[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 94 (Friday, May 15, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27035-27040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13049]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 NMFS-approved 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 Magnuson-Stevens 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.
[[Page 27036]]
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 Magnuson-Stevens 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 market-quality 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
[[Page 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, trawl-
caught 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
[[Page 27038]]
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
trip-limit 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-of-information 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
[[Page 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 Sec. 660.306, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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 Sec. 660.350 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 660.350 Compensation with fish for collecting resource
information--exempted fishing permits off Washington, Oregon, and
California.
In addition to the reasons stated in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
Sec. 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
Sec. 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
[[Page 27040]]
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 Sec. 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
