29670 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

and guidelines and then reduce that

penalty by 50 percent for each violation

processed under this program. In no

case will a penalty be less than the

statutory minimum of $250.

If the recipient pays the ticket amount

and states that action has been taken to

correct the violation, the matter is

closed and there is no further agency

action. If the recipient elects to contest

a ticket, that person may do so, within

45 days of receiving the ticket, by

making an informal response under 49

CFR 107.317 or requesting a formal

hearing under 49 CFR 107.319. In this

situation, the ticket will be the

functional equivalent of an NOPV, and

contested matters will be handled by

OCC. OCC will not be bound by the

reduced penalty amount shown on the

ticket and could impose a penalty as

high as the unreduced proposed penalty

determined under RSPA’s civil penalty

guidelines, which is also shown on the

ticket. OCC will not seek a penalty

greater than the highest penalty amount

shown on the ticket.

A recipient waives the right to a

hearing by failing to respond to the

ticket within 45 days. Moreover, failure

to respond is deemed an admission of

the violation, and the reduced penalty is

owed to RSPA. Unpaid penalty amounts

constitute a debt owed to the United

States Government.

III. Pilot Ticketing Program Evaluation

The NPRM contained a proposal for a

two-year pilot program. RSPA indicated

in the preamble of the final rule that, at

the end of two years from May 15, 1996,

it would evaluate the program in terms

of cost savings, time savings, and impact

on the effectiveness of its compliance

program.

1. Experience Under the Program

Between June 1, 1996 and April 30,

1998, RSPA issued 380 tickets and

closed 285 tickets with collection of

$351,757 in civil penalties. Regarding

the closed tickets, 231 of them (82%)

involved one or more of the violations

previously listed. Nearly half of all the

closed tickets involved failure to train

employees, failure to maintain records

of training or both. The next most

frequent violations were manufacture of

unauthorized DOT specification

packaging after its expiration date (8%),

failure to register with RSPA (7%), and

operating under an expired exemption

(6%).

2. Cost Savings

RSPA has determined that, because of

its streamlined approach, the ticketing

program has produced significant costs

savings for its compliance program and

for the regulated community. A party

who chooses to pay the ticket receives

an immediate cost saving because the

proposed penalty is half of what it

would have been in a civil penalty

proceeding. The ticket recipient also

avoids the need to make a detailed

written response to the agency (other

than a statement addressing corrective

action) and avoids the oral and written

communications that arise during OCC

processing of the case. The formal

hearing process is bypassed and legal

fees are avoided.

OHME and OCC realize cost savings

when a party elects to pay a ticket

because there is no OCC or post-ticket

OHME involvement in the matter. OCC

does not have to issue an NOPV, hold

an informal conference, respond to a

compromise offers, issue an order,

participate in ALJ proceedings, draft a

decision on appeal, or issue a close-out

letter. OHME avoids involvement in

informal conferences or ALJ

proceedings and does not have to

interact with the OCC on factual and

technical issues.

Even where a ticket is contested, there

are cost savings to OCC, which will not

be required to issue an NOPV, but can

rely on the ticket to have provided

notice of the alleged violations to the

ticket recipient. The information that

OCC receives from OHME will contain

the ticket, a response to the ticket

(which may set forth corrective action)

and possibly a compromise offer. This

information allows OCC to begin

processing the case in a more advanced

state than would otherwise be the case

and reduces the overall processing time.

3. Time Savings

As stated in the discussion of cost

savings, the ticketing program has

produced significant time savings in the

amount of work required by OHME,

OCC and the ticket recipient to process

an enforcement case. In addition, the

average length of time it takes to process

a ticket is significantly less than the

time it takes to process a case under the

current procedures. To illustrate, RSPA

closed 200 civil penalty cases in 1997;

the average time from issuance of the

Notice of Probable Violation to closure

of the case was 17 months. By contrast,

RSPA closed 145 tickets in 1997; the

average time from issuance to closure

was 1.5 months.

4. Impact on the Effectiveness of RSPA’s

Compliance Program

The primary means for RSPA to

determine the effectiveness of its

enforcement program is to conduct

reinspections of companies involved in

enforcement actions. Although RSPA’s

reinspection program with regard to

civil penalties cases is extensive, RSPA

only recently began to do reinspections

of parties which had received tickets.

Thus far, the compliance rate is over

90%.

Another direct result of the

effectiveness of the ticketing program is

the ability of RSPA personnel to spend

the time saved by disposing of cases

through tickets on other matters, such as

outreach programs, inspection and

investigation of more serious types of

violations and more expeditious

processing of existing enforcement

cases.

IV. Conclusion

In light of the cost and time savings

for all involved parties and the positive

impact on the effectiveness of RSPA’s

hazardous materials compliance

program, RSPA has decided to continue

the ticketing program.

Issued in Washington, DC on May 22,

1998.

Alan I. Roberts,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous

Materials Transportation.

[FR Doc. 98–14285 Filed 5–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 971208297–8054–02; I.D.

052698A]

Fisheries of the Economic Exclusive

Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Fisheries

by Vessels using Hook-and-Line Gear

in the Gulf of Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed

fishing for groundfish by vessels using

hook-and-line gear in the Gulf of Alaska

(GOA), except for sablefish or demersal

shelf rockfish. This action is necessary

because the second seasonal bycatch

allowance of Pacific halibut apportioned

to hook-and-line gear targeting

groundfish other than sablefish or

demersal shelf rockfish in the GOA has

been caught.

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local

time (A.l.t.), May 26, 1998, until 1200

hrs, A.l.t., September 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Furuness, 907–586–7228.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 29671

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive

economic zone is managed by NMFS

according to the Fishery Management

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act. Fishing by U.S.

vessels is governed by regulations

implementing the FMP at subpart H of

50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The prohibited species bycatch

mortality allowance of Pacific halibut

for the hook-and-line groundfish

fisheries, (defined at

§ 679.21(d)(4)(iii)(C)), other than

sablefish or demersal shelf rockfish, was

established by the Final 1998 Harvest

Specifications for Groundfish for the

GOA (63 FR 12027, March 12, 1998) for

the second season, the period May 18,

1998, through August 31, 1998, as 15

mt.

In accordance with § 679.21(d)(7)(ii),

the Administrator, Alaska Region,

NMFS (Regional Administrator), has

determined that the second seasonal

apportionment of the 1998 Pacific

halibut bycatch mortality allowance

specified for the hook-and-line

groundfish fisheries other than sablefish

or demersal shelf rockfish in the GOA

has been caught. Consequently, NMFS

is prohibiting directed fishing for

groundfish other than sablefish or

demersal shelf rockfish by vessels using

hook-and-line gear in the GOA.

Maximum retainable bycatch amounts

may be found in the regulations at

§ 679.20(e) and (f).

Classification

This action responds to the best

available information recently obtained

from the fishery. It must be

implemented immediately in order to

prevent exceeding the second seasonal

apportionment of the 1998 Pacific

halibut bycatch mortality allowance

specified for the GOA hook-and-line

groundfish fisheries other than sablefish

or demersal shelf rockfish. A delay in

the effective date is impracticable and

contrary to the public interest. The

second seasonal bycatch allowance of

Pacific halibut apportioned to hook-andline gear targeting groundfish other than

sablefish or demersal shelf rockfish in

the GOA has been caught. Further delay

would only result in exceeding the

second seasonal apportionment. NMFS

finds for good cause that the

implementation of this action can not be

delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under

5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective

date is hereby waived.

This action is required by § 679.21

and is exempt from review under E.O.

12866.

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

Dated: May 27, 1998.

Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 98–14430 Filed 5–27–98; 4:22 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F