries, including the CR Program. The excessive share limit regulations prohibit a person from holding and using more than a specific portion of the LAPs allocated under the CR Program. Under 50 CFR 679.2, ``person'' includes individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, and other non- individual entities. To monitor holdings and use of LAPs, NMFS determines what portion of a program's harvesting and processing privileges a person holds and uses to ensure that no person holds or uses more privileges than authorized by the excessive share limit established for each LAP. NMFS determines a person's holding and use of a LAP by summing (1) the amount directly held and used by that person, and (2) the amount held and used by that person indirectly through an ownership interest in or control of another entity that also holds and uses the LAP. Businesses that hold and use LAPs in the CR Program are often composed of multiple owners that have ownership interests in multiple fishing businesses. In cases where a LAP is held by a business entity with more than one owner, NMFS applies the excessive share limits (also called holding and use limits or caps) to each entity that has an [[Page 36113]] ownership interest in or control of the LAP to monitor whether those entities each exceed the established caps. Ownership attribution refers to the method NMFS uses to assess the relationships between different entities that participate in LAP programs. NMFS uses two ownership attribution methods to assess these relationships. The two methods for attribution are the ``individual and collective'' rule and the ``10-percent rule.'' Under the individual and collective rule, a person is attributed holding or use of LAPs proportionally to their ownership in or control of other entities that hold or use LAPs. For example, if Company A owns or controls 15 percent of Company B that holds LAPs, Company A would be attributed 15 percent of the holding or use of those LAPs. In contrast, under the 10-percent rule, a person is attributed 100 percent of an entity's LAPs if that person owns or otherwise controls ten percent or more of that entity. Thus, if Company A owns or controls 10 percent or more of Company B, then all of Company B's holdings of LAPs are attributed to Company A. The individual and collective rule is less restrictive than the 10- percent rule because a person is only attributed holding or use in proportion to how much that person owns or controls of other entities, rather than attributing 100 percent of the other entity's LAP holdings once the 10-percent threshold is met. When the Council recommended the CR Program, it expressed concern about the potential for excessive consolidation of QS and PQS, in which too few persons control all of the QS or PQS and the resulting annual IFQ and IPQ. The Council determined that excessive consolidation could have adverse effects on crab markets, price setting negotiations between harvesters and processors, employment opportunities for harvesting and processing crew, tax revenue to communities in which crab are landed, and other factors considered and described in the CR Program EIS. To address this concern, the CR Program includes limits on the amount of QS and PQS that a person can hold and the amount of IFQ and IPQ that a person can use. To facilitate the monitoring of these limits, NMFS requires holders of QS and PQS that are non-individual entities to annually submit information on their ownership structure, down to the individual level, and on each owner's percentage holdings in the entity. Holding and use limits for QS and IFQ vary across CR Program fisheries because of different fleet characteristics and the differences in historic dependency of participants on the different crab fisheries. Under 50 CFR 680.42(a)(2), NMFS applies holding and use limits on QS and IFQ using the individual and collective rule for all participants, including CDQ groups, as was recommended by the Council for monitoring harvesting privileges. For processing privileges, the CR Program limits a person to holding no more than 30 percent of the PQS initially issued in the fishery, and to using no more than the amount of IPQ resulting from 30 percent of the PQS initially issued in a given fishery, with a limited exemption for persons receiving more than 30 percent of the initially- issued PQS (50 CFR 680.42(b)). The rationale for holding and use limits is described in the CR Program EIS and the final rule implementing the CR Program (70 FR 10174, 10175; March 2, 2005). Under 50 CFR 680.42(b)(3), NMFS applies holding and use limits on PQS and IPQ using the 10-percent rule, as was recommended by the Council and as was addressed in the preamble to the proposed rule for the CR Program (69 FR 63200, 63219 & 63226; October 29, 2004). When the CR Program was implemented, NMFS used the 10-percent rule to monitor PQS and IPQ holding and use limits in the CR Program for all program participants, including CDQ groups. In 2006, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-241; the Coast Guard Act) revised the Magnuson-Stevens Act to specify that CDQ groups would be subject to excessive share ownership, harvesting, or processing limitations only to the extent of their proportional ownership (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(F)(i)). Since the 2006 amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS has used the individual and collective rule for CDQ groups to monitor excessive share limits for CDQ groups in the CR Program. The individual and collective rule allows CDQ groups to hold and use more PQS and IPQ than non-CDQ persons because non-CDQ persons will remain subject to the more restrictive ownership attribution method (the 10-percent rule). Amendment 48 would revise the Crab FMP to make it consistent with NMFS' ownership attribution process for calculating holding and use of PQS and IPQ to monitor excessive share limits for CDQ groups in the CR Program. Amendment 48 would revise Section 2.7.1 under Chapter 11 of the FMP in the Processing Sector Elements section of the Crab FMP to specify that PQS and IPQ holding and use caps for CDQ groups are applied using the individual and collective rule, without continuing to use the 10-percent rule for determining whether an entity is included in calculating a CDQ group's holding and use caps. For example, if a CDQ group holds 15 percent of a company that holds or uses PQS or IPQ, Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP would clarify that the CDQ group would be attributed 15 percent of the holding or use of that PQS or IPQ. Amendment 48 would not revise the Crab FMP for the QS and IFQ holding and use limits under the CR Program because NMFS uses the individual and collective rule to monitor QS and IFQ holding and use limits for all program participants, including CDQ groups. NMFS has used the individual and collective rule to determine holding and use of PQS and IPQ by CDQ groups since enactment of the Coast Guard Act; however, NMFS has not revised the Crab FMP to reflect this statutory change or NMFS' current process. Amendment 48 would benefit CDQ groups and the public by revising the Crab FMP for consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendment 48 would also update the Crab FMP to specify the method NMFS currently uses to determine holding and use of processing privileges by CDQ groups for purposes of monitoring excessive share limits for the CR Program. Public comments are solicited on proposed Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 48, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 48 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 48. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 48, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule will be considered in the amendment approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. To be considered,comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: July 31, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2017-16376 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 148 / Thursday, August 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules 36111
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation not assign liability to any party. Also,
Planning and Review and Executive and Coordination With Indian Tribal placing a site on the NPL does not mean
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Governments that any remedial or removal action
Regulatory Review This action does not have tribal necessarily need be taken.
This action is not a significant implications as specified in Executive List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
regulatory action and was therefore not Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL
does not impose any costs on a tribe or Environmental protection, Air
submitted to the Office of Management pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
and Budget (OMB) for review. require a tribe to take remedial action.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not substances, Hazardous waste,
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) apply to this action. Intergovernmental relations, Natural
resources, Oil pollution, Penalties,
This action does not impose an G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Reporting and recordkeeping
information collection burden under the Children From Environmental Health requirements, Superfund, Water
PRA. This rule does not contain any and Safety Risks pollution control, Water supply.
information collection requirements that The EPA interprets Executive Order Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C.
require approval of the OMB. 13045 as applying only to those 9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3CFR,
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) regulatory actions that concern 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757,
environmental health or safety risks that 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
I certify that this action will not have the EPA has reason to believe may 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193.
a significant economic impact on a disproportionately affect children, per Dated: July 27, 2017.
substantial number of small entities the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory Barry N. Breen,
under the RFA. This action will not action’’ in section 2–202 of the Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
impose any requirements on small Executive Order. This action is not Land and Emergency Management.
entities. This rule listing sites on the subject to Executive Order 13045 [FR Doc. 2017–16171 Filed 8–2–17; 8:45 am]
NPL does not impose any obligations on because this action itself is procedural
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
any group, including small entities. This in nature (adds sites to a list) and does
rule also does not establish standards or not, in and of itself, provide protection
requirements that any small entity must from environmental health and safety
meet, and imposes no direct costs on risks. Separate future regulatory actions DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
any small entity. Whether an entity, are required for mitigation of
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
small or otherwise, is liable for response environmental health and safety risks.
Administration
costs for a release of hazardous H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
substances depends on whether that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 50 CFR Part 680
entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Distribution, or Use
Any such liability exists regardless of RIN 0648–BG84
whether the site is listed on the NPL This action is not subject to Executive
through this rulemaking. Order 13211, because it is not a Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
significant regulatory action under Zone off Alaska; Bering Sea and
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Executive Order 12866. Aleutian Islands Management Area;
(UMRA) Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab
I. National Technology Transfer and
This action does not contain any Advancement Act (NTTAA) Rationalization Program
unfunded mandate as described in This rulemaking does not involve AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does technical standards. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
not significantly or uniquely affect small Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
governments. This action imposes no J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Commerce.
enforceable duty on any state, local or Actions To Address Environmental
ACTION: Notice of availability of fishery
tribal governments or the private sector. Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations management plan amendment; request
Listing a site on the NPL does not itself for comments.
impose any costs. Listing does not mean The EPA believes the human health or
that the EPA necessarily will undertake environmental risk addressed by this SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery
remedial action. Nor does listing require action will not have potential Management Council (Council)
any action by a private party, state, local disproportionately high and adverse submitted Amendment 48 to the Fishery
or tribal governments or determine human health or environmental effects Management Plan for Bering Sea/
liability for response costs. Costs that on minority, low-income or indigenous Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs
arise out of site responses result from populations because it does not affect (Crab FMP) to NMFS for review. If
future site-specific decisions regarding the level of protection provided to approved, Amendment 48 would revise
what actions to take, not directly from human health or the environment. As the Crab FMP to specify how NMFS
the act of placing a site on the NPL. discussed in Section I.C. of the determines the amount of limited access
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism preamble to this action, the NPL is a list privileges held and used by groups in
of national priorities. The NPL is the Western Alaska Community
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
This rule does not have federalism intended primarily to guide the EPA in Development Quota Program (CDQ
implications. It will not have substantial determining which sites warrant further Program) for the purposes of managing
direct effects on the states, on the investigation to assess the nature and the excessive share limits under the
relationship between the national extent of public health and Crab Rationalization (CR) Program.
government and the states, or on the environmental risks associated with a Amendment 48 is necessary to make the
distribution of power and release of hazardous substances, Crab FMP consistent with Magnuson-
responsibilities among the various pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is Stevens Fishery Conservation and
levels of government. of only limited significance as it does Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:22 Aug 02, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM 03AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_36259/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 148 / Thursday, August 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules 36113
ownership interest in or control of the the different crab fisheries. Under 50 determining whether an entity is
LAP to monitor whether those entities CFR 680.42(a)(2), NMFS applies holding included in calculating a CDQ group’s
each exceed the established caps. and use limits on QS and IFQ using the holding and use caps. For example, if a
Ownership attribution refers to the individual and collective rule for all CDQ group holds 15 percent of a
method NMFS uses to assess the participants, including CDQ groups, as company that holds or uses PQS or IPQ,
relationships between different entities was recommended by the Council for Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP would
that participate in LAP programs. monitoring harvesting privileges. clarify that the CDQ group would be
NMFS uses two ownership attribution For processing privileges, the CR attributed 15 percent of the holding or
methods to assess these relationships. Program limits a person to holding no use of that PQS or IPQ. Amendment 48
The two methods for attribution are the more than 30 percent of the PQS would not revise the Crab FMP for the
‘‘individual and collective’’ rule and the initially issued in the fishery, and to QS and IFQ holding and use limits
‘‘10-percent rule.’’ Under the individual using no more than the amount of IPQ under the CR Program because NMFS
and collective rule, a person is resulting from 30 percent of the PQS uses the individual and collective rule
attributed holding or use of LAPs initially issued in a given fishery, with to monitor QS and IFQ holding and use
proportionally to their ownership in or a limited exemption for persons limits for all program participants,
control of other entities that hold or use receiving more than 30 percent of the including CDQ groups. NMFS has used
LAPs. For example, if Company A owns initially-issued PQS (50 CFR 680.42(b)). the individual and collective rule to
or controls 15 percent of Company B The rationale for holding and use limits determine holding and use of PQS and
that holds LAPs, Company A would be is described in the CR Program EIS and IPQ by CDQ groups since enactment of
attributed 15 percent of the holding or the final rule implementing the CR the Coast Guard Act; however, NMFS
use of those LAPs. In contrast, under the Program (70 FR 10174, 10175; March 2, has not revised the Crab FMP to reflect
10-percent rule, a person is attributed 2005). Under 50 CFR 680.42(b)(3), this statutory change or NMFS’ current
100 percent of an entity’s LAPs if that NMFS applies holding and use limits on process.
person owns or otherwise controls ten PQS and IPQ using the 10-percent rule, Amendment 48 would benefit CDQ
percent or more of that entity. Thus, if as was recommended by the Council groups and the public by revising the
Company A owns or controls 10 percent and as was addressed in the preamble Crab FMP for consistency with the
or more of Company B, then all of to the proposed rule for the CR Program Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendment 48
Company B’s holdings of LAPs are (69 FR 63200, 63219 & 63226; October would also update the Crab FMP to
attributed to Company A. The 29, 2004). specify the method NMFS currently
individual and collective rule is less When the CR Program was uses to determine holding and use of
restrictive than the 10-percent rule implemented, NMFS used the 10- processing privileges by CDQ groups for
because a person is only attributed percent rule to monitor PQS and IPQ purposes of monitoring excessive share
holding or use in proportion to how holding and use limits in the CR limits for the CR Program.
much that person owns or controls of Program for all program participants, Public comments are solicited on
other entities, rather than attributing including CDQ groups. In 2006, the proposed Amendment 48 to the Crab
100 percent of the other entity’s LAP Coast Guard and Maritime FMP through the end of the comment
holdings once the 10-percent threshold Transportation Act of 2006 (Public Law period (see DATES). NMFS intends to
is met. 109–241; the Coast Guard Act) revised publish in the Federal Register and seek
When the Council recommended the the Magnuson-Stevens Act to specify public comment on a proposed rule that
CR Program, it expressed concern about that CDQ groups would be subject to would implement Amendment 48,
the potential for excessive consolidation excessive share ownership, harvesting, following NMFS’ evaluation of the
of QS and PQS, in which too few or processing limitations only to the proposed rule under the Magnuson-
persons control all of the QS or PQS and extent of their proportional ownership Stevens Act. Public comments on the
the resulting annual IFQ and IPQ. The (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(F)(i)). Since the proposed rule must be received by the
Council determined that excessive 2006 amendment to the Magnuson- end of the comment period on
consolidation could have adverse effects Stevens Act, NMFS has used the Amendment 48 to be considered in the
on crab markets, price setting individual and collective rule for CDQ approval/disapproval decision on
negotiations between harvesters and groups to monitor excessive share limits Amendment 48. All comments received
processors, employment opportunities for CDQ groups in the CR Program. The by the end of the comment period on
for harvesting and processing crew, tax individual and collective rule allows Amendment 48, whether specifically
revenue to communities in which crab CDQ groups to hold and use more PQS directed to the amendment or the
are landed, and other factors considered and IPQ than non-CDQ persons because proposed rule will be considered in the
and described in the CR Program EIS. non-CDQ persons will remain subject to amendment approval/disapproval
To address this concern, the CR Program the more restrictive ownership decision. Comments received after that
includes limits on the amount of QS and attribution method (the 10-percent rule). date will not be considered in the
PQS that a person can hold and the Amendment 48 would revise the Crab approval/disapproval decision on the
amount of IFQ and IPQ that a person FMP to make it consistent with NMFS’ amendment. To be
can use. To facilitate the monitoring of ownership attribution process for considered,comments must be received,
these limits, NMFS requires holders of calculating holding and use of PQS and not just postmarked or otherwise
QS and PQS that are non-individual IPQ to monitor excessive share limits for transmitted, by the last day of the
CDQ groups in the CR Program.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
entities to annually submit information comment period.
on their ownership structure, down to Amendment 48 would revise Section
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
the individual level, and on each 2.7.1 under Chapter 11 of the FMP in
owner’s percentage holdings in the the Processing Sector Elements section Dated: July 31, 2017.
entity. Holding and use limits for QS of the Crab FMP to specify that PQS and Emily H. Menashes,
and IFQ vary across CR Program IPQ holding and use caps for CDQ Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
fisheries because of different fleet groups are applied using the individual Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
characteristics and the differences in and collective rule, without continuing [FR Doc. 2017–16376 Filed 8–2–17; 8:45 am]
historic dependency of participants on to use the 10-percent rule for BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:32 Aug 02, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM 03AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_36259/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2017-08-03 07:24:38
Document Modified: 2017-08-03 07:24:38
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments. | |
| Dates | Submit comments on or before October 2, 2017. | |
| Contact | Keeley Kent, 907-586-7228. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 36111 | |
| RIN Number | 0648-BG84 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR