[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21711]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 6, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Department of Commerce





_______________________________________________________________________



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 204, et al.




North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan; Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 204, 301, 671, 672, 675, 676, and 677

[Docket No. 940412-4234; I.D. 033194E]
RIN 0648-AD80

 
North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to implement the North Pacific 
Fisheries Research Plan (Research Plan) for the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) 
groundfish fishery, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) management 
area groundfish fishery, BSAI area king and Tanner crab fisheries, and 
Pacific halibut fishery in convention waters off Alaska. The Research 
Plan will provide an industry-funded observer program and promote 
management, conservation, and scientific understanding of groundfish, 
halibut, and crab resources off Alaska.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Individual copies of the Research Plan and the environmental 
assessment/regulatory impact review may be obtained from the North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council, P.O. Box 103136, Anchorage, AK 
99510.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan J. Salveson, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The domestic groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA in the 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are managed under the Fishery Management 
Plan (FMP) for the Groundfish Fishery of the BSAI Area and the FMP for 
Groundfish of the GOA. The FMPs were prepared by the North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) (Magnuson Act) 
and are implemented for the U.S. fishery by regulations at 50 CFR parts 
620, 672, and 675. The domestic fishery for Pacific halibut off Alaska 
is managed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), as 
provided by the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 773-
773k), with implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 301. Regulations 
implementing individual fishing quota (IFQ) measures for the fixed gear 
sablefish and halibut fisheries off Alaska are at 50 CFR part 676. The 
king and Tanner crab fisheries of the BSAI area are managed under the 
FMP for the Commercial King and Tanner Crab Fisheries in the BSAI. This 
FMP delegates management of the crab resources in the BSAI area to the 
State of Alaska (State) with Federal oversight. Regulations necessary 
to carry out the crab FMP appear at 50 CFR part 671.
    Section 313 of the Magnuson Act, as amended by section 404 of the 
High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act, Pub. L. 102-582, 
authorizes the Council to prepare, in consultation with the Secretary 
of Commerce (Secretary), a Research Plan for all fisheries under the 
Council's jurisdiction, except salmon fisheries.
    The Council adopted a draft Research Plan at its June 1992 meeting 
and later reconsidered and adopted a revised Research Plan at its 
December 1993 meeting. A proposed rule to implement the Research Plan 
was published in the Federal Register on May 6, 1994 (59 FR 23664). 
Comments on the proposed rule were invited through July 5, 1994. Nine 
letters providing written comment were received within the comment 
period and one letter supporting the Research Plan was received after 
the end of the comment period. Oral comment on the Research Plan also 
was received during the June 1994 meeting of the Council, and during 
three public hearings conducted by NMFS on the Research Plan in 
Anchorage, AK (June 7, 1994), Seattle, WA (June 15, 1994) and Portland, 
OR (June 16, 1994). Written and oral comments on the Research Plan are 
summarized in the Response to Comments section, below.
    Section 313(c)(3) of the Magnuson Act requires that, within 45 days 
of the close of the public comment period, the Secretary, in 
consultation with the Council, shall analyze the public comment 
received and publish final regulations for implementing [the Research 
Plan]. Consultation with the Council was concluded July 14, 1994, in a 
teleconference meeting between the Council and NMFS. During this 
consultation, public comments received by NMFS on the Research Plan 
were reviewed and alternatives for NMFS' response considered.
    The Secretary has approved the Research Plan under section 313(c) 
of the Magnuson Act. Upon reviewing the Research Plan and the comments 
on the proposed rule to implement it, NMFS has determined that this 
final rule is consistent with the Magnuson Act and the Research Plan as 
adopted by the Council. The Research Plan requires that observers be 
stationed on certain fishing vessels and U.S. fish processors 
participating in the BSAI management area groundfish, GOA groundfish, 
and BSAI area king and Tanner crab fisheries. These requirements may be 
extended to the halibut fishery off Alaska. Observers will be deployed 
for the purpose of collecting data necessary for the conservation, 
management, and scientific understanding of fisheries under the 
Council's authority. The Research Plan also will establish a system of 
fees to pay for the costs of implementing the Research Plan. The fees 
will be based on the exvessel value of retained catch in the BSAI 
management area and GOA groundfish fisheries, the BSAI area king and 
Tanner crab fisheries, and the Pacific halibut fishery off Alaska 
(Research Plan fisheries). Future recommendations by the Council to 
include other fisheries under the Research Plan will require an 
amendment or amendments to the Research Plan and to the regulations 
implementing it.
    The Research Plan and its implementation are explained further in 
the preamble to the proposed rule. With the exception of the portion of 
the final rule implementing the first year of the Research Plan, the 
measures set out in the final rule do not differ significantly from the 
proposed rule.

Response to Comments

    Nine letters of comments were received within the comment period. 
NMFS also received oral comments during three public hearings on the 
Research Plan. A summary of the written and oral comments and NMFS' 
response follows:
    Comment 1. During the current Magnuson Act reauthorization, the 
Secretary should recommend that the name of the Research Plan be 
changed to the North Pacific Fisheries Observer Plan to better reflect 
its intent.
    Response. NMFS agrees that the title ``North Pacific Fisheries 
Research Plan'' does not accurately reflect the scope of the statutory 
authority set out at section 313 of the Magnuson Act. Nonetheless, any 
change to the title would require an amendment to the Magnuson Act. 
NMFS' ability to include such an amendment in the current 
reauthorization process is limited. An amendment to the Research Plan 
as adopted by the Council also would be required. NMFS recommends that 
the Council consider changing the name of its Research Plan the next 
time an amendment to the Research Plan is initiated. Until the name of 
the Research Plan is amended, its implementing regulations will 
continue to refer to the ``Research Plan'' to reduce confusion and 
inconsistency between the Research Plan as adopted by the Council and 
its implementing regulations.
    Comment 2. The Research Plan could become a model for other user 
fee programs proposed nationwide. This Research Plan, therefore, must 
be efficient, equitable, and supported by the industry.
    Response. NMFS agrees. The Research Plan must be efficiently 
administered and equitable to all affected sectors of the industry to 
ensure its success. NMFS believes that the final rule implementing the 
Research Plan achieves this goal.
    Comment 3. The present Observer Plan is satisfactory and the 
implementation of the Research Plan should be delayed until a 
comprehensive rationalization program for the crab and groundfish 
fisheries is implemented. Concerns about maintaining the integrity of 
the observer program under the existing Observer Plan can be readily 
addressed by contracts and penalties without the need to impose a 
costly new system on the industry.
    Response. For reasons outlined in the proposed rule, NMFS, the 
Council, and many sectors of the affected industry do not believe that 
the current Observer Plan is satisfactory. Once the Research Plan is 
fully implemented, the cost of observer coverage would be linked much 
more closely to both the benefits each participant receives from the 
observer program and the participant's ability to pay for observer 
coverage. In attaining a more equitable payment system, the costs for 
observer coverage will be increased for some operations, decreased for 
some, and remain unchanged for others.
    Delaying Research Plan implementation until a comprehensive 
rationalization program for groundfish and crab fisheries is 
implemented would unnecessarily delay a reasonable response to the 
concerns existing under the current observer programs, including 
conflict of interest and nonpayment for observer coverage. Under the 
current observer program, NMFS has limited ability to monitor contracts 
between vessel and processor owners, observer contractors, and 
observers. Under the Research Plan, observers will be employees of NMFS 
contractors and the possibility of conflicts of interest between the 
observers and the vessels they are observing is greatly reduced. 
Furthermore, NMFS will be in a better position to take action on cases 
of observer nonpayment by contractors.
    Comment 4. Catcher/processors will be assessed a fee of up to 2 
percent of the exvessel value of their retained catch. For some 
processors with 100-percent observer coverage, this will result in a 
fee that reflects up to an eight-fold increase in costs for observer 
coverage. An increase of this magnitude is difficult to accept, given 
that observer coverage on these vessels cannot be any greater than it 
is now, and many more industry participants will be sharing the costs 
of the program.
    Response. One of the objectives of the Research Plan is to 
distribute the costs of observer coverage more equitably. Those who 
have low observer coverage costs relative to the exvessel value of the 
fish they retain and those who currently have no observer coverage 
requirements will experience increased costs. Those who have high 
observer coverage costs relative to the exvessel value of the fish they 
retain will experience decreased costs. The distribution of costs under 
the Research Plan will become more equitable, both in terms of the 
benefits received from the observer program and the ability to pay for 
observer coverage.
    Comment 5. Fishermen should not have to pay costs associated with 
agency support of the groundfish and crab observer programs under the 
Research Plan when NMFS and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 
(ADF&G) have paid for these costs in the past.
    Response. Agency costs to administer and operate the groundfish and 
crab observer programs are authorized recoverable costs under the 
Research Plan. Nonetheless, NMFS is pursuing continued funding of the 
observer programs at current levels. If NMFS is successful, the use of 
the North Pacific Fishery Observer Fund (Observer Fund) to support 
agency costs of implementing the observer program will be minimized.
    Comment 6. The first-year fee collection program should be 
restructured to avoid the proposed ``double payment'' program requiring 
vessels using observers to pay the costs of observer coverage in 
addition to paying the Research Plan fee, with a later rebate for 
observer costs. Alternative fee collection programs include crediting 
billed fee assessments for observer costs, an accelerated rebate of 
costs for observer coverage over the 2-percent assessment rate, or a 
system where vessels and processors currently paying for observers 
would not be required to pay the Research Plan fee.
    Response. NMFS agrees and has implemented a revised program for the 
first year of the Research Plan that allows processors to subtract from 
their billed fee assessments observer costs incurred by the processor 
during 1995. Groundfish catcher vessels equal to or greater than 60 ft 
(18.3 m) length overall (LOA) and crab catcher vessels required to 
carry observers while participating in specified crab fisheries will be 
exempt from fee assessments during 1995 because these two sectors of 
the Research Plan fisheries currently pay costs for observer coverage 
that are equal to or greater than amounts they would contribute under 
the Research Plan fee assessment program.
    Comment 7. The proposed rebate program during the first year of the 
Research Plan constitutes an unfair imposition on the segment of the 
industry that supposedly has already been unfairly burdened, 
particularly vessels that currently are required to obtain 100-percent 
observer coverage. A different approach is recommended under which 
industry participants who are not now paying any observer costs would 
pay the 2-percent fee; those who are paying for 30-percent observer 
coverage would continue to pay for that coverage, without rebate, and 
would pay 70 percent of the 2-percent fee; and those who are paying for 
100-percent observer coverage would continue to pay for that coverage, 
without rebate, and would not pay any portion of the 2-percent fee. In 
the second year, all participants would be assessed the same fee 
percentage under the percentage fee system.
    Response. NMFS has revised the first year of the Research Plan to 
eliminate the proposed rebate program. The final rule exempts from the 
first-year fee assessment program those operations that currently pay 
costs for observer coverage that equal or exceed costs that they would 
pay under the Research Plan once it is fully implemented (see the 
response to Comment 6). Furthermore, participants in the Research Plan 
fisheries who currently are not required to obtain observer coverage 
will pay their full portion of the 1995 fee percentage. Because the fee 
percentage authorized under the Research Plan is assessed against the 
exvessel value of retained catch, fee assessments can exceed current 
costs for observer coverage by vessels and processors required to have 
100-percent observer coverage. These operations will be required to pay 
the difference between the fee assessment and observer costs. Once the 
Research Plan is fully implemented, all participants in the Research 
Plan fisheries will contribute equitably to the payment of Research 
Plan fee assessments based on the annual fee percentage and the 
exvessel value of retained catch.
    Comment 8. If the proposed rule is revised to eliminate the first-
year rebate program, concern exists that insufficient start-up funds 
would be collected to allow full implementation of the Research Plan by 
January 1996. This is of particular concern if fees are assessed only 
against fish harvested and processed by vessels or processors not 
required to obtain observer coverage.
    Response. See the response to Comment 6. The revised program for 
the first year of the Research Plan will collect fees from all 
participants in the Research Plan fisheries except from those persons 
who pay costs for required observer coverage that exceed their fee 
liability under the Research Plan. Based on the analysis presented in 
the final environmental assessment/regulatory impact review (EA/RIR) 
and assuming a 2-percent fee percentage for 1995, the revised program 
should provide sufficient start-up funds for full implementation of the 
Research Plan by January 1996.
    Comment 9. If a rebate program is implemented for the first year of 
the Research Plan, rebates should be based on actual costs for observer 
coverage and not on a ``standardized cost of an observer day.''
    Response. NMFS agrees. Although the final rule implementing the 
Research Plan does not include a rebate program, a processor can 
subtract from its portion of a billed fee assessment the actual costs 
incurred by the processor for observer coverage during 1995.
    Comment 10. The Research Plan should include a requirement for an 
annual audit of the program by an independent (non-government) auditor.
    Response. At this time NMFS believes that a regulatory requirement 
for an annual audit of the Research Plan by an independent (non-
government) auditor is unnecessary. Under the Department of Commerce 
(DOC) Financial Management System (FIMA), annual financial reports that 
summarize all financial activity within the Observer Fund will be 
prepared for review by the Council's Observer Oversight Committee (OOC) 
and the Council.
    Special audits by a non-government or independent governmental 
agency, such as the General Accounting Office (GAO) or the DOC 
Inspector General, can be solicited by the Council, provided the 
intended extent of the audit is clearly defined and the audit utilizes 
generally accepted governmental auditing standards issued by the 
Comptroller General of the United States. NMFS believes costs 
associated with a special audit would be recoverable under the Research 
Plan.
    Comment 11. The proposed requirements for 60-day and 10-day advance 
notice to observer contractors for observer coverage do not pose a 
problem for those fishing seasons that are scheduled regularly and well 
in advance. These requirements will be impossible to meet when inseason 
changes in season opening dates occur, or when reserves are released. 
These latter types of announcements are frequently made with notice of 
a week or less, obviously precluding any ability to arrange for an 
observer 60, or even 10 days, in advance. The proposed rule should be 
revised to provide an exception for situations in which advance notice 
cannot be given due to circumstances outside the control of the vessel 
owner.
    Response. The final rule implementing the Research Plan does not 
change the proposed criteria for notifying an observer contractor of a 
vessel's or processor's observer needs. The 60-day and 10-day 
notification periods are necessary to guarantee the availability of 
observers to meet observer coverage requirements, particularly if 
additional observer training classes must be arranged to meet the 
demand for observer coverage. NMFS agrees that circumstances could 
occur that would preclude a person from providing a 60-day or 10-day 
notice to an observer contractor for observer coverage. If this should 
occur, NMFS cannot guarantee the availability of observers to satisfy 
observer coverage requirements. NMFS is aware of the logistic and 
planning problems that can arise when fisheries are opened on short 
notice and will attempt to provide sufficient advance notice of 
inseason fishery openings to allow vessels and processors to comply 
with observer coverage requirements.
    Comment 12. Designated observer embarkment/disembarkment locations 
were proposed for Alaska in the preamble to the proposed rule. Vessels 
based in Washington State often proceed directly to the fishing grounds 
and the proposed rule should be revised to add one or two locations for 
embarkment/disembarkment of observers in Washington.
    Response. NMFS considered designating embarkment/disembarkment 
locations outside Alaska, but due in part to the prohibitive 
transportation costs, declined to include non-Alaska sites in the list 
of proposed ports. ADF&G crab managers recommended that crab observer 
embarkment/disembarkment sites coincide with the observer briefing/
debriefing sites in Alaska. The selection of embarkment/disembarkment 
ports occurs annually as part of the Research Plan specification 
process with opportunity for Council review and public comment. 
Embarkment/disembarkment sites outside of Alaska may be considered, 
along with the attendant costs, during this annual process.
    Comment 13. The proposed rule specified that vessels requiring 
observer coverage must have passed a Coast Guard safety inspection 
within the last 2 years. If this requirement is a reference to the 
fishing-industry-specific inspection requirements contained in 46 
U.S.C. Chapter 45, the final rule should be clarified to say so.
    Response. The U.S. Coast Guard implemented regulations codified at 
Titles 33 and 46 CFR, which implemented statutory provisions at 46 
U.S.C. Chapter 45. The final rule has been clarified to require that 
vessels with observer coverage display certification of compliance with 
certain U.S. Coast Guard regulations codified at Titles 33 and 46 CFR 
and at 46 U.S.C. 3311. This requirement is intended to provide 
observers with some assurance that vessels they are stationed on meet 
specified U.S. Coast Guard safety standards.
    Comment 14. Vessels cannot always provide officer's accommodations 
for observers as would be required by Sec. 677.10(c)(1) of the proposed 
rule.
    Response. Section 677.10(c)(1) has been changed in the final rule 
to require accommodations and food for observers that are equivalent to 
those provided for officers, engineers, foremen, deck-bosses or other 
management level personnel of the vessel. The intent of this regulation 
is to require a vessel operator to treat the observer with respect. The 
observer need not be given the captain's quarters, but the observer 
should not be housed in a room with accommodations less than those 
provided for management personnel.
    Comment 15. If a funding shortfall exists, would NMFS allow 
overharvesting of a total allowable catch (TAC) to generate additional 
funding?
    Response. NMFS will not authorize an overharvest of a species' TAC 
to generate additional revenue under the Research Plan.
    Comment 16. Catcher vessels should not be liable for delivering 
fish to an unpermitted processor. The violation should remain with the 
processor, not the vessel. Some other means besides NMFS' electronic 
bulletin board should be used to notify the industry of the processors 
with valid permits.
    Response. NMFS believes it is the responsibility of catcher vessel 
operators to be aware of the permit status of each processor they 
choose to do business with. A processor will not be issued semiannual 
processor permits unless its billed fee assessments are paid. The 
prohibition on delivering fish to a processor not possessing a current 
semiannual permit provides additional incentive to the processor to 
submit timely payments on its billed fee assessment. This is a crucial 
consideration in achieving the objectives of the Research Plan. NMFS 
will maintain an updated list of permitted processors on its electronic 
bulletin board. A vessel operator also can request this information 
directly from a processor.
    Comment 17. Currently, 30-percent observer coverage requirements 
are strictly adhered to because vessel operators do not want to pay for 
additional observer coverage. Under the Research Plan, this strong 
incentive to effectively limit coverage to required levels will be 
eroded.
    Response. NMFS realizes that full implementation of the Research 
Plan will erode some of the incentive to a vessel operator to disembark 
an observer as soon as coverage requirements are met. Observer 
contractors will work with vessel owners to monitor the observer 
coverage and to see that observers are transferred to other vessels 
where coverage is needed. NMFS may order a vessel to port to disembark 
an observer, should that prove necessary.
    Comment 18. Concern exists that the Research Plan will ultimately 
result in reduced observer coverage, because the statutory limit on the 
annual fee percentage (2 percent) will not allow for the collection of 
funds sufficient to provide for increased costs of observer coverage, 
nor for increased administrative costs incurred by NMFS and ADF&G.
    Response. NMFS is committed to providing an efficient and effective 
observer program within the statutory constraints. NMFS will use the 
best available information to establish the annual fee percentage. If 
increased Research Plan costs or reduced fee collections due to a 
reduced exvessel value of Research Plan fisheries create unanticipated 
shortfalls within any calendar year, a regulatory mechanism exists to 
decrease observer requirements over the season. Alternatives to reduced 
observer coverage in both the short and long term also exist in the 
form of amending the Magnuson Act to allow for a fee percentage greater 
than 2 percent, or obtaining other sources of funding.
    During 1995, the first year of the Research Plan, an annual fee 
percentage of 2 percent may be necessary to accumulate sufficient 
start-up funds to support the contracts for observer coverage during 
the first half of 1996. In succeeding years, the percentage should be 
lower. In all cases the 2 percent limit should serve as an incentive to 
keep down the costs, make the observer programs more efficient, and 
seriously evaluate the benefits of any proposed increase in observer 
coverage requirements.
    Comment 19. The Council is considering alternative incentive 
programs to address bycatch waste that would require additional 
observer coverage for participating vessels. The final rule 
implementing the Research Plan should not preclude voluntary increases 
in observer coverage by vessel owners as a prerequisite for 
participation in these incentive programs.
    Response. Observer coverage regulated under the Research Plan is 
set out under Sec. 677.10 of the final rule. The Research Plan does not 
preclude observer coverage beyond levels required under the Research 
Plan by anyone participating in a voluntary incentive program. However, 
persons who voluntarily obtain observer coverage beyond that required 
under the Research Plan would incur the costs of the additional 
coverage. Furthermore, voluntary or mandatory requirements for observer 
coverage beyond those authorized under the Research Plan would require 
rulemaking.
    Comment 20. Concern exists about the possibility of new fees being 
imposed on the fishing industry during the current reauthorization of 
the Magnuson Act. Because of this concern, a sunset date should be 
added to the Research Plan that would take effect if and when 
amendments to the Magnuson Act duplicate fees being charged under the 
Research Plan. Any new fee imposed under the Magnuson Act should not be 
in addition to the fees required under the Research Plan.
    Response. Changes to regulations normally must be accomplished 
through rulemaking, rather than being automatically triggered by 
events, such as passage of legislation. Under the Administrative 
Procedure Act notice and comment procedures, the public must be given 
notice of the proposed change and have an opportunity to comment on the 
proposed change. Should the Council decide that, in the future, the 
Research Plan should be withdrawn or modified to take into account 
amendments to the Magnuson Act, or for any other reason, it can 
recommend that the Secretary do so under normal rulemaking procedures.
    Comment 21. Industry members should be allowed to participate in 
the NMFS/ADF&G work group to oversee agency efforts to streamline the 
groundfish and crab observer programs and to maximize efficiency of 
administration and implementation of these programs.
    Response. NMFS disagrees. Industry members have many opportunities 
to comment on or participate in agency efforts to streamline the 
groundfish and crab observer programs. These opportunities include the 
Advisory Panel (AP), the OOC, and public testimony or written comment 
on the annual Research Plan specification process or other pertinent 
actions before the Council. The NMFS/ADF&G work group meetings will 
provide a setting for staff members to address administrative, 
implementation, and efficiency issues of the observer programs and to 
respond to issues and concerns raised by the public through the AP, 
OOC, or testimony before the Council.
    Comment 22. Given limited resources and a need to expand overall 
observer coverage, it is essential that the Research Plan be 
implemented in such a way as to maximize efficiency and minimize 
administrative overhead and costs. The first major step in that 
direction would be to consolidate the crab and groundfish observer 
programs. In addition to reduced costs, a consolidated program would 
provide an opportunity to standardize training and qualification 
requirements for observers, develop more rational deployment schemes, 
coordinate research and data collection objectives, and move toward the 
development of a professional, well trained, well qualified observer 
corps. With this goal in mind, NMFS and ADF&G should prepare budgets 
and report to the OOC and Council on the feasibility of combining the 
groundfish and crab observer programs.
    Response. NMFS and ADF&G are actively pursuing ways in which the 
NMFS groundfish and ADF&G crab observer programs can combine tasks and 
more efficiently utilize resources. Some areas being explored for 
possible future collaboration are training, briefing, debriefing, and 
field support. Also, under the Research Plan, an interagency (NMFS and 
ADF&G) working group will be established to address issues of 
consolidation and cost efficiency.
    Comment 23. Fiscal year (FY) 96 budgets prepared for the crab and 
groundfish observer programs do not include the costs for shellfish 
observer training. NMFS has factored the costs of shellfish training 
into a daily observer cost estimate reported by observer contractors, 
rather than use training costs incurred by the University of Alaska, 
which has been bearing these costs. True costs of the crab observer 
training should be included in the Research Plan budget so that 
everyone has an accurate picture of the entire program. Crab fishermen 
and shellfish observer contractors may claim they are being 
discriminated against if they will have to pay an additional cost of 
shellfish training beyond that paid by user fees. Shellfish observer 
training should not be treated differently from groundfish observer 
training under the Research Plan.
    Response. Specific comments on agency budgets and policy necessary 
to administer the groundfish and crab observer programs are outside the 
scope of the final rule to implement the Research Plan. Comments of 
this sort would best be addressed under the annual specification 
process set out at Sec. 677.11 of the final rule.
    Nonetheless, NMFS agrees the FY96 budgets for the crab and 
groundfish observer programs do not include the costs for shellfish 
observer training because neither NMFS nor ADF&G currently train crab 
observers. NMFS believes it is appropriate to require potential 
observer contractors to incorporate subcontracted costs for training 
crab observers in their response to the request for solicitation. NMFS 
believes that this approach will incorporate all the costs of training 
crab observers within the Research Plan contracts, thereby avoiding the 
possibility of crab vessels or observer contractors incurring 
additional costs.
    Under the Research Plan, the NMFS/ADF&G working group will examine 
differences and similarities between the groundfish and crab observer 
programs and will consider the potential benefits of training crab 
observers within the ADF&G observer program or within the NMFS observer 
program.
    Comment 24. Agency budgets should include costs for crab observer 
training and explicitly identify groundfish and crab observer program 
costs. NMFS and ADF&G must work towards streamlining programs and 
reducing costs (e.g., cross-training of observers, sharing field 
facilities, coordinating briefing and debriefing functions.)
    Response. See the responses to Comments 22 and 23.
    Comment 25. NMFS staff have expressed the intent to solicit bids 
for crab observer training, but not the groundfish observer training. 
Both crab and groundfish training programs should be subject to the 
bidding process. Not only will this produce the most cost-effective 
approach to training, but it will assure that the groundfish and crab 
industry receive similar treatment under the Research Plan.
    Response. As mentioned in the responses to Comments 22 and 23, the 
NMFS/ADF&G working group will be considering various options for both 
groundfish and crab training and these options will be discussed before 
the OOC and the Council as part of the annual specification process.
    Comment 26. In-season price adjustments, in-season payment 
adjustments, or price forecasts should be used, when practicable, to 
decrease differences between the standard exvessel prices and the 
actual exvessel price that can result from seasonal or inter-annual 
price fluctuations.
    Response. Early in the development of the fee collection program 
for the Research Plan, the Council recommended the use of actual 
exvessel prices and values for processors that purchase fish from 
fishermen and the use of standard exvessel prices for integrated 
harvesting and processing operations that do not purchase fish. This 
recommendation adjusted prices to reflect the actual prices for the 
former class of processors and post-season price settlements. By 1992, 
the Council had identified problems with this recommendation and voted 
to recommend the use of standard exvessel prices for all processors. 
The problems included the following: (1) The incentive of fishermen and 
processors to understate actual exvessel prices, (2) the difficulty of 
verifying that the reported prices were correct, (3) the difficulties 
of applying post-season adjustments in exvessel prices to the standard 
exvessel prices used for processors that catch their own fish, and (4) 
the lack of timely price information from fish tickets. The Council 
recognized that actual inseason exvessel price data may provide a more 
equitable basis for fee assessments among processors who purchase fish. 
However, the Council determined that the potential for more equitable 
fee assessments was not sufficient to overcome the problems associated 
with using actual prices.
    The Council has recommended that NMFS establish standard prices for 
6-month periods. This recommendation should increase the ability of 
NMFS and the Council to set standard prices that will closely 
approximate actual prices. This process will be facilitated if the 
exvessel price information from fish tickets becomes available in a 
more timely manner.
    Fee revenue and actual fee liability would be more uncertain if 
they were based on inseason price or payment adjustments. If prices 
increase, processors could have difficulty collecting the additional 
fees from fishermen, and if prices decrease, processors may not make 
the appropriate refunds to fishermen. Over time, the unexpected 
increases and decreases in exvessel prices are expected to cancel out.
    Under the final rule, the standard exvessel prices will be based 
on: (1) Exvessel price information during the most recent 12-month 
period for which data are available for different seasons, gear types, 
management areas, and processing sectors; (2) factors that are expected 
to change exvessel prices in the upcoming calendar year; and (3) other 
information that indicates what exvessel prices would be expected to be 
in the upcoming calendar year. Therefore, to the extent practicable, 
price forecasts will be used.
    Comment 27. When differences in prices by gear, area, mode of 
operation, and season are real and significant, separate standard 
prices should be established for each.
    Response. NMFS agrees and intends to propose exvessel prices that 
reasonably accommodate price differences by season, gear, area, and 
processing sector (inshore and offshore components) (see the response 
to Comment 26). However, even when real and substantial differences 
exist in exvessel prices by gear, area, mode of operation, and season, 
there are justifications for not establishing a separate standard price 
for each. To the extent that exvessel prices differ due to differences 
in the services a fishing vessel provides in addition to harvesting raw 
fish, it may be inappropriate to establish separate standard prices.
    Comment 28. It is unfair not to account for differences in prices 
due to stage of product processing and mode of operation.
    Response. As noted in the response to Comment 27, NMFS believes it 
may be inappropriate to charge different fees per pound of retained 
catch for different fishermen due to differences in the distribution of 
services between fishermen and processors or to assess a higher fee per 
pound for a group of fishermen that perform services that are typically 
performed by processors.
    Comment 29. Prices should be imputed by area when the size of fish 
differ by area and product prices differ by the size of fish.
    Response. The cost of accommodating this suggestion could be 
justified if large differences exist in product prices by area of 
catch. The annual processor survey conducted by the State of Alaska 
does not collect price data for narrowly defined areas. As a result, 
NMFS would have to use other sources of product price data that would 
tend to increase information and analytical costs and, perhaps, 
decrease the quality of the price estimates. In the future, NMFS may 
consider rulemaking to collect additional price information if existing 
sources of data are deemed insufficient.
    Comment 30. The method used by NMFS to impute exvessel prices is 
acceptable, but the product prices and product price to exvessel price 
conversion factor should be reviewed, a conversion factor of 20-percent 
should be used, and an industry committee of those familiar with these 
species should be part of the review process.
    Response. The Research Plan specification process set out in the 
final rule at Sec. 677.11 includes review of the imputed standard 
exvessel prices by the OOC, AP, Scientific and Statistical Committee 
(SSC), the public, and the Council before the standard exvessel prices 
are proposed. The proposed standard exvessel prices will be published 
in the Federal Register annually, and the data on which they are based 
will be included in a report available from the Council. Public 
comments will be requested on both the proposed standard exvessel 
prices and the data on which they are based. The final standard 
exvessel prices will be established after further review by the OOC, 
AP, SSC, and the Council. Therefore, the process for establishing 
standard exvessel prices allows for as much input and review as the 
industry is willing to provide. The industry is free to establish a 
committee to assist in establishing standard exvessel prices.
    Comment 31. Actual prices paid to fishermen are recorded on fish 
tickets and these prices should be used to calculate fee assessments, 
rather than the proposed method of using standard exvessel prices. If 
standard exvessel prices are used, NMFS should implement a separate 
rebate program to reimburse fishermen who were ultimately charged more 
than 2 percent of the exvessel value in those cases where the standard 
exvessel price is less than the actual price they received.
    Response. See the response to Comments 26 and 27.
    Comment 32. Fee assessments should not be assessed on deadloss 
crab.
    Response. Fee assessments will be based on the amount of crab 
retained by a processor. Crab that is harvested alive but dies enroute 
to the processor is considered deadloss and is not purchased by the 
processor or buyer. This crab, therefore, will not be considered 
retained catch for the purpose of calculating fee assessments.
    Comment 33. Under the proposed rule, retained catch for processor 
vessels would be determined by using standard product recovery rates 
(PRRs) to calculate round-weight equivalents. Retained catch can be 
calculated most accurately by actual weights, rather than by using a 
derivative system. Recognizing that not all processor vessels are 
equipped with scales, a system should be implemented under which a 
processor could elect to have retained catch calculated by any 
recognized acceptable means, such as actual weight, volumetric measure, 
or standard PRRs.
    Response. NMFS has prepared a draft analysis for Council 
consideration that evaluates different alternatives for obtaining 
accurate catch weight measurements. The Council is scheduled to take 
final action on a preferred alternative before the end of 1994. Until 
regulations are implemented that serve as consistent guidelines for 
obtaining accurate measurements of catch weight, NMFS will continue to 
rely on PRRs to calculate round-weight equivalents.
    Comment 34. NMFS has reported that a 10-20 percent discrepancy 
exists between observed retained catch estimates and retained catch 
amounts reported by processor vessels in their weekly production 
reports. Currently, an easy and precise method to verify the accuracy 
of reported catch amounts is not available. Given that the projection 
of groundfish exvessel value was based on projected catch using a blend 
of observer and vessel data, concern exists that this projection 
overestimates the fees that will be collected during the start-up year 
by 10 percent or more. If this is the case, full implementation of the 
Research Plan may be unnecessarily delayed. A better alternative is to 
calculate the fee based on retained weight, but incorporate the 
``blend'' method to decrease the problem of under-reporting.
    Response. Retained catch amounts used to project exvessel value of 
groundfish for purposes of the Research Plan were based on data 
submitted by the industry on weekly production reports and ADF&G fish 
tickets. These data, not blend data, were used to project exvessel 
value of retained catch and provide the best information available on 
which to base projected revenues under the Research Plan.
    Comment 35. The use of PRRs to calculate round weight of retained 
catch is problematic for several reasons. First, a sizeable disparity 
exists within the industry regarding the PRRs of various products. 
Second, the current rates being used by NMFS are not necessarily based 
on scientific or statistically defensible data. If PRRs must be used, 
they must be based on the best available scientific evidence.
    Response. NMFS has determined that the standard PRRs that it will 
use to calculate round-weight equivalents of retained catch by at-sea 
processors represent the best available scientific information about 
product recoveries being achieved by the processing industry. NMFS has 
invited public comment on the standard PRRs it will use and will soon 
publish them in a final rule. NMFS will continue to review information 
about product recoveries and will propose regulations to revise any 
particular standard PRR, if necessary. See also the Response to comment 
33.
    Comment 36. Under the proposed Research Plan, vessels are charged a 
fee based on the round-weight of retained fish. As a result, a large 
incentive will exist to not make products such as fish meal or process 
small fish or male flatfish, which may be perfectly fit for human 
consumption but have a lower market value. A better method would be for 
each vessel to pay for what it catches, whether or not the fish are 
retained for processing. If vessels were assessed a fee based on the 
weight of fish caught, there would be an economic incentive to reduce 
bycatch and other fish waste, as well as an incentive to collect and 
report the best possible data.
    Response. NMFS has revised the final rule to exempt from bimonthly 
fee assessments the exvessel value of whole fish that are processed 
into meal. This action is intended to address concerns that the 
imposition of Research Plan fees on the exvessel value of retained 
catch may create an incentive for processors to discard low value fish 
that otherwise may have been retained.
    Section 313 of the Magnuson Act authorizes the assessment of fees 
on both retained and discarded catch. Given this authority and the 
Council's desire to encourage retention of catch under the Research 
Plan, the Council has asked the OOC to explore options for assessing 
fees on discarded catch. Any future recommendation by the Council to 
implement a fee assessment program for discarded catch will require 
rulemaking and likely would not be implemented before 1996.
    Comment 37. Insurance coverage requirements should be established 
for observers.
    Response. At its June 1994 meeting, the Council indicated that it 
will appoint a technical committee to address the issue of standard 
insurance coverage for observers.
    Comment 38. The concept of a risk-sharing pool for observer 
insurance is not acceptable because the pool concept undermines the 
competitive process for insurance.
    Response. Section 313(e) of the Magnuson Act requires the Secretary 
to review the feasibility of establishing a risk-sharing pool to 
provide insurance coverage for vessels and owners against liability 
from civil suits by observers. This feasibility study will include a 
cost analysis and a review of potential impact on vessel owners, 
observer contractors, and observers. The Secretary will not establish a 
risk-sharing pool if his review shows that comprehensive commercial 
insurance currently is available for all fishing vessels and processors 
required to have observers, and such insurance will provide a greater 
measure of coverage at a lower cost to each participant.
    As noted in the response to Comment 37, the Council took action at 
its June 1994 meeting to establish a technical committee to address 
this issue.
    Comment 39. Identification should be required for observers at 
shoreside plants (e.g., vest, tag, ID card), to facilitate their access 
to confidential information (fish tickets, data on plant production, 
etc.).
    Response. NMFS agrees and presently is investigating the 
feasibility of supplying observers with an ID card that would either 
replace, or be in addition to, the present letter of certification.
    Comment 40. NMFS should be more effective in dealing with observer 
harassment issues as reported by observer contractors.
    Response. Contractors currently have the ability to deny observer 
coverage to vessels that have had continuing problems with harassment 
of observers. Under the fully implemented Research Plan, vessel or 
processor owners no longer will be the clients of the contractors and 
NMFS will have greater ability to ensure that harassment situations are 
handled in an appropriate manner. NMFS Enforcement will continue to 
investigate reported instances of observer harassment and will take 
action where warranted.
    Comment 41. Observer duties should remain unchanged under the 
Research Plan and should not become more enforcement oriented.
    Response. Existing observer duties will be unchanged under the 
Research Plan.
    Comment 42. NMFS should assess an observer's performance through 
survey information collected from the industry.
    Response. At present, members of the fishing industry can and do 
comment on an observer's performance by calling or writing to the NMFS 
Observer Program office. NMFS recognizes the need for a more formalized 
process for providing feedback, and is in the process of designing a 
questionnaire. Such questionnaires would need to be approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, even though responses would be voluntary.
    Comment 43. The Research Plan must be implemented to provide for 
greater NMFS oversight over the relationships between observers, 
observer contractors, and fishing interests. Currently, these 
relationships are compromised and NMFS and the Council have failed to 
oversee properly the integrity of these relationships. Instead, 
observer contractors continually exhibit interest in profits before 
either data quality or observer security. This situation reduces the 
collection of scientific data by observers to a vendor activity, 
jeopardizes the safety and well-being of observers, and undermines the 
credibility of the scientific data collected by observers.
    Response. The expected change in the relationships between 
observers, observer contractors, and fishing interests with the full 
implementation of the Research Plan is one of the most important 
reasons for implementing it. Under the Research Plan, money for 
observer coverage will be distributed through NMFS, and NMFS will 
exercise more oversight through contractual relationships with the 
observer contractors.
    Comment 44. NMFS and the Council should analyze the usefulness and 
economic efficiency of observer contractors. These individuals serve as 
a third-party conduit of financial payment for observer coverage and 
the financial resources distributed to them could be more 
constructively channeled.
    Response. Under the Research Plan, NMFS could fund Federal 
employees to serve as observers. NMFS is presently evaluating the 
feasibility of having Federal observers serve at least some of the 
observer needs. However, many obstacles exist to implement such a 
proposition, notably the present effort to reduce the Federal work 
force.
    Comment 45. Nonpayment of contractors and observers has been a 
problem since 1991. NMFS' inaction in not decertifying contractors who 
do not pay their observers allows these contractors to essentially loan 
observer coverage to the fishing industry. This situation seriously 
undermines the credibility of the observer program and requires greater 
oversight by NMFS.
    Response. Under current regulations, vessel and processor owners 
contract with observer contractors to provide observer coverage. NMFS 
is not a party to those contracts, so has limited ability to enforce 
contracts between vessel and processor owners, observer contractors, 
and observers. Under full implementation of the Research Plan, 
contractors will be paid from the Observer Fund and NMFS will be in a 
much better position to investigate and act on cases of observer 
nonpayment by contractors.

Changes in the Final Rule From the Proposed Rule

    This final rule has been revised from the proposed rule to address 
public comment on the first year of the Research Plan. Neither the 
Council nor the general public supported the proposed first-year 
program that would have provided rebates to vessel and processor owners 
for observer costs, because (1) persons would have experienced delays 
from the time they paid for observer coverage until they were 
reimbursed for these costs, and (2) rebates would have been based on 
standardized costs per observer day. This final rule implements an 
alternative program for the first year of the Research Plan that 
addresses these concerns based on the following assumptions and 
criteria:
    a. The first year of the Research Plan will generate sufficient 
start-up funds during 1995 to allow full implementation of the Research 
Plan by January, 1996;
    b. NMFS will seek funding for the financial support of the observer 
programs, at least through fiscal year 1996;
    c. The first year of the Research Plan will not require ``double 
payment'' by any participant in the Research Plan fisheries for any 
period of time during 1995; and
    d. The first year of the Research Plan will credit actual costs 
paid by a participant in the Research Plan fisheries for observer 
coverage during 1995 up to the limit of the participant's fee 
liability.
    The revised program for the first year of the Research Plan is set 
out in this final rule at Sec. 677.6 and is further discussed in the 
final EA/RIR prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES). In summary, this 
final rule exempts owners of groundfish catcher vessels equal to or 
greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA from payment of fee assessments during 
1995 because, as a group, this vessel size class currently pays 
observer costs that exceed 1 percent of the exvessel value of their 
catch. Crab catcher vessels participating in fisheries for Chionoecetes 
tanneri Tanner crab, C. angulatus Tanner crab, or Lithodes cousei king 
crab are required to carry observers under Alaska State regulations at 
5 AAC 34.082 and 5 AAC 35.082. Vessel costs for this observer coverage 
equal or exceed the vessels' expected fee liability for the retained 
catch of these species. As a result, these catcher vessels also are 
exempt from contributing to the portion of the 1995 fee assessment 
based on the exvessel value of retained catch of these specific Tanner 
and king crab species.
    Under the final rule, groundfish mothership processor vessels and 
shoreside processors will be billed for their portion of the 1995 fee 
assessment (i.e., a fee assessment based on one-half of the annual fee 
percentage multiplied by the exvessel value of retained catch) plus 
one-half of the fee assessment calculated for the exvessel value of 
retained catch delivered by vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA. Each 
of these processors may subtract its observer coverage costs from the 
processor's portion of the bimonthly bill. With the exception of 
processors retaining C. tanneri, C. angulatus, or L. cousei, who will 
be billed one half the fee percentage for these species, groundfish 
catcher/processors, crab catch/processors, crab shoreside processors, 
crab floating processors, and halibut processors will be billed the 
full fee percentage. Groundfish catcher/processors, crab catcher/
processors, and crab floating processors may subtract their groundfish 
and crab observer coverage costs, respectively, from their bimonthly 
fee assessment for retained catch of groundfish and crab. The annual 
deduction for observer costs is limited to the actual cost paid for 
observer coverage during 1995 or the 1995 fee liability, whichever is 
less.
    Several changes from the proposed rule have resulted from the 
revised program for the first year of the Research Plan. In addition, 
other changes have been made to respond to more specific public 
comments on the proposed rule and to improve the clarity and 
consistency of regulations. Significant changes are as follows.
    1. The OMB control numbers for approved information collection 
requirements have been added to 50 CFR part 204 to comply with 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    2. Figure 1 of 50 CFR part 677, the Federal Processing Permit 
Application (Form FPP-1), has been revised to combine existing 
permitting requirements under Sec. 672.4 and Sec. 675.4 to reduce the 
reporting burden on processors and to facilitate administrative 
efficiency in issuing permits. Form FPP-1 also has been changed to more 
clearly identify persons who qualify as ``processors'' for purposes of 
the Research Plan.
    3. Figure 2 of 50 CFR part 677, the Observer Coverage Payment 
Receipt Form (Form FPP-2), has been revised to collect information on 
payments to an observer contractor by a processor for observer coverage 
during 1995. NMFS will use this information to audit the observer 
coverage costs subtracted by a processor from its billed fee 
assessments.
    4. In Sec. 677.2, the definitions of the terms ``Bimonthly'', 
``Catcher vessel'', ``Fishing trip'', ``Mothership processor vessel'', 
``Processor'', ``Retained catch'', and ``Shoreside processor or 
shoreside processing facility'' have been changed; the definitions of 
the terms ``At-sea processor'', ``Standard observer day'', and 
``Standardized cost of an observer day'' have been removed; and a 
definition of the term ``Fishermen'' has been added.
    The definition of ``Bimonthly'' has been revised to coincide with 
calendar months, rather than weekly reporting periods. This change is 
necessary to allow greater consistency between ADF&G and NMFS data 
collected from the industry that is used to calculate processor fee 
assessments.
    The definition of ``Catcher vessel'' has been revised to clarify 
that a catcher vessel is used for catching fish, but does not process 
fish.
    The definition of ``Fishing trip'' has been changed to more clearly 
implement NMFS' intent for observer coverage requirements set out at 
Sec. 677.10(a)(1) for catcher vessels delivering groundfish to 
shoreside processing facilities. A catcher vessel required to carry a 
NMFS-certified observer during at least 30 percent of its fishing days 
in a calendar quarter under Sec. 677.10(a)(1) also must carry an 
observer during at least one fishing trip during the calendar quarter 
for each of six different groundfish fishery categories defined at 
Sec. 677.10(a)(1)(ii) in which it participates. In the proposed rule, 
these fishery definitions were based on a vessel's retained catch 
composition of groundfish during a weekly reporting period. However, 
retained catch information for catcher vessels delivering groundfish to 
shoreside processors is recorded on ADF&G fish tickets that summarize 
catch retained during a fishing trip, not a weekly reporting period. To 
resolve this discrepancy, the definition of ``Fishing trip'' at 
Sec. 677.2 and of fishery categories at Sec. 677.10(a)(1)(ii) have been 
clarified to allow the use of ADF&G fish tickets completed at the end 
of a fishing trip to assign catcher vessels to fisheries.
    The definition of ``Mothership processor vessel'' has been revised 
to clarify that a mothership processor is not used for, or equipped to 
be used for, catching fish.
    The definition of ``Processor'' has been revised to include those 
fishermen who deliver fish directly to restaurants. This change is 
necessary because information on retained catch is not obtained from 
restaurants under the recordkeeping and reporting requirements set out 
under Sec. 672.5 and Sec. 675.5.
    The definition of ``Retained catch'' has been revised to more 
clearly apply to all processors defined at Sec. 677.2.
    The definition of ``Shoreside processor or shoreside processing 
facility'' has been changed to more clearly separate this type of 
processing operation from other types of processors (e.g., catcher/
processors, mothership processor vessels, or fishermen who sell fish to 
restaurants or to another person for use as bait or personal 
consumption).
    The definition of ``Fishermen'' has been added to clarify reference 
to this term under the definition of ``Processor.''
    In Sec. 677.2, the term ``At-sea processor'' has been removed 
because this term is not referred to in regulations. The terms 
``Standardized cost of an observer day'' and ``Standard observer day'' 
have been removed because these terms no longer are applicable.
    5. In Sec. 677.6, the following changes have been made.
    a. Paragraph (b) has been revised and a new paragraph (d) is added 
to implement a credit program rather than a rebate program during the 
first year of the Research Plan. In paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), 
regulatory language has been added to exempt the exvessel value of 
whole fish that is processed into meal from bimonthly fee assessments. 
This change addresses concerns that the imposition of Research Plan 
fees on the exvessel value of retained catch may create a greater 
incentive for processors to discard fish that otherwise may have been 
processed.
    b. Old paragraph (d) has been redesignated paragraph (e) and 
revised to authorize NMFS to charge late fees for the balance of a 
bimonthly fee assessment in the event the Director, Alaska Region, 
NMFS, determines that a billing error has not occurred in response to a 
billing dispute initiated by a processor. The authority to charge a 
late fee is necessary to discourage a person from using the process set 
out for disputing a bimonthly fee assessment bill only as a means to 
delay payment of the bill.
    c. Old paragraph (e) has been redesignated paragraph (f) and 
revised to encourage the timely payment of a billed fee assessment by 
providing NMFS the authority to assess a penalty fee in the event 
payment is not received after 90 days from the due date.
    d. Paragraph (f), which would have implemented the proposed rebate 
program, has been removed.
    6. In Sec. 677.7, paragraph (g) has been changed to refer to the 
revised program for the first year of the Research Plan instead of the 
proposed rebate program.
    7. In Sec. 677.10 the following changes have been made in addition 
to those referred to under item 4.
    a. Paragraph (a)(3) has been changed to include references to 
Alaska State observer coverage requirements at 5 AAC 34.035, 34.082, 
and 35.082.
    b. Paragraph (c) has been revised to remove the reference to 
required compliance with U.S. Coast Guard vessel safety requirements. 
This requirement was moved to a new paragraph (g).
    c. Paragraph (c)(1) has been revised to remove a proposed 
requirement that vessel operators provide accommodations for observers 
that are equivalent to those provided for officers of the vessel. The 
regulatory language has been clarified to implement the intent of the 
proposed rule to require a vessel operator to treat the observer with 
respect and not provide the observer with accommodations reflective of 
the lowest level crew onboard the vessel.
    d. Paragraph (e) has been revised to clarify that if contractors 
for observer coverage are not notified within specified time periods, 
the availability of an observer to meet observer coverage requirements 
will not be guaranteed.
    e. Paragraph (f) has been revised to reflect recent rulemaking that 
authorized the release of specified observer data on prohibited species 
bycatch (59 FR 18757, April 20, 1994).
    f. Paragraph (g) has been added to clarify a requirement formerly 
at paragraph (c) that vessels required to carry observers must pass a 
U.S. Coast Guard safety inspection. Safety requirements for all vessels 
are clarified. Observers will not be stationed aboard vessels not 
meeting safety requirements.
    8. In Sec. 677.11, regulatory language has been added that would 
authorize the annual specification of standard exvessel prices by 
season, area, gear, and processing sector. Reference to the annual 
specification of ``standardized cost(s) of an observer day'' also has 
been removed because this term no longer is applicable.

Classification

    This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Public reporting burden for 
each year of this collection is estimated to average 0.33 hour per 
response for completing the semiannual FPP-1, 0.25 hour per response 
for notifying contractors of needs for observers, and 1.0 hour per 
response to provide information to document claims of disputed bills. 
For the first year of the Research Plan, completion of FPP-2 by 
observer contractors for payment of observer coverage by processor 
vessels and shoreside processing facilities is estimated to average 
0.16 hours per response. All reporting burden estimates include the 
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information. The collection of information has been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB control numbers 
0648-0206 (Processor Permit Application) and 0648-0280 (North Pacific 
Fisheries Research Plan).
    The Council, NMFS, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 
prepared a final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as part of the 
Regulatory Impact Review. A copy of this analysis is available from the 
Council at (See ADDRESSES).
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of E.O. 12866.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 204

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Parts 301, 671, 672, 675, 676, and 677

    Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 25, 1994.
Charles Karnella,
Acting Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 50 CFR Chapters II, 
III, and VI are amended as follows:

PART 204--OMB CONTROL NUMBERS FOR NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION 
REQUIREMENTS

    1. The authority citation for part 204 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520 
(1982).


Sec. 204.1  [Amended]

    2. The table in Sec. 204.1(b) is amended by adding in the left-hand 
column, in numerical order, the entries ``677.4, 677.5'', 677.6'', and 
677.10''; and adding in the right-hand column, in corresponding 
positions, the entry P[``-0280''].

PART 301--PACIFIC HALIBUT FISHERIES

    3. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 UST 5; TIAS 2900; 16 U.S.C. 773-773k.

    4. Section 301.23 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 301.23  North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan.

    Permit requirements, observer requirements, and fee assessments for 
the Northern Pacific halibut fishery under the North Pacific Fisheries 
Research Plan are contained in part 677 of this title.

PART 671--KING AND TANNER CRAB FISHERIES OF THE BERING SEA AND 
ALEUTIAN ISLANDS

    5. The authority citation for part 671 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    6. A new Sec. 671.4 is added to subpart A to read as follows:


Sec. 671.4  Permits.

    All processors of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area king and 
Tanner crab must comply with permit requirements contained in 
Sec. 677.4 of this chapter.
    7. A new Sec. 671.21 is added to subpart B to read as follows:


Sec. 671.21  Observer requirements.

    Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area king and Tanner crab observer 
requirements are contained in part 677 of this chapter.

PART 672--GROUNDFISH OF THE GULF OF ALASKA

    8. The authority citation for part 672 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    9. In Sec. 672.4, paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(10) are 
redesignated paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(x), respectively; 
introductory text of paragraph (b) is redesignated as introductory text 
of paragraph (b)(1); and a new paragraph (b)(2) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 672.4  Permits.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) All processors of Gulf of Alaska groundfish must comply with 
permit requirements contained in Sec. 677.4 of this chapter, in 
addition to any applicable requirements of this Sec. 672.4.
* * * * *
    10. Section 672.27 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 672.27  Observer requirements.

    Gulf of Alaska groundfish observer requirements are contained in 
part 677 of this chapter.

PART 675--GROUNDFISH OF THE BERING SEA AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS AREA

    11. The authority citation for part 675 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    12. In Sec. 675.4, paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(10) are 
redesignated paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(x), respectively; 
introductory text of paragraph (b) is redesignated as introductory text 
of paragraph (b)(1); and a new paragraph (b)(2) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 675.4  Permits.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) All processors of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management 
area groundfish must comply with permit requirements contained in 
Sec. 677.4 of this chapter, in addition to any applicable requirements 
of this Sec. 675.4.
* * * * *
    13. Section 675.25 is revised to read as follows:

    Note: This revision supersedes the amendments to Sec. 675.25 
published in the emergency interim rule at 59 FR 35479, July 12, 
1994:


Sec. 675.25  Observer requirements.

    Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area groundfish observer 
requirements are contained in part 677 of this chapter.

PART 676--LIMITED ACCESS MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL FISHERIES IN AND OFF 
ALASKA

    14. The authority citation for part 676 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq. and 1801 et seq.

    15. In Sec. 676.13, paragraph (a)(1) introductory text is revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 676.13  Permits.

    (a) * * *
    (1) In addition to the permit and licensing requirements prescribed 
at 50 CFR parts 301 of this title, and 672, 675, and 677 of this 
chapter, all fishing vessels that harvest IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish 
must have onboard:
* * * * *
    16. In Sec. 676.16, paragraph (q) is redesignated paragraph (r) and 
a new paragraph (q) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 676.16  General prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (q) Any person who is issued a registered buyer permit under 
Sec. 676.13(a)(2) and who also is required to obtain a Federal 
processing permit under Sec. 677.4 of this chapter may not transfer or 
receive sablefish harvested in Federal waters or halibut, unless the 
person possesses a valid permit issued under Sec. 677.4 of this 
chapter.
    17. Part 677 is added to read as follows:

PART 677--NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES RESEARCH PLAN

Subpart A--General Provisions of the North Pacific Fisheries Research 
Plan
Sec.
677.1  Purpose and scope.
677.2  Definitions.
677.3  Relation to other laws.
677.4  Permits.
677.5  Recordkeeping and reporting.
677.6  Research Plan fee.
677.7  General prohibitions.
677.8  Facilitation of enforcement.
677.9  Penalties.
677.10  General requirements.
677.11  Annual Research Plan specifications.
677.12  Compliance.
Subpart B--General Provisions of Risk-Sharing Pool for Insurance 
Purposes [Reserved]

Figures--Part 677

    Figure 1--Federal Processing Permit Application (Form FPP-1).
    Figure 2--Observer Coverage Payment Receipt (Form FPP-2).

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

Subpart A--General Provisions of the North Pacific Fisheries 
Research Plan


Sec. 677.1  Purpose and scope.

    (a) These regulations implement the North Pacific Fisheries 
Research Plan developed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
under the Magnuson Act.
    (b) Regulations in this part govern elements of the Research Plan 
for the following fisheries under the Council's authority: Bering Sea 
and Aleutian Islands management area groundfish, Gulf of Alaska 
groundfish, and Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area king and Tanner 
crab in the exclusive economic zone; and halibut from convention waters 
off Alaska.


Sec. 677.2  Definitions.

    In addition to the definitions in the Magnuson Act and in 50 CFR 
part 620, the terms used in this part have the following meanings:
    ADF&G means the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
    Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area is defined at Sec. 671.2 of 
this chapter.
    Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area is defined at 
Sec. 675.2 of this chapter.
    Bimonthly refers to a time period equal to 2 calendar months. Six 
consecutive bimonthly periods are established each year, as follows: 
January 1-February 29; March 1-April 30; May 1-June 30; July 1-August 
31; September 1-October 31; and November 1-December 31.
    Catcher/processor means a processor vessel that is used for, or 
equipped to be used for, catching fish and processing that fish.
    Catcher vessel means a vessel that is used for catching fish and 
does not process fish on board.
    Commissioner of ADF&G means the principal executive officer of 
ADF&G.
    Convention waters off Alaska means all waters off Alaska in halibut 
regulatory areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E as defined in part 
301 of this title.
    Exvessel price means the price in dollars received by a harvester 
for fish from Research Plan fisheries. Exvessel price excludes any 
value added by processing.
    Fee percentage means the annually calculated assessment rate, in 
percent of exvessel value of Research Plan fisheries, used to determine 
fee assessments under the Research Plan.
    Fishermen means persons who catch, take, or harvest fish.
    Fishing day means a 24-hour period, from 0001 A.l.t. through 2400 
A.l.t., in which fishing gear is retrieved and groundfish, halibut, or 
king or Tanner crab are retained. Days during which a vessel only 
delivers unsorted codends to a processor are not fishing days.
    Fishing trip means one of the following time periods:
    (1) For a vessel used to process groundfish or a catcher vessel 
used to deliver groundfish to a mothership processor vessel--a weekly 
reporting period, as defined at Sec. 672.2 or Sec. 675.2 of this 
chapter, during which one or more fishing days occur.
    (2) For a catcher vessel used to deliver fish to other than a 
mothership processor vessel--the time period during which one or more 
fishing days occur that starts on the day when fishing gear is first 
deployed and ends on the day the vessel: Offloads groundfish, halibut, 
or king or Tanner crab; returns to an Alaskan port; or leaves the EEZ 
off Alaska and adjacent waters of the State of Alaska.
    Groundfish is defined at Sec. 672.2 or Sec. 675.2 of this chapter.
    Gulf of Alaska is defined at Sec. 672.2 of this chapter.
    Halibut means Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis).
    King crab means red king crab (Paralithodes camtschatica), blue 
king crab (P. platypus), brown (or golden) king crab (Lithodes 
aequispina), and scarlet (or deep sea) king crab (Lithodes couesi).
    Landing is defined at Sec. 672.2 of this chapter.
    Length overall (LOA) is defined at Sec. 672.2 of this chapter.
    Mothership processor vessel means a processor vessel that receives 
and processes fish from other vessels and is not used for, or equipped 
to be used for, catching fish.
    Processing or to process means the preparation of fish to render it 
suitable for human consumption, industrial uses, or long term storage, 
including, but not limited to, cooking, canning, smoking, salting, 
drying, freezing, and rendering into meal or oil, but does not mean 
icing, bleeding, heading, or gutting.
    Processor means any facility or vessel that processes fish for 
commercial use or consumption, any person except a restaurant who 
receives fish from fishermen for commercial purposes, and fishermen who 
sell fish directly to a restaurant or to another individual for use as 
bait or personal consumption.
    Regional Director means the Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 
21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
    Research Plan means the North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan 
developed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under the 
Magnuson Act.
    Research Plan fisheries means the following fisheries: Bering Sea 
and Aleutian Islands management area groundfish, Gulf of Alaska 
groundfish, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area king and Tanner crab, 
and halibut from convention waters off Alaska.
    Retained catch means the catch retained by a processor, in round 
weight or round-weight equivalents, from Research Plan fisheries.
    Round weight or round-weight equivalent means:
    (1) For groundfish or halibut--the weight of fish calculated by 
dividing the weight of the primary product made from that fish by the 
standard product recovery rate as determined using the best available 
evidence on a case-by-case basis.
    (2) For Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area crab processed by 
catcher/processors--scale weight of a subsample multiplied by the 
number of subsamples comprising the retained catch.
    (3) For Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area crab processed by 
mothership processor vessels or shoreside processors--scale weights of 
retained catches.
    Shoreside processor or shoreside processing facility means any 
person that receives unprocessed fish, except catcher/processors, 
mothership processor vessels, restaurants, or persons receiving fish 
for use as bait or personal consumption.
    Standard exvessel price means the exvessel price for species 
harvested in Research Plan fisheries, calculated annually by NMFS for 
each species or species group, from exvessel price information for all 
product forms, used in determining fee assessments.
    Tanner crab means Chionoecetes species or hybrids of these species.


Sec. 677.3  Relation to other laws.

    (a) The relation of this part to other laws is set forth in 
Sec. 620.3 of this chapter and paragraphs (b) through (c) of this 
section.
    (b) Domestic fishing for groundfish. Regulations governing the 
conservation and management of groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska and the 
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area are set forth at parts 
672 and 675 of this chapter, respectively. The conservation and 
management of groundfish in waters of the territorial sea and internal 
waters of the State of Alaska are governed by Alaska Administrative 
Code at 5 AAC Chapter 28 and Alaska Statute at A.S. 16.
    (c) King and Tanner crab fishing. The conservation and management 
of king crab and Tanner crab in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
area are governed by Alaska Statutes at A.S. 16 and Alaska 
Administrative Code at 5 AAC Chapters 34, 35, and 39; and at part 671 
of this chapter.


Sec. 677.4  Permits.

    (a) General. In addition to the permit and licensing requirements 
at Sec. 301.3 of this title and 672.4, 675.4, and 676.13 of this 
chapter, all processors of fish from Research Plan fisheries must have 
a Federal Processor Permit issued by the Regional Director under this 
section. Such permits shall be issued without charge.
    (b) Application. The permit required under paragraph (a) of this 
section may be obtained by submitting to the Regional Director a 
completed Federal Processor Permit Application (Form FPP-1; see figure 
1 to part 677) containing the following information:
    (1) The semiannual period for which the permit is requested.
    (2) The Research Plan fishery or fisheries for which the permit is 
requested.
    (3) If the application is for an amended permit, the current 
Federal Processor Permit number and an indication of the information 
that is being amended.
    (4) The processor owner's name or names, business mailing address, 
telephone number, and FAX number.
    (5) If the processor is a shoreside processor, the plant's name, 
business mailing address, ADF&G Processor Code, telephone number, and 
FAX number.
    (6) If the processor is a vessel, the vessel's name, home port, net 
tonnage, length overall, U.S. Coast Guard number, telephone number, FAX 
number, INMARSAT (satellite communications) number, and ADF&G number.
    (7) The applicant's name, signature, and date.
    (c) Issuance. (1) Permits required under this section will be 
issued semiannually by the Regional Director.
    (2) The Regional Director will issue a permit required under 
paragraph (a) of this section upon receipt of a complete application, 
if all Research Plan fees due are paid. Upon receipt of an incomplete 
or improperly completed application, or if Research Plan fees are not 
paid, the Regional Director will notify the applicant of the 
deficiency. No permit will be issued to an applicant until a complete 
application is submitted and all fees are paid.
    (d) Notification of change. Any person who has applied for and 
received a permit under this section must notify the Regional Director, 
in writing, of any change in the information provided under paragraph 
(b) of this section within 10 days of the date of that change.
    (e) Duration. The permit issued by the Regional Director will 
continue in full force and effect for the period January 1 through June 
30, or July 1 through December 31, of the year for which it is issued, 
or until it is revoked, suspended, or modified under part 621 (Civil 
Procedures) of this chapter.
    (f) Alteration. No person may alter, erase, or mutilate any permit 
issued under this section. Any permit that has been intentionally 
altered, erased, or mutilated is invalid.
    (g) Transfer. Permits issued under this section are not 
transferable or assignable. Each permit is valid only for the processor 
for which it is issued. The Regional Director must be notified of a 
change in ownership, pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
    (h) Inspection. The permit issued under this section must be 
maintained on the processor vessel or at the shoreside processor. The 
permit must be available for inspection upon request by an authorized 
officer or any employee of NMFS, ADF&G, or the Alaska Department of 
Public Safety designated by the Regional Director, Commissioner of 
ADF&G, or Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Public Safety.
    (i) Sanctions. Procedures governing permit sanctions are found at 
subpart D of 15 CFR part 904.
    (j) Disclosure. NMFS will maintain a list of permitted processors 
that may be disclosed for public inspection.


Sec. 677.5  Recordkeeping and reporting.

    (a) Applicability. Any processor that retains fish from a Research 
Plan fishery is responsible for compliance with the applicable 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this part.
    (b) General requirements. Any form, record, or report that is 
required to be submitted or provided to the Regional Director must be 
addressed or delivered to the National Marine Fisheries Service, P.O. 
Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. Submissions must be complete, legible, and 
in English.


Sec. 677.6  Research Plan fee.

    (a) Fee percentage. The fee percentage will be set annually under 
procedures at Sec. 677.11, such that the total fees equal the lesser of 
the following:
    (1) The cost of implementing the Research Plan, including 
nonpayments, minus any other Federal funds that support the Research 
Plan and any existing surplus in the North Pacific Fishery Observer 
Fund; or
    (2) Two percent of the exvessel value of all Research Plan 
fisheries.
    (b) Fee assessment--(1) Fee assessments applicable from January 1, 
1995, through December 31, 1995. (i) NMFS will calculate bimonthly fee 
assessments for each processor of Research Plan fisheries based on the 
best available information received by the Regional Director since the 
last bimonthly billing period on the amount of fish retained by the 
processor from Research Plan fisheries. Fee assessments will not be 
calculated for the retained amounts of whole fish processed into meal 
product.
    (ii) The bimonthly fee assessment calculated by NMFS for each 
shoreside processor or mothership processor vessel retaining groundfish 
shall equal the sum of:
    (A) The round weight or round-weight equivalent of retained catch 
of each groundfish species delivered by catcher vessels equal to and 
greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA determined by the best available 
information received by the Regional Director since the last bimonthly 
billing period, multiplied by the standard exvessel price established 
pursuant to Sec. 677.11 for the calendar year, multiplied by one-half 
the fee percentage established pursuant to Sec. 677.11 for the calendar 
year; plus
    (B) The round weight or round-weight equivalent of retained catch 
of each groundfish species delivered by catcher vessels less than 60 ft 
(18.3 m) LOA determined by the best available information received by 
the Regional Director since the last bimonthly billing period, 
multiplied by the standard exvessel price established pursuant to 
Sec. 677.11 for the calendar year, multiplied by the fee percentage 
established pursuant to Sec. 677.11 for the calendar year.
    (iii) The bimonthly fee assessment calculated by NMFS for each 
processor retaining king or Tanner crab shall equal the sum of:
    (A) The round weight or round-weight equivalent of retained catch 
of Chionoecetes tanneri Tanner crab, C. angulatus Tanner crab, and 
Lithodes cousei king crab determined by the best available information 
received by the Regional Director since the last bimonthly billing 
period, multiplied by the standard exvessel price established pursuant 
to Sec. 677.11 for the calendar year, multiplied by one-half the fee 
percentage established pursuant to Sec. 677.11 for the calendar year; 
plus
    (B) The round weight or round-weight equivalent of retained catch 
of king or Tanner crab, except for those species listed under paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A) of this section, determined by the best available 
information received by the Regional Director since the last bimonthly 
billing period, multiplied by the standard exvessel price established 
pursuant to Sec. 677.11 for the calendar year, multiplied by the fee 
percentage established pursuant to Sec. 677.11 for the calendar year.
    (iv) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, 
the bimonthly fee assessment calculated by NMFS for each processor that 
retains groundfish or halibut is the round weight or round-weight 
equivalent of retained catch of these species determined by the best 
available information received by the Regional Director since the last 
bimonthly billing period, multiplied by the standard exvessel price 
established pursuant to Sec. 677.11 for the calendar year, multiplied 
by the fee percentage established pursuant to Sec. 677.11 for the 
calendar year.
    (2) Fee assessments applicable after December 31, 1995. The 
bimonthly fee assessment calculated by NMFS for each processor of 
Research Plan fisheries is the round weight or round-weight equivalent 
of retained catch for each species from Research Plan fisheries 
determined by the best available information received by the Regional 
Director since the last bimonthly billing period, multiplied by the 
standard exvessel price established pursuant to Sec. 677.11 for the 
calendar year, multiplied by the fee percentage established pursuant to 
Sec. 677.11 for the calendar year. Fee assessments will not be 
calculated for the retained amounts of whole fish processed into meal 
product.
    (c) Fee assessment payments. NMFS will bill each processor of 
Research Plan fisheries for bimonthly fee assessments calculated under 
paragraph (b) of this section. Each processor must collect and pay the 
bimonthly fee assessments. Bimonthly fee assessment payments must be in 
the form of certified check, draft, or money order payable in U.S. 
currency to ``The Department of Commerce/NOAA.'' Except as provided in 
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, payment in full must be 
received by the financial institution authorized by the U.S. Treasury 
to receive these funds within 30 calendar days from the date of 
issuance of each bimonthly fee assessment bill. Payments will be 
deposited in the North Pacific Fishery Observer Fund within the U.S. 
Treasury.
    (d) Credit for observer coverage costs incurred from January 1, 
1995, through December 31, 1995--(1) General. Subject to the 
limitations set out in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, each processor 
may subtract from its portion of the processor's billed fee assessment 
the cost of observer coverage paid by the processor to an observer 
contractor(s) for the processor's compliance with observer coverage 
requirements at Sec. 677.10(a).
    (2) Limitations. (i) Only those payments to observer contractors 
for observer coverage required under Sec. 677.10(a) of this part that 
are received by observer contractors prior to April 1, 1996, will be 
credited against a processor's billed fee assessment under this 
paragraph (d).
    (ii) The amount that may be subtracted from a catcher/processor's 
billed fee assessment for retained catch of groundfish is limited to 
the actual cost of observer coverage required under Sec. 677.10(a) of 
this part up to an amount equal to the fee assessment calculated under 
paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (iii) The amount that may be subtracted from a shoreside 
processor's or mothership processor vessel's billed fee assessment for 
retained catch of groundfish is limited to the actual cost of observer 
coverage required under Sec. 677.10(a) of this part up to an amount 
equal to the sum of the fee assessment calculated under paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section plus one-half the fee assessment 
calculated under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (iv) The amount that may be subtracted from a catch/processor or 
mothership processor vessel's billed fee assessment for retained catch 
of king or Tanner crab is limited to the actual cost of observer 
coverage required under Sec. 677.10(a) of this part up to an amount 
equal to the sum of the fee assessment calculated under paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A) of this section plus one-half the fee assessment 
calculated under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B) of this section.
    (3) Processor Account Status--(i) Credit applied by NMFS to 
bimonthly fee assessments. If a processor's cost for observer coverage 
required under Sec. 677.10(a) during a bimonthly period exceeds the 
calculated fee assessment for that period, the Regional Director will 
credit the processor's next bimonthly fee assessment up to an amount 
equal to the remaining observer coverage costs as reported to the 
Regional Director under paragraph (d)(4) of this section, or the 
bimonthly fee assessment, whichever is less.
    (ii) Refunds. As soon as practicable after April 1, 1996, NMFS will 
issue a refund to a processor for any portion of the processor's costs 
for observer coverage required under Sec. 677.10(a) and reported to the 
Regional Director under paragraph (d)(4) of this section up to an 
amount equal to the sum of the bimonthly fee assessments paid by the 
processor for retained catch during 1995, provided that:
    (A) These observer coverage costs previously have not been 
subtracted from the processor's billed fee assessment;
    (B) Payment for observer coverage required under Sec. 677.10(a) 
have been received by observer contractors prior to April 1, 1996;
    (C) The processor has not applied for a semiannual processor permit 
under Sec. 677.4 prior to April 1, 1996; and
    (D) The bimonthly fee assessments billed to the processor under 
Sec. 677.6(b)(1) have been paid.
    (4) Recordkeeping and reporting, for purposes of this paragraph 
(d)--(i) Processor requirements. (A) All processors that subtract costs 
for observer coverage from their bimonthly fee assessment under this 
paragraph (d) must submit to the Regional Director a copy of each paid 
invoice for observer coverage and a copy of the check, money order, or 
other form of payment sent to the observer contractor in payment for 
observer coverage listed on the invoice.
    (B) The information required under paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) of this 
section must be sent to the following address at the time the processor 
submits the payment of the bimonthly fee assessment to the Department 
of Commerce/NOAA under paragraph (c) of this section: NMFS, Alaska 
Fisheries Science Center, Observer Program, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., 
Building 4, Bin C 15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Research Plan 
Coordinator.
    (ii) Observer contractor requirements. (A) Observer contractors 
must submit to the Regional Director a completed Observer Coverage 
Payment Receipt Form (Form FPP-2; see figure 2 to part 677) for each 
payment received from a processor for compliance with observer coverage 
requirements at Sec. 677.10(a) and a copy of the check, money order, or 
other form of payment. Each completed form and the attached copy of the 
record of payment must be submitted to the following address within 7 
days after payment is received: NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 
Observer Program, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Building 4, Bin C 15700, 
Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Research Plan Coordinator.
    (B) Observer Coverage Payment Receipt Form. Observer contractors 
may obtain Observer Coverage Payment Receipt Forms from the Regional 
Director. The form requests the following information:
    (1) Observer contractor name and signature of a person serving as a 
representative for the observer contractor;
    (2) Identification of the processor vessel or shoreside processing 
facility that received observer coverage;
    (3) Name of the observer(s) and date(s) of deployment for observer 
coverage;
    (4) The name and mailing address of the person who paid for 
observer coverage; and
    (5) The total amount paid for observer coverage and the date 
payment for observer coverage was received; and
    (6) Copies of the check, money order, or other form of payment.
    (e) Disputed fee assessments. A processor must notify the Regional 
Director, in writing, within 30 days of issuance of a bimonthly fee 
assessment bill, if any portion of the bimonthly fee assessment bill is 
disputed. The processor must pay the undisputed amount of the bimonthly 
fee assessment bill within 30 days of its issuance, and provide 
documentation supporting the disputed portion claimed to be under- or 
over-billed. The Regional Director will review the bimonthly fee 
assessment bill and the documentation provided by the processor, and 
will notify the processor of his determination within 60 days of the 
date of issuance of the bimonthly fee assessment bill. If the Regional 
Director determines a billing error has occurred, the processor's 
account will be rectified by credit or issuance of a corrected fee 
assessment bill. If the Regional Director determines that a billing 
error has not occurred, the outstanding payment on the bimonthly fee 
assessment bill will be considered past-due from the date 30 days from 
the date of issuance of the bill and late charges will be assessed 
under paragraph (f) of this section. If the processor does not dispute 
the amount of the fee assessment bill within 30 days of its issuance, 
the fee assessment will be final, and will be due to the United States.
    (f) Late charges. The NOAA Office of the Comptroller shall assess 
late charges in the form of interest and administrative charges for 
late payment of fee assessments. Interest will accrue on the unpaid 
amount at a percentage rate established by the Federal Reserve Board 
and applied to funds held by the U.S. Treasury for each 30-day period, 
or portion thereof, that the payment is overdue. Payment received after 
90 days from the due date will be charged an additional late payment 
penalty charge of 6 percent of the balance due.


Sec. 677.7  General prohibitions.

    In addition to the general prohibitions specified in Sec. 620.7 of 
this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to do any of the 
following:
    (a) Forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or 
interfere with an observer.
    (b) Interfere with or bias the sampling procedure employed by an 
observer, including sorting or discarding any catch before sampling; or 
tamper with, destroy, or discard an observer's collected samples, 
equipment, records, photographic film, papers, or personal effects 
without the express consent of the observer.
    (c) Prohibit or bar by command, impediment, threat, coercion, or by 
refusal of reasonable assistance, an observer from collecting samples, 
conducting product recovery rate determinations, making observations, 
or otherwise performing the observer's duties.
    (d) Harass an observer by conduct that has sexual connotations, has 
the purpose or effect of interfering with the observer's work 
performance, or otherwise creates an intimidating, hostile, or 
offensive environment. In determining whether conduct constitutes 
harassment, the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of 
the conduct and the context in which it occurred, will be considered. 
The determination of the legality of a particular action will be made 
from the facts on a case-by-case basis.
    (e) Process fish from a Research Plan fishery without a valid 
permit issued pursuant to this part.
    (f) Deliver fish from a Research Plan fishery to a processor not 
possessing a valid permit issued pursuant to this part.
    (g) Subtract from a billed fee assessment costs paid for observer 
coverage under provisions of Sec. 677.6(d) that are based on false or 
inaccurate information.
    (h) Fish for or process fish without observer coverage required 
under Sec. 677.10.
    (i) Require an observer to perform duties normally performed by 
crew members, including, but not limited to, cooking, washing dishes, 
standing watch, vessel maintenance, assisting with the setting or 
retrieval of gear, or any duties associated with the processing of 
fish, from sorting the catch to the storage of the finished product.


Sec. 677.8  Facilitation of enforcement.

    See Sec. 620.8 of this chapter.


Sec. 677.9  Penalties.

    See Sec. 620.9 of this chapter.


Sec. 677.10  General requirements.

    (a) Observer requirements applicable through December 31, 1995--(1) 
Requirements for operators of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
management area and Gulf of Alaska groundfish vessels--(i) Coverage 
requirements. Observer coverage is required as follows:
    (A) A mothership processor vessel of any length that processes 
1,000 mt or more in round weight or round-weight equivalents of 
groundfish during a calendar month is required to have a NMFS-certified 
observer onboard the vessel each day it receives or processes 
groundfish during that month.
    (B) A mothership processor vessel of any length that processes from 
500 mt to 1,000 mt in round weight or round-weight equivalents of 
groundfish during a calendar month is required to have a NMFS-certified 
observer on board the vessel at least 30 percent of the days it 
receives or processes groundfish during that month.
    (C) A catcher/processor or catcher vessel 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA or 
longer must carry a NMFS-certified observer at all times while fishing 
for groundfish, except for a vessel fishing for groundfish with pot 
gear as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(F) of this section.
    (D) A catcher/processor or catcher vessel equal to or greater than 
60 ft (18.3 m) LOA, but less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, must carry a 
NMFS-certified observer during at least 30 percent of its fishing days 
in each calendar quarter in which the vessel participates for more than 
3 fishing days in a directed fishery for groundfish. Each vessel that 
participates for more than 3 fishing days in a directed fishery for 
groundfish in a calendar quarter must carry a NMFS-certified observer 
during at least one fishing trip during that calendar quarter for each 
of the groundfish fishery categories defined under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) 
of this section in which the vessel participates.
    (E) A catcher/processor or catcher vessel fishing with hook-and-
line gear that is required to carry an observer under paragraph 
(a)(1)(i)(D) of this section must carry a NMFS-certified observer 
during at least one fishing trip in the Eastern Regulatory Area of the 
Gulf of Alaska during each calendar quarter in which the vessel 
participates in a directed fishery for groundfish in the Eastern 
Regulatory Area.
    (F) A catcher/processor or catcher vessel equal to or greater than 
60 ft (18.3 m) LOA fishing with pot gear must carry a NMFS-certified 
observer during at least 30 percent of its fishing days in each 
calendar quarter in which the vessel participates for more than 3 
fishing days in a directed fishery for groundfish. Each vessel that 
participates for more than 3 fishing days in a directed fishery for 
groundfish using pot gear must carry a NMFS-certified observer during 
at least one fishing trip during a calendar quarter for each of the 
groundfish fishery categories defined under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of 
this section in which the vessel participates.
    (ii) Groundfish fishery categories requiring separate coverage--(A) 
Pollock fishery. Fishing that results in a retained catch of pollock, 
during any fishing trip, that is greater than the retained catch of any 
other groundfish species or species group that is specified as a 
separate groundfish fishery under this paragraph (a)(1)(ii).
    (B) Pacific cod fishery. Fishing that results in a retained catch 
of Pacific cod, during any fishing trip, that is greater than the 
retained catch of any other groundfish species or species group that is 
specified as a separate groundfish fishery under this paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii).
    (C) Sablefish fishery. Fishing that results in a retained catch of 
sablefish, during any fishing trip, that is greater than the retained 
catch of any other groundfish species or species group that is 
specified as a separate groundfish fishery under this paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii).
    (D) Rockfish fishery. Fishing that results in a retained aggregate 
catch of rockfish of the genera Sebastes and Sebastolobus, during any 
fishing trip, that is greater than the retained catch of any other 
groundfish species or species group that is specified as a separate 
groundfish fishery under this paragraph (a)(1)(ii).
    (E) Flatfish fishery. Fishing that results in a retained aggregate 
catch of all flatfish species, except Pacific halibut, during any 
fishing trip, that is greater than the retained catch of any other 
groundfish species or species group that is specified as a separate 
groundfish fishery under this paragraph (a)(1)(ii).
    (F) Other species fishery. Fishing that results in a retained catch 
of groundfish, during any fishing trip, that does not qualify as a 
pollock, Pacific cod, sablefish, rockfish, or flatfish fishery as 
defined under paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
    (iii) Assignment of vessels to fisheries. At the end of any fishing 
trip, a vessel's retained catch composition of groundfish species or 
species groups for which a TAC has been specified under Sec. 672.20 or 
Sec. 675.20 of this chapter, in round weight or round-weight 
equivalents, will determine to which of the fishery categories listed 
under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section the vessel is assigned.
    (A) A catcher/processor will be assigned to a fishery category at 
the end of a fishing trip based on the round weight or round-weight 
equivalent of the retained groundfish catch composition reported on the 
vessel's weekly production report submitted to the Regional Director 
under Sec. 672.5(c)(2) or Sec. 675.5(c)(2) of this chapter.
    (B) A catcher vessel that delivers to mothership processor vessels 
in Federal waters will be assigned to a fishery category at the end of 
a fishing trip based on the round weight or round-weight equivalent of 
the retained groundfish catch composition reported on the weekly 
production report submitted to the Regional Director for that week by 
the mothership processor vessel under Sec. 672.5(c)(2) or 
Sec. 675.5(c)(2) of this chapter.
    (C) A catcher vessel that delivers groundfish to a shoreside 
processor or to a mothership processor vessel in Alaska State waters at 
the end of a fishing trip will be assigned to a fishery category based 
on the round weight or round-weight equivalent of the retained 
groundfish catch composition delivered to a processor(s) at the end of 
that fishing trip and reported on one or more ADF&G fish tickets as 
required under Alaska Statutes at A.S. 16.05.690.
    (2) Requirements for managers of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
management area and Gulf of Alaska groundfish shoreside processing 
facilities. Observer coverage is required as follows:
    (i) A shoreside processing facility that processes 1,000 mt or more 
in round weight or round-weight equivalents of groundfish during a 
calendar month is required to have a NMFS-certified observer present at 
the facility each day it receives or processes groundfish during that 
month.
    (ii) A shoreside processing facility that processes 500 mt to 1,000 
mt in round weight or round-weight equivalents of groundfish during a 
calendar month is required to have a NMFS-certified observer present at 
the facility at least 30 percent of the days it receives or processes 
groundfish during that month.
    (3) Requirements for vessel operators of Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands area king and Tanner crab. An operator of a vessel that 
processes king or Tanner crab or that harvests C. tanneri Tanner crab, 
C. angulatus Tanner crab, or L. cousei king crab, must have one or more 
State of Alaska-certified observers on board the vessel whenever king 
or Tanner crab are received, processed, or onboard the vessel in the 
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area if the operator is required to do 
so by Alaska State regulations at 5 AAC 34.035, 34.082, 35.082, or 
39.645.
    (b) Observer requirements applicable after December 31, 1995--(1) 
General requirements for Research Plan fisheries--(i) Requirements for 
operators of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area and Gulf 
of Alaska groundfish vessels and halibut from convention waters off 
Alaska. An operator of a vessel that catches and retains groundfish or 
halibut, or a vessel that processes groundfish or halibut, must carry 
one or more NMFS-certified observers onboard the vessel whenever 
fishing operations are conducted, if the operator is required to do so 
by the Regional Director under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (ii) Requirements for managers of shoreside processing facilities 
of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area and Gulf of Alaska 
groundfish and halibut from convention waters off Alaska. A manager of 
a shoreside processing facility that processes groundfish or halibut 
received from vessels regulated under this part must have one or more 
NMFS-certified observers present at the facility whenever groundfish or 
halibut are received or processed, if the manager is required to do so 
by the Regional Director under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (iii) Requirements for vessel operators of Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands area king and Tanner crab. An operator of a vessel subject to 
this part must carry one or more NMFS-certified observers or ADF&G 
employees onboard the vessel whenever fishing or processing operations 
are conducted, if the operator is required to do so by the Regional 
Director under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (iv) Requirements for managers of shoreside processing facilities 
of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area king and Tanner crab. A manager 
of a shoreside processing facility that processes king or Tanner crab 
received from vessels regulated under this part must have one or more 
NMFS-certified observers, or ADF&G employees, present at the facility 
whenever king or Tanner crab is received or processed, if the manager 
is required to do so by the Regional Director under paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section.
    (2) Observer coverage for Research Plan fisheries--(i) Annual 
determination of coverage level. The appropriate level of observer 
coverage necessary to achieve the objectives of the Research Plan, 
given the funds available from the North Pacific Fishery Observer Fund, 
will be established annually under procedures in Sec. 677.11.
    (ii) Inseason changes in coverage level. (A) The Regional Director 
may increase or decrease the observer coverage requirements for the 
Research Plan fisheries at any time to improve the accuracy, 
reliability, and availability of observer data, and to ensure solvency 
of the observer program, so long as the standards of section 313 of the 
Magnuson Act and other applicable Federal regulations are met, and the 
changes are based on one or more of the following:
    (1) A finding that there has been, or is likely to be, a 
significant change in fishing methods, times, or areas, or catch or 
bycatch composition for a specific fishery or fleet component.
    (2) A finding that such modifications are necessary to improve data 
availability or quality in order to meet specific fishery management 
objectives.
    (3) A finding that any decrease in observer coverage resulting from 
unanticipated funding shortfalls is consistent with the following 
priorities:
    (i) Status of stock assessments;
    (ii) Inseason management;
    (iii) Bycatch monitoring; and
    (iv) Vessel incentive programs and regulatory compliance.
    (4) A determination that any increased costs are commensurate with 
the quality and usefulness of the data to be derived from any revised 
program, and are necessary to meet fishery management needs.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (iii) The Regional Director will consult with the Commissioner of 
ADF&G prior to making inseason changes in observer coverage level for 
the crab observer program.
    (iv) NMFS will publish changes in observer coverage requirements 
made under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section in the Federal 
Register, with the reasons for the changes and any special instructions 
to vessels required to carry observers, at least 10 calendar days prior 
to their implementation.
    (c) Vessel responsibilities. An operator of a vessel must:
    (1) Provide, at no cost to observers, the State of Alaska, or the 
United States, accommodations and food on the vessel for the observer 
or observers that are equivalent to those provided for officers, 
engineers, foremen, deck-bosses or other management level personnel of 
the vessel.
    (2) Maintain safe conditions on the vessel for the protection of 
observers during the time observers are on board the vessel, by 
adhering to all U.S. Coast Guard and other applicable rules, 
regulations, or statutes pertaining to safe operation of the vessel.
    (3) Allow observers to use the vessel's communication equipment and 
personnel, on request, for the entry, transmission, and receipt of 
work-related messages, at no cost to the observers, the State of 
Alaska, or the United States.
    (4) Allow observers access to, and the use of, the vessel's 
navigation equipment and personnel, on request, to determine the 
vessel's position.
    (5) Allow observers free and unobstructed access to the vessel's 
bridge, trawl or working decks, holding bins, processing areas, freezer 
spaces, weight scales, cargo holds, and any other space that may be 
used to hold, process, weigh, or store fish or fish products at any 
time.
    (6) Notify observers at least 15 minutes before fish are brought on 
board, or fish and fish products are transferred from the vessel, to 
allow sampling the catch or observing the transfer, unless the 
observers specifically request not to be notified.
    (7) Allow observers to inspect and copy the vessel's daily fishing 
logbook, daily cumulative production logbook, transfer logbook, any 
other logbook or document required by regulations, printouts or tallies 
of scale weights, scale calibration records, bin sensor readouts, and 
production records.
    (8) Provide all other reasonable assistance to enable observers to 
carry out their duties, including, but not limited to, assisting the 
observers in measuring decks, codends, and holding bins; providing the 
observers with a safe work area adjacent to the sample collection site; 
providing crab observers with the necessary equipment to conduct 
sampling, such as scales, fish totes, and baskets; assisting in 
collecting bycatch when requested by the observers; assisting in 
collecting and carrying baskets of fish when requested by observers; 
and allowing observers to determine the sex of fish when this procedure 
will not decrease the value of a significant portion of the catch.
    (9) Move the vessel to such places and at such times as may be 
designated by the contractor, as instructed by the Regional Director, 
for purposes of embarking and debarking observers.
    (10) Ensure that transfers of observers at sea via small boat or 
raft are carried out during daylight hours, under safe conditions, and 
with the agreement of observers involved.
    (11) Notify observers at least 3 hours before observers are 
transferred, such that the observers can collect personal belongings, 
equipment, and scientific samples.
    (12) Provide a safe pilot ladder and conduct the transfer to ensure 
the safety of observers during transfers.
    (13) Provide an experienced crew member to assist observers in the 
small boat or raft in which any transfer is made.
    (d) Shoreside processor responsibilities. A manager of a shoreside 
processing facility must:
    (1) Maintain safe conditions at the shoreside processing facility 
for the protection of observers by adhering to all applicable rules, 
regulations, or statutes pertaining to safe operation and maintenance 
of the processing facility.
    (2) Notify the observers, as requested, of the planned facility 
operations and expected receipt of groundfish, crab, or halibut prior 
to receipt of those fish.
    (3) Allow the observers to use the shoreside processing facility's 
communication equipment, on request, for the entry, transmission, and 
receipt of work-related messages at no cost to the observers, the State 
of Alaska, or the United States.
    (4) Allow observers free and unobstructed access to the shoreside 
processing facility's holding bins, processing areas, freezer spaces, 
weight scales, warehouses, and any other space that may be used to 
hold, process, weigh, or store fish or fish products at any time.
    (5) Allow observers to inspect and copy the shoreside processing 
facility's daily cumulative production logbook, transfer logbook, any 
other logbook or document required by regulations; printouts or tallies 
of scale weights; scale calibration records; bin sensor readouts; and 
production records.
    (6) Provide all other reasonable assistance to enable the observer 
to carry out his or her duties, including, but not limited to, 
assisting the observer in moving and weighing totes of fish, 
cooperating with product recovery tests, and providing a secure place 
to store baskets of sampling gear.
    (e) Notification of observer contractors by processors and 
operators of vessels required to carry observers. (1) Processors and 
operators of vessels required to carry observers under the Research 
Plan are responsible for meeting their observer coverage requirements. 
Processors and vessel operators must notify the appropriate observer 
contractor, as identified by NMFS, in writing or facsimile copy, at 
least 60 days prior to the need for an observer, to ensure that an 
observer will be available. Processors and vessel operators must notify 
the appropriate observer contractor again, in writing, facsimile copy, 
or by telephone, at least 10 days prior to the need for an observer, to 
make final arrangements for observer deployment.
    (2) If observer contractors are not notified within the time 
periods set out at paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the availability 
of an observer to meet observer coverage requirements will not be 
guaranteed.
    (3) Names of observer contractors, information for contacting 
contractors, and a list of embarkment/disembarkment ports for observers 
will be published in the Federal Register annually, prior to the 
beginning of the calendar year pursuant to Sec. 677.11.
    (f) Release of observer data to the public--(1) Summary of weekly 
data. The following information collected by observers for each catcher 
processor and catcher vessel during any weekly reporting period may be 
made available to the public:
    (i) Vessel name and Federal permit number;
    (ii) Number of chinook salmon and ``other salmon'' observed;
    (iii) The ratio of total round weight of halibut or Pacific herring 
to the total round weight of groundfish in sampled catch;
    (iv) The ratio of number of king crab or C. bairdi Tanner crab to 
the total round weight of groundfish in sampled hauls;
    (v) The number of observed trawl hauls or fixed gear sets;
    (vi) The number of trawl hauls that were basket sampled; and
    (vii) The total weight of basket samples taken from sampled trawl 
hauls.
    (2) Haul-specific data. (i) The information listed in paragraphs 
(f)(2)(i) (A) through (M) of this section and collected by observers 
from observed hauls onboard vessels using trawl gear to participate in 
a directed fishery for groundfish other than rockfish, Greenland 
turbot, or Atka mackerel may be made available to the public:
    (A) Date.
    (B) Time of day gear is deployed.
    (C) Latitude and longitude at beginning of haul.
    (D) Bottom depth.
    (E) Fishing depth of trawl.
    (F) The ratio of the number of chinook salmon to the total round 
weight of groundfish.
    (G) The ratio of the number of other salmon to the total round 
weight of groundfish.
    (H) The ratio of total round weight of halibut to the total round 
weight of groundfish.
    (I) The ratio of total round weight of herring to the total round 
weight of groundfish.
    (J) The ratio of the number of king crab to the total round weight 
of groundfish.
    (K) The ratio of the number of C. bairdi Tanner crab to the total 
round weight of groundfish.
    (L) Sea surface temperature (where available).
    (M) Sea temperature at fishing depth of trawl (where available).
    (ii) The identity of the vessels from which the data in paragraph 
(f)(2)(i) of this section are collected will not be released.
    (3) In exceptional circumstances, the owners and operators of 
vessels may provide to the Regional Director written justification at 
the time observer data are submitted, or within a reasonable time 
thereafter, that disclosure of the information listed in paragraphs (f) 
(1) and (2) of this section could reasonably be expected to cause 
substantial competitive harm. The determination whether to disclose the 
information will be made pursuant to 15 CFR 4.7.
    (g) Vessel safety requirements applicable after December 31, 1995. 
Any vessel that is required to carry observers under paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section must have onboard either:
    (1) A valid Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Decal issued within 
the past 2 years that certifies compliance with regulations found in 
Titles 33 CFR chapter I and 46 CFR chapter I,
    (2) A certificate of compliance issued pursuant to 46 CFR 28.710, 
or
    (3) A valid certificate of inspection pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3311. 
NMFS will not station observers aboard vessels that do not meet this 
requirement.


Sec. 677.11  Annual Research Plan specifications.

    (a) Proposed Research Plan specifications. Annually, after 
consultation with the Council, and, in the case of observer coverage 
levels in the crab fisheries, the State of Alaska, NMFS will publish 
for public comment in the Federal Register: Proposed standard exvessel 
prices, total exvessel value, fee percentage, levels of observer 
coverage for Research Plan fisheries, and embarkment/disembarkment 
ports for observers, for the calendar year.
    (1) Standard exvessel prices. Standard exvessel prices will be used 
in determining the annual fee percentage for the calendar year and will 
be the basis for calculating fee assessments. Standard exvessel prices 
for species harvested in Research Plan fisheries for each calendar year 
will be based on:
    (i) Exvessel price information by applicable season, area, gear, 
and processing sector for the most recent 12-month period for which 
data are available;
    (ii) Factors that are expected to change exvessel prices in the 
calendar year; and
    (iii) Any other relevant information that may affect expected 
exvessel prices during the calendar year.
    (2) Total exvessel value. The total exvessel value of Research Plan 
fisheries will be calculated as the sum of the product of the standard 
exvessel prices established under paragraph (a)(1) of this section and 
projected retained catches, by species. The value of whole fish 
processed into meal product will not be included in this calculation.
    (3) Research Plan fee percentage. The Research Plan fee percentage 
for a calendar year will equal the lesser of 2 percent of the exvessel 
value of retained catch in the Research Plan fisheries or the fee 
percentage calculated using the following equation:

Fee percentage = [100  x  (RRPC - FB - OF)/V]/(1 - NPR)

where RRPC is the projection of recoverable Research Plan costs for the 
coming year, FB is the projected end of the year balance of funds 
collected under the Research Plan, OF is the projection of other 
funding for the coming year, V is the projected exvessel value of 
retained catch in the Research Plan fisheries for the coming year, and 
NPR is the percent (expressed as a decimal) of fee assessments that are 
expected to result in nonpayment.
    (4) Observer coverage. For the period January 1, 1995, through 
December 31, 1995, observer coverage levels in Research Plan fisheries 
will be as required by Sec. 677.10(a). After December 31, 1995, the 
level of observer coverage will be determined annually by NMFS, after 
consultation with the Council and the State of Alaska, and may vary by 
fishery and vessel or processor size, depending upon the objectives to 
be met for the groundfish, halibut, and king and Tanner crab fisheries. 
The Regional Director may change observer coverage inseason pursuant to 
Sec. 677.10(b)(2)(ii).
    (5) Embarkment/disembarkment ports. Ports to be used to embark and 
disembark observers will be selected on the basis of convenience to the 
affected industry and on the availability of facilities, 
transportation, and accommodations deemed by the Regional Director to 
be necessary for the safe and reasonable deployment of observers.
    (b) Final Research Plan specifications. NMFS will consider comments 
received on the proposed specifications and, following consultation 
with the Council, and with the State, in the case of observer coverage 
in the crab fisheries, will publish the final total exvessel value; 
standard exvessel prices; fee percentage; levels of observer coverage 
for Research Plan fisheries, including names of observer contractors 
and information for contacting them; and embarkment/disembarkment ports 
in the Federal Register annually prior to the beginning of the calendar 
year.


Sec. 677.12  Compliance.

    The operator of any fishing vessel subject to this part, and the 
manager of any shoreside processing facility that receives groundfish, 
halibut, or king and Tanner crab from vessels subject to this part, 
must comply with the requirements of this part. The owner of any 
fishing vessel subject to this part, or any shoreside processing 
facility that received groundfish, halibut, or king and Tanner crab 
from vessels subject to this part, must ensure that the operator or 
manager complies with the requirements of this part and is liable, 
either individually or jointly and severally, for compliance with the 
requirements of this part.

Subpart B--General Provisions of Risk-Sharing Pool for Insurance 
Purposes [Reserved]

Figures--Part 677

    Figure 1 to part 677--Federal Processing Permit Application 
(Form FPP-1).

BILLING CODE 3510-22-W

TR06SE94.002


TR06SE94.003


TR06SE94.004


TR06SE94.005


TR06SE94.006

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
    Figure 2 to part 677--Observer Coverage Payment Receipt (Form 
FPP-2).

BILLING CODE 3510-22-W

TR06SE94.007


TR06SE94.008

[FR Doc. 94-21711 Filed 9-2-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C