FR 2025-06187

Commentary on the Rockfish Program Cost Recovery Fee Notice

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has published an update concerning the cost recovery for the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program for the fishing year 2024. This update includes the standard ex-vessel prices and the fee percentage for cost recovery, which will be effective from May 1 through November 15, 2024. The document states that the fee percentage for this year is set at the maximum legal cap of 3.00 percent. Despite the calculated cost recovery rate being higher due to increased program costs and decreased fishery values, the cap remains due to regulatory limitations.

General Summary

The document outlines the framework for collecting fees from participants in the rockfish program, under the authority granted by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The fees are meant to cover management, data collection, and enforcement expenses for the program. For the upcoming year, fees must be paid by February 15, 2025, and delays could result in penalties for the quota rights of participants. Importantly, this notice provides essential cost recovery details to ensure compliance and transparency among stakeholders involved in this specific fishery sector.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several concerns arise from this document, pointing to areas where additional transparency and clarity might be beneficial:

1. Calculation Methods: The document does not specify the exact methods used to determine the standard ex-vessel prices. Greater clarity could aid in auditing and assessing whether these prices are fair and accurately reflect the market value for stakeholders.

2. Program Cost Transparency: There is a lack of detailed information on what categories constitute 'direct program costs.' This absence limits stakeholders' understanding and their ability to evaluate potential inefficiencies or instances of wasteful spending.

3. Cost Increase Details: While the document notes a 25.8% increase in program costs, it falls short of explaining the reasons behind this rise. Failure to justify such an increase might prompt questions about inefficiency or mismanagement within the program.

4. Clarity of Language: The language used to describe fee percentage calculations might be too complex for stakeholders not deeply acquainted with regulatory jargon, potentially limiting broader understanding and engagement.

5. Discrepancy Measures: Although the fee percentage is capped at 3%, which is noted as being lower than the actual calculated percentage due to increased program costs, the document does not discuss any measures being taken to manage this discrepancy.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

The document has varied implications for different stakeholders, from the general public to industry participants:

• Public Impact: While the notice itself may have limited direct impact on the general public, the ongoing sustainability of fisheries is vital for local economies, impacting jobs and the availability of seafood.

• Industry Stakeholders: Rockfish cooperatives and quota holders must pay close attention to these published figures, as they directly affect financial planning and operational costs. The capped fee percentage, despite a higher calculated rate, offers some relief from potentially higher expenses.

• Regulatory and Environmental Benefits: Effective cost recovery supports vital conservation measures and regulatory enforcement, which are crucial for sustaining fish populations and ecosystems, ultimately benefiting consumers and stakeholders invested in long-term resource availability.

In conclusion, while this notice provides required information for compliance, critical issues remain around transparency and clarity that, if addressed, could enhance stakeholder confidence and engagement.

The document from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) outlines the financial aspects related to the cost recovery under the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program. It highlights how the fees are determined and collected from participants within a rockfish cooperative.

Summary of Financial Allocations

The document specifies that NMFS calculates cost recovery fees based on the standard ex-vessel value prices of both primary and secondary rockfish species. This fee calculation does not rely on the actual price data provided by rockfish quota holders, but instead uses a standardized approach to ensure consistency.

The fee percentage applied for the 2024 fishing year is 3.00 percent. This percentage is set to recover the costs associated with the management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement of the Rockfish Program, as required by sections 303A and 304(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Issues Relating to Financial References

1. Methodology Transparency: The document notes that standard ex-vessel prices are described in U.S. dollars per pound but lacks specific details on the methodology used for these calculations. This absence makes it challenging to verify whether the assessed prices are fair and accurately reflect the market conditions. Stakeholders might find it difficult to audit or contest these prices without transparent methods.

2. Definition of Program Costs: There is a notable absence of detailed descriptions of what constitutes the “direct program costs.” This vagueness can lead to concerns about the transparency of spending, particularly due to the 25.8% increase in program costs from the previous year. Without clear delineation, it's difficult for stakeholders to understand or address potential inefficiencies and apply scrutiny to ensure responsible use of funds.

3. Fee Percentage Calculations: While the document elaborates that the calculated program costs for 2024 amount to 7.51% of the ex-vessel value, the statutory cap restricts the fee to only 3.00%. This substantial difference raises questions about how the gap between the actual program costs and the capped fee affects the program's sustainability. Stakeholders might question the long-term implications of not fully covering the costs through fees and whether alternative financing methods or cost reductions should be considered.

Overall, the financial references in the document highlight the operational funding approach under the Rockfish Program. However, they also reveal substantial areas needing greater transparency and communication to ensure stakeholders fully understand and accept the cost recovery and financial management processes.