Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 76175

In recent years the fee waiver for state

and local government entities rule has

been applied more broadly than

envisioned in Fees for Services. We

have waived fees in cases where the

filer has been a state or local

government entity acting in a

proprietary capacity as a carrier. For

example, the fee waiver has been

applied where states, state agencies and

local transportation authorities and

districts have submitted filings to

acquire rail lines, usually for operation

by a third party. We also have waived

fees where the filer has been a quasigovernment corporation. For example,

waivers have been granted if the filer

demonstrated that it was created

through legislation designed to meet a

public purpose.

Public corporations are created by

statute for public purposes only and the

interests of public corporations are the

exclusive property and domain of the

government. Private corporations, on

the other hand, are created for private,

rather than purely public, purposes and

their powers are exercised for the profit

or advantage of the stockholders. Quasipublic (or quasi-governmental)

corporations, commonly referred to as

public service corporations, have the

appearance of being public, but in many

respects they are private. Quasi-public

corporations are private corporations

that have special powers or privileges of

a public nature, such as the power of

eminent domain, to enable them to carry

out those functions that benefit the

public; but they also exercise their

powers to further the interests of their

stockholders. Corporations are not

considered public merely because they

are creatures of legislation or

established to promote the public

interest. In our view, only the true

public corporation should qualify for a

waiver. Whether a corporation should

be considered public or not depends on

the terms of its charter and the laws

under which it has been organized.

We are not, through this policy,

seeking to inhibit parties from using our

processes, or to undercut transactions

by which, for example, local bodies

attempt to facilitate continued rail

service. But Congress has directed us to

collect appropriate fees, and we must

make every effort to conform our fee

assessment and collection practices to

the policy of full cost recovery that

underlies the IOAA and Circular No. A–

25. Thus, filers must henceforth clearly

demonstrate that they are true public

corporations in order to qualify for the

fee waiver. Fees will be assessed to any

entity (a state or local governmental

entity, a quasi-governmental entity, or a

government-subsidized transportation

company) that owns or proposes to own

a carrier, or that is a shipper, and comes

before the Board in that capacity. See

Fees for Services at 71. Fees will also be

assessed to quasi-governmental

corporations or government-subsidized

transportation companies for any filing

submitted for which there is a fee. The

fee waiver will be available to a state or

local government entity that is not

acting in the capacity of a carrier or

shipper. Thus, for example, a state or

local entity filing an adverse (or third

party) abandonment proposal would

benefit from the waiver rule because the

filer would not be appearing as a carrier

or as a shipper.

Entities that do not qualify for the fee

waiver may request a fee waiver or

reduction in fees under 49 CFR

1002.2(e)(2), which provides that in

extraordinary situations the Board will

waive or reduce fees. The requestor

must show that the waiver or reduction

is in the best interest of the public or

that payment of the fee would impose

an undue hardship on the requestor.

As a final matter, we are clarifying the

process by which waiver requests will

be administered at the Board. Currently,

a waiver request must be submitted at

the time the related filing is submitted,

and a filing (other than a tariff) not

accompanied by the appropriate fee is

deficient. See 49 CFR 1002.2(e)(2)(i),

1002.2(b). Waiver requests are

considered only when accompanied by

the related filing; waiver requests

submitted in advance of the filing to

which they relate are not accepted.

When a waiver request is accompanied

by the related filing and the appropriate

fee, the filing is processed immediately,

the fee is deposited, and the waiver

request is acted upon in due course. If

the waiver is granted, the filer receives

a refund from the U. S. Department of

the Treasury.

We understand that some parties may

find it financially burdensome to submit

the fee and then run the risk that the

waiver will not be granted. We will

permit parties to file waiver requests

without submitting the fees; however, as

we sometimes need to review the

substantive document in order to

determine whether the waiver ought to

be granted, we will not accept a waiver

request unless the substantive document

is also filed. Moreover, if a waiver

request is filed with the related filing

but without the appropriate fee, we will

be unable to process the substantive

filing until the fee issue is resolved.

Therefore, whenever a waiver request is

filed without an appropriate fee, the

substantive filing will be processed only

after the waiver request has been

granted or, if the request is denied, upon

receipt of the appropriate fee. A filer

seeking a waiver and prompt processing

of a filing should, therefore, submit the

fee, the related filing and the waiver

request simultaneously.

The legal and policy bases underlying

rule 1002.2(e)(1) already have been

established in Fees for Services. Thus,

we do not propose a new rule or policy

here, but rather announce a stricter

adherence to a policy that has already

been established and was never formally

changed. For that reason, we do not seek

public comment on this announcement

that we will henceforth follow this

policy more literally.

Decided: November 29, 2000.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice

Chairman Burkes, Commissioner Clyburn.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–30965 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[I.D. 080900A]

RIN 0648–A028

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Rebuilding

Overfished Fisheries

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Approval of fishery

management plan amendment.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the

approval of Amendment 15 to the

Fishery Management Plan for Bering

Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner

Crabs (FMP). This amendment is

necessary to implement a plan to

rebuild the overfished stock of St.

Matthew blue king crab. This action is

intended to ensure that conservation

and management measures continue to

be based on the best scientific

information available and is intended to

achieve, on a continuing basis, the

optimum yield from the affected crab

fisheries.

DATES: The amendment was approved

on November 29, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 15 to

the FMP, and the Environmental

Assessment (EA) prepared for the

amendment are available from the

Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska

76176 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,

AK 99802–1668, Attn: Lori Gravel

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gretchen Harrington, 907–586–7228 or

gretchen.harrington@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS

declared the stock of St. Matthew blue

king crab (Paralithodes platypus)

overfished on September 24, 1999,

because the spawning stock biomass

was below the minimum stock size

threshold as defined in the FMP. NMFS

notified the North Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council) once

NMFS determined that the stock was

overfished (64 FR 54791, October 8,

1999). The Council developed a

rebuilding plan within 1 year as

required by the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). In June

2000, the Council adopted Amendment

15, the rebuilding plan, to accomplish

the purposes outlined in the national

standard guidelines to rebuild the

overfished stock. Amendment 15

specifies a time period for rebuilding

the stock that satisfies the MagnusonStevens Act. The rebuilding plan is

estimated to allow St. Matthew blue

king crab to rebuild, with a 50 percent

probability, within 10 years. The stock

will be considered ‘‘rebuilt ’’ when the

stock reaches the maximum sustainable

yield stock size level in 2 consecutive

years.

The rebuilding plan consists of a

framework that references the State of

Alaska’s harvest strategy, bycatch

control measures, and habitat protection

measures.

The rebuilding plan will use the

harvest strategy developed by the

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

and adopted by the Alaska Board of

Fisheries (Board). The FMP defers to the

State of Alaska the authority to develop

harvest strategies, with oversight by

NMFS and the Council. The rebuilding

harvest strategy should result in more

spawning biomass, because more large

male crab would be conserved and

fewer juveniles and females would die

due to incidental catch and discard

mortality. This higher spawning

biomass would be expected to produce

good year-classes when environmental

conditions are favorable.

The rebuilding plan also references

the bycatch reduction measures and

habitat protection measures adopted by

the Board in March 2000. The Board

adopted gear restrictions to reduce

bycatch of sub-legal and female blue

king crab in the directed fishery. To

protect the habitat of egg-bearing

females, the Board took action to close

State waters around St. Matthew Island,

Hall Island, and Pinnacles Island to crab

fishing. Protection of habitat and

reduction of bycatch will reduce

mortality on juvenile and egg-bearing

female crabs, thus allowing a higher

percentage of each year-class to

contribute to spawning and future

landings.

An EA was prepared for Amendment

15 that describes the management

background, the purpose and need for

action, the management alternatives,

and the environmental and the socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives. A

copy of the EA can be obtained from

NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

A notice of availability for the

proposed Amendment 15 to the FMP,

which described the proposed

amendment and invited comments from

the public, was published in the Federal

Register on August 29, 2000 (65 FR

52405). Comments were invited until

October 30, 2000.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 76177

Response to Comments

NMFS received one public comment

on Amendment 15.

Comment: The comment requested

that NMFS include additional analysis

in the EA, however, it did not

recommend approval or disapproval of

the amendment. The comment

advanced these concerns about the EA:

(1) the costs associated with monitoring

bycatch of blue king crab in the trawl

fishery were not analyzed; (2) the

discussion of higher probabilities of

rebuilding under alternative rebuilding

scenarios is insufficient; and (3) further

evaluation of the economic impacts of

implementing a stricter rebuilding time

and probability is needed.

Response: NMFS determined that the

existing EA is sufficient for decision

making, complies with applicable law,

and additional analysis would not

change the components of the

rebuilding plan. The EA represents the

best scientific information available, as

certified by the Alaska Fisheries Science

Center. For the following reasons,

NMFS does not believe modification of

the EA is warranted.

1. The decision not to enact measures

to reduce bycatch of blue king crab in

the trawl fisheries was based on the fact

that, according to observer data, blue

king crab is not a measurable

component of trawl bycatch. Thus, an

analysis of the costs associated with

monitoring a bycatch limit or a closed

area would not change the conclusion

that trawl bycatch is not a significant

source of blue king crab mortality.

2. The rebuilding time period satisfies

the requirements of section 304(e)(4)(A)

of the Magnuson–Stevens Act. The

rebuilding plan is estimated to allow the

St. Matthew blue king crab stock to

rebuild, with a 50 percent probability, to

the Bmsy level within 10 years. A 50

percent rebuilding probability within 10

years is the estimated probability

recommended in the NMFS technical

guidance for rebuilding overfished

stocks. This probability of rebuilding

includes the conservative parameter that

stock will be considered ‘rebuilt’ when

the stock size reaches the Bmsy in 2

consecutive years. The stock assessment

experts that developed the model used

to estimate the rebuilding times and

probabilities determined that a 50

percent probability best represented

reality given the biology of the species

and our current level of scientific

information. However, the EA also

analyzes the alternatives at a 90 percent

probability. The alternative that would

achieve rebuilding at a 90 percent

probability within 10 years is the no

fishing alternative, which the EA

analyzes. The exercise of estimating

rebuilding probabilities provides

managers an idea of the potential

outcomes of different alternatives and to

help assure that the chosen alternative

will rebuild the stock within 10 years.

One of the measures that predicts

success of this rebuilding plan is that it

is estimated to rebuild the stock in 12

years with a 90 percent probability. In

other words, NMFS predicts that there

is a 90 percent probability that the

estimated spawning biomass will be

above the Bmsy level of 22 million lb

(9,679.2 metric tons) for 2 years within

12 years.

3. Information on the percentage of a

crab catcher vessel’s total crab catch that

is comprised of St. Matthew blue king

crab is not substantially relevant to the

decision making. The comment implies

that this information would lead to a

more conservative rebuilding plan

because most catcher vessels do not

depend on this fishery as a sole source

of income. The rebuilding harvest

strategy provides a balance between

being sufficiently conservative to

rebuild the stock and prevent

overfishing, yet to allow some fishing

during the rebuilding period once the

stock increases in abundance to above

the MSST. A fishery will occur when

the stock abundance warrants it,

regardless of each individual vessel’s

other sources of income.

NMFS determined that Amendment

15 to the FMP is consistent with the

Magnuson–Stevens Act and other

applicable laws and approved

Amendment 15 on November 29, 2000.

Additional information on this action is

contained in the August 29, 2000, notice

of availability (65 FR 52405).

No regulatory changes are necessary

to implement this FMP amendment.

Dated: November 30, 2000.

Clarence Pautzke,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–31033 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S