0648-BC00 Temp Rule - Emergency Action

45508

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Center frequency
(MHz)

4955
4960
4965
4970
4975
4980

Lower
frequency
(MHz)

Channel Nos. employed

..............................................................................
..............................................................................
..............................................................................
..............................................................................
..............................................................................
..............................................................................

6 to 9 ............................................................................
7 to 10 ..........................................................................
8 to 11 ..........................................................................
9 to 12 ..........................................................................
10 to 13 ........................................................................
11 to 18 * ......................................................................

Upper
frequency
(MHz)

4945
4950
4955
4960
4965
4970

4965
4970
4975
4980
4985
4990

* Licensees should avoid using these channels in aggregations unless all other channels are blocked.

[FR Doc. 2012–18575 Filed 7–31–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 120312181–2279–01]
RIN 0648–BC00

Fisheries off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan; Trawl
Rationalization Program
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; emergency
action.
AGENCY:

This action delays some and
revises other portions of the Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery Trawl
Rationalization Program (program)
regulations. These changes are
necessary to enable the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) to implement
new regulations for the program to
comply with a court order requiring
NMFS to reconsider the initial
allocation of Pacific whiting (whiting) to
the shorebased Individual Fishing
Quota (IFQ) fishery and the at-sea
mothership fishery. The rule affects the
transfer of Quota Share (QS) and
Incidental Bycatch Quota (IBQ) between
QS accounts in the shorebased
individual IFQ fishery, and severability
in the mothership fishery, both of which
will be delayed until NMFS can
implement any necessary new
allocation regulations required by the
court’s order.
DATES: This rule is effective September
1, 2012 through January 28, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ariel Jacobs, 206–526–4491; (fax) 206–
526–6736; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:45 Jul 31, 2012

Jkt 226001

Background
This final rule delays or revises
several provisions of the Pacific coast
trawl rationalization program, based on
decisions issued by the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of
California in the case Pacific Dawn v.
Bryson, No. C10–4829 TEH (2012),
requiring NMFS and the Council to
reconsider the initial allocation of
Pacific whiting. Background on this rule
was provided in the proposed rule,
published on May 21, 2012 (77 FR
29955), and is not repeated here. This
action:
(1) Delays the ability to transfer QS
and IBQ between QS accounts in the
shorebased IFQ fishery in order to avoid
complications that would occur if QS
permit owners in the shorebased IFQ
fishery were allowed to transfer QS
percentages prior to completion of the
whiting allocation reconsideration;
(2) Delays the requirement to divest
excess quota share amounts for the
shorebased IFQ fishery and the at-sea
mothership fishery so that QS permit
owners will have sufficient time to plan
and arrange sales of excess QS, as
originally recommended by the Council
for this provision of the trawl
rationalization program;
(3) Delays the ability to change MS/
CV endorsement and catch history
assignments from one limited entry
trawl permit to another in order to avoid
complications if permit owners are
allowed to transfer ownership of catch
history assignments before completion
of the reconsideration takes place; and
(4) Modifies the issuance provisions
for quota pounds (QP) for the beginning
of fishing year 2013 to preserve NMFS’
ability to deposit the appropriate final
amounts into IFQ accounts based on any
recalculation of QS allocations. In the
meantime, NMFS will deposit into
accounts an interim amount of QP based
on the shorebased trawl allocation, as
reduced by the amount of QP for
whiting trips for whiting, and for
species caught incidentally in the
whiting fishery (including lingcod,
Pacific cod, canary, bocaccio, cowcod,
yelloweye, Pacific ocean perch, widow,
English sole, darkblotched, sablefish N.

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

of 36°N lat., yellowtail N. of 40°10′ N.
lat., shortspine N. of 34°27′ N. lat.,
minor slope rockfish N. of 40°10′ N. lat.,
minor slope rockfish S. of 40°10′ N. lat.,
minor shelf rockfish N. of 40°10′ N. lat.,
minor shelf rockfish S. of 40°10′ N. lat.,
and other flatfish). The remainder of the
interim QP will be deposited in
accounts at the start of the whiting
primary season.
NMFS is also advising the at-sea
mothership fishery that the response to
the court order may impact processor
obligations and cooperative (coop)
formation if whiting catch history
assignments are recalculated, and
announces further details on the process
for the affected public to review and
correct, if necessary, their landings and
delivery data through 2010, since this
data may be used for reallocation.
Potential Impact on Processor
Obligations and Coop Formation
NMFS will announce any changes to
the amount of catch history assignments
associated with MS/CV-endorsed
limited entry trawl permits by April 1,
2013. The mothership sector has until
March 31, 2013, to submit their coop
permit applications to NMFS for that
fishing year. The coop permit
application includes a list of the catch
history amounts associated with specific
MS/CV-endorsed limited entry permits
and which MS permit those amounts are
obligated to. In addition, MS/CVendorsed permit owners must obligate
their associated catch history
assignment to an MS permit by
September 1 of the prior year. Because
both of these requirements may happen
before NMFS makes its determination
on the 2013 catch history assignments
associated with MS/CV-endorsed
permits, participants in the mothership
fishery should be aware that this
proposal may potentially impact their
processor obligations, coop formation,
and coop permit application. NMFS
does not anticipate a need for regulatory
changes to address these potential
impacts, and will work with any MS
coop permit applicants if there are
changes in catch history assignments
from that noted in the 2013 coop permit

E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM

01AUR1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
application. For example, in the initial
administrative determination for any
2013 MS coop permit application,
NMFS will notify the coop manager of
any changes in catch history
assignments for MS/CV-endorsed
permits associated with that coop.

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES

Process To Review, and If Necessary,
Correct Data
In the proposed rule, NMFS laid out
a detailed process for reviewing and
correcting landings data. Since
publishing the proposed rule, several
confidentiality issues have arisen with
regard to state landings data. When
NMFS resolves these issues, we will
notify the public of the process for
reviewing and correcting all landings
data.
NMFS also considered whether to
allow limited entry permit transfers (i.e.,
changes in permit ownership) for all
limited entry trawl endorsed permits,
except for those with a catcher/
processor endorsement, for a period of
time during the reconsideration. This
allowance would simplify reissuance of
QS permits in the shorebased IFQ
fishery, or of catch history assignments
on MS/CV-endorsed limited entry trawl
permits in the at-sea mothership fishery.
After assessing this step, NMFS has
determined that it is not necessary
because the reallocation rule likely will
have no planned application process.
The initial allocation had a lengthy
application process that necessitated not
allowing limited entry permit (LEP)
transfers while NMFS reviewed
applications. For any revised
reallocation, NMFS likely will issue an
initial administrative determination
(IAD), but not an application; these
details will be developed as part of the
reallocation rulemaking. Accordingly,
there is no need to freeze LEP transfers.
If NMFS reissues QS permits and/or
catch history assignments on MS/CVendorsed limited entry trawl permits,
NMFS likely will issue those permits or
catch history assignments to the QS
account owner of record with NMFS at
the time of reissuance. However, these
details will be developed as part of the
reallocation rulemaking.
Comments and Responses
NMFS solicited public comment on
the proposed rule (77 FR 29955, May 21,
2012). The comment period for these
notices ended June 29, 2012. NMFS
received two letters of comments on the
proposed rule, only one of which was
substantive. The comment period was
open during the June 2012 Council
meeting. Comments presented to the
Council are part of the record and were
considered by the Council during its

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:45 Jul 31, 2012

Jkt 226001

deliberation. In reviewing the proposed
rule, NMFS considered the record as a
whole.
Comment 1. NMFS received one
comment from the Pacific Fishery
Management Council concurring with
the primary issues covered in the
proposed rule. They also requested that
the moratorium on the transfer of
widow rockfish QS be extended to
December 31, 2014, or the date when
the Council completes its consideration
(including resolution of appeals) and
NMFS implements changes to the
widow rockfish QS allocations.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this
comment; however, NMFS cannot
extend the moratorium on the transfer of
widow rockfish QS beyond the 365 days
allowed by the statute for this
emergency action. Extending that
moratorium needs to be done in a
separate rulemaking.
Classification
Pursuant to section 305(c)(1) of the
MSA, the NMFS Assistant
Administrator has determined that this
final rule is consistent with the Pacific
Coast Groundfish FMP, other provisions
of the MSA, and other applicable law,
subject to further consideration after
public comment. As stated in the
proposed rule, NMFS is using its
emergency action authority under MSA
305(c)(1) for this rule. NMFS finds that
an emergency exists that can only be
addressed through this emergency
action. Due to the court’s order in
Pacific Dawn, several existing
provisions of trawl regulations must be
delayed while NMFS and the Council
reconsider the initial allocation of
Pacific whiting. However, there is
insufficient time to go through the
standard FMP Council process prior to
the required effective date of this rule.
If NMFS does not take this action, then
NMFS will not be able to implement the
following rulemaking (RAW 2) that is
required by the court’s order.
Accordingly, NMFS finds an emergency
exists that can only be remedied
through this emergency action.
The Council prepared a final
environmental impact statement (EIS)
for Amendment 20 and Amendment 21
to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP; a
notice of availability for each of these
final EISs was published on June 25,
2010 (75 FR 36386). The Amendment 20
and 21 EISs and the draft EA are
available on the Council’s Web site at
http://www.pcouncil.org/ or on NMFS’
Web site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/
Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-FisheryManagement/Trawl-Program/index.cfm.
The regulatory changes in this final rule

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

45509

were categorically excluded from the
requirement to prepare a NEPA analysis.
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
When an agency proposes regulations,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
requires the agency to prepare and make
available for public comment an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (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. After the public comment
period, the agency prepares a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
that takes into consideration any new
information and public comments. This
FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary
of the significant issues raised by the
public comments, NMFS’ responses to
those comments, and a summary of the
analyses completed to support the
action.
NMFS published the proposed rule on
May, 21, 2012 (78 FR 2995), with a
comment period through June 29, 2012.
An IRFA was prepared and summarized
in the ‘‘Classification’’ section of the
preamble to the proposed rule.
Analytical requirements for the FRFA
are described in Regulatory Flexibility
Act, section 304(a)(1) through (5), and
summarized below. The FRFA must
contain: (1) A succinct statement of the
need for, and objectives of, the rule; (2)
a summary of the significant issues
raised by the public comments in
response to the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, a summary of the
assessment of the agency of such issues,
and a statement of any changes made in
the proposed rule as a result of such
comments; (3) a description and an
estimate of the number of small entities
to which the rule will apply, or an
explanation of why no such estimate is
available; (4) a description of the
projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the
rule, including an estimate of the classes
of small entities which will be subject
to the requirement and the type of
professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record; and
(5) a description of the steps the agency
has taken to minimize the significant
economic impact on small entities
consistent with the stated objectives of
applicable statutes, including a
statement of the factual, policy, and
legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each
one of the other significant alternatives
to the rule considered by the agency

E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM

01AUR1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES

45510

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

which affect the impact on small
entities was rejected.
NMFS is postponing the ability of QS
permit owners to trade QS, as well as
ability of MS/CV to trade their
endorsements and catch history
assignments separately from their
limited entry permits. This
postponement of QS trading is
necessary because for many affected
parties, their QS allocations (especially
for bycatch species) are composed of
whiting-trip calculations and nonwhiting trip calculations, which NMFS
and the Council are currently
reconsidering. QS and IBQ trading has
been prohibited for all species/species
categories until January 1, 2013. By
postponing these activities while NMFS
and the Council reconsider the initial
whiting allocations and implement any
changes that result, NMFS seeks to
minimize confusion and disruption in
the fishery from trading quota shares
that have not yet been firmly established
by regulation. For example, as discussed
above, if QS trading is not delayed, QS
permit owners would be transferring QS
amounts that potentially could change
(increase or decrease) after the
reconsideration. This situation would
undermine business relationships and
create confusion among buyers and
sellers. As discussed above, RAW 2 will
implement any revised allocations of QS
and MS/CV history assignments. RAW 2
is expected to be effective by April 1,
2013 in time for the first whiting season
opener off California, and before the
major June 15 coastwide season opener.
Similarly, NMFS is also delaying MS/
CV’s ability to transfer endorsement and
associated catch history assignments
from one limited entry trawl permit to
another. However, the MS/CVs retain
the ability to sell or trade a limited entry
permit with the endorsement and catch
history. All other MS/CV regulations
remain unchanged. NMFS intends to
announce any changes to the amount of
catch history assignments associated
with MS/CV-endorsed limited entry
trawl permits by April 1, 2013, prior to
the May 15 start date for the whiting
mothership fishery.
Note that NMFS is not postponing
fishing. To accommodate non-whiting
fisheries that begin at the beginning of
the year, NMFS will provide QP to QS
holders, but hold back sufficient QPs for
whiting and all other incidentally
caught species from the annual
allocation of QPs to QS accounts made
on or about January 1, 2013 to allocate
the appropriate final amounts based on
any recalculation of the whiting QS
allocations. The process of ‘‘holding’’
back sufficient QP is similar to the
current process of starting the year with

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:45 Jul 31, 2012

Jkt 226001

an interim low estimate of the annual
whiting trawl allocation and then in the
spring of each year adjusting the QP in
the QS accounts with any additional
QP, based on the final whiting trawl
allocation. The final whiting trawl
allocation is typically not established
until early May, to incorporate the latest
stock assessment information, review
tribal allocation requests, and receive
Council recommendations. In 2012, this
process was modified to include the
processes of the U.S-Canada Pacific
Whiting Treaty.
The Small Business Administration
has established size criteria to define
small entities under the RFA for all
major industry sectors in the US,
including fish harvesting and fish
processing businesses. Under these
criteria, a business involved in fish
harvesting is a small entity if it is
independently owned and operated and
not dominant in its field of operation
(including its affiliates), and if it has
combined annual receipts not in excess
of $4.0 million for all its affiliated
operations worldwide. A seafood
processor is a small entity if it is
independently owned and operated, not
dominant in its field of operation, and
employs 500 or fewer persons on a full
time, part time, temporary, or other
basis, at all its affiliated operations
worldwide. A business involved in both
the harvesting and processing of seafood
products is a small entity if it meets the
$4.0 million criterion for fish harvesting
operations. A wholesale business
servicing the fishing industry is a small
entity if it employs 100 or fewer persons
on a full time, part time, temporary, or
other basis, at all its affiliated operations
worldwide. For marinas and charter/
party boats, a small entity is one with
annual receipts not in excess of $7.0
million.
These regulations directly affect
holders of QS and CHA, which include
both large and small entities. Quota
shares were initially allocated to 166
limited entry trawl permit holders
(permits held by catcher processors did
not receive QS, while one limited entry
trawl permit did not apply to receive
QS) and to 10 whiting processors.
Thirty-six limited entry permits also
have MS/CV endorsements and catch
history assignments. Because many of
these permits were owned by the same
entity, these initial allocations were
consolidated into 138 quota share
permits/accounts. Of the 166 limited
entry permits, 25 limited entry trawl
permits are either owned or closely
associated with a ‘‘large’’ shorebased
processing company or with a nonprofit organization who considers itself
a ’’large’’ organization. Nine other

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

permit owners indicated that they were
‘‘large’’ companies. Almost all of these
large companies are associated with the
shorebased and mothership whiting
fisheries. The remaining 133 limited
entry trawl permits are likely held by
‘‘small’’ companies. Of the 10
shorebased processing companies
(whiting first receivers/processors) that
received whiting QS, three are ‘‘small’’
entities. NMFS does not expect this rule
to have any significant impacts on large
or small entities.
There were no significant issues
raised by the public comments in
response to the IRFA.
There are no reporting or
recordkeeping requirements with this
final rule, but as described above, there
is a process for fishermen and
processors to review, and if necessary,
correct the data that is used for future
allocations of Pacific whiting.
There are no significant alternatives to
this final rule that accomplish the stated
objectives of applicable statutes and that
minimize any of the significant
economic impact of the proposed rule
on small entities. These delays will be
temporary in nature and will benefit
both small and large entities. These
delays will help smooth the transition to
any changes in Pacific whiting
allocations, and to reduce uncertainty
for existing and potential new holders of
these allocations.
No Federal rules have been identified
that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
the alternatives. Public comment is
hereby solicited, identifying such rules.
A copy of this analysis is available from
NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
NMFS issued Biological Opinions
under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) on August 10, 1990, November
26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September
27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December
15, 1999, pertaining to the effects of the
Pacific Coast groundfish FMP fisheries
on Chinook salmon (Puget Sound,
Snake River spring/summer, Snake
River fall, upper Columbia River spring,
lower Columbia River, upper Willamette
River, Sacramento River winter, Central
Valley spring, California coastal), coho
salmon (Central California coastal,
southern Oregon/northern California
coastal), chum salmon (Hood Canal
summer, Columbia River), sockeye
salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), and
steelhead (upper, middle and lower
Columbia River, Snake River Basin,
upper Willamette River, central
California coast, California Central
Valley, south/central California,
northern California, southern
California). These biological opinions
have concluded that implementing the
FMP for the Pacific Coast groundfish

E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM

01AUR1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
fishery is not expected to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species under the
jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat.
NMFS issued a Supplemental
Biological Opinion on March 11, 2006,
concluding that neither the higher
observed bycatch of Chinook in the
2005 whiting fishery nor new data
regarding salmon bycatch in the
groundfish bottom trawl fishery
required a reconsideration of its prior
‘‘no jeopardy’’ conclusion. NMFS also
reaffirmed its prior determination that
implementation of the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
(PCGFMP) is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any of the
affected ESUs. Lower Columbia River
coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) and
Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816,
February 11, 2008) were recently
relisted as threatened under the ESA.
The 1999 biological opinion concluded
that the bycatch of salmonids in the
Pacific whiting fishery were almost
entirely Chinook salmon, with little or
no bycatch of coho, chum, sockeye, and
steelhead.
On February 9, 2012, NMFS’
Protected Resources Division issued a
Biological Opinion (BO) pursuant to
section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) on the effects of the
operation of the Pacific coast groundfish
fishery in 2012. In this Opinion, NMFS
concluded that the operation of the
groundfish fishery is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris),
eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus),
humpback whales (Megaptera
novaeangliae), Steller sea lions
(Eumetopias jubatus), and leatherback
sea turtles (Dennochelys coriacea).
NMFS also concluded that the operation
of the groundfish fishery is not likely to
destroy or adversely modify designated
critical habitat of green sturgeon or
leatherback sea turtles. Furthermore,
NMFS concluded that the operation of
the groundfish fishery may affect, but is
not likely to adversely affect the
following species and designated
critical habitat: Sei whales
(Balaenoptera borealis); North Pacific
Right whales (Eubalaena japonica); Blue
whales (Balaenoptera musculus); Fin
whales (Balaenoptera physalus); Sperm
whales (Physter macrocephalus);
Southern Resident killer whales
(Orcinus orca); Guadalupe fur seals
(Arctocephalus townsendi); Green sea
turtles (Chelonia mydas); Olive ridley
sea turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea);
Loggerhead sea turtles (Carretta
carretta); critical habitat of Southern

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:45 Jul 31, 2012

Jkt 226001

Resident killer whales; and critical
habitat of Steller sea lions. This rule
does not modify any activities that
would affect listed species; and thus the
February 9, 2012, BO conclusions are
applicable.
On August 25, 2011, NMFS’
Sustainable Fisheries Division initiated
consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) pursuant to section
7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) on the effects of the operation of
the Pacific coast groundfish fishery. The
Biological Assessment (BA) on the
effects of the groundfish fishery on
endangered species was revised and resubmitted to USFWS on January 17,
2012. The BA concludes that the
continued operation of the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery is likely to
adversely affect short-tailed albatross;
however, the level of take is not
expected to reduce appreciably the
likelihood of survival or significantly
affect recovery of the species. The BA
preliminarily concludes that continued
operation of the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery is not likely to
adversely affect California least terns,
marbled murrelets, bull trout, and
Northern or Southern sea otters. USFWS
formally responded with a letter dated
March 29, 2012 and advised NMFS that
formal consultation has been initiated.
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) impacts resulting from fishing
activities in this final rule are discussed
in the FEIS for the 2011–12 groundfish
fishery specifications and management
measures. As discussed above, NMFS
issued a BO addressing impacts to ESA
listed marine mammals. NMFS is
currently working on the process
leading to any necessary authorization
of incidental taking under MMPA
section 101(a)(5)(E).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian
fisheries.
Dated: July 27, 2012.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
performing the functions and duties of the
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.

For the reasons stated in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended
as follows:
PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST
COAST STATES
1. The authority citation for part 660
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C.
773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

45511

2. In § 660.140, revise paragraphs
(d)(1)(ii)(A)(1) and (2), (d)(1)(ii)(B)(1)
and (2), (d)(3)(ii)(B)(2) and (d)(4)(v) to
read as follows:

■

§ 660.140

Shorebased IFQ Program.

*

*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(1) In years where the groundfish
harvest specifications are known by
January 1, deposits to QS accounts for
IFQ species will be made on or about
January 1. For 2013, NMFS will issue
QP in two parts. On or about January 1,
2013, NMFS will deposit QP based on
the shorebased trawl allocation as
reduced by the amount of QP for
whiting trips as specified at paragraph
(d)(8)(iv)(A)(10) of this section for the
initial issuance allocations of QS
between whiting and non-whiting trips.
In the spring of 2013, after NMFS has
made a determination on the QS for QS
permit owners, NMFS will deposit
additional QP to the QS account, as
appropriate.
(2) In years where the groundfish
harvest specifications are not known by
January 1, NMFS will issue QP in two
parts. On or about January 1, NMFS will
deposit QP based on the shorebased
trawl allocation multiplied by the lower
end of the range of potential harvest
specifications for that year. For 2013,
that amount will be further reduced by
the amount of QP for whiting trips as
specified at paragraph (d)(8)(iv)(A)(10)
of this section for the initial issuance
allocations of QS between whiting and
non-whiting trips. After the final harvest
specifications are established later in
the year, NMFS will deposit additional
QP to the QS account. For 2013, this
will occur in the spring after NMFS has
made a determination on the QS for QS
permit owners.
(B) * * *
(1) In years where the Pacific whiting
harvest specification is known by
January 1, deposits to QS accounts for
Pacific whiting will be made on or about
January 1. For 2013, NMFS will issue
QP in two parts. On or about January 1,
2013, NMFS will deposit QP based on
the shorebased trawl allocation as
reduced by the amount of QP for
whiting trips as specified at paragraph
(d)(8)(iv)(A)(10) of this section for the
initial issuance allocations of QS
between whiting and non-whiting trips.
In the spring of 2013, after NMFS has
made a determination on the QS for QS
permit owners, NMFS will deposit
additional QP to the QS account, as
appropriate.

E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM

01AUR1

45512

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES

(2) In years where the Pacific whiting
harvest specification is not known by
January 1, NMFS will issue Pacific
whiting QP in two parts. On or about
January 1, NMFS will deposit Pacific
whiting QP based on the shorebased
trawl allocation multiplied by the lower
end of the range of potential harvest
specifications for Pacific whiting for
that year. For 2013, that amount will be
further reduced by the amount of QP for
whiting trips as specified at paragraph
(d)(8)(iv)(A)(10) of this section for the
initial issuance allocations of QS
between whiting and non-whiting trips.
After the final Pacific whiting harvest
specifications are established later in
the year, NMFS will deposit additional
QP to QS accounts. For 2013, this will
occur in the spring after NMFS has
made a determination on the QS for QS
permit owners.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
(2) Transfer of QS or IBQ between QS
accounts. QS or IBQ cannot be
transferred to another QS permit owner,
except under U.S. court order or
authorization and as approved by
NMFS. QS or IBQ may not be
transferred to a vessel account.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) * * *
(v) Divestiture. Accumulation limits
will be calculated by first calculating

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:45 Jul 31, 2012

Jkt 226001

the aggregate non-whiting QS limit and
then the individual species QS or IBQ
control limits. For QS permit owners
(including any person who has
ownership interest in the owner named
on the permit) that are found to exceed
the accumulation limits during the
initial issuance of QS permits, an
adjustment period will be provided after
which they will have to completely
divest their QS or IBQ in excess of the
accumulation limits. QS or IBQ will be
issued for amounts in excess of
accumulation limits only for owners of
limited entry permits as of November 8,
2008, if such ownership has been
registered with NMFS by November 30,
2008. The owner of any permit acquired
after November 8, 2008, or if acquired
earlier, not registered with NMFS by
November 30, 2008, will only be eligible
to receive an initial allocation for that
permit of those QS or IBQ that are
within the accumulation limits; any QS
or IBQ in excess of the accumulation
limits will be redistributed to the
remainder of the initial recipients of QS
or IBQ in proportion to each recipient’s
initial allocation of QS or IBQ for each
species. Any person that qualifies for an
initial allocation of QS or IBQ in excess
of the accumulation limits will be
allowed to receive that allocation, but
must divest themselves of the excess QS
or IBQ during the first two years once
QS transfers are allowed (the divestiture

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 9990

period). Holders 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. Once the
divestiture period is completed, any QS
or IBQ held by a person (including any
person who has ownership interest in
the owner named on the permit) in
excess of the accumulation limits will
be revoked and redistributed to the
remainder of the QS or IBQ owners in
proportion to the QS or IBQ holdings in
the immediately following year. No
compensation will be due for any
revoked shares.
*
*
*
*
*
3. In § 660.150,
a. Revise paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(B); and
■ b. Remove and reserve paragraph
(g)(2)(iv)(C) to read as follows:
■
■

§ 660.150

Mothership (MS) Coop Program.

*

*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(B) Application. NMFS is not
accepting applications for a change in
MS/CV endorsement registration at this
time.
(C) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*

[FR Doc. 2012–18780 Filed 7–31–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM

01AUR1