FR 2024-29581

General Summary

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has released an announcement detailing the 2025 cost recovery fee percentages for participants in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program. This program includes three main sectors: the Shorebased Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program, the Catcher/Processor (C/P) Co-op Program, and the Mothership (MS) Co-op Program. Fees are structured to recover costs linked to the management and enforcement of these programs. The set fee percentages for 2025 are 3.0% for both the IFQ and MS Co-op Programs and a much lower 0.1% for the C/P Co-op Program. An average price of $0.09 per pound for Pacific whiting is applied in fee calculations for the C/P Co-op Program.

Significant Issues or Concerns

The purpose of these fees is to ensure that costs related to the administration and enforcement of the fishing programs are effectively managed. However, the document does present certain complexities and lacks clarity in areas that could impede understanding. The calculation methods for fees involve specific terms like Direct Program Costs (DPC) and ex-vessel value, which may not be immediately clear to all readers. Furthermore, while the statutory fee limit is set at 3.0%, the rationale behind this cap—although likely due to legal obligations—is not elaborated upon in detail.

The document is also dense with acronyms and assumes a baseline understanding of sector-specific jargon without offering a glossary, potentially alienating lay readers. While technical, the inclusion of more explicit background or justification for the calculations, the choice of proxies used, and the overall cost structure might provide valuable transparency.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

For the general public, especially those directly or indirectly connected to the fishing industry, understanding these fee structures is crucial. The document does not merely announce fees; it essentially outlines how these will affect economics and operations within the Pacific Coast fisheries. These regulations have a tangible impact on consumer prices, the profitability of fishing enterprises, and potentially the sustainability of fishing practices through regulated management.

Specific stakeholders, including fishers operating under the trawl rationalization program, could feel significant impacts. Although primarily positive in recovering necessary costs for regulatory oversight, these fees could contribute to financial strain for smaller entities within the industry. Conversely, the structured management may ensure long-term sustainability and fair competition by funding vital oversight mechanisms.

Additionally, the lack of referenced stakeholder engagement in determining these fees may prompt concerns over inclusivity and transparency. Stronger dialogue with affected communities could improve the perceived legitimacy and equity of the fee allocation process.

Conclusion

Overall, the NMFS notice provides essential regulatory information crucial for maintaining the integrity of the Pacific Coast Groundfish fisheries. Nevertheless, the document could benefit enormously from simplifying its technical language, further explaining its methodology, and engaging stakeholders more directly in its processes. Such enhancements would not only bolster understanding but also trust among those governed by such regulations.

The document outlines the financial considerations involved in the 2025 cost recovery fee percentages for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program. It details specific fee percentages for different sectors within the program, which are calculated based on the costs incurred and the value of the fish harvested.

Financial Summary

The document specifies fee percentages for three distinct programs within the fisheries management framework:

1. Shorebased Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program: The document states that the fee percentage for the IFQ Program in 2025 is set at 3.0 percent. This is a reduction from the calculated percentage of 4.6 percent, which was derived from dividing the actual direct program costs ($2,112,277.92) by the total ex-vessel value ($46,413,264.00).

2. Catcher/Processor (C/P) Co-op Program: Here, the fee is maintained at 0.1 percent. This is calculated by dividing the direct program costs ($28,615.21) by the total sector value ($21,004,264.86).

3. Mothership (MS) Co-op Program: The initial calculation for this program's fee was 5.1 percent, based on costs of $322,466.75 and an ex-vessel value of $6,321,722.07. Similar to the IFQ Program, it is limited to 3.0 percent to adhere to legal restrictions.

Relation to Issues

The financial allocations are significantly influenced by two main factors: Direct Program Costs (DPC) and ex-vessel value (V). These terms may be unfamiliar to some readers, as the document assumes a certain level of prior knowledge. Understanding the costs that directly relate to managing and enforcing the fishery program requires a deeper dive into the methodologies behind calculating these costs, which remains somewhat opaque in this document.

The statutory limit of 3.0 percent is applied in two out of three cases (IFQ and MS Co-op Programs). This limit aligns with legal requirements under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which may need further elaboration for those not versed in the legislation to comprehend its necessity.

Additional Financial References

An additional financial aspect mentioned is the use of $0.09/lb as the average price per pound for Pacific whiting. This figure is used as a proxy in the MS Co-op Program to assess fees. However, the document does not provide an in-depth explanation for how this pricing was determined, leading to potential questions regarding its derivation and relevance.

Conspicuously absent are any details regarding stakeholder feedback in forming these financial metrics, which could enhance transparency by illustrating that a diverse group of interests was considered in setting these financial benchmarks.

Overall, while the document attempts to present a clear picture of the financial structures within the trawl logical framework, it may benefit from more detailed explanations of financial derivations and methodologies, as well as a more comprehensive glossary of terms to include all readers in the dialogue.