Pacific Whiting Harvest: Controversy Surrounding 1993 Allocation Between
Processing Sectors (Letter Report, 05/10/94, GAO/RCED-94-122).

The 1993 Pacific whiting harvest was controversial.  The Department of
Commerce rejected the Pacific Fishery Management Council's proposed
allocation of the whiting harvest between the shoreside and at-sea
processing sectors.  The Council had proposed that up to 74 percent of
the 1993 harvest be allocated to those fishing vessels delivering their
catch to shoreside processors and that the rest be made available to
vessels delivering their catch to at-sea processors.  After much
deliberation, Commerce--one day before the opening of the 1993 fishing
season--approved an allocation of 30 percent to the shoreside sector and
70 percent to the at-sea sector.  GAO concludes that the allocation
decision for the 1993 Pacific whiting harvest was made in accordance
with federal agency decision-making procedures and regulations.
Commerce rejected the Council's recommendation because of inadequate
support.  The timing of the decision, which differed little from the
timing of the 1992 decision, was the result of the considerable time
that federal officials spent deliberating the Council's proposed shift
in the 1993 allocation between the two processing centers.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-94-122
     TITLE:  Pacific Whiting Harvest: Controversy Surrounding 1993 
             Allocation Between Processing Sectors
      DATE:  05/10/94
   SUBJECT:  Federal regulations
             Advisory committees
             Fishing industry
             Competition limitation
             Marine resources
             Fishes
             Regulatory agencies
             Agency proceedings
IDENTIFIER:  California
             Oregon
             Washington
             Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Honorable
Mark O.  Hatfield,
U.S.  Senate

May 1994

PACIFIC WHITING HARVEST -
CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING 1993
ALLOCATION BETWEEN PROCESSING
SECTORS

GAO/RCED-94-122

Pacific Whiting Harvest


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  GAO - General Accounting Office
  NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service
  NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-256352

May 10, 1994

The Honorable Mark O.  Hatfield
United States Senate

Dear Senator Hatfield: 

The 1993 Pacific whiting harvest allocation was controversial.  The
controversy stemmed from the Department of Commerce's rejection of
the Pacific Fishery Management Council's proposed allocation of the
whiting harvest between the shoreside and at-sea processing
sectors.\1 The Council had proposed that up to 74 percent of the 1993
harvest of Pacific whiting be allocated to those fishing vessels
delivering their catch to shoreside processors and that the remaining
26 percent be available to those vessels delivering their catch to
at-sea processors.  After much deliberation, the Department of
Commerce--1 day before the opening of the 1993 fishing
season--approved an allocation of 30 percent to the shoreside sector
and 70 percent to the at-sea sector.  This allocation was close to
the actual harvest for the two sectors in 1992. 

Concerned about whether the approved allocation was justified, you
asked us to examine the events that affected the decision-making
process used to allocate the 1993 harvest of Pacific whiting. 
Specifically, we agreed to determine (1) whether the decision-making
process complied with existing procedures and regulations, (2)
whether the support for the Council's allocation recommendation was
adequate, and (3) why the Secretary's decision was made on the day
before the allocation was to take effect, rather than earlier.  In
addition, we agreed to determine the extent to which nonwhiting fish
species were caught during the whiting harvest. 


--------------------
\1 The shoreside sector includes fishing vessels that deliver their
catch to processors located on shore.  The at-sea sector includes
vessels that either (1) catch and process fish at sea, (2) catch and
deliver fish to at-sea processors, or (3) process fish at sea. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

The decision for allocating the 1993 Pacific whiting harvest was made
in accordance with federal agency decision-making procedures and
regulations.  The Secretary of Commerce rejected the Council's
recommendation because of inadequate support.  The timing of the
Secretary's decision, which was not much different from the timing of
the 1992 decision, was the result of the considerable time spent by
federal officials in deliberating the Council's proposed shift in the
1993 allocation between the two processing sectors. 

According to federal and state officials, small quantities of
nonwhiting species (about 1.5 percent of the metric tons of whiting
caught annually) are inadvertently being caught by the shoreside and
at-sea processing sectors during the Pacific whiting harvest. 

An allocation decision for the Pacific whiting harvest for 1994
through 1996 appears to have proceeded more smoothly than did the
1993 decision.  Both the shoreside and at-sea sectors were involved
in and agreed with the Council's recommendation.  The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a final rule on April 8, 1994, that
implements the allocation recommended by the Council. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as
amended (16 U.S.C.  1801 et seq.), established a national policy for
managing offshore fisheries.  The primary purpose of the act is to
conserve and manage marine resources found off the coast of the
United States.  The act established a set of national standards for
fishery conservation and management within an "exclusive economic
zone," which generally extends from 3 to 200 miles off the U.S. 
coast.  The standards call for conservation and management measures
that (1) prevent overfishing, while achieving, on a continuing basis,
the optimum yield from each fishery and (2) promote, where
practicable, efficiency in the utilization of the fishery.  The act
requires that these measures be based on the best scientific
information available. 

The Magnuson Act assigns general responsibility for fisheries
management within the exclusive economic zone to the Secretary of
Commerce.  NMFS, an agency of the Department of Commerce's National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), administers fishery
management activities for the Secretary.  The Magnuson Act also
established eight regional fishery management councils, which, in
turn, develop management plans for each fishery within their
geographic area.  These fishery management plans must be consistent
with the national standards established by the Magnuson Act.  The act
also contains time frames for approval by the Secretary of management
plans and subsequent amendments to them.  No such time limits are
specified for the approval of regulatory amendments made for
allocating the annual Pacific whiting harvest among the shoreside and
at-sea processing sectors, as has annually been the case since 1991. 

One of the eight regional councils--the Pacific Fishery Management
Council, located in Portland, Oregon--developed a management plan for
the groundfish\2 fishery off the coasts of California, Oregon, and
Washington, which was approved on January 4, 1982, by NMFS' Northwest
Regional Director with the concurrence of NOAA's Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries (who also heads NMFS).  The plan covers
about 80 species of groundfish, including the Pacific whiting, which
makes up over 50 percent of the annual groundfish harvest for the
fishery. 

The management plan has been amended several times to, among other
things, revise the plan's goals and objectives, establish procedures
for the Council to follow when setting or changing management
measures, and establish a limited entry program as a management
measure.  Revising a management plan or its implementing regulations
begins when the Council prepares documentation concerning a given
problem and recommends a number of alternatives, including a
preferred alternative, for resolving the problem.  The Council's
recommendation is then reviewed by NMFS' Regional Director, who has
responsibility for the matter.  The Regional Director then forwards
the recommendation to the Assistant Administrator for concurrence and
publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register.  After
considering the comments received, the Regional Director prepares the
final rule and submits it to the Assistant Administrator for
concurrence and publication in the Federal Register. 

The Secretary of Commerce has the ultimate authority for approving
management plans, management plan amendments, and implementing
regulations.  This authority has, however, been delegated to the five
NMFS regional directors.  Because of the controversy that the
proposed 1993 Pacific whiting allocation generated, the Assistant
Administrator decided that the final allocation decision should be
made by the Secretary of Commerce; therefore, approval authority was
withdrawn in this instance from the Northwest Regional Director. 

One of the objectives of the Magnuson Act is to promote the domestic
commercial fishing industry.  Before 1989, the Pacific whiting
fishery was primarily the domain of (1) foreign vessels that caught
and/or processed fish at sea and (2) U.S.  vessels that caught fish
and generally delivered them to foreign processing vessels.  A
portion of the harvest by U.S.  vessels was also delivered to a small
but developing shoreside processing industry in California, Oregon,
and Washington.  After 1989, foreign vessels no longer participated
in the Pacific whiting fishery because of the growing number of U.S. 
at-sea, high-capacity catcher-processor vessels that had entered the
fishery. 

A survey recently conducted by NMFS indicated that these
high-capacity vessels--looking for alternative resources to resolve
the overcapacity existing in the Alaska groundfish harvesting and
processing industries--were capable of catching and processing the
entire whiting harvest.  Beginning in 1991, the Council, concerned
that these new vessels would quickly displace many of the smaller
U.S.  vessels that historically harvested whiting and preempt the
developing shoreside whiting processing industry, began recommending
that the annual whiting harvest be allocated between the shoreside
and at-sea sectors.  The annual harvest has been allocated between
these two sectors over the last 3 years.  Table 1.1 shows the annual
Pacific whiting harvest for the shoreside and at-sea sectors for 1991
through 1993. 



                          Table 1.1
           
           Annual Pacific Whiting Harvest in Metric
                        Tons, 1991-93

Year                       Shoreside      At-sea       Total
------------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------
1991                          20,600     196,905     217,505
1992                          56,127     152,448     208,575
1993 (preliminary)            41,859      99,103     140,962
------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  NMFS. 


--------------------
\2 Groundfish, which live at or near the bottom of the sea, include
cod, haddock, pollack, flounder, rockfish, and whiting. 


   1993 ALLOCATION DECISION WAS
   CONSISTENT WITH AGENCY
   PROCEDURES AND REGULATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The process followed in allocating the 1993 Pacific whiting harvest
between the shoreside and at-sea processing sectors was in accordance
with federal agency procedures and Pacific Coast groundfish
regulations.  To illustrate, the Council used input from an industry
committee to develop allocation alternatives and then, over the
course of two Council meetings--the first to discuss proposed changes
and hear public comment and the second to select a preferred
alternative--developed its recommended 1993 Pacific whiting
allocation.  The Council based its recommendation on (1) its approved
Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, a goal of which is to
emphasize providing stability to shoreside processors, and (2) a
cost-benefit analysis, which was submitted as part of the Council's
recommendation.  The Council's recommendation called for a permanent
allocation framework that would have annually reserved 30,000 metric
tons of the harvest for the shoreside sector and provided a formula
for allocating the remainder of the harvest between the shoreside and
at-sea sectors.  As a result of the Council's recommendation for the
1993 harvest, which was estimated to be 142,000 metric tons, the
shoreside sector would have received up to 74 percent of the harvest
and the at-sea sector would have received the remaining 26 percent. 

The Council's recommended 1993 allocation was a significant departure
from the 1992 allocation, which resulted in 53 percent of the harvest
being allocated to the shoreside processing sector and 47 percent to
the at-sea sector.  The 1993 recommendation also directly contrasted
with the actual harvest in 1992, which yielded 27 percent of the
harvest for the shoreside sector and 73 percent for the at-sea
sector.  As can be seen in figure 1, the actual harvest in 1991 and
1992 for the shoreside sector was less than the allocation
recommended by the Council and less than the approved allocation.  In
contrast, the actual harvest by the at-sea sector in 1991 and 1992
was greater than the allocation recommended by the Council and
greater than the approved allocation. 

   Figure 1:  Comparison of
   Council's Recommendation,
   Approved Allocation, and Actual
   Harvest for 1991-93

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Council's recommendation, supporting rationale, public comments,
and other relevant information were forwarded to NMFS' Northwest
Regional Director on December 22, 1992, for review and approval.  The
Regional Director questioned the adequacy of the support for the
Council's recommendation, believing that it did not demonstrate
economically or socially that the shoreside reserve was necessary to
meet the goal of the management plan to provide stability to the
shoreside sector.  Consequently, he disapproved the reserve portion
of the Council's recommendation.  Without the reserve, the shoreside
sector would end up with 63 percent of the 1993 harvest and the
at-sea sector would get 37 percent.  This recommendation was then
forwarded to NMFS' headquarters on February 3, 1993, for review and
concurrence. 

NMFS' headquarters initially concurred with the Regional Director's
recommendation and forwarded the recommendation to NOAA and the
Department of Commerce for further review.  As is customary with
nearly all of NOAA's regulations, NOAA's staff also consulted with
the Office of General Counsel at the Department of Commerce and the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).\3 However, significant concern about the
persuasiveness of the documentation and analysis supporting the
additional increment to shoreside processors resulted in the
introduction by NOAA and Commerce of other allocation options for
consideration during the public comment period.  On March 18, 1993, a
proposed rule for allocating the whiting harvest was published in the
Federal Register.  The rule requested public comment on five
alternatives:  (1) the Council's recommendation; (2) the NMFS
Northwest Regional Director's proposal, which was the Council's
recommendation without the shoreside reserve; (3) the allocation of
35 percent of the harvest to the shoreside sector and 65 percent to
the at-sea sector, which was the Council's recommendation without the
shoreside reserve and the formula for allocating the remainder of the
harvest; (4) rejection of the Council's recommendation, which, in
effect, would remove all constraints between the two sectors; and (5)
adoption of the 1992 allocation percentages. 

On April 8, 1993, after considering the public comments received on
the various alternative proposals, NMFS recommended that the
Secretary of Commerce approve the alternative allocating 35 percent
of the harvest to the shoreside sector and 65 percent to the at-sea
sector.  However, NOAA, Commerce's Office of General Counsel, and OMB
did not believe there was sufficient support for NMFS' recommended
allocation.  Consequently, NOAA and Commerce disapproved it.  A
revised recommendation was approved by the Secretary of Commerce on
April 14, 1993, which had the effect of allocating 30 percent of the
1993 Pacific whiting harvest to the shoreside sector and 70 percent
to the at-sea sector.  This allocation is close to the actual harvest
in 1992 for the two sectors.  The final rule was published on April
20, 1993, with an effective date of April 15, 1993--the start of the
fishing season. 


--------------------
\3 In accordance with Executive Order 12291, proposed and final rules
are reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.  The executive
order states that the purpose of the review is to reduce the burden
of existing and future regulations, increase agencies' accountability
for regulatory actions, and minimize duplication and conflict. 


   SUPPORT FOR THE COUNCIL'S
   RECOMMENDATION WAS INADEQUATE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

The cost-benefit analysis developed in support of the Pacific Fishery
Management Council's allocation recommendation was challenged on the
basis of insufficient and inaccurate data.  Beginning with the
development of the Council's recommendation and throughout the
regional and headquarters review process, federal officials at all
levels--NMFS, NOAA, Commerce, and OMB--raised concerns about the
adequacy of the support for the recommendation and the fact that the
cost-benefit analysis used by the Council did not support the
preference given to the shoreside processing sector.  The Council, in
submitting its allocation recommendation and supporting
documentation, recognized the inconclusiveness of the cost-benefit
analysis--which was a part of the submission--primarily owing to
inadequate cost and pricing information. 

In developing its 1993 recommendation, one of the objectives of the
Council was to provide as much stability as possible to the shoreside
processing sector.  This was to be accomplished by establishing a
30,000-metric-ton reserve for the shoreside sector and using a
formula that would provide the majority of harvesting and processing
opportunities to the shoreside sector at low harvest levels. 

As noted earlier, the Regional Director questioned the adequacy of
the support for the Council's recommendation.  The Regional Director
recommended that the 30,000-metric- ton reserve recommended by the
Council be disapproved.  NOAA and Department of Commerce officials
also questioned the adequacy of the support for the Council's
recommendation, as modified by the Regional Director.  Consequently,
when the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register,
comments were requested on five alternatives for allocating the
whiting harvest. 

The proposed rule stated that NOAA was not proposing the Council's
recommendation to establish a reserve because the Council did not
provide documentation or analysis demonstrating that the additional
increment of preference to the shoreside processing sector provided
by the 30,000-metric-ton reserve was necessary to meet the goals and
objectives of the management plan. 

After the public comment period was closed and the comments received
were considered, the Acting Assistant Administrator forwarded her
recommendation to the Acting Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere.  She stated, however, that the Council's recommendation
was not being implemented because the Council did not provide
convincing documentation or analysis to justify the proposal.  She
further stated that the Council did not demonstrate that the
increased allocation to the shoreside sector, at the expense of the
at-sea sector, would provide sufficient social or economic net
benefits to the nation to justify the Council's recommendation. 

Our work also suggests that there was inadequate support for the
Council's recommendation to provide a significant increase in the
percentage of the 1993 allocation to the shoreside processing sector. 
With the assistance of a fisheries economist, we reviewed the
cost-benefit analysis to determine its adequacy as support for the
Council's allocation recommendation.  Some of the problems we found
with the cost-benefit analysis are that it (1) assumed equal prices
for shoreside and at-sea whiting products instead of using a higher
product price for certain at-sea products that are generally
recognized as having a higher quality and therefore a higher price,
(2) used only variable costs and omitted financial consideration of
the physical and economic deterioration of shoreside and at-sea
equipment resulting from use (fixed costs), and (3) relied on minimal
data to assess the financial benefits from the use of waste products
by shoreside plants.  These shortcomings tended to favor the
shoreside processing sector at the expense of the at-sea processing
sector. 


   FINAL DECISION WAS DELAYED BY
   DISAGREEMENT OVER RECOMMENDED
   CHANGES IN ALLOCATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The Department of Commerce's 1993 allocation decision was made on
April 14, 1993, 1 day before the 1993 fishing season opened.  The
last-minute timing of the 1993 decision resulted, in part, from
disagreements over the dramatic change recommended by the Council to
establish a permanent allocation framework, in lieu of an annual
allocation, that substantially reallocated the majority of the
whiting harvest from the at-sea to the shoreside processing sector. 
Concern about this major shift and the insufficiency of economic
support for it resulted in considerable time being spent discussing
and evaluating the proposal at each level of the federal
review-and-approval process. 

The Council submitted its recommendation to NMFS' Northwest Region in
December 1992.  The region did not forward its recommended allocation
to NMFS' headquarters until February 1993 after the region had
modified the Council's proposal by eliminating the proposed shoreside
reserve allocation.  The whiting allocation was not published as a
proposed rule in the Federal Register, as required by law to solicit
public comments, until March 18, and then only after NOAA decided to
present five options for consideration, including the one not to
implement any allocation--meaning there would be no constraints on
competition between the two sectors.  The public comment period ended
on April 1, and the final decision was made 13 days later.  Various
parties complained that such timing left them little time to prepare
for the start of the Pacific whiting fishing season.  Council and
NMFS officials in the Northwest complained that they were not given
an opportunity to comment specifically on the decision that was
ultimately made.  (See app.  I for a chronology of the events
relative to the 1993 allocation decision.)

The 1992 Pacific whiting allocation decision was made on April 15,
which was also the start of the 1992 fishing season.  The lateness of
the 1992 decision resulted from the additional time needed by the
Council to revise its original recommendation, which had been
rejected by NMFS' Regional Director.  The Council developed a revised
recommendation in March 1992.  Since there was not sufficient time to
publish a proposed rule and get comments prior to the start of the
fishing season, an emergency interim rule was published establishing
the allocations for the 1992 fishing season. 

In 1991, the final decision was made even later than in 1992 or
1993--the final decision in 1991 was not made until September 4,
1991.  This was more than 5 months after the 1991 fishing season
opened in late March.  The delay in making the final decision
occurred because the Council substantially changed its initial
allocation proposal in March 1991.  The Council did not make its
final recommendation to NMFS' Regional Director until April 1991 and
did not complete the supporting documentation until May 1991.  A
proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 15, 1991,
and the final rule was published in September. 


   FEW OTHER GROUNDFISH SPECIES
   WERE CAUGHT DURING WHITING
   HARVEST
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

NMFS and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife reported that low
numbers of nonwhiting species (primarily various species of rockfish)
were being inadvertently caught (bycatch) by the shoreside and at-sea
Pacific whiting fishing vessels.  During the 3-year period 1991
through 1993, the groundfish bycatch averaged about 1.5 percent of
the total 218,000, 209,000, and 141,000 metric tons of whiting caught
in those years.  Bycatch data are based on statistical projections
from counts taken from a sampling of catches by Oregon officials from
vessels delivering their catch to shoreside processors and a sampling
of catches by NMFS observers aboard at-sea vessels.  Some prohibited
species, primarily salmon, were also caught inadvertently along with
the whiting.  NMFS and the state of Oregon estimated that the total
number of salmon annually caught for both sectors during the 3-year
period ranged from about 6,000 to 9,000 fish.  Tables 1.2 and 1.3
show the annual whiting harvest and the extent of bycatch for 1991
through 1993 for the shoreside and at-sea processing sectors. 



                          Table 1.2
           
           Whiting Harvest and Extent of Shoreside
                           Bycatch

                                                        1993
                                                (preliminary
                                1991      1992             )
--------------------------  --------  --------  ------------
Pacific whiting (in metric    20,600    56,127        41,859
 tons)
Bycatch (in metric tons)         207     1,206           826
Prohibited species
 Salmon                          Not       681           473
                            availabl
                                   e
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Data compiled under state observer program in which about 16
percent of all hauls are sampled for bycatch by the Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife. 

Source:  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 



                          Table 1.3
           
             Whiting Harvest and Extent of At-Sea
                           Bycatch

                                                        1993
                                                (preliminary
                                1991      1992             )
--------------------------  --------  --------  ------------
Pacific whiting (in metric   196,905   152,448        99,103
 tons)
Bycatch (in metric tons)       2,048     3,730           642
Prohibited species
 Salmon                        6,330     5,071         8,373
 Halibut                          29        17            32
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Data compiled under federal observer program in which about 60
percent of all hauls are sampled for bycatch by the National Marine
Fisheries Service. 

Source:  NMFS. 


   STATUS OF 1994 ALLOCATION
   DECISION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

The allocation decision for the Pacific groundfish fishery for 1994
through 1996 appears to have proceeded more smoothly than did the
1993 decision.  In November 1993, the Council recommended an
allocation for 1994 through 1996 that had been agreed to by an
industry committee representing fishing vessels and both shoreside
and at-sea processors.  The effect of this recommendation would be to
allocate approximately 40 percent of the estimated 1994 whiting
harvest of 260,000 metric tons to the shoreside processing sector and
60 percent to the at-sea sector.  Compared with the 1993 allocation,
this represents a shift of about 10 percent of the harvest from the
at-sea to the shoreside sector.  A proposed rule, reflecting the
Council's recommendation, was published in the Federal Register on
February 24, 1994, and the comment period closed on March 21, 1994. 
NMFS issued a final rule on April 8, 1994, to allocate annually the
Pacific whiting harvest for 1994 through 1996.  The final rule
implements the recommendation of the Council. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We met with officials of and reviewed documents from (1) the Pacific
Fishery Management Council and NMFS' Northwest Regional Office in the
Pacific Northwest and (2) NMFS, NOAA, the Department of Commerce's
Office of General Counsel, and OMB in Washington, D.C.  We also
discussed the 1993 allocation decision with officials from the
Pacific whiting industry.  In addition, to assist us in our review of
the basis of the allocation decision, we hired a fisheries
economist--Dr.  James A.  Crutchfield\4 --to help us assess the
cost-benefit analysis that was used to support the Council's 1993
allocation recommendation.  We conducted our review between July 1993
and February 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. 


--------------------
\4 Dr.  James Crutchfield is professor emeritus in the Department of
Economics, Graduate School of Public Affairs, Institute of Marine
Fisheries, University of Washington.  Dr.  Crutchfield has served as
a consultant and adviser to a wide variety of national and
international fishery agencies and associations. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

We discussed the report's contents with (1) the Director and other
officials of NMFS' Conservation and Management Division, (2)
officials of the Department of Commerce's Office of General Counsel,
and (3) both the Executive Director and Groundfish Coordinator of the
Pacific Fishery Management Council.  The comments we received from
these officials have been incorporated in the report as appropriate. 
The Council officials commented that we were correct in stating that
the decision-making process was followed, but they expressed concern
that we did not comment on the adequacy of the process.  The
officials believe that certain changes are needed in the
process--chief among them is a change that would establish a time
limit for action by the Secretary on regulatory amendments.  We did
not evaluate the adequacy of the process because that was beyond the
scope of our review.  We did, however, discuss the issue of time
frames with an NMFS official who told us that it would be a good idea
to have statutory time frames for regulatory amendments because such
requirements would help ensure a greater sense of urgency.  As
requested, we did not obtain written agency comments on a draft of
this report. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Executive Director,
Pacific Fishery Management Council; the Secretary of Commerce;
Commerce's Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere; Commerce's
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries; and the Director, OMB.  We
will make copies available to others on request.  Please contact me
at (202) 512-7756 if you or your staff have any questions.  Major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. 

Sincerely yours,

James Duffus III
Director, Natural Resource
 Management Issues


CHRONOLOGY OF 1993 ALLOCATION
DECISION
=========================================================== Appendix I


         NOV.  1992
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.1

Pacific Fishery Management Council recommends allocation. 


         FEB.  3, 1993
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.2

National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Northwest Region submits
proposed rule, less reserve, to NMFS headquarters. 


         FEB.  12, 1993
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.3

NMFS headquarters concurs with the NMFS Region's proposal and
forwards it to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). 


         FEB.-MAR.  1993
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.4

NMFS, NOAA, Commerce, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
discuss allocation. 


         MAR.  18, 1993
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.5

Proposed rule published in Federal Register. 


         MAR.  26, 1993
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.6

NMFS notes that proposal favors shoreside without justification. 


         APR.  1, 1993
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.7

Public comment period closes. 


         APR.  8, 1993
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.8

NMFS makes recommendation to NOAA. 


         APR.  12, 1993
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.9

NOAA disapproves NMFS' proposed final rule. 


         APR.  1993
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.10

NMFS, NOAA, Commerce, and OMB meet. 


         APR.  14, 1993
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.11

NOAA, Commerce, and OMB approve final rule. 


         APR.  15, 1993
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.12

Pacific whiting fishing season opens. 


         APR.  20, 1993
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.0.13

Final rule published. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Ralph W.  Lamoreaux, Assistant Director
Ronald J.  Johnson, Assignment Manager
Jay R.  Cherlow, Assistant Director-in-Charge for
 Economic Analysis
Timothy J.  Guinane, Senior Economist

SEATTLE REGIONAL OFFICE

Sterling J.  Leibenguth, Issue Area Manager
Paul E.  Staley, Jr., Evaluator-in-Charge
William E.  Hanson, Senior Evaluator

