Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27035

Only one copy of electronically-filed

comments must be submitted. Further

information on the process of

submitting comments electronically is

available at that location and at <http:/

/www.fcc.gov/e-file/>.

X. Ordering Clauses

115. Accordingly, it is ordered that,

pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4, 201, 202,

222, 251, and 303(r) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154,

201, 202, 222, 251, and 303(r), a notice

of proposed rulemaking is adopted

116. It is further ordered that the

Commission’s Office of Public Affairs,

Reference Operations Division, SHALL

SEND a copy of this Notice of proposed

rulemaking, including the Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration, in

accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12971 Filed 5–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 98050115–8115–01; I.D.

032498A]

RIN 0648–AK86

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery; Compensation for

Collecting Resource Information

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed emergency rule;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: This action, authorized by the

Magnuson-Stevens Act, proposes

provisions by which a vessel owner or

operator who has collected resource

information according to a NMFSapproved protocol may be compensated

with the opportunity to harvest fish in

excess of current vessel limits and/or

outside other restrictions. This action is

intended to improve the types and

amounts of scientific information

available for use in stock assessments

and management of the Pacific coast

groundfish fishery. It is necessary to

implement this action under the

Magnuson-Stevens Act emergency

rulemaking authority so that NMFS may

contract with commercial fishing

vessels to conduct resource surveys

during the summer of 1998. The Pacific

Fishery Management Council (Council)

is considering an amendment to the

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery

Management Plan (PCGFMP) that would

continue this compensation initiative

beyond 1998.

DATES: Comments will be considered if

received on or before June 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to William

Stelle, Jr., Administrator, Northwest

Region, (Regional Administrator) NMFS,

7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA

98115; or William T. Hogarth,

Administrator, Southwest Region,

(Regional Administrator) NMFS, 501

West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long

Beach, CA 90802–4213. Other

information relevant to this proposed

emergency rule is available for public

review during business hours at the

Office of the Administrator, Northwest

Region, NMFS. Copies of the

environmental assessment/regulatory

impact review are also available from

that address. Send comments regarding

the burden estimate or any other aspect

of the collection-of-information

requirements in this proposed

emergency rule, including suggestions

for reducing the burden, to one of the

NMFS addresses and to the Office on

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (ATTN:

NOAA Desk Officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William L. Robinson at 206–526–6140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is

proposing an emergency rule and

requesting comments on the proposal to

allow owners or operators of vessels that

collect resource information to be

compensated with the opportunity to

harvest fish in excess of current vessel

limits and/or outside other restrictions

[hereinafter ‘‘compensated with fish’’].

The Council recommended at its

November 1997 meeting in Portland,

OR, that NMFS proceed with this

proposal immediately so that NMFS

may so contract with commercial

fishing vessels to conduct resource

surveys during the summer of 1998.

The fishing industry, environmental

groups, and NMFS have actively

explored various ways to expand and

improve information used in

management of the groundfish fishery

and to involve the fishing industry in

gathering that information. Part of this

effort involves finding more creative

means of compensating a fishing

vessel’s owner or operator with fish for

participating in collecting resource

information. On October 11, 1996, the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) was amended

to authorize the Secretary of Commerce

(Secretary) to use the private sector to

provide vessels, equipment, and

services necessary to survey fishery

resources and to pay for these surveys

through the sale of fish taken during the

survey or, if the quality or amount of

fish is not adequate, on a subsequent,

commercial fishing trip (sec. 402(e)).

Section 303(b)(11) of the MagnusonStevens Act enables the Secretary to

‘‘reserve a portion of the allowable

biological catch of the fishery for use in

scientific research.’’ A vessel that is

chartered by NMFS to conduct resource

surveys becomes a ‘‘scientific research

vessel’’ as defined at 50 CFR 600.10, and

it may not conduct commercial fishing

on the same trip during which a

resource survey is conducted.

Background

These provisions must be

implemented as quickly as possible in

order to include compensation with fish

as a component of contracts NMFS will

award to commercial fishing vessels to

conduct resource surveys during the

summer of 1998. Stock assessments for

the Dover sole/thornyhead/trawl-caught

sablefish (DTS) complex are

controversial and have resulted in

serious concern over the amount and

accuracy of survey data. NMFS is

committed to addressing these concerns.

However, Federal fiscal constraints have

precluded gathering the information

needed. This is further compounded by

the unavailability of the NOAA ship

Miller Freeman, the principle vessel

used for conducting resource surveys in

this fishery, during much of 1998.

Implementation of these provisions

would enable NMFS to expand

sampling in the annual slope survey

which provides data for the stock

assessments for these and other

groundfish species. There is inadequate

time to amend the PCGFMP to provide

for using fish as compensation (and

subtracting the compensation fish from

acceptable biological catch (ABC))

before the slope survey is scheduled to

begin on August 1, 1998. Therefore,

NMFS is proposing this rule under the

Secretary’s emergency rulemaking

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

so that these provisions may be

implemented in time to support the

1998 slope survey. Concurrently, the

Council is preparing an amendment to

the PCGFMP for later implementation.
27036 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Compensation for a Vessel Conducting

a Resource Survey

The Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes

the Secretary, in consultation with the

Council and the interested public, to

structure competitive solicitations by

which a vessel’s owner or operator may

compete for a contract with NMFS to

conduct a resource survey. Resource

surveys generally are conducted from

chartered fishing vessels, chartered

university vessels, and dedicated NOAA

vessels. In a resource survey, all

samples (fish) are collected according to

a specified research plan or protocol.

NMFS distinguishes survey activities by

a scientific research vessel from

commercial fishing activities according

to a process of acknowledging scientific

research described at 50 CFR 600.745(a).

NMFS frequently uses this mechanism

to conduct surveys from chartered

fishing vessels, and, in some cases,

some of the sample has been retained by

the vessel owner/operator for sale to

reduce waste and to defray some of the

costs of the charter. However, any

additional harvest taken on a

subsequent, commercial trip as payment

for the resource survey would not be

considered scientific research, and thus,

was not authorized under the old

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens

Act.

The new provisions of the MagnusonStevens Act provide the authority to go

beyond allowing the retention and sale

of fish caught during the course of a

resource survey by providing

compensation through the opportunity

to harvest fish in excess of current

vessel limits and/or outside of other

restrictions. This rule proposes to

authorize such ‘‘compensation fishing’’

through the issuance of an exempted

fishing permit (EFP) in the Pacific Coast

groundfish fishery, which would enable

the vessel to exceed trip limits (and/or

to be exempt from other specified

management restrictions) so that the

compensation amount could be

achieved. The compensation EFP would

include terms and conditions that

would limit the authorized activities.

Conditions for disposition of bycatch or

any excess catch and for reporting the

value of the amount landed and other

appropriate terms and conditions would

be specified in the EFP. If the PCGFMP

is amended, it is anticipated that

compensation fishing would occur no

later than the end of September of the

year after the survey occurred.

Compensation fishing must take place

during the period specified in the EFP

and must be conducted according to the

terms and conditions of the EFP. The

compensation EFP may also require the

vessel owner or operator to keep

separate records of compensation

fishing conducted after the survey is

completed and to submit them to NMFS

within a specified period of time after

the compensation fishing is completed.

NMFS and the States of Washington,

Oregon, and California may need to

modify their catch reporting systems, if

necessary, so that fish taken under the

compensation EFP are counted

separately from commercial landings.

Process

The process incorporates selection of

commercial vessels to be used to

conduct the resource surveys, issuance

of compensation EFPs to provide for

compensation with fish, and adjustment

of the ABC to account for the

compensation fish used.

Competitive Offers

NMFS may initiate a competitive

solicitation (request for proposals, or

RFP) to select vessels to conduct

resource surveys that use fish as full or

partial compensation. The RFP would

be publicized in the Commerce Business

Daily and would specify factors that

NMFS would use in evaluating the

proposals. Vessel owners would be

expected to submit offers to conduct the

resource survey for a combination of

dollars and compensation fish.

Consultation

At a Council meeting, NMFS would

consult with the Council and receive

public comment on upcoming resource

surveys to be conducted with

groundfish used as whole or partial

compensation. For each proposal,

NMFS would present (1) the maximum

number of vessels expected or needed to

conduct the survey, (2) an estimate of

the species and amount of fish likely to

be needed to compensate the vessel, (3)

when the survey and the compensation

fish would be taken, and (4) the year in

which the compensation fish would be

deducted from the ABC before

determining the harvest guideline (HG)

or quota. This is, in effect, equivalent to

NMFS presenting a compensation EFP

application to the Council for the

compensation amounts. In general,

compensation fish should be similar to

surveyed species, but there may be

reasons to provide compensation with

healthier, more abundant, less

restricted, or more easily targeted

species. For example, NMFS may

decline to pay a vessel with species that

are, or are expected to be, overfished,

that are subject to overfishing, or that

are unavoidably caught with species

that are overfished or subject to

overfishing. NMFS may also want to

take into account other factors such as

expected discards and incidental

catches of other species. If the Council

does not approve the proposal to use

fish as compensation to pay for a

resource survey, NMFS would not use

fish, other than fish taken during the

scientific research, as compensation for

that survey.

Awarding the Contract

NMFS would negotiate and award the

resource survey contracts

in accordance with normal Federal

procurement procedures. The

contract would include any

conditions and limits on compensation

fishing, including a requirement to carry

on board (1) a letter of acknowledgment

of research signed by the Regional

Administrator or designee, while

conducting any resource survey, and (2)

the compensation EFP while conducting

compensation fishing and for a period of

at least 15 days after the end of any

applicable cumulative trip limit period

in which compensation fishing

occurred.

Retention of Samples

All fishing on a resource survey trip

would be required to be conducted

according to scientific protocol and

would be

considered scientific research.

However, some fish caught while

conducting the survey could be retained

and sold as compensation for the

vessel’s participation. Retention of

samples for sale would be at the

discretion of the chief scientist aboard,

who would consult with the vessel

captain. Collection of scientific

information and samples would be the

highest priority and might interfere with

the vessel’s ability to retain marketquality fish.

Issuance of the Compensation EFP

Upon successful completion of the

resource survey and determination of

the amount and/or value of the survey

sample that was retained for sale as

payment for conducting the survey,

NMFS would issue a compensation EFP

to the owner or operator of the vessel if

full compensation has not been

achieved by the cash payment and

retention of the survey sample. The

compensation EFP would allow the

vessel an opportunity to exceed the

current commercial fishing limits by the

total amount of compensation fish

needed. The amount of compensation

fish needed is the amount of fish

specified in the contract less the amount

and/or value of the survey sample

retained for sale. The compensation EFP
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27037

also would exempt the vessel from other

specified management measures.

Accounting for Compensation Fish

Because the species and amounts of

fish used as compensation would not be

determined until the contract is

awarded, it may not be possible to

deduct the amount of compensation fish

from the ABC or HG in the year that the

fish are caught. Even if this could be

done, it would cause great confusion

with the many allocations and limits

that were set before the compensation

amounts were known. NMFS, therefore,

proposes that the compensation fish be

deducted from the ABC the year after

they are caught. During the annual

specification process (50 CFR

660.321(b)), NMFS would advise the

Council of the total amount of fish

caught during the year as compensation

for conducting a resource survey, which

then would be deducted from the

following year’s ABCs before setting the

HGs or quotas.

Compensation for a Commercial Vessel

Collecting Resource Information—an

EFP With a Compensation Clause

NMFS also intends to conduct

smaller-scale cooperative projects on

vessels that are operating in the

commercial fishery. This type of activity

would not be considered scientific

research under 50 CFR 600.745(a)

because it would not be conducted by

a scientific research vessel, even though

the vessels would be collecting resource

information according to strict scientific

standards approved by NMFS. For

small-scale cooperative projects, NMFS

could issue EFPs to fishing vessels

collecting the resource information. The

EFP would require the vessel to conduct

specific activities and allow it to retain

and sell a limited amount of fish above

the amount it could take under its

regular trip limit. After the resource

information has been obtained, the EFP

could authorize the vessel to sell the

fish that were in the sample. This would

be a standard EFP, issued under the

procedures at 50 CFR 600.745(b). Fish

caught under this EFP would be

counted against the ABCs and HGs or

quotas in the year they are caught.

In some circumstances, NMFS might

want to allow the vessel to harvest

slightly more fish than necessary for the

particular project. (For the sablefish

depth-specific sampling EFP expected

in 1998, a vessel would be able to retain

the sample plus a modest compensation

amount, no larger than the size of the

sample, above its normal trip limits.

Samples in these cases generally would

be expected to involve less than 500–

1,500 lb (227–680 kg) of fish per vessel

per month. The extra fish would

compensate the vessel for the extra work

involved in collecting the samples, may

encourage vessels to participate in

surveys, and would utilize more of the

fish taken during the surveys that is

surplus to sampling needs. NMFS could

propose the amount of fish that would

be used as compensation, or the EFP

applicant could propose an amount in

the EFP application. In these cases,

when NMFS announces receipt of the

EFP application and requests comments

as required under 50 CFR 600.745(b),

NMFS would also announce a window

period during which vessels would have

an opportunity to submit EFP

applications. NMFS contemplates two

ways of issuing such EFPs: First, the

EFPs could be issued to individuals

implementing a protocol approved by

NMFS. NMFS would consider the

qualified applicants, issue EFPs to all of

them, select participation by lottery,

issue EFPs to the first applicants, or use

other impartial selection methods.

Second, NMFS could issue the EFP to

a NMFS element, or a state or other

Federal research agency, and the

research agency’s proposal would

include an impartial way of selecting

fishing vessel participants that would

receive individual EFPs under the

umbrella EFP held by the research

agency.

The following analysis focuses on the

use of compensation fishing in the

context of chartering vessels to conduct

resource surveys because the issues and

impacts are of a much greater magnitude

than those involved in an EFP with a

compensation clause.

Biological Impacts

The biological impacts of using fish as

compensation would be

expected to be neutral in the short

term and positive in the long term. In

the short term, the amount of fish used

as compensation is intended to be

within the ABC, and therefore, would be

within current acceptable biological

levels. In general, NMFS would be most

likely to compensate the owner or

operator of a vessel with identical or

similar species to those taken in the

resource survey. However, NMFS may

decline to compensate a vessel with

certain species, particularly stocks that

are (or are expected to be) overfished,

subject to overfishing, or have bycatch

that are overfished (or are expected to

be) or are subject to overfishing. In the

long term, the additional information

that is gathered because NMFS is able

to compensate vessels with fish will

provide more and better data for use in

stock assessments, which should result

in better management of the stock and

less likelihood of overfishing.

Socio-economic Impacts

The amount of the compensation fish

(as a percentage of the ABC) would

depend on the value of the

compensation species and the cost of

the survey. The cost of the survey is

relatively fixed, regardless of the

abundance and value of the species

surveyed. The contract for an extensive

survey (e.g., 2 vessels for 60 days at sea

each), such as the current NMFS

triennial trawl survey, would probably

cost less than $450,000, under 0.5

percent of the landed value of all Pacific

coast groundfish, 590 million, or

approximately 1 percent of the $45

million value of the 1996 fisheries for

the Dover sole, thornyheads, trawlcaught sablefish complex (DTS). A

smaller scale survey targeted on

nearshore flatfish (e.g., Petrale sole,

English sole, rex sole) would cost close

to $175,000, 2.5 percent of the value of

this $7 million flatfish fishery. However,

not all components of the groundfish

fishery are useful as compensation fish.

Only those groundfish species for which

there is a constraining trip limit, season,

or other management restriction would

be desirable targets as compensation

because a vessel is not limited in its

catch of other groundfish species. Thus,

the above comparison that is most

relevant to this discussion is the one for

the DTS complex. An unfortunate

aspect is that most depressed stocks

(such as Pacific ocean perch) cannot

afford an allocation of compensation

fish, while most healthy stocks (like

English sole) have no trip limits or

allocations that would be desirable

compensation. These considerations do

not diminish the utility of using fish as

compensation, but they do limit the

range of species that could be

considered as payment.

Vessels engaged in extended resource

surveys may not have an adequate

opportunity to take their monthly

commercial trip limit. The contract and

EFP may address the possibility of

allowing the take of a monthly trip limit

outside the normal period as one of the

activities that might be provided as

compensation for conducting the

survey.

The amount of compensation fish

awarded to a survey vessel would be

deducted from the subsequent year’s

ABC. If compensation fish comprise a

large proportion of an HG or quota, then

potentially trip or bag limits for that

species could be lowered, or other

constraints on the fishery could be

necessary. However, the amounts used

as compensation are expected to be less
27038 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

than 5 percent of an ABC, well within

the range of uncertainty associated with

ABCs, inseason catch monitoring, and

trip limit derivations. Therefore, it is not

likely that awarding fish for

compensation would result in lower trip

limits or additional or earlier

restrictions, although potentially this

could occur.

Because the amount of fish used for

compensation would be subtracted ‘‘off

the top’’ of the ABC, the loss of

compensation fish would be shared

among all sectors and vessels

(commercial, recreational, and tribal) in

the fishery.

Use of compensation fish would

reduce the Federal outlay of capital,

although it would increase the Federal

workload by adding additional EFP

procedures and potentially complicating

the determination of acceptable charter

offers for resource surveys.

Use of fish as compensation for

conducting resource surveys should

increase the participation and interest

by members of

the fishing industry, many of whom

have been skeptical of NMFS’s data and

survey procedures. The resulting

cooperation between industry and

government would provide scientists

with valuable guidance from veteran

fishers and would provide industry with

first-hand insight into scientific

sampling procedures.

A survey vessel would receive an

extra financial benefit under this

proposed process; however, the

recipient and level of the benefit would

be determined through a competitive

process.

Using fish as compensation would

enable more data to be gathered than

would otherwise be possible. This

should lead to better stock assessments

and a better long-term prognosis for a

sustainable fishery and thus contribute

to stability in the fishing industry and

in the resources upon which the

industry depends.

Classification

This emergency rule has been

determined to be not significant for

purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant General Counsel for

Legislation and Regulation of the

Department of Commerce certified to

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration that this

proposed rule, if adopted, would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities as

follows:

NMFS has established standards for

determining whether an action will have a

significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. NMFS has

determined that, in general, a substantial

number of small entities would be 20 percent

of those small entities affected by the rule.

Economic impacts on small entities are

considered to be ‘‘significant’’ if the proposed

action would result in any of the following:

(a) reduction in annual gross revenues by

more than 5 percent; (b) increase in total

costs of production by more than 5 percent

as a result of an increase in compliance costs;

(c) compliance costs as a percent of sales for

small entities are at least 10 percent higher

than compliance costs as a percent of sales

for large entities; (d) capital cost of

compliance represent a significant portion of

capital available to small entities,

considering internal cash flow and external

financing capabilities; or, (e) as a rule of

thumb, 2 percent of small business entities

being forced to cease business operations.

The proposed rule would result in no

additional compliance costs, and therefore

items (b), (c), and (d) are not at issue. Item

(e) is not relevant as this action would not

force any business to cease operations. Only

(a) appears potentially relevant to this issue.

This proposed rule could affect a

maximum of 2,270 vessels. Of these,

approximately 2,260 (almost 100 percent) are

considered small entities. The rule is

expected to have several different types of

impacts. For vessels that obtain contracts to

conduct research in exchange for fish, this

rule would provide increased opportunity for

profit. This rule is also expected to lead to

the availability of increased scientific data on

the status of the fishery. The availability of

this data will enhance the ability of the

agency to manage the fishery and is likely to

lead to long-term benefits for all participants.

There is also the small possibility that this

rule could result in negative economic

impacts on some fishery participants. The

fish that are awarded as compensation would

be deducted from next year’s acceptable

biological catch. The amounts likely to be

diverted for compensation would be so small

as to be within the range of accuracy

expected for inseason monitoring of harvest

guidelines and quotas, and most likely would

not change the size of trip limits or their date

of achievement. However, there is a remote

possibility that some trip limits would be

lowered, or lowered earlier, as a result of the

small compensation allocation for survey

vessels. If this happens, those vessels that

routinely achieve their Dover sole,

thornyhead, and trawl-caught sablefish (DTS)

limits could experience some degree of

economic loss. NMFS estimates that

approximately 208 limited entry vessels

achieved these limits during at least one triplimit period between July 1996-June 1997.

Thus, 9 percent (208 vessels/2,260 vessels of

the affected small entities) could

hypothetically experience some economic

loss as a result of this rule. NMFS estimates

that the total cost of the 1998 compensation

fish would be $135,000. If this amount is

divided between the limited entry and open

access fleets in proportion to their share of

the fishery, then the cost to the limited entry

fleet would be approximately $128,000 and

the cost to the open access fleet would be

approximately $7,000.

If the entire $128,000 share of the survey

cost for the limited entry fleet were

supported by the 208 vessels that achieved a

cumulative trip limit of one DTS species

during one trip-limit period, the average cost

to each of these 208 vessels would be $615.

The average annual fishing revenue for

limited entry vessels in 1996 was $204,000.

Thus, the average cost per vessel of spreading

the $128,000 cost among 208 vessels would

be 0.3 percent ($615 divided by $204,000). In

addition, NMFS notes that the smallest 12-

month revenue for any of these 208 vessels

was $15,000, 5 percent of which is $750,

which is higher than the $615 average cost

of the compensation fish for these 208

vessels. As the vessel revenue increases,

which it does for the remaining 207 vessels,

the relative impact of the cost of

compensation fish becomes smaller, and

remains less than 5 percent. From a slightly

different perspective, if the cost associated

with using fish as compensation were

$128,000 and were distributed amongst the

limited entry vessels in proportion to the

number of periods in which they attained a

limit (during July 1996-June 1997), then the

largest reduction in annual revenue for any

vessel would be 0.5 percent. NMFS does not

anticipate lowering trip limits in the open

access fishery, because the maximum amount

of fish that this rule could possibly reduce

the open access fishery by ($7,000 worth) is

so small.

This rule contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and

which have been approved by OMB

under OMB control number 0648–0203

for Federal fishing permits.

Notwithstanding any other provision of

law, no person is required to respond to,

nor shall any person be subject to a

penalty for failure to comply with, a

collection of information subject to the

requirements of the PRA unless that

collection of information displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

The public reporting burden for

applications for exempted fishery

permits is estimated at 1 hour per

response; burden for reporting by

exempted fishing permittees is

estimated at 30 minutes per response.

These estimates include the time for

reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and

completing and revising the collection

of information.

Public comment is invited regarding:

Whether this proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the function of the

agency, including whether the

information has practical utility; the

accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity

of the information to be collected; and

ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information, including

through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of information
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27039

technology. Send comments regarding

these burden estimates or any other

aspect of the data requirements,

including suggestions for reducing the

burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and

to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC 20503 (ATTN: NOAA Desk Officer).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

Administrative practice and

procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries,

Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives,

Indians, Northern Mariana Islands,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 11, 1998.

David L. Evans,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST

COAST STATES AND IN THE

WESTERN PACIFIC

l. The authority citation for part 660

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

2. In § 660.306, paragraph (d) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 660.306 Prohibitions.

* * * * *

(d) Fish for groundfish in violation of

any terms or conditions attached to an

EFP under 50 CFR 600.745 or 660.350.

* * * * *

3. In subpart G, a new § 660.350 is

added to read as follows:

§ 660.350 Compensation with fish for

collecting resource information—exempted

fishing permits off Washington, Oregon,

and California.

In addition to the reasons stated in

§ 600.745(b)(1) of this chapter, an EFP

may be issued under this subpart G for

the purpose of compensating the owner

or operator of a vessel for collecting

resource information according to a

protocol approved by NMFS. The EFP

would allow a vessel to retain fish as

compensation in excess of trip limits, or

to be exempt from other specified

management measures for the Pacific

coast groundfish fishery.

(a) Compensation EFP. A

compensation EFP may be issued to the

owner or operator of a vessel that

conducted a resource survey according

to a contract with NMFS. A vessel’s

total compensation from all sources (in

terms of dollars or tons of fish and

including fish from survey samples or

compensation fish) will be determined

through normal Federal procurement

procedures. The compensation EFP will

specify the maximum amount or value

of fish that may be retained by the

vessel after the resource survey is

completed.

(1) Competitive offers. NMFS may

initiate a competitive solicitation

(request for proposals or RFP) to select

vessels to conduct resource surveys that

use fish as full or partial compensation,

following normal Federal procurement

procedures.

(2) Consultation. At a Council

meeting, NMFS will consult with the

Council and receive public comment on

upcoming resource surveys to be

conducted if groundfish could be used

as whole or partial compensation. For

each proposal, NMFS will present:

(i) The maximum number of vessels

expected or needed to conduct the

survey,

(ii) An estimate of the species and

amount of fish likely to be needed as

compensation,

(iii) When the survey and

compensation fish would be taken, and

(iv) The year in which the

compensation fish would be deducted

from the ABC before determining the

harvest guideline or quota. Generally,

compensation fish would be similar to

surveyed species, but there may be

reasons to provide payment with

healthier, more abundant, less restricted

stocks, or more easily targeted species.

For example, NMFS may decline to pay

a vessel with species that are, or are

expected to be, overfished, or that are

subject to overfishing, or that are

unavoidably caught with species that

are overfished or subject to overfishing.

NMFS also may also consider levels of

discards, bycatch, and other factors. If

the Council does not approve providing

whole or partial compensation for the

conduct of a survey, NMFS will not use

fish, other than fish taken during the

scientific research, as compensation for

that survey.

(3) Issuance of the compensation EFP.

Upon successful completion of the

survey, NMFS will issue a

‘‘compensation EFP’’ to the vessel if it

has not been fully compensated. The

procedures in § 600.745(b)(1) through

(b)(4) of this chapter do not apply to a

compensation EFP issued under this

subpart for the Pacific coast groundfish

fishery (50 CFR Part 660, subpart G).

(4) Terms and conditions of the

compensation EFP. Conditions for

disposition of bycatch or any excess

catch, for reporting the value of the

amount landed, and other appropriate

terms and conditions will be specified

in the EFP. Compensation fishing must

occur during the period specified in the

EFP, but no later than the end of

September of the fishing year following

the survey, and must be conducted

according to the terms and conditions of

the EFP.

(5) Reporting the compensation catch.

The compensation EFP may require the

vessel owner or operator to keep

separate records of compensation

fishing and to submit them to NMFS

within a specified period of time after

the compensation fishing is completed.

(6) Accounting for the compensation

fish. As part of the annual specification

process (50 CFR 660.321), NMFS will

advise the Council of the amount of fish

retained under a compensation EFP,

which then will be deducted from the

next year’s ABCs before setting the HGs

or quotas.

(b) EFP with a compensation clause.

An EFP may be issued to a commercial

fishing vessel for the purpose of

collecting resource information in

excess of current management limits (50

CFR 600.745(b)). The EFP may include

a compensation clause that allows the

participating vessel to be compensated

with fish for its efforts to collect

resource information according to

NMFS’ approved protocol. If

compensation with fish is requested in

an EFP application, or proposed by

NMFS, the following provisions apply

in addition to those at 50 CFR

600.745(b).

(1) Application. In addition to the

requirements in § 600.745(b) of this

chapter, application for an EFP with a

compensation clause must clearly state

whether a vessel’s participation is

contingent upon compensation with

groundfish and, if so, the minimum

amount (in metric tons, round weight)

and the species. As with other EFPs

issued under § 600.745 of this chapter,

the application may be submitted by

any individual, including a state fishery

management agency or other research

institution.

(2) Denial. In addition to the reasons

stated in § 600.745(b)(3)(iii) of this

chapter, the application will be denied

if the requested compensation fishery,

species, or amount is unacceptable for

reasons such as, but not limited to, the

following: NMFS concludes the value of

the resource information is not

commensurate with the value of the

compensation fish; the proposed

compensation involves species that are

(or are expected to be) overfished or

subject to overfishing, fishing in times

or areas where fishing is otherwise

prohibited or severely restricted, or

fishing for species that would involve

unavoidable bycatch of species that are

overfished or subject to overfishing; or

NMFS concludes the information can
27040 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

reasonably be obtained at less cost to the

resource.

(3) Window period for other

applications. If the RA or designee

agrees that compensation should be

considered, then a window period will

be announced in the Federal Register

during which additional participants

will have an opportunity to apply. This

notification would be made at the same

time as announcement of receipt of the

application and request for comments

required under § 660.745(b). If there are

more qualified applicants than needed

for a particular time and area, NMFS

will choose among the qualified vessels,

either randomly, in order of receipt of

the completed application, or by other

impartial selection methods. If the

permit applicant is a state, university, or

Federal entity other than NMFS and

NMFS approves the selection method,

the permit applicant may chose among

the qualified vessels, either randomly,

in order of receipt of the vessel

application, or by other impartial

selection methods.

(4) Terms and conditions. The EFP

will specify the amounts that may be

taken as scientific samples and as

compensation, the time period during

which the compensation fishing must

occur, management measures that are

waived while fishing under the EFP,

and other terms and conditions

appropriate to the fishery and the

collection of resource information.

NMFS may require compensation

fishing to occur on the same trip that the

resource information is collected.

(5) Accounting for the catch. Samples

taken under this EFP, as well as any

compensation fish, are counted toward

the current year’s catch or landings.

[FR Doc. 98–13049 Filed 5–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F