(1) See 50 CFR Part 679.31 (c). (2) See 50 CFR Part 679.41 (j). (3) See 50 CFR Part 679.41 (j)(3) for a
description of the formula. (4) Again, these
were the Southeast, West Yakutat, Central Gulf, and Western Gulf areas. According to
a NMFS contract analyst-programmer, in rare instances it was possible for the CDQ
compensation QS calculation to result in something smaller than one share for an area.
If that occurred, the entity was not issued any CDQ compensation QS for that particular
area. (5) Under the NPFMC's IFQ
program, a person's initial QS allocation for a given area and vessel category was placed
into a "block" if their QS translated to less than 20,000 pounds of a hypothetical IFQ,
using the QS pool as of October 17, 1994 and the 1994 TAC for the area. QS placed
into a block could only be transferred as a block under most circumstances. See 50 CFR
Part 679.40 (a) and 50 CFR Part 679.41 (e). (6)
See 50 CFR Part 679.41 (j) (3). A May 31, 1996 conversation with NMFS
contractor Frank Pfeiffer and NMFS-RAM Deputy Director Jessie Gharrett suggested
that NMFS-RAM is currently interpreting this rule as an area-vessel category rule. In
other words, the CDQ compensation QS would be combined with a person's other QS in
an area only if the person's other QS was for the same vessel category. If the CDQ
compensation QS was for a different vessel category than the person's initial allocation of
regular QS, then NMFS-RAM is treating the CDQ compensation QS shares as
unblocked and "swappable." This appears to be a variant of the rule as currently
written. (7) See 50 CFR Part 679.41 (i).
On NMFS-RAM computer files a "swap" is treated as a separate type of transaction that
changes the catcher vessel category but retains the original owner. The "swap" is then
normally followed by a transfer transaction that changes the ownership of the QS. In
practice, NMFS-RAM has allowed one entity to permanently swap their CDQ
compensation QS to another catcher vessel category. Conversations with NMFS officials
suggest that the rule governing swaps of the QS to a different catcher vessel category will
be interpreted similarly in the future if a holder of such "swappable" QS wants to
permanently change the swappable QS to a particular catcher vessel category. Again,
this appears to be a variant of the rule as currently written. (8) To estimate the "swap-ability" of CDQ
compensation QS the authors used the NMFS rules as currently written. Thus CDQ
compensation QS was estimated to be swappable if the entity was not allocated any other
regular QS for the area. As noted above, NMFS-RAM indicated that their computer
programs allow CDQ compensation QS to be swappable if the entity was issued no
regular QS for the same area and vessel category. In other words, the CDQ
compensation QS is still classified as swappable if the entity was issued other regular QS
in the area but for a different vessel category. If this interpretation prevails, these tables
may change slightly in future updates of this report. During 1995, only one other CDQ
compensation QS segment would be classified as "swappable" using this variant of the
current rule. (9) As noted above, one
computer "swap" transaction occurred without a subsequent computer "transfer"
transaction. Discussions with the NMFS-RAM division indicated that the person wanted
to permanently use the QS in another catcher-vessel category so they made the swap
without a transfer to another person. They also indicated that the "swap-ability" of that
QS went away with the computer "swap" transaction. The observation is treated in that
manner in this report. (10) The table
shows the "post-swap" amount of QS in each area. On an area basis, this is equal to the
original amount of QS in the area as swaps across vessel categories do not occur across
areas. (11) See 50 CFR 679.41(e) and
(h). (12) The table shows the number of
QS holders "after swaps" but before any transfers, including those associated with swaps.
On an area basis, this number will be equal to the number of initial issuees in the
area. (13) See 50 CFR Part 679.40
through 50 CFR Part 679.42 (14) Recall
that "swap" transactions change the QS catcher vessel category for "swappable" CDQ
compensation QS. These changes are made upon the first permanent transfer of this
type of QS. The computer "swap" transactions are separate from the "transfer"
associated with the swap on RAM data files. Thus applying the "swap" computer
transaction changes the vessel category of the QS without changing the QS owner. That
is what has been done in this table. At the sablefish IFQ management area level, the
amount of post-swap QS and the number of QS holders are identical to their values at
initial issuance. The "transfers" reported in the table include both transfers associated
with the swap transactions and all other permanent QS transfers. Note that the average
QS holdings per QS holder have been rounded to the nearest QS unit. (15) Again, the transfer transactions
associated with the swaps are reflected in the transfer activity. This table, like Table
4.3.3-1, separates the cross-vessel category "swap" transaction from the transfer associated
with it. NMFS-RAM transaction files also treat the swap and subsequent transfer as a
two-step process. (16) See 50 CFR
679.40(a) and 50 CFR 679.41(e)(2). The 3,000 pounds of IFQ is being used loosely
here. The sweep-up rule is set implicitly by regulations as an amount of QS. The QS
pool in an area as of October 17, 1994 was compared to the 1994 TAC in an area. The
"sweep-up limit" amount of QS in each area was then the amount of QS from that QS
pool that would have resulted in 3,000 pounds of IFQ if 1994 TACs were applied. (17) The reader should be aware that the
authors had to estimate the amount of sweepable QS at initial issuance and the amount
of sweepable QS at year-end 1995. The estimates were made using the rules of the IFQ
program. However, there appear to be many problems with the blocking factors in the
RAM database and these problems have not been resolved as of this writing. The most
obvious problems are included in the footnotes to the tables. Some of the data in these
tables may change in updates to this report as problems with the RAM database are
corrected. (18) Table 4.3.3-1 indicates
that in two areas there actually appear to be small increases in the sweepable QS. These
are due to anomalies in the RAM data base that have not been resolved as of this
writing. These anomalies are discussed in the footnotes to the table. (19) NPFMC April 1996 newsletter. (20) Recall, that all resident type
assignments are based on addresses that were current at year-end 1995 (1/3/96). Thus
resident type changes due to "migrations" of QS holders during 1995 cannot be discerned
from the data. Permanent transfers include all regular transfers ["T" transactions
(including those following swaps)], sweep-up transfers ["W" transactions], and transfers
due to court or administrative actions ["C" transactions]. Lease transactions are
temporary and have not been included. (21)
See 50 CFR 679.41(h) for catcher vessel leasing rules. There is no
corresponding rule on freezer vessel QS leases. (22)
IFQ program rules would not allow the original transfer if it were clear that
there was a condition for repossession or resale. See 50 CFR 679.41(g)(4). (23) This discussion is adapted from FR
58(215):59392. November 9, 1993. (24)
Rules have been proposed to allow QS holders to lease up to 10% of the current year
IFQs associated with that QS. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on April 24, 1996, but had not been adopted at the time of writing
(mid-June 1996). (25) See 50 CFR
679.42(i)(1). (26) Records were selected
where the transferor in an earlier transaction was the transferee in a later transaction
and where the transferee in the earlier transaction was the transferor in the later
transaction.