Proposed Rule2024-01952
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Amendment 126 to the Fishery Management Plans for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Amendment 114 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska To Expand Electronic Monitoring To the Pollock Fisheries
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 5, 2024
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendment 126 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) and Amendment 114 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). If approved, Amendments 126/114 would implement an electronic monitoring (EM) program for pelagic trawl pollock catcher vessels and tender vessels delivering to shoreside processors and stationary floating processors in the Bering Sea (BS), Aleutian Islands (AI), and GOA. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), Amendments 126/114, the BSAI FMP, and the GOA FMP.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 24 (Monday, February 5, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7660-7681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01952]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 240126-0024]
RIN 0648-BM40
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Amendment
126 to the Fishery Management Plans for Groundfish of the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Amendment 114 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska To Expand
Electronic Monitoring To the Pollock Fisheries
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council)
submitted Amendment 126 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area
(BSAI) and Amendment 114 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of
Alaska (GOA). If approved, Amendments 126/114 would implement an
electronic monitoring (EM) program for pelagic trawl pollock catcher
vessels and tender vessels delivering to shoreside processors and
stationary floating processors in the Bering Sea (BS), Aleutian Islands
(AI), and GOA. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and
objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), Amendments 126/114, the BSAI FMP, and the
GOA FMP.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than April 5, 2024.
Public Meetings:
1. February 28, 2024, 6 p.m. Alaska local time, Kodiak, AK.
2. March 12, 2024, 6 p.m. Pacific time, Virtual (see ADDRESSES for
link).
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2023-0125, by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and type NOAA-NMFS-2023-0125 in the Search box
(note: copying and pasting the FDMS Docket Number directly from this
document may not yield search results). Click on the ``Comment'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
<bullet> Mail: Submit written comments to Gretchen Harrington,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division,
Alaska Region NMFS. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-
1668.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Electronic copies of Amendment 126 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment
114 to the GOA FMP (collectively, the FMPs), the Environmental
Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review prepared for this action (the
analysis), and the Finding of No Significant Impact prepared for this
action may be obtained from <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and the NMFS
Alaska Region website at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska</a>.
Per section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS will also be
conducting public hearings to accept oral and written comments on the
proposed rule during the public comment period. The first public
hearing will be held at the Kodiak Fisheries Research Center, 301
Research Court, Kodiak, Alaska 99615. The second public hearing will be
held virtually, available at <a href="https://meet.google.com/gcz-emgh-kkw">https://meet.google.com/gcz-emgh-kkw</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Kraski, 907-586-7228,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4822272d2466233a293b23210826272929662f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e2888d878ecc89908391898ba28c8d8383cc858d94">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for Action
NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic
zone under the FMPs. The Council prepared the FMPs under the authority
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations
governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR
parts 600 and 679.
This proposed rule would implement Amendments 126/114 to the FMPs.
The Council submitted Amendments 126/114 for review by the Secretary of
Commerce, and a Notice of Availability of these amendments was
published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2024, with comments
invited through March 22, 2024 (88 FR 3902).
This proposed rule and Amendments 126/114 amend the Council's
fisheries research plan prepared under the authority of section 313 of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS published regulations implementing the
plan on November 21, 2012 (77 FR 70062) and integrated EM into the plan
on August 8, 2017 (82 FR 36991). The Secretary implements the fisheries
research plan through the North Pacific Observer Program (Observer
Program). Its purpose is to establish a research plan for the
collection of data necessary for the conservation, management, and
scientific understanding of the
[[Page 7661]]
groundfish and halibut fisheries off Alaska.
Section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to provide a
60-day public comment period on the proposed rule and conduct a public
hearing in each state represented on the Council for the purpose of
receiving public comment on the proposed regulations. The states
represented on the Council are Alaska, Oregon, and Washington. NMFS
will conduct a public hearing at a physical location in Alaska and a
virtual public hearing will be held for Oregon and Washington (see
DATES).
People wanting to make an oral statement for the record at a public
hearing are encouraged to submit a written copy of their statement to
NMFS using one of the methods identified under ADDRESSES. If attendance
at the public hearing is large, the time allotted for individual oral
statements may be limited. Oral and written statements receive equal
consideration. There are no limits on the length of written comments
submitted to NMFS. Respondents do not need to submit the same comments
on Amendments 126/114 and the proposed rule. All relevant written
comments received by the end of the applicable comment period, whether
specifically directed to the FMP amendments or this proposed rule, will
be considered by NMFS in the approval/disapproval decision for
Amendments 126/114 and addressed in the response to comments in the
final decision. Comments received after the end of the comment period
may not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment
126/114. To be certain of consideration, comments would need to be
received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day
of the comment period (see DATES).
North Pacific Observer Program
The Observer Program is an integral component in the management of
North Pacific fisheries. The Observer Program was created with the
implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the mid-1970s and has
evolved from primarily observing foreign fleets to observing domestic
fleets. The Observer Program provides the regulatory framework for
NMFS-certified observers (observers) and EM systems to be deployed on
board vessels to obtain information necessary for the conservation and
management of the groundfish and halibut fisheries.
The information collected by observers and EM systems is entered
into databases and then is used to manage the fisheries in furtherance
of the purposes and national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Observers and EM systems collect fishery-dependent information used to
estimate total catch and interactions with protected species. Managers
use these data to manage groundfish and prohibited species catch (PSC)
within established limits and to document and reduce fishery
interactions with protected species. Scientists use fishery-dependent
data to assess fish stocks, provide data for fisheries and ecosystem
research and fishing fleet behavior, assess marine mammal and seabird
interactions with fishing gear, and characterize fishing impacts on
habitat.
In 2013, the Council and NMFS restructured the Observer Program to
address long-standing concerns about statistical bias of observer-
collected data and cost inequity among fishery participants with the
funding and deployment structure under the previous Observer Program
(77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012). The restructured Observer Program
established two observer coverage categories: partial and full. All
groundfish and halibut vessels and processors are included in one of
these two categories. NMFS requires fishing sectors in the full
coverage category to have all operations observed. The full coverage
category is specified at 50 CFR 679.51(a)(2) and includes most catcher/
processors, all motherships, and those catcher vessels participating in
a catch share program with a transferrable PSC limit. Owners of vessels
and processors in the full coverage category arrange and pay for
required observer coverage from a permitted observer provider. The
shoreside processors and stationary floating processors in the full
coverage category are currently required to maintain observer coverage.
The partial coverage category is described at Sec. 679.51(a)(1)
and includes fishing sectors (vessels and processors) that are not
required to have an observer at all times. The partial coverage
category includes catcher vessels, shoreside processors, and stationary
floating processors when they are not participating in a catch share
program with a transferrable PSC limit. Small catcher/processors that
meet criteria in Sec. 679.51(a)(3) may request to be in the partial
coverage category.
In the partial coverage category, NMFS contracts with an observer
provider and EM providers and determines when and where observers and
EM systems are deployed, based on a scientific sampling design. Each
year, NMFS develops an Annual Deployment Plan (ADP) that describes how
NMFS plans to deploy observers and EM systems to vessels and processors
in the partial coverage category in the upcoming year. The ADP also
specifies the scientific sampling design NMFS uses to generate
estimates of total and retained catch and catch composition in the
groundfish and halibut fisheries. The ADP process provides flexibility
to improve deployment to meet scientifically based estimation needs
while accommodating the realities of dynamic fiscal and harvesting
environments. NMFS's goal is to achieve a representative sample of
fishing events and to do this without exceeding funds collected through
the observer fee. This is accomplished by the random selection of trips
for deployment of observers, placement of EM systems, and shoreside
sampling in the partial coverage category. NMFS adjusts the ADP after
conducting a scientific evaluation of data collected under the Observer
Program to assess the impact of changes in observer and EM deployment
and improvements in data collection methods necessary to conserve and
manage the groundfish and halibut fisheries.
To summarize the ADP process, each fall, NMFS develops a draft ADP
for the next fishing year that describes how NMFS plans to deploy
observers and EM systems to vessels in the partial coverage category.
The draft ADP describes the deployment methods NMFS plans to use to
collect EM data on discarded and retained catch, including the
information used to estimate catch composition and marine mammal and
seabird interactions in the groundfish and halibut fisheries. The draft
ADP also describes how NMFS would deploy observers to shoreside
processors in the partial coverage category. In October, the Council
reviews the draft ADP and considers public comment when developing its
recommendations about the draft ADP. The Council may recommend
adjustments to observer and EM deployment to prioritize data collection
based on conservation and management needs. After NMFS conducts a
scientific evaluation and considers operational issues of the Council's
recommendations, NMFS adjusts the draft ADP as appropriate and
finalizes the ADP in December for release prior to the start of the
fishing year. NMFS posts the ADP on the NMFS Alaska Region website.
NMFS conducts its scientific evaluation of data collected under the
Observer Program in an Annual Report that evaluates how well various
aspects of the program are achieving program goals, identifies areas
where improvements are needed, and includes preliminary recommendations
regarding
[[Page 7662]]
the upcoming ADP. The Council and its Scientific and Statistical
Committee review the Annual Report in June. This timing allows NMFS and
the Council to consider the results of past performance in developing
the ADP for the following year. NMFS posts the Annual Report on the
NMFS Alaska Region website.
The Observer Declare and Deploy System (ODDS) is a web application
that provides information about observer and EM deployment on catcher
vessels in the partial coverage category. ODDS facilitates
communication among the operator of a catcher vessel in the partial
coverage category, NMFS, NMFS's contracted observer provider, and NMFS-
approved EM providers. Operators of catcher vessels in the partial
coverage category enter information about upcoming fishing trips into
ODDS and receive information about whether a trip has been selected for
observer or EM coverage.
The restructured Observer Program established a system of fees that
is used to pay for the cost of implementing observer and EM coverage in
the partial coverage category. As specified at Sec. 679.55, catcher
vessels and processors included in the partial coverage category pay a
fee of 1.65 percent of the ex-vessel value of fishery landings to NMFS
to fund the deployment of observers in the partial coverage category.
Under section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the fees shall not
exceed 2 percent of the fishery ex-vessel value.
Integrating Electronic Monitoring Into the Observer Program
Since the restructuring of the Observer Program, the Council and
NMFS have been actively engaged in developing EM, a system using
cameras, video storage devices, and associated sensors to record and
monitor fishing activities, as a tool to collect fishery data. The
restructured Observer Program expanded the types of vessels required to
carry observers to include nontrawl vessels that had not previously
been subject to observer requirements. Even before implementing the
restructured Observer Program, many nontrawl vessel owners and
operators new to the Observer Program opposed carrying an observer.
Nontrawl vessel owners and operators explained that there was limited
space on their vessels for an additional person and limited space in
the vessel's life raft. Some vessel owners, operators, and industry
representatives advocated for the use of EM instead of having an
observer on board their smaller nontrawl vessels. To address their
concerns, the Council and NMFS developed EM as a tool to collect
fishery data in the nontrawl fisheries.
In 2014, the Council appointed the EM Workgroup to develop an EM
program for nontrawl vessels--that is, those vessels using jig, pot,
and longline gear--and integrate EM into the Observer Program. The EM
Workgroup provided a forum for stakeholders, including the commercial
fishery participants, NMFS, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and EM
service providers, to cooperatively and collaboratively design, test,
and develop EM systems and to identify key decision points related to
operationalizing and integrating EM systems into the Observer Program
in a strategic manner.
Starting in 2015, NMFS developed with Council input the Electronic
Technologies Implementation Plan for the Alaska Region to guide
integration of monitoring technologies, including EM, into North
Pacific fisheries management and provide goals and benchmarks to
evaluate attainment of those goals (Plan and updates are available at
<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/fisheries-observers/electronic-technologies-implementation-plans">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/fisheries-observers/electronic-technologies-implementation-plans</a>). This plan was completed in 2021.
The EM Workgroup developed a collaborative research program to
inform evaluation of multiple EM program design options and consider
various EM integration approaches to achieve management needs
identified in the Electronic Technologies Implementation Plan. Through
the use of an exempted fishing permit (EFP), the research model
resulted in the testing of, and subsequent implementation of EM for
nontrawl vessels in the partial coverage category pursuant to Amendment
114 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 104 to the GOA FMP (82 FR 36991,
August 8, 2017).
In February 2018, after the implementation of EM on nontrawl
catcher vessels, the Council directed its EM Workgroup to focus on
developing EM as a tool for meeting monitoring objectives on trawl
catcher vessels in the BS, AI, and GOA pelagic pollock fisheries,
reconstituting the committee as the Trawl EM Committee. In April 2018,
the Trawl EM Committee was modified to include industry
representatives, fishery participants, and other stakeholders in the
catcher vessel pelagic trawl pollock fisheries along with NMFS and EM
service providers. The Council adopted three monitoring objectives
proposed by the Trawl EM Committee after its May 2018 meeting: (1)
improve salmon accounting; (2) reduce monitoring costs; and (3) improve
the quality of monitoring data. A fourth objective was added by the
Trawl EM Committee at their meeting in August 2018: (4) modify current
retention and/or discard requirements as necessary to achieve
objectives 1-3. While EM development for pelagic trawl catcher vessels
was not identical to that for nontrawl, the Trawl EM Committee relied
on the collaborative lessons learned, including creating a workgroup/
committee, creating a research plan, pre-implementation testing of EM,
and developing regulations.
The development of the trawl EM category has evolved through pilot
projects in 2018 and 2019 and under EFP 2019-03 from 2020 through 2024.
Each phase of program development benefitted from a collaborative
process and open communication between project partners, which includes
NMFS, EFP permit holders, EM service providers, video reviewers, and
observer providers. Lessons learned through this process were
incorporated into the development of the trawl EM category proposed in
this action.
In the 2018 and 2019 pilot projects, prior to applying for an EFP,
the pollock trawl fishery voluntarily operated video cameras on a
subset of catcher vessels to test EM systems, while maintaining
observer coverage. The trawl EM category developed further through EFP
2019-03, which involved multiple phases as part of a research plan
developed by the Trawl EM Committee.
The Trawl EM Committee guided the research plan and EFP
modifications and identified that there was adequate information on the
use of EM to collect data for management purposes. The Council and its
monitoring committees were kept informed of industry-led pilot projects
through regular updates such as in December 2018 as part of the Trawl
EM 2019 Cooperative Research Plan and in a March 2019 update to the
Cooperative Research Plan. Results from pilot projects comparing
discard estimates by EM reviewers and on-board observers were presented
to the Trawl EM Committee in August 2019. Results identified that,
while further refinement was needed, EM was able to capture discard
activity onboard pelagic trawl pollock catcher vessels. NMFS approved
EFP 2019-03 in 2020 and renewed modified versions of the EFP for
fishing conducted in 2021 through 2024. EFPs in Alaska can be viewed on
the NMFS Alaska Region website.
Observers played a key role in the collaborative process, providing
real time feedback via inseason messaging and post deployment surveys.
The information that observers provided helped the project partners
make
[[Page 7663]]
decisions impacting communication and data quality through the project.
Regularly scheduled check-in meetings between NMFS and project partners
played an integral role during the EFP and began on January 15, 2020,
and occurred every two weeks during the directed pollock seasons and as
requested by the project partners. Check-in meetings provided an
opportunity for each project partner to give updates on how operations
under the EFP were progressing and identify any issues or concerns.
NMFS has made a collaborative effort to make this situation work under
unique circumstances, including staffing issues, quarantine challenges,
and equipment shortages.
Several years of EFP data has shown that the objectives for trawl
EM were met by: (1) improved salmon bycatch accounting, specifically in
the western GOA pollock fishery that currently relies on estimates with
large variances under status quo methods; (2) reduced monitoring costs;
(3) improved quality of monitoring data; and (4) improved retention
with limited changes in catcher vessel activities. In addition, it was
also clear that EM is effective in capturing at-sea discard events to
support catch accounting and may capture marine mammal incidents.
Finally, EFP data showed some biological sampling can be accomplished
at processing plants by observers with effective communication from
vessels and processors.
The Council and NMFS developed this proposed action based on input
received from the Trawl EM Committee, three years of data gathered
through the EFP process, and public input through the Council process.
This proposed action would provide an option for participants in the
partial and full coverage categories using pelagic trawl gear to
directed fish for pollock, as well as tender vessels delivering pollock
to shoreside processors or stationary floating processors to choose to
be in the trawl EM category.
Other trawl fisheries operate differently, have different
monitoring and compliance requirements, and would require a lengthy
development process prior to being able to have a functioning EM
program. EM programs must be designed for the unique characteristics of
each fishery or group of similar fisheries (such as the nontrawl
fisheries and the pollock trawl fisheries). The Council and NMFS first
prioritized nontrawl EM and then pollock trawl EM. The next priority
that is under development is EM for vessels participating in the
Rockfish Program, which will require a separate rulemaking if the
Council recommends EM for that Program.
Objectives of and Rationale for Amendments 126/114 and This Proposed
Rule
In October 2022, the Council recommended Amendment 126 to the BSAI
FMP and Amendment 114 to the GOA FMP. The FMP amendments and this
proposed rule would implement EM for catcher vessels targeting pollock
with pelagic trawl gear in the BS, AI, or GOA fisheries (hereinafter
``catcher vessels'' or ``CVs'') and tender vessels delivering pollock
to shoreside processors or stationary floating processors in the BS,
AI, and GOA.
The Council and NMFS developed EM for the pelagic trawl gear
pollock fisheries to explore an alternative way to collect fisheries
data given the unique operating requirements in these fisheries. The
pollock trawl fisheries have low rates of incidental catch of non-
pollock species, leading to the ability to improve the retention of all
catch, thus allowing for collection of biological data from unsorted
catch at processors. Improved retention of catch means the vessel is
operated in such a way that catch is retained to the greatest extent
practicable. Under this proposed rule, EM systems would collect at-sea
data for NMFS to determine if discards at sea occurred and subsequent
video review would verify vessel discard estimates for accuracy. The
use of EM on vessels in the trawl EM category would allow for
monitoring of compliance with Federal regulations and catch handling
requirements. The implementation of EM has the potential to reduce
economic and operational costs associated with deploying observers on
catcher vessels. Through the use of EM, it may continue to be feasible
to obtain fishery-dependent data from catcher vessels, improve data
quality, and increase NMFS's and the Council's flexibility to respond
to the scientific and management needs of these fisheries. The
Council's intent in recommending Amendments 126/114 is to improve
salmon accounting for all species, reduce monitoring costs, and improve
the quality of monitoring data.
The Council adopted the following purpose and need statement to
originate this action in June 2021:
``To carry out their responsibilities for conserving and managing
groundfish resources, the Council and NMFS must have high quality,
timely, and cost-effective data to support management and scientific
information needs. In part, this information is collected through a
fishery monitoring program for the groundfish fisheries off Alaska.
While a large component of this monitoring program relies on the use of
human observers, the Council supports integrating electronic monitoring
and reporting technologies into NMFS North Pacific fisheries-dependent
data collection program, where applicable, to ensure that scientists,
managers, policy makers, and industry are informed with fishery-
dependent information that is relevant to policy priorities, of high
quality, and available when needed, and obtained in a cost-effective
manner. The Council and NMFS have been on the path of integrating
technology into the fisheries monitoring systems for many years, with
electronic reporting systems in place, and operational EM in some
fisheries. An EM program for compliance purposes on pelagic pollock
trawl catcher vessels and tenders both delivering to shoreside
processors will obtain necessary information for quality accounting for
catch including bycatch and salmon PSC in a cost-effective manner, and
provide reliable data for compliance monitoring of a no discard
requirement for salmon PSC. This trawl EM program has the potential to
advance cost efficiency and compliance monitoring, through improved
salmon accounting and reduced monitoring costs. Regulatory change is
needed to modify the current retention and discard requirements to
allow participating CVs to maximize retention of all species caught
(i.e., minimize discards to the greatest extent practicable) for the
use of EM as a compliance tool on trawl catcher vessels in both the
full and partial coverage categories of the Observer Program and meet
monitoring objectives on trawl catcher vessels in the Bering Sea (BS)
and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) pelagic pollock fisheries.''
In consultation with the Council, NMFS has considerable annual
flexibility to provide observer coverage to respond to the scientific
and management needs of the fisheries. By integrating EM on catcher
vessels targeting pollock with pelagic trawl gear as a tool in the
fisheries monitoring suite, the Council seeks to preserve and increase
this flexibility. Regulatory change would be needed to specify vessel
operator and processor responsibilities for using EM technologies,
after which NMFS, in consultation with the Council would be able to
deploy observer and EM monitoring tools tailored to the needs of
different fishery sectors through the ADP.
Amendments 126/114 would add new language to section 3.9.2 of the
BSAI and GOA FMPs to allow the use of EM systems to meet observer
coverage
[[Page 7664]]
requirements for catcher vessels under the Observer Program.
This proposed rule to implement Amendments 126/114 would establish
regulations for an EM option for catcher vessels and tender vessels
delivering pollock to shoreside processors and stationary floating
processors in the BS, AI, and the GOA. While the Council's purpose and
need statement did not specify that EM could be used by catcher vessels
fishing in the AI, the Council motion at final action clarified that
should an AI pollock fishery be open, participating catcher vessels
would have the opportunity to participate in trawl EM.
Trawl EM Category
This proposed rule would implement the requirements described below
to allow owners or operators of catcher vessels and tender vessels to
choose to use an EM system in place of an observer. Participation in
trawl EM would be voluntary and a vessel owner or operator could choose
on an annual basis to request a vessel's placement in the trawl EM
category.
This proposed rule would establish the process and structure for
use of an EM video system to monitor whether discards at sea occur.
Further, it would establish video review to verify vessel discard
estimates submitted by those catcher vessels using pelagic trawl gear
and tender vessels that choose to be in the trawl EM category. NMFS's
intent is largely to allow trawl EM category vessels to continue their
normal operations and allow the cameras to capture data observations
that an EM reviewer would then extract onshore. For fishing trips by
vessels in the trawl EM category, the data collection previously
conducted by at-sea observers would be completed by observers stationed
at the processor receiving the catch. This is possible because EM
systems would monitor all points of discard on the catcher vessel and
tender vessel (if used) from the time the catch is brought onboard the
catcher vessel or tender vessel to the point of delivery. This will
ensure all catch is monitored by EM systems at sea and allow the
collection of statistically robust fishery data at the point of
delivery at the processor. Data collected at the processor could
include the collection of species composition samples, PSC data,
biological samples, and other sampling assigned by NMFS. One of the
Council's objectives for this action is to achieve the most efficient
use of observer resources. By shifting observer sampling duties from
at-sea vessels to shoreside processors and stationary floating
processors, each observer would be able to monitor more catch with
greater accuracy.
In the event NMFS identifies additional data that cannot be
collected at the processor, NMFS retains the authority to deploy at-sea
observers on catcher vessels in the trawl EM category. Additionally,
some level of at-sea data collection in the pollock fisheries will
continue to be necessary to collect certain spatial and biological
data. This data is currently being collected on vessels that remain in
the observer coverage categories; however, if the number of vessels
remaining in the observer coverage categories drops to low levels,
additional at-sea observer coverage could be necessary in the full
coverage or the partial coverage trawl EM category. NMFS would make
these observer coverage decisions through the ADP process.
Currently, catcher vessels in the partial coverage category are
required to have an observer at-sea on each selected trip and full
coverage vessels carry an observer every trip. When vessels deliver
trawl-caught pollock, the at-sea observer follows the fish into the
processing plant and completes the enumeration and sampling of salmon
during the vessel's delivery. Under this proposed rule, these at-sea
observers would no longer be a resource available for sampling these
vessels' catch. Instead, shoreside processors or stationary floating
processors would be responsible for ensuring that all salmon are placed
in a designated storage container until the observers have the
opportunity to sample them consistent with proposed regulations at
Sec. 679.28(g)(9)(ii).
In addition to observers stationed at shoreside processors and
stationary floating processors, Catch Monitoring Control Plans (CMCPs)
and vessel monitoring plans (VMPs) would be used to determine and
achieve the sampling objectives outlined by NMFS in the ADP. The EM
systems onboard vessels would ensure that compliance monitoring
objectives are met while providing a chain of custody for PSC.
Observers at shoreside processors or stationary floating processors
would then collect species composition, PSC, and biological samples as
determined by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Fisheries Monitoring
and Analysis Division. The flexibility offered by the ADP allows NMFS
and the Council to achieve transparency, accountability, and efficiency
from the Observer Program to meet its various objectives. The ADP
process ensures that the best available information is used to evaluate
deployment, including scientific review and Council input, to annually
determine deployment methods.
Due to these changes, a ``one size fits all'' approach to deploying
observer resources would be an inefficient use of observer resources.
For example, a processor receiving deliveries 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week from catcher vessels in the trawl EM category would require more
observer resources than a processor receiving only one or two such
deliveries each day. NMFS is proposing that the number of observers
required at each processing plant receiving deliveries from vessels
approved to operate in the trawl EM category be tailored to each
processor based on metrics specified in the ADP and consistent with
proposed regulations at Sec. 679.51(b)(2)(i). Observers stationed at
processors would collect data as requested by the Alaska Fisheries
Science Center, Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis Division. NMFS would
continue to work with data users, including stock assessors and other
scientists, to evaluate the trawl EM category and monitor for data
gaps.
All fishing trips for each vessel operating in the trawl EM
category would be required to improve retention (i.e., minimize
discards to the greatest extent practicable) and record all catch
handling. All EM data would be submitted as required to NMFS for review
to ensure the program elements are followed. Failure to meet the
program objectives, as outlined in the ADP and VMP, may result in
disapproval of further participation in the trawl EM category and
potential enforcement action.
This proposed rule would implement requirements applicable to: (1)
catcher vessels in the trawl EM category; (2) tender vessels, shoreside
processors, and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries
from catcher vessels in the trawl EM category; (3) observer providers;
and (4) EM service providers for vessels in the trawl EM category.
Under this proposed rule, a catcher vessel would remain subject to
observer coverage, currently described at Sec. 679.51(a)(1) or Sec.
679.51(a)(2), unless NMFS approves a request for placement of the
catcher vessel in the trawl EM category. Tender vessels are not
currently subject to observer coverage requirements under subpart E to
part 679 and this proposed rule would establish monitoring requirements
for tender vessels that receive deliveries from a catcher vessel in the
trawl EM category. Shoreside processors and stationary floating
processors are subject to observer coverage requirements at Sec.
679.51(b)(1) or Sec. 679.51(b)(2). This
[[Page 7665]]
proposed rule would establish additional observer sampling station and
monitoring requirements at Sec. 679.28(g)(7) through (10) for
shoreside processors and stationary floating processors. These observer
sampling station and monitoring requirements previously existed for
shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving
American Fisheries Act (AFA) deliveries. Under this proposed rule,
those requirements would be expanded to any plant receiving trawl EM
deliveries to support shoreside observers and include additional
requirements, such as updating spatial requirements to allow for new
data collections. Additionally, under this proposed rule, entities
intending to provide EM hardware to vessels in the full coverage EM
category would be required to apply, and be approved, for an EM
hardware service provider permit as specified at Sec. 679.52(d) and
(e).
Annual Request for Placement in the Trawl EM Category and Compliance
Responsibilities
Under this proposed rule, eligible vessel owners or operators of
catcher vessels would voluntarily request to participate in the trawl
EM category annually through ODDS by November 1 and, if approved, would
be subject to coverage requirements as specified by NMFS. Specifically,
any owner or operator of a catcher vessel--that is, a catcher vessel
with a pollock pelagic trawl endorsement on their Federal Fisheries
Permit (FFP)--or a tender vessel receiving deliveries from these
catcher vessels, may request to be in the trawl EM category. Shoreside
processors or stationary floating processors would indicate annually
during their CMCP process whether they intend to receive deliveries, or
use tenders to receive deliveries, from vessels in a trawl EM category.
This process consists of a shoreside processor or stationary floating
processor submitting a CMCP to the NMFS CMCP specialist.
The November 1 deadline for catcher vessels would allow potential
participants to review the draft ADP, which would be available in
October, prior to deciding whether to request to join the trawl EM
category. The draft ADP would contain NMFS's criteria for determining
how catcher vessels would be assigned to the partial coverage trawl EM
category. The ADP would be finalized in December.
This proposed rule establishes responsibilities for the operator of
a catcher vessel or tender vessel in the trawl EM category to install
and maintain the EM system. Vessels in the trawl EM category would be
required to comply with all provisions of the trawl EM category,
including those specified in regulations, the ADP, and in individual
VMPs. This proposed rule would add regulations at Sec. 679.51(g) to
specify the EM system requirements for vessels using pelagic trawl
gear. A catcher vessel would remain in the trawl EM category for all
directed fishing for pollock with pelagic trawl gear for the entirety
of the fishing year, in order to maintain the sampling design outlined
in the ADP. A tender vessel would remain in the trawl EM category at
all times when receiving catch from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM
category during the fishing year. Vessels would not be able to leave
the trawl EM category during a fishing year in order to maintain the
sampling design used for that year.
Trawl EM Coverage
This proposed rule would establish two coverage categories within
the trawl EM category: (1) full coverage; and (2) partial coverage.
Unless otherwise specified in this proposed rule, the trawl EM category
encompasses both the full coverage and partial coverage trawl EM
categories.
Full Coverage Trawl EM Category
Proposed regulations at Sec. 679.51(g)(1)(i)(A)(2) define the full
coverage trawl EM category for catcher vessel operating in the BS or
Community Development Quota (CDQ) fisheries. These vessels are
currently in the Observer Program's full coverage category. For the
fishing year, if a catcher vessel is approved to be in the full
coverage trawl EM category, that vessel would be subject to this
proposed rule for every fishing trip in which the vessel deploys
pelagic trawl gear. This would mean, in addition to other requirements,
these vessels must ensure their EM systems are operating and actively
recording for the duration of every pelagic trawl gear fishing trip and
associated offload. The CDQ pollock fishery is not currently prosecuted
by catcher vessels delivering to shoreside processors or stationary
floating processors, but if this activity does occur in the future, and
the catcher vessels meet the eligibility requirements of the trawl EM
category, they would be included in the full coverage category. The
owner or operator of a vessel in the full coverage trawl EM category
would be responsible for contracting with a permitted EM hardware
service provider, as specified at 679.51(g)(1)(ix), to procure,
install, and maintain EM equipment on their vessel. To pay for video
review services for vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category,
this proposed rule would establish a new full coverage EM review fee in
proposed regulations at Sec. 679.56.
Partial Coverage Trawl EM Category
Proposed regulations at Sec. 679.51(g)(1)(i)(A)(1) define the
partial coverage trawl EM category for catcher vessels operating in the
GOA or AI. These vessels are currently in the Observer Program's
partial coverage category.
Catcher vessels approved to be in the partial coverage trawl EM
category must continue to log all trips in ODDS. Access to ODDS is
available through the NMFS Alaska Region website. For the fishing year,
every fishing trip in which a partial coverage catcher vessel deploys
solely pelagic trawl gear is considered a part of the trawl EM category
and is subject to this proposed rule (proposed rule at Sec.
679.51(g)). This would mean, these vessels must, in addition to other
requirements, ensure their EM system is operating and actively
recording for the duration of every fishing trip and associated
offload. Vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category would be
prohibited from deploying non-pelagic trawl gear while on a fishing
trip subject to EM coverage. Catcher vessels in the partial coverage
trawl EM category would be required to deliver catch only to tender
vessels or processors in the trawl EM category having a NMFS-approved
VMP or CMCP. Vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category will use
NMFS's contracted EM hardware service provider that has been procured
through the partial coverage fee program. EM equipment for vessels in
the partial coverage trawl EM category would be paid for by the
observer fees as specified at Sec. 679.55.
The AI pollock fishery is not currently prosecuted by catcher
vessels delivering to shoreside processors or stationary floating
processors, but if this activity were to occur, and the catcher vessels
meet the eligibility requirements of the trawl EM category, they would
be included in the partial coverage trawl EM category.
Tender Vessels
The proposed rule adds EM requirements for tender vessels that are
used to transport unprocessed groundfish received from a catcher vessel
in the trawl EM category to an associated processor. As part of the
unprocessed groundfish chain of custody, it is necessary for tender
vessels to comply with EM requirements to ensure no sorting of catch
occurs between the catcher vessel and the processor. Proposed
regulations at
[[Page 7666]]
Sec. 679.51(g)(1)(i)(B) allow the owner or operator of a tender vessel
to request to be placed in the trawl EM category before receiving any
delivery from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category. A tender
vessel that is approved to be in the trawl EM category must comply with
applicable vessel responsibilities specified at Sec. 679.51(g)(3) for
every delivery received and offload subject to the trawl EM category,
including ensuring their EM system is operating and actively recording
for the duration of every trip and associated offload.
Tender vessels are primarily used by small catcher vessels in the
Western GOA that fish in locations that make it inefficient for these
catcher vessels to deliver their catch directly to a shoreside or
stationary floating processor.
Shoreside Processors and Stationary Floating Processors
For shoreside processors or stationary floating processors to
receive deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category, the proposed
rule includes additional catch handling requirements. Shoreside
processors or stationary floating processors would indicate their
intent to receive EM deliveries in the upcoming fishing year during the
annual CMCP process. Under proposed regulations at Sec. 679.28(g)(7),
(9), and (10) shoreside processors or stationary floating processors
receiving deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category would be
required to follow specified salmon sorting and handling procedures to
ensure shoreside observers have full access to salmon bycatch. The
proposed rule at Sec. 679.28(g)(9) would allow observers at these
processors to collect full salmon and Pacific halibut retention data
and necessary biological samples, which are vital in monitoring the
health and status of those stocks in Alaska.
Current regulations at Sec. 679.21(f)(15)(ii)(C) require salmon
retention and storage for processors in the BS pollock fishery. This
proposed rule would move these existing regulations to Sec.
679.28(g)(9)(ii) and (g)(10), and extend those regulations to shoreside
processors and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from
vessels in the trawl EM category in the GOA. Each year NMFS publishes
an Observer Sampling Manual, which contains the comprehensive sampling
procedures and methods to be used by observers to collect fishery-
dependent data, but does not establish the sampling rate. The criteria
used to determine the sampling rate required at shoreside processors
and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from vessels in
the trawl EM category will be determined annually and published in the
ADP.
EM Service Providers
There are currently two types of EM service providers: (1) EM
hardware service providers that equip and maintain EM systems aboard
vessels, and (2) EM review service providers that receive and review EM
data from EM systems. This proposed rule would add a regulation at
Sec. 679.2 to define an EM service provider as ``any person, including
their employees or agents, that NMFS contracts with, or grants an EM
hardware service provider permit to under Sec. 679.52(d), to provide
EM services, or to review, interpret, or analyze EM data as required
under Sec. 679.51.'' NMFS may contract with, or grant a permit to, a
prospective EM hardware service provider if their data are readily
accessible by the current EM service provider NMFS has selected for
reviewing EM data.
EM Hardware Service Provider Permit
Alaskan fishing vessels operate in a challenging environment and
endure harsh conditions, making it necessary to ensure that an EM
hardware service provider is properly equipped to deploy and service EM
hardware onboard vessels in the trawl EM category. This proposed rule
would add regulations at Sec. 679.52 specifying the procedures for
applying to NMFS for and NMFS' issuance of, an EM hardware service
provider permit, responsibilities of EM hardware service providers, and
issuance of permits to existing EM hardware service providers upon
implementation of this proposed rule. Prospective EM hardware service
providers will need to apply to NMFS, and be approved, for an EM
hardware service provider permit. Once approved and issued by NMFS, the
EM hardware service provider permit is valid until the provider becomes
inactive, providing no EM services for a period of 12 consecutive
months. Performance of the EM hardware service provider will be
assessed annually on the ability of the provider to meet program
objectives.
EM Review Service Providers
An EM data review service provider is a provider that NMFS
contracts with, or otherwise has an established business relationship
with, to review, interpret, or analyze EM data as required under Sec.
679.51. An EM data review service provider is selected by NMFS to avoid
any conflicts of interest caused by vessels in the trawl EM category
having a direct financial relationship with the independent EM data
review service providers. This model reflects the same system that is
currently in place for observers.
EM Equipment and VMPs
The operator of each catcher vessel or tender vessel approved by
NMFS to be in the trawl EM category, must make their vessel available
to an EM hardware service provider for installation and servicing of
all required EM system components according to proposed regulations at
Sec. 679.51(g)(1)(ix). The EM hardware service provider would install
the EM system and cameras in locations that meet the monitoring
objectives annually specified in the ADP. Full coverage vessels would
choose their permitted EM hardware service provider, while partial
coverage catcher vessels or tender vessels would be assigned a NMFS-
permitted EM hardware service provider by NMFS.
If a vessel already has an EM system installed from a non-permitted
EM hardware service provider, the catcher vessel or tender vessel
operator would work with a NMFS-permitted EM hardware service provider
to modify the EM system as necessary to meet the specifications in the
trawl EM category. For example, a catcher vessel or tender vessel may
have an existing EM system on board because that catcher vessel or
tender vessel participates in another federally managed fishery that
has an EM program.
After EM equipment has been installed or serviced, the catcher
vessel or tender vessel operator would develop a VMP with the EM
hardware service provider and submit it to NMFS for approval according
to proposed regulations at Sec. 679.51(g)(2). A VMP is a document that
includes operator responsibilities for the trawl EM category, including
requirements for sending EM data to the EM data review service provider
for review, restrictions should EM equipment malfunction, and how
feedback from NMFS or the EM data review service provider would be
communicated to vessel operators.
The catcher vessel or tender vessel operator agrees to comply with
the components of the VMP and would submit a signed VMP to NMFS. NMFS
would review the VMP for completeness and may request additional
clarification. If the VMP meets the requirements established in the VMP
template, NMFS would approve the VMP and place the vessel in a trawl EM
category for the fishing year.
A catcher vessel or tender vessel in the trawl EM category would be
required to maintain a copy of their current NMFS-approved VMP onboard
at all times while that catcher vessel conducts fishing activities, or
tender
[[Page 7667]]
vessel receives EM deliveries, as part of the trawl EM category. If
NMFS does not approve the VMP, NMFS will issue an IAD to the vessel
owner or operator that will explain the basis for the disapproval. The
vessel owner or operator may file an administrative appeal under the
administrative appeals procedures set out at 15 CFR part 906.
The catcher vessel or tender vessel operator would be required to
make the NMFS-approved VMP available to NOAA Office of Law Enforcement
(OLE) or other NMFS-authorized officer or personnel upon request (see
Sec. 679.51(g)(4)(iv)).
If NMFS determines that a catcher vessel or tender vessel is out of
compliance with the VMP, the catcher vessel or tender vessel's
application for placement in the trawl EM category may not be approved
the following year. For example, repeated discarding of PSC, repeated
failure to ensure the entirety of the trip is recorded due to
negligence of the crew, or failure to make the changes necessary to
achieve monitoring goals may be grounds for NMFS to disapprove a VMP.
Catcher Vessel and Tender Vessel Operator Responsibilities
Catcher vessel and tender vessel operators would be required to
maintain the EM system in working order, including ensuring the EM
system is powered and functioning throughout the fishing trip, keeping
cameras clean and unobstructed, and ensuring the system is not tampered
with, consistent with proposed regulations at Sec. 679.51(g)(3).
Catcher vessel or tender vessel operators would also be required to
ensure that power is maintained to the EM system at all times when the
vessel is underway or the engine is operating on such fishing trips.
Additionally, catcher vessel or tender vessel operators would be
required to ensure the EM system is fully functional prior to deploying
gear during the fishing trip or prior to receiving a delivery, as
applicable.
Before fishing gear is retrieved or an offload is received, the
catcher vessel or tender vessel operator would need to verify that all
components of the EM system are functioning. Instructions for
completing this verification would be provided in the vessel's VMP
consistent with proposed regulations at Sec. 679.51(g)(2)(vi).
Catcher vessel and tender vessel operators would also be required
to follow landing notice procedures specified in the VMP, consistent
with proposed regulations at Sec. 679.51(g)(3). The landing notice
would be transmitted by the catcher vessel or tender vessel to the
intended shoreside processor or stationary floating processor,
consistent with the timeline specified in the VMP prior to returning to
port. After receiving the landing notice from the vessel, the processor
will relay that information to shoreside observers. The landing notice
would also provide shoreside observers in the BSAI and GOA the
information necessary to meet the objectives specified by NMFS in the
ADP.
Catcher vessel or tender vessel operators would be prohibited from
tampering with the EM system or harassing their EM service provider, EM
reviewers, or any other monitoring personnel who may be working with
operators to enact this program. Additional prohibitions would be added
to existing EM prohibitions at Sec. 679.7(j) to ensure the EM system
functions and the data from these systems is usable for fisheries
management. Other operator responsibilities would be identified in the
VMP to meet data needs for EM monitoring.
Catcher vessel or tender vessel operators would submit the EM data
to the EM data review provider using a method specified in the approved
VMP. Operators of vessels in the trawl EM category would submit EM data
after a specified number of trips, consistent with the vessel's
approved VMP. This frequency would be defined in the VMP and could
change based on data needs identified by NMFS, consistent with proposed
regulations at Sec. 679.51(g).
EM System Malfunctions
The EM system must be fully operational as described in the VMP.
The VMP would list EM system malfunctions that would be considered
contrary to the data collection objectives. The VMP would also describe
the procedures to follow if malfunctions were detected, including
contacting the EM service provider and OLE. The proposed regulations at
Sec. 679.51(g)(4) describe the responsibilities of the catcher vessel
or tender vessel operator in case of an EM system malfunction.
Improved Retention of Catch
With trawl EM, catcher vessel operators would retain all catch
except for where safety and stability of the vessel would be
compromised (see proposed regulations at Sec. 679.7(j)(2)). Improved
retention of catch is necessary to provide observers stationed at
shoreside processor and stationary floating processors receiving
deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category with unsorted catch
for collection of biological samples and to minimize potential biases
in data collection. Improved retention would greatly reduce at-sea
discards and improve catch accounting, resulting in improved estimates
of catch and bycatch in the pollock fisheries.
For all fishing trips, catcher vessels would be expected to avoid
sorting and discarding catch to the greatest extent practicable. The
term ``sort,'' ``sorting,'' or ``sorted'' means removing any ``fish''
from the unsorted catch. ``Discard'' means to release or return fish to
the sea, whether or not such fish are brought fully on board a fishing
vessel (see Sec. 600.10). The term ``fish'', when used as a noun,
means any finfish, mollusk, crustacean, or parts thereof, and all other
forms of marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and
birds (see Sec. 600.10). Unsorted catch would be delivered to a tender
vessel, shoreside processor, or a stationary floating processor to
ensure observers have access to all catch. The most common instances of
discards at-sea are related to spillage events, discards needed for
safety or stability, and large organisms that are challenging to
accommodate on board a catcher vessel, such as sharks.
Operators of catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) length
overall (LOA) in the trawl EM category would now be required to report
any at-sea discards in their logbook, and operators would also report
this information to NMFS and shoreside processors in eLanding reports
(see proposed regulations at Sec. 679.5(a)(1) and (4)). Catcher vessel
logbook estimates of discards would be verified in the video review
process by an EM review service provider. Additionally, EM reviewers
make independent estimates of any discard events and that data would be
used to verify catcher vessel compliance to ensure catcher vessels are
following improved retention rules under this program.
Removing Requirements for Regulatory Discards
This proposed rule includes particular exceptions to regulations
that require discarding catch at sea in specific circumstances to
promote retention of catch for catcher vessels in the trawl EM
category. Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category would not be subject
to the prohibition against exceeding Maximum Retainable Amounts (MRAs)
in the BS, AI, and GOA, the prohibition against vessels having on
board, at any particular time, 20 or more crabs of any species, and the
prohibition against exceeding the pollock trip limit in the GOA.
[[Page 7668]]
This proposed rule exempts vessels in the trawl EM category from
the regulations at Sec. 679.20(e) pertaining to MRAs that limit
retention of incidentally caught species so that total harvest can be
managed up to, but not over, the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) by the end
of the year. The MRA regulations at Sec. 679.20(e) result in at-sea
discards of fish above the MRA amount for each species. While the
prohibition on exceeding the MRAs would be removed for vessels
participating in the trawl EM category, NMFS would continue to use MRA
calculations to determine whether a vessel is ``directed fishing'' for
a particular species and gauge whether vessel behavior has changed, in
conjunction with the Trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreement (TEM IPA)
discussed below.
This proposed rule would also add an exception for vessels
participating in the trawl EM category from the regulation at Sec.
679.7(a)(14)(i) that prohibits vessels in the BSAI and GOA from having
on board, at any particular time, 20 or more crabs of any species with
a carapace width of more than 1.5 inches (38 millimeters) at the widest
dimension. Catcher vessels would retain all crabs for enumeration by
shoreside observers at the processor, as described below in the PSC
Retention section of this preamble. This change would improve NMFS's
ability to estimate crab bycatch in the pollock fisheries.
Additionally, this proposed rule would also exempt vessels in the
trawl EM category from the regulations at Sec. 679.7(b)(2) that limit
catcher vessels' harvest of pollock in the GOA (commonly referred to as
the pollock trip limit). Currently, catcher vessels are subject to a
300,000 pound onboard retention limit on pollock, requiring vessels to
discard any pollock in excess of 300,000 pounds.
Trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreements for Partial Coverage Catcher Vessels
To maintain the controls on the pollock fisheries that the MRAs,
crab retention limit, and the GOA pollock trip limit provide, this
proposed rule includes provisions for a Trawl EM Incentive Plan
Agreement (TEM IPA) to limit changes in partial coverage category
vessel behavior notwithstanding these proposed regulatory changes.
Namely, the TEM IPAs would aim to prevent catcher vessels from
targeting species other than pollock, failing to avoid bycatch, and
exceeding trip limits or MRAs, when in the trawl EM category. With the
TEM IPA, NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed action would change
how catcher vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category operate,
their harvest limits, or their amount of bycatch.
Under this proposed rule, in order to be qualified to participate
in the trawl EM category, partial coverage catcher vessels would be
required to become a party to a trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreement (TEM
IPA). The TEM IPA was modeled on the Salmon bycatch IPAs (see Sec.
679.21(f)(12)), which have proven to be a successful method for the BS
pollock fleet to modify its behavior to meet NMFS management goals.
An IPA is an industry-developed contractual arrangement that is
approved by NMFS. For the trawl EM category, NMFS would approve an IPA
if the IPA meets the criteria specified in proposed regulations at
Sec. 679.57. To ensure IPAs are effective, IPA parties would be
required to demonstrate to the Council through annual reports that the
IPA is accomplishing the Council's intent that each vessel limit
changes in behavior. Under proposed rule regulations at Sec. 679.57,
TEM IPAs would be structured to limit changes in vessel behavior as a
result of this proposed rule. For instance, the IPAs would aim to
encourage catcher vessels to avoid targeting non-pollock species, avoid
bycatch, and avoid exceeding trip limits or MRAs, when in the trawl EM
category and to meet specific goals to avoid exceeding MRAs and the GOA
pollock trip limit.
Currently, all full coverage vessels are AFA vessels that have
these measures incorporated into existing cooperative agreements and
there is little to no incentive to retain species other than pollock.
Additionally, all potential EM trawl full coverage participants are
party to a Salmon bycatch IPA, therefore a TEM IPA would not be
required for full coverage trawl EM category catcher vessels.
NMFS inseason management staff would track trawl EM category
bycatch and pollock harvest and provide updates in the Annual Inseason
Report to the Council. In addition, the representative of each approved
TEM IPA would submit a written annual report to the Council, which
would be available to the public. Upon receipt of the Annual Reports on
the TEM IPA, the Council may re-evaluate the goals of the TEM IPA and
make adjustments as necessary. Each year NMFS will publish on the NMFS
Alaska Region website the approved list of TEM IPAs and NMFS Approval
Memos, the list of parties to each IPA, approved modifications to the
TEM IPAs, and the list of catcher vessels that, on average, catch more
than 300,000 pounds of pollock per fishing trip in the GOA and or
harvest bycatch in quantities that would exceed MRAs. For the sake of
clarity, each TEM IPA will define how these averages will be calculated
over the fishing year.
PSC Retention
Currently, vessels are required to retain all salmon for
enumeration at the processing plant, but not other PSC species or
groundfish species placed on PSC status when the TAC is reached. Under
this proposed rule, catcher vessels fishing in the trawl EM category
would be required to retain all species, including crab, categorized as
PSC so that they can be fully enumerated by shoreside observers at the
processing plant as specified at Sec. 679.21(a)(2). This requirement
to retain PSC would result in more precise enumeration at the shoreside
plant and is unlikely to change the rate at which these catcher vessels
harvest these PSC species.
Logbooks
Logbooks are necessary for trawl EM data flow, and the trawl EM
category would not work without this component. Logbooks would be
required for all participants in the trawl EM category. While location
and effort are collected by the EM systems, logbooks collect other data
necessary for catch accounting and stock assessments. Catcher vessels
in the trawl EM category would be able to use NMFS-approved paper or
electronic logbooks and follow the logbook-related regulations at Sec.
679.5(a).
Discard information is reported in the logbook and would be
provided to the shoreside processor during offload and recorded in the
eLandings report. Under this proposed rule, the video reviewer would
verify compliance with reporting at-sea discard information in the
logbook for all vessels in the trawl EM category.
Catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that
participate in the Western GOA do not currently have a logbook
requirement and, indeed, are exempt from logbook requirements under
Sec. 679.5(a)(4). Under this proposed rule, these catcher vessels in
the trawl EM category would be required to maintain a logbook to
participate in the trawl EM category. This proposed rule would also add
catcher vessels in the trawl EM category to the list of exceptions to
the exemption at Sec. 679.5(a)(4).
CMCP
Under this proposed rule, catcher vessels and tender vessels in the
trawl EM category would only deliver fish to a shoreside processor or
stationary floating processor that has a NMFS-approved CMCP in place.
Processors
[[Page 7669]]
would be prohibited from receiving deliveries from a catcher vessel, or
tender vessel, in the trawl EM category without a NMFS-approved CMCP.
For pollock, CMCPs are currently required for AFA shoreside
processors and stationary floating processors and any shoreside
processors or stationary floating processors receiving AI directed
pollock deliveries. Currently, not all potential trawl EM processors
currently receive AFA pollock deliveries. CMCPs provide a framework for
how a shoreside processor or stationary floating processor operates
when receiving fish from catcher vessels and tender vessels and how
landing information is communicated to necessary personnel. In this
proposed rule, CMCPs would be required for all shoreside processors and
stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the
trawl EM category. CMCPs include provisions that ensure observers
stationed at processors have the necessary tools, such as enhanced
sample station requirements, to collect fishery data and biological
information related to catch and PSC. Additionally, CMCPs facilitate
communication between the processors and the observers collecting data
related to the pollock fishery. NMFS reviews these plans annually and
may adjust them inseason to enhance their effectiveness as necessary.
Currently, each shoreside processor and stationary floating
processor receiving AFA, CDQ, or AI directed pollock are required to
develop and operate under a NMFS-approved CMCP. The procedures were
established under the regulation at Sec. 679.28(g). CMCPs were
designed to monitor the weighing of pollock, sorting and weighing of
bycatch to species, and proper sorting and storage of salmon at the
shoreside processors. Under the proposed rule, all shoreside processors
and stationary floating processors receiving pollock from vessels in
the trawl EM category would be required to have approved CMCPs in
place. This proposed rule would also change wording to clarify that
NMFS ``may,'' not ``will,'' inspect these processors, as external
factors may prevent an in-person inspection of each processor in a
given year.
The current CMCP regulations require that processors meet minimum
observer sampling station area requirements. Observer sampling stations
are crucial for ensuring data quality in fisheries monitoring due to
their standardized environments. These standards allow trained
observers to accurately record catch details, species identification,
and other critical data points by minimizing the challenges posed by
the dynamic setting of shoreside processors and stationary floating
processors. This proposed rule modifies existing regulations at Sec.
679.28(g) to reorganize CMCP requirements to improve clarity and
consistency and to add provisions necessary to facilitate observer data
collection for trawl EM category deliveries.
For example, this proposed rule clarifies and improves current
requirements for observer sampling stations for processors at Sec.
679.28(g)(7)(ix). This proposed rule includes requirements for the
location of the observer station, platform scale, minimum workspace,
table size, etc., to more closely align with observer sample station
requirements applicable to at-sea catcher/processor vessels.
Modifications to the pre-existing requirements create a more consistent
working environment for observers stationed at processors while also
enhancing data collection.
NMFS would define the criteria in the ADP for determining the
necessary number of observers. The criteria for determining the
necessary amount of observers for a given processor may include tonnage
processed, number of deliveries, or processing hours. These criteria
would apply to all processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the
trawl EM category. The specific number of observers necessary to meet
sampling objectives would be listed in the CMCP, which could be updated
throughout the year to ensure that the necessary number of observers
are present, as processing effort may change seasonally. For example, a
processor may need four observers during ``A season'' to meet sampling
objectives, but during ``B season'', the same processor may need
additional observers to fully account for chum salmon.
Observer Providers
Shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving
deliveries from vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category would
procure observer services by arranging and paying for observer services
directly from a permitted observer provider consistent with existing
regulations at Sec. 679.51(d). This proposed rule would modify
regulations governing observer provider permitting and responsibilities
at Sec. 679.52 to remove fax as an electronic communication method,
update how often specific information must be submitted to NMFS (see
Observer Program Fees section), and clarify the requirements for
observer providers to monitor observer conduct and address observer
misconduct. The latter clarifies requirements for provider action to
rectify observer misconduct.
Observer Program Fees
NMFS is authorized under section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to
require observer program participants in any North Pacific fishery to
pay a fee for observer and EM monitoring provided the fee does not
exceed 2 percent of the fishery ex-vessel value. To pay for video
review services for vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category,
this proposed rule would establish a new full coverage EM review fee in
proposed regulations at Sec. 679.56.
This new fee would be used by NMFS to pay for the costs of data
review, storage, and transmission of EM data for vessels in the full
coverage trawl EM category. The annual cost of EM review, data storage,
and transmission would then be divided among full coverage vessels in
the trawl EM category. NMFS would use the pollock catch history (i.e.,
actual harvest amount) from the previous year to divide the cost
equitably among full coverage participants in the trawl EM category
that year. Invoices would be sent to vessel owners and payment would be
required by May 31. Failure to pay the full coverage trawl EM fee would
prevent a catcher vessel or tender vessel from being selected for the
trawl EM category in the following year as specified at Sec.
679.51(g)(1)(4).
Consistent with regulations at Sec. 679.55, NMFS would use funds
from the existing observer fees to pay for EM hardware and review
services for vessels in the partial coverage category. Catcher vessels
and tender vessels in the partial coverage category (vessels operating
in the GOA and AI pollock fisheries) would continue to pay the existing
observer fee as specified at Sec. 679.55. The partial coverage
observer category is funded through a system of fees collected from
fishery participants (vessels and processors) under authority of
section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS would use partial
coverage fees to procure shoreside observers, deploy and support EM
equipment on selected vessels, and pay for EM video review and data
storage.
Other Regulatory Changes
In addition to the regulations necessary to implement the trawl EM
category, NMFS proposes revising the following regulations for clarity
and efficiency:
<bullet> Remove the expired prohibition at Sec. 679.7(a)(17),
specifying that neither catcher vessels nor catcher processors could
act as a tender vessel until all groundfish or groundfish product was
offloaded and that they could not harvest groundfish while operating as
a
[[Page 7670]]
tender vessel. That prohibition was added as part of an emergency rule
(66 FR 7276, January 22, 2001), which expired on July 17, 2001. To
date, the regulation has not been removed. This proposed rule would
remove the expired prohibition at Sec. 679.7(a)(17) to prevent
confusion, especially as Sec. 679.7(a)(11) contains a similar
prohibition.
<bullet> Regulations implementing EM for nontrawl vessels in the
partial coverage category of the Observer Program are modified to
remove the phrase ``EM selection pool'' and to add in its place
``Nontrawl EM selection pool'' to clearly identify regulations
applicable to the different EM categories. Multiple gear types,
excluding trawl, participate in the nontrawl EM selection pool, while
only trawl vessels are eligible for the trawl EM category.
<bullet> This proposed rule would move regulations specifying
salmon sorting and handling practice from Sec. 679.21(f)(15)(ii)(C)(2)
through (6) to proposed regulations at Sec. 679.28(g)(9) and (10).
This move is necessary to consolidate all CMCP related regulations into
a single location. This does not change the salmon sorting and handling
requirements currently applicable to processors accepting AFA
deliveries and it will allow the public to more easily locate all
applicable CMCP regulations.
<bullet> Replace all instances of ``video data storage device''
with ``EM data'' in Sec. 679.51(f) to broaden the language to allow
for future data formats.
<bullet> Remove fax numbers in Sec. Sec. 679.28(g) and 679.51(g)
to match current practice that has abandoned fax usage. These numbers
were for industry or observers to communicate with, and make requests
of, the Observer Program. As technology has advanced, fax has fallen
out of use and the proposed language should be more inclusive of new
forms of communication.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS
Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is
consistent with the FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
and other applicable law, subject to further consideration of comments
received during the public comment period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Impact Review
A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis
is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Council recommended and
NMFS proposes these regulations based on those measures that maximize
net benefits to the Nation.
Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would directly regulate the owners and operators
of catcher vessels and tender vessels in the trawl EM category,
shoreside processors or stationary floating processors that receive EM
deliveries, EM service providers and observer providers.
Observers may also be indirectly impacted. Observers are
individuals so they do not meet the Small Business Administration
definition of a small entity. Therefore, observers are not considered
directly regulated entities.
For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has
established a small business size standard for businesses, including
their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50
CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS
code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently
owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation
(including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in
excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
Tender vessels, if owned by a processor, are considered together with
the processor. Independently owned tender vessels (NAICS 424460) do not
harvest or process fish and have a 100 employee small entity threshold
(81 FR 4469, January 26, 2016). Shoreside processors and stationary
floating processors fall under ``seafood product preparation and
packaging'' (NAICS 31170) and have a small entity threshold of combined
annual employment of fewer than 750 (81 FR 4469, January 26, 2016).
Observer providers and EM service providers (NAICS 541990, ``other
professional, scientific, and technical services'') have a threshold of
$19.5 million in total annual revenue (87 FR 69118, November 17, 2022).
Based on the thresholds defined above, and considering known
cooperative affiliations, 26 catcher vessels, and 9 of the 12 tender
vessels that participated in the pollock fishery during 2020, 2021, or
2022 would be considered small entities. A total of 121 catcher vessels
participated in the fishery during 2020 and 2021, or 2022. Of these, 73
were AFA cooperative affiliated vessels considered to be large entities
via their AFA affiliations. Three of these vessels participated in the
whiting fishery and are cooperative affiliated large entities.
Additionally, 2 vessels participated in the whiting and Rockfish
Program, and 41 vessels participated in Rockfish Program cooperatives.
A total of 26 vessels were not part of a cooperative and are classified
as small entities. Based on the 750 employee threshold, 3 of the 11
processors that took deliveries of pollock from catcher vessels from
2020 through 2022 that are directly regulated would be considered small
entities. Catcher/processors and motherships are not directly regulated
by this action.
Presently, there are two recognized EM service providers and three
recognized observer providers operating in the North Pacific pollock
fishery. One entity provides both observer and EM service. Thus, there
are four unique entities within this category. There is not presently
an information collection that documents revenue of these entities,
thus, for purposes of the RFA, they are considered directly regulated
small entities.
Six CDQ entities receive allocations in the BS pollock fishery.
Historically, these allocations have been harvested exclusively by
catcher/processors that are not directly regulated by this action.
However, the analysis contained in the Regulatory Impact Review
acknowledges that these CDQ entities could choose to have their pollock
allocations harvested by catcher vessels that would be directly
regulated by this action. Some of the catcher vessels that could be
used to harvest CDQ allocations are wholly owned by for-profit
subsidiaries of these CDQ entities and are not considered to be small
entities solely based on their CDQ affiliations. The analysis of
revenue discussed above includes such vessels and the small entity
count is based on estimated revenue versus the appropriate small entity
threshold.
NMFS anticipates that the trawl EM category would realize cost-
efficiencies in the monitoring program, particularly for the BS, and
that cost efficiencies could be realized in the GOA as well. The
Council recognized that this action will shift some impacts, costs, and
responsibilities from the harvest sector to the shoreside processors
and stationary floating processors, and will expand the use of CMCPs at
processors. However, these potential shifts in cost are expected to be
de minimis, and, further, the process for requesting to
[[Page 7671]]
participate in the trawl EM category is voluntary and development of
the program was requested and supported by industry. As a voluntary
program, entities would participate, and thus be directly regulated,
only if there is a net benefit to them in doing so. This proposed rule
would not increase the fees that NMFS collects from directly regulated
entities in the partial coverage category. This proposed rule will
implement a new fee for full coverage category. This new fee would be
used by NMFS to pay for the costs of data review, storage, and
transmission of EM data for vessels in the full coverage trawl EM
category. The Analysis prepared for this action identifies the
operational costs of participating in the trawl EM category (see
ADDRESSES). Directly regulated small entities that individually judge
the operational costs of participating in the trawl EM category to be
burdensome could continue fishing under the existing human observer
selection protocols, with no change in the amount of fees that they
would be assessed. Therefore, this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required, and none has been prepared.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This proposed rule would
revise existing collection-of information requirements for OMB Control
Numbers 0648-0213 (Alaska Region Logbook and Activity Family of Forms);
0648-0330 (NMFS Alaska Region Scale and Catch Weighing Requirements);
0648-0515 (Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System); and 0648-
0711 (Alaska Cost Recovery and Fee Programs); and revise and extend
0648-0318 (North Pacific Observer Program). Because of a concurrent
action for 0648-0213, the revision to that collection of information
for this proposed rule will be assigned a temporary control number that
will later be merged into 0648-0213. OMB Control Numbers 0648-0812
(Electronic Logbook: Pacific Cod Trawl Cooperative Program Catcher
Vessels Less Than 60 Ft. LOA) and 0648-0815 (Bering Sea/Aleutian
Islands Pot Gear Catcher/Processor Monitoring) are being merged into -
0515 and -0318, respectively, and -0812 and -0815 will be discontinued
upon issuance of the final rule. The public reporting burden estimates
provided below for the collections of information include the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
OMB Control Number 0648-TEMPORARY
This proposed rule would revise the collection of information under
OMB Control Number 0648-0213, associated with paper logbooks. Due to a
concurrent action for that collection, the collection-of-information
requirements will be assigned a temporary control number that will
later be merged into OMB Control Number 0648-0213. This proposed rule
would require logbooks to be submitted by all catcher vessels in the
trawl EM category. Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category may use
either NMFS-approved paper logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0213) or
electronic logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0515). Catcher vessels
greater than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA already are required to maintain
logbooks. Some catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that
are not currently required to submit a logbook would need to begin
doing so to participate in the trawl EM category; therefore, this
proposed rule would increase the number of vessels required to submit a
logbook. The temporary control number would cover the revisions
necessary to -0213 for the catcher vessels that choose to submit paper
logbooks. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to
average 18 minutes for the Catcher Vessel Trawl Daily Fishing Logbook.
OMB Control Number 0648-0318
NMFS proposes to revise and extend for three years the existing
requirements for OMB Control Number 0648-0318, which is associated with
the North Pacific Observer Program. Additionally, OMB Control Number
0648-0815 is being merged into -0318 and will be discontinued upon
issuance of the final rule. OMB Control Number 0648-0815 was
established as a temporary collection (88 FR 77228, November 9, 2023)
because -0318 was being revised by a concurrent action and was intended
to be merged into -0318 following the completion of that action. OMB
Control Number -0318 would be revised to include the following due to
this proposed rule.
The owner or operator of a catcher vessel or tender vessel would be
required to use ODDS to request placement in the trawl EM category.
Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category would be required to log all
fishing trips in ODDS. The public reporting burden per response is
estimated to average 5 minutes to submit the request through ODDS and
15 minutes to log a fishing trip in ODDS.
The vessel owner or operator of a catcher vessel or tender vessel
in the trawl EM category would be required to submit a VMP to NMFS. The
public reporting burden per response for the VMP is estimated to
average 48 hours.
Vessel operators in the trawl EM category would be required to
submit EM data and associated documentation identified in their
vessel's VMP to NMFS. The public reporting burden per response is
estimated to average 1 hour.
A catcher vessel owner or operator would be required to be a member
of a TEM IPA to be approved for the trawl EM partial coverage category.
The TEM IPA representative would submit the proposed TEM IPA to NMFS.
The representative of each approved TEM IPA would be required to submit
a written annual report to the Council. The public reporting burden per
response is estimated to average 40 hours for the TEM IPA and 40 hours
for the TEM IPA annual report.
Prospective EM hardware service providers would need to apply, and
be approved, for an EM hardware service provider permit. The public
reporting burden per response for this permit is estimated to average 8
hours.
An administrative appeal may be submitted if NMFS would issue an
IAD to deny a request to place a vessel in the trawl EM category, an
IAD to disapprove a proposed TEM IPA, or and IAD for expiration of an
EM hardware services provider permit. The public reporting burden per
response for an administrative appeal is estimated to average 4 hours.
The submission time of the observer deployment/logistics report
would be changed to within 24 hours of the observer assignment or daily
by 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time, each business day with regard to each
observer. Fax would be removed as a submission method for this report,
and this proposed rule would allow any other method specified by NMFS.
This report would no longer be required to include the location of any
observer employed by the observer provider who is not assigned to a
vessel, shoreside processor, or stationary floating processor. These
changes are not expected to change the average response time for this
report. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to
average 7 minutes.
This proposed rule would allow for electronic submission of the
reports that are submitted by an observer provider and used by NMFS to
monitor and
[[Page 7672]]
enforce standards of observer conduct and identify problems on
deployments that may compromise the observer's health or well-being
otherwise. This proposed rule would also require the provider's
responses to the violation in the report submitted by an observer
provider for an observer who violated the observer provider's policy on
conduct and behavior. These changes are not expected to change the
average response time for these reports. The public reporting burden
per response is estimated to average 2 hours.
This proposed rule would remove fax as an electronic communication
method and allow other methods specified by NMFS for other observer
provider responsibilities. The public reporting burden per response to
these requirements is estimated to average 60 hours for the observer
provider permit application; 8 hours for college transcripts; 1 hour
for observer training registration; 7 minutes each for observer
briefing registration and projected observer assignments; 5 minutes
each for physical examination verification and updates to observer
provider information; 12 minutes for certificates of insurance; and 30
minutes each for observer debriefing registration, observer provider
contracts, and observer provider invoices.
OMB Control Number 0648-0330
The information collection for 0648-0330 would be revised because
this proposed rule would require all shoreside processors and
stationary floating processors receiving pollock from vessels in the
trawl EM category to have NMFS-approved CMCPs in place before receiving
deliveries from catcher vessels or tender vessels in the trawl EM
category. Some processors that do not currently submit a CMCP would
need to begin doing so; therefore, this would increase the number of
respondents that submit a CMCP. The public reporting burden per
response is estimated to average 40 hours for the new participants
required to submit a CMCP and initially in the first two years after
implementation for existing CMCPs, but in the following years the
burden would be reduced.
OMB Control Number 0648-0515
The information collection for 0648-0515 would be revised due to
this proposed rule. Additionally, OMB Control Number 0648-0812 is being
merged into -0515 and will be discontinued upon issuance of the final
rule. OMB Control Number 0648-0812 was established as a temporary
collection (88 FR 53704, August 8, 2023) because -0515 was being
revised by concurrent actions and was intended to be merged into -0515
following the completion of those actions. This proposed rule would
require logbooks to be submitted by all catcher vessels in the trawl EM
category. Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category may use either NMFS-
approved electronic logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0515) or paper
logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0213). Catcher vessels greater than
60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA already are required to maintain logbooks.
Some catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that are not
currently required to submit a logbook would need to begin doing so to
participate in the trawl EM category; therefore, this proposed rule
would increase the number of vessels required to submit a logbook. The
revision to this collection of information due to the rule adds the
catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that choose to
submit electronic logbooks. The public reporting burden per response is
estimated to average 15 minutes for the Catcher Vessel Electronic
Logbook.
OMB Control Number 0648-0711
The information collection for 0648-0711 would be revised because
this proposed rule would require the owner of a catcher vessel in the
full coverage trawl EM category to submit the new full coverage trawl
EM fee. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to
average 1 minute for the fee payment.
Public Comment
Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Submit comments on
these or any other aspects of the collection of information at <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is
required to respond or, nor shall any person by subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 26, 2024.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50
CFR part 679 as follows:
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
0
1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.;
Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.
0
2. Amend Sec. 679.2 by:
0
a. Removing the definition of ``EM selection pool'';
0
b. Revising the definition of ``EM service provider'' and paragraph
(3)(iv) of the definition of ``Fishing trip''; and
0
c. Adding in alphabetical order definitions of ``Nontrawl EM selection
pool'', ``Trawl EM category'', and ``Trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreement
(TEM IPA)''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 679.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
EM service provider means any person, including their employees or
agents, that NMFS contracts with, or grants an EM hardware service
provider permit to under Sec. 679.52(d), to provide EM services, or to
collect, review, interpret, or analyze EM data, as required under Sec.
679.51. The two types of EM service providers are as follows:
(1) EM hardware service provider is a provider that NMFS grants a
permit under Sec. 679.52(d) and is authorized to deploy and service EM
hardware aboard vessels in an EM category as specified in Sec. 679.51.
(2) EM data review service provider is a provider that NMFS
contracts with, or otherwise has an established business relationship
with, to review, interpret, or analyze EM data as required under Sec.
679.51.
* * * * *
Fishing trip means:
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) For a vessel in any EM category, the period of time that
begins when the vessel with an empty hold departs a port or tender
vessel until the vessel
[[Page 7673]]
returns to a port or tender vessel and offloads or delivers all fish.
* * * * *
Nontrawl EM selection pool means the defined group of vessels from
which NMFS will randomly select the vessels required to use an EM
system under Sec. 679.51(f).
* * * * *
Trawl EM category means the defined group of catcher vessels and
tender vessels with a NMFS-approved VMP that are required to use an EM
system as specified under Sec. 679.51(g)(1).
Trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreement (TEM IPA) means a voluntary
private contract in writing, approved by NMFS under Sec. 679.57, that
establishes incentives for partial coverage catcher vessels in the
trawl EM category to keep catch within the limits to which vessels not
in the trawl EM category are subject. These limits include the catcher
vessel harvest limit for pollock in the Gulf of Alaska (Sec.
679.7(b)(2)) and MRAs (Sec. 679.20(e)).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 679.5 by adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(H) and revising
paragraph (a)(4)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more
If harvest made under . . . Record the . . . information,
program see . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(H) Trawl EM Category (TEM)....... Management program Sec. 679.51
modifier as TEM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Catcher vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA. The owner and
operator of a catcher vessel less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA are required
to comply with the vessel activity report described at paragraph (k) of
this section, but otherwise are not required to comply with the R&R
requirements of this section, except for:
(A) Vessels using pot gear as described in paragraph
(c)(3)(i)(B)(1) of this section;
(B) Vessels participating in the PCTC Program as described in
paragraph (x) of this section; and
(C) Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category as described in Sec.
679.51(g).
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 679.7 by adding paragraph (a)(11)(iii), revising
paragraphs (a)(14) and (a)(16), removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(17), and revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii), and (j).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 679.7 Prohibitions.
(a) * * *
(11) * * *
(iii) Tender vessel. Use a catcher vessel or catcher/processor to
harvest groundfish while operating as a tender vessel.
* * * * *
(14) Trawl gear performance standard--(i) BSAI. Except for catcher
vessels in the trawl EM category, use a vessel to participate in a
directed fishery for pollock using trawl gear and have on board the
vessel, at any particular time, 20 or more crabs of any species that
have a carapace width of more than 1.5 inches (38 mm) at the widest
dimension.
(ii) GOA. Except for catcher vessels in the trawl EM category, use
a vessel to participate in a directed fishery for pollock using trawl
gear when directed fishing for pollock with nonpelagic trawl gear is
closed and have on board the vessel, at any particular time, 20 or more
crabs of any species that have a carapace width of more than 1.5 inches
(38 mm) at the widest dimension.
* * * * *
(16) Retention of groundfish bycatch species. Except for catcher
vessels in the trawl EM category, exceed the maximum retainable amount
established under Sec. 679.20(e).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Except for catcher vessels in the trawl EM category, retain
more than 300,000 lb (136 mt) of unprocessed pollock on board a catcher
vessel issued a FFP at any time during a fishing trip as defined at
Sec. 679.2;
(ii) Except for catcher vessels in the trawl EM category, land more
than 300,000 lb (136 mt) of unprocessed pollock harvested in any GOA
reporting area from a catcher vessel issued a FFP to any processor or
tender vessel during a calendar day as defined at Sec. 679.2; and
(iii) Except for catcher vessels in the trawl EM category, land a
cumulative amount of unprocessed pollock harvested from any GOA
reporting area from a catcher vessel issued a FFP during a directed
fishery that exceeds the amount in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section
multiplied by the number of calendar days that occur during the time
period the directed fishery is open in that reporting area.
* * * * *
(j) North Pacific Observer Program--Electronic Monitoring--(1)
General. (i) Fish without an EM system when a vessel is required to
carry an EM system under Sec. 679.51.
(ii) Fish with an EM system without a copy of a valid NMFS-approved
VMP on board when directed fishing in a fishery subject to EM coverage.
(iii) Fail to comply with a NMFS-approved VMP when directed fishing
in a fishery subject to EM coverage.
(iv) Fail to ensure an EM system is functioning prior to departing
port on a fishing trip as specified at Sec. 679.51(f)(5)(vi)(A).
(v) Fail to ensure an EM system is functional prior to departing on
a fishing trip as specified at Sec. 679.51(g)(3)(v).
(vi) Depart on a fishing trip without a functional EM system, per
the VMP, unless approved to do so by NMFS, after the procedures at
Sec. 679.51(f)(5)(vi)(A)(1), or Sec. 679.51(g), have been followed.
(vii) Fail to follow procedures related to EM system malfunctions
as described at Sec. 679.51(f)(5)(vi)(B) or Sec. 679.51(g) prior to
deploying each set of gear on a fishing trip selected for EM coverage.
(viii) Fail to make the EM system, associated equipment, logbooks,
and other records available for inspection upon request by NMFS, OLE,
or other NMFS-authorized officer.
(ix) Fail to submit EM data as specified under Sec.
679.51(f)(5)(vii) or Sec. 679.51(g).
(x) Tamper with, bias, disconnect, damage, destroy, alter, or in
any other way distort, render useless, inoperative, ineffective, or
inaccurate any component of the EM system, associated equipment, or
data recorded by the EM system when the vessel is directed fishing in a
fishery subject to EM coverage, unless the vessel operator is directed
to make changes to the EM system by NMFS, the EM service
[[Page 7674]]
provider, or as directed in the troubleshooting guide of the VMP.
(xi) Assault, impede, intimidate, harass, sexually harass, bribe,
or interfere with an EM service provider.
(xii) Interfere with or bias the sampling procedure employed in the
EM selection pool, including either mechanically or manually sorting or
discarding catch outside of the camera view or inconsistent with the
NMFS-approved VMP.
(xiii) Fail to meet the vessel owner and operator responsibilities
when using an EM system as specified at Sec. 679.51(f)(5) or Sec.
679.51(g)(5).
(2) Trawl EM category--(i) Catcher vessels in the trawl EM
category. (A) Use a catcher vessel in the partial coverage trawl EM
category to fish without being party to an approved trawl EM incentive
plan agreement established under Sec. 679.57;
(B) Use a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category to discard catch
from the codend before it is brought on board the vessel unless
required to maintain the safety and stability of the vessel. This
includes ``codend dumping'' or ``codend bleeding'';
(C) Use a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category to deploy
nonpelagic trawl gear;
(D) Use a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category to land catch to
a tender vessel that is not in the trawl EM category or does not have a
NMFS-approved VMP; or
(E) Use a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category to land catch to
a shoreside processor or stationary floating processor that does not
have a NMFS-approved CMCP.
(ii) Shoreside processors and stationary floating processors. (A)
Receive any delivery from a vessel in the trawl EM category without
being issued and following a NMFS-approved Catch Monitoring Control
Plan as described in Sec. 679.28(g).
(B) Store any non-salmon species in a designated salmon storage
container as described in a NMFS-approved Catch Monitoring Control Plan
per Sec. 679.28(g).
(C) Allow any salmon species to be placed into any location other
than the designated salmon storage container described in a NMFS-
approved Catch Monitoring Control Plan per Sec. 679.28(g) at a
shoreside processor or stationary floating processor.
(D) Begin sorting a trawl EM category offload before an observer
has completed the count of all salmon and the collection of scientific
data and biological samples from the previous offload.
(E) Continue to sort trawl EM category catch if the salmon storage
container described in a NMFS-approved Catch Monitoring Control Plan
per Sec. 679.28(g) is full.
(F) Allow any PSC harvested or delivered by a vessel in the trawl
EM category to be sold, purchased, bartered, or traded.
(iii) Tender vessels. (A) Operate a tender vessel in the trawl EM
category and receive a delivery from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM
category and a catcher vessel not in the trawl EM category during the
same fishing trip.
(B) Operate a tender vessel in the trawl EM category and receive a
delivery from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category without an
approved VMP.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 679.20 by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.20 General limitations.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Groundfish as prohibited species closure. When the Regional
Administrator determines that the TAC of any target species specified
under paragraph (c) of this section, or the share of any TAC assigned
to any type of gear, has been or will be achieved prior to the end of a
year, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal Register requiring
that target species be treated in the same manner as a prohibited
species, as described under Sec. 679.21(a), for the remainder of the
year, except:
(i) Rockfish species caught by catcher vessels using hook-and-line,
pot, or jig gear as described in paragraph (j) of this section; and
(ii) Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 679.21 by adding paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A), adding
reserved paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B), and revising paragraph (f)(15)(ii)(C)
to read as follows:
Sec. 679.21 Prohibited species bycatch management.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Vessels in the trawl EM category must retain all prohibited
species catch for sampling by an observer.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(15) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Shoreside processors and stationary floating processors must
comply with the requirements in Sec. 679.28(g)(9) and (10) for the
receipt, sorting, and storage of salmon from deliveries of catch from
the BS pollock fishery.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 679.28 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (d)(10)(i) and (g)(1);
0
b. Adding paragraph (g)(2)(iv);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (g)(3) through (6), (g)(7) introductory text,
and (g)(7)(v);
0
d. Removing paragraph (g)(7)(vi)(C);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (g)(7)(vii) through (xi); and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (g)(8) through (10).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 679.28 Equipment and operational requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(10) * * *
(i) How does a vessel owner arrange for an observer sampling
station inspection? The vessel owner must submit an Inspection Request
for Observer Sampling Station with all the information fields
accurately filled in to NMFS by emailing
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85f6f1e4f1eceaebabecebf6f5e0e6f1eceaebf6c5ebeae4e4abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92e1e6f3e6fbfdfcbcfbfce1e2f7f1e6fbfdfce1d2fcfdf3f3bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>), or completing the online request form,
at least 10 working days in advance of the requested date of
inspection. The request form is available on the NMFS Alaska Region
website.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) What is a CMCP? A CMCP is a plan submitted by the owner and
manager of a processing plant, and approved by NMFS, detailing how the
processor will meet the applicable catch monitoring and control
standards detailed in paragraphs (g)(7) through (10) of this section.
(2) * * *
(iv) Any shoreside or stationary floating processor receiving any
delivery from catcher vessels or tender vessels in the trawl EM
category as defined at Sec. 679.2.
(3) How is a CMCP approved by NMFS? NMFS will approve a CMCP if it
meets all the applicable requirements specified in paragraphs (g)(7)
through (10) of this section. The processor may be inspected by NMFS
prior to approval of the CMCP to ensure that the processor conforms to
the elements addressed in the CMCP. NMFS will complete its review of
the CMCP within 14 working days of receipt. If NMFS disapproves a CMCP,
the plant owner or manager may resubmit a revised CMCP or file an
administrative appeal as set forth under the administrative appeals
procedures described at Sec. 679.43.
(4) How is a CMCP inspection arranged? The processor must submit a
request for a CMCP inspection. The time
[[Page 7675]]
and place of a CMCP inspection may be arranged by submitting a written
request to NMFS, Alaska Region, or other method of electronic
communication designated by NMFS. NMFS will review the inspection
request within 10 working days after receiving a complete application
for an inspection. The inspection request must include:
(i) Name of the person submitting the application and the date of
the application;
(ii) Address, telephone number, and email address of the person
submitting the application;
(iii) A proposed CMCP detailing how the processor will meet each of
the applicable performance standards in paragraphs (g)(7) through (10)
of this section.
(5) For how long is a CMCP approved? NMFS will approve a CMCP for 1
year if it meets the applicable performance standards specified in
paragraphs (g)(7) through (10) of this section. An owner or manager
must notify NMFS in writing if changes are made in plant operations or
layout that do not conform to the CMCP.
(6) How do I make changes to my CMCP? An owner and manager may
change an approved CMCP by submitting a CMCP addendum to NMFS. NMFS
will approve the modified CMCP if it continues to meet the applicable
performance standards specified in paragraphs (g)(7) through (10) of
this section. Depending on the nature and magnitude of the change
requested, NMFS may require a CMCP inspection as described in paragraph
(g)(3) of this section. A CMCP addendum must contain:
(i) Name of the person submitting the addendum;
(ii) Address, telephone number, and email address of the person
submitting the addendum; and
(iii) A complete description of the proposed CMCP change.
(7) Catch monitoring and control standards. For all shoreside
processors or stationary floating processors accepting any delivery
from the fisheries listed in paragraph (g)(2) of this section:
* * * * *
(v) Delivery point. Each CMCP must identify a single delivery
point. The delivery point is the first location where fish removed from
a delivering catcher vessel can be sorted or diverted to more than one
location. If the catch is pumped from the hold of a catcher vessel or a
codend, the delivery point normally will be the location where the pump
first discharges the catch. If catch is removed from a vessel by
brailing, the delivery point normally will be the bin or belt where the
brailer discharges the catch. The CMCP must describe how the catch will
be offloaded at the delivery point.
* * * * *
(vii) Scale Drawing of the Plant. The CMCP must be accompanied by a
scale drawing of the plant showing:
(A) The delivery point;
(B) Flow of fish;
(C) The observation area;
(D) The observer sampling station described in paragraph (g)(7)(ix)
of this section;
(E) The location of each scale used to weigh catch;
(F) Each location where catch is sorted including the last location
where sorting could occur; and
(G) Information to meet other requirements of this part, if
requested by NMFS.
(viii) Reasonable assistance. Shoreside processors and stationary
floating processors must provide reasonable assistance as described in
Sec. 679.51(e)(2)(vi), to observer(s) and to the Rockfish CMCP
specialist. The CMCP must identify staff responsible for ensuring
reasonable assistance is provided.
(ix) Observer sampling station. Each CMCP, except for the Rockfish
Program, must identify and include an observer(s) sampling station for
the exclusive use of observer(s). Unless otherwise approved by NMFS,
the sampling station must meet the following criteria:
(A) Location of observer sampling station. (1) The observer
sampling station must be located in an area protected from the weather
where the observer has access to unsorted catch.
(2) The observer sampling station must be adjacent to the location
where salmon will be counted and biological samples or scientific data
are collected.
(3) Clear, unobstructed passage must be provided between the
observer sampling station and observer sample collection point. The
observer(s) must be able to monitor the collection and transport of
unsorted catch to the observer sampling station.
(B) Proximity of observer sampling station. The observer sampling
station must be located within 4 meters of the observer sample
collection point without encountering safety hazards, or, reasonable
assistance must be given to move samples into the observer sampling
station upon request.
(C) Minimum workspace requirements. The observer sampling station
must include: A working area of at least 4.5 square meters. The
observer(s) must be able to stand upright and have a sampling area at
least 0.9 meters deep in front of the table and scale.
(D) Clear, unobstructed passage. A clear and unobstructed passage
is required between the observer sample collection point and sampling
station, and within the observer sampling station. Passageways must be
at least 65 centimeters wide at their narrowest point, and be free of
tripping or head bumping hazards.
(E) Table. The observer sampling station must include a table at
least 0.6 meters deep, 1.2 meters wide, 0.9 meters high, and no more
than 1.1 meters high. The entire surface area of the table must be
available for use by the observer(s). Any area used for the observer
sampling scale is in addition to the minimum space requirements for the
table specified at paragraph (g)(7)(ix)(B) of this section. The
observer sampling table must be secure, and stable.
(F) Observer Platform scale. The observer sampling station must
include a platform scale as described in paragraph (c)(4) of this
section, and must meet the requirements specified in paragraph
(c)(3)(v) of this section when tested by the observer. The platform
scale must be located within 1 meter of the observer sampling table.
The scale must be mounted so that the weighing surface is no more than
0.7 meters above the floor.
(G) Lockable cabinet. The observer work station must include a
secure and lockable cabinet or locker of at least 0.5 cubic meters, and
must be for the exclusive use of the observer(s).
(x) Communication with observer. The CMCP, except for the Rockfish
Program, must describe what communication equipment such as radios or
cellular phones is used to facilitate communications within the plant.
The plant owner must ensure that the plant manager provides the
observer(s) with the same communications equipment used by plant staff.
The plant owner or plant manager must communicate the following
information to the observer(s), including:
(A) Daily schedule of expected landings;
(B) Vessel name;
(C) Identify which management areas the vessel was operating in;
(D) If the delivering vessel is operating under the trawl EM
category;
(E) Estimated tonnage onboard the vessel;
(F) If there is a deckload;
(G) Estimated time of arrival;
(H) Estimated time to complete the offload;
(I) If the vessel offload will be interrupted for any reason; and
[[Page 7676]]
(J) Any other information required by the applicable CMCP or VMP.
(xi) Plant liaison. The CMCP must designate a plant liaison. The
plant liaison is responsible for:
(A) Orienting new observer(s) to the plant and providing a copy of
the NMFS-approved CMCP and any subsequent addendums or revisions; and
(B) Assisting in the resolution of observer(s) concerns.
* * * * *
(8) Rockfish Program. In addition to compliance with requirements
set forth at paragraph (g)(7) of this section, all shoreside processors
or stationary floating processors receiving deliveries of groundfish
harvested under the authority of a rockfish CQ permit must:
(i) Rockfish CMCP specialist notification. Describe how the
Rockfish CMCP specialist will be notified of deliveries of groundfish
harvested under the authority of a rockfish CQ permit.
(ii) [Reserved]
(9) Processors receiving AFA pollock, CDQ pollock, and trawl EM
category deliveries. In addition to compliance with requirements set
forth at paragraph (g)(7) of this section, all shoreside processors and
stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from the fisheries
described in paragraphs (g)(2)(i),(ii), and (iv) of this section, must
comply with the following:
(i) Salmon storage container. (A) A salmon storage container must
be designated for the exclusive purpose of storing salmon during an
offload;
(B) The observer(s) must have a clear, unobstructed view of the
salmon storage container to ensure no salmon of any species are removed
without the observer's knowledge;
(C) The CMCP must describe the process of sorting and storing
salmon; and
(D) The scale drawing of the plant must include the location of the
salmon storage container.
(ii) Salmon sorting and handling practices. (A) Sort and transport
all salmon to the salmon storage container identified in the CMCP (see
paragraphs (g)(7)(vi)(C) and (g)(7)(x)(F) of this section). The salmon
must remain in that salmon storage container and within the view of the
observer(s) at all times during the offload;
(B) If, at any point during the offload, salmon are too numerous to
be contained in the salmon storage container, cease the offload and all
sorting and give the observer(s) the opportunity to count and collect
scientific data or biological samples from all salmon in the storage
bin. The counted salmon then must be removed from the area by plant
personnel in the presence of the observer(s);
(C) At the completion of the offload, give the observer(s) the
opportunity to count the salmon and collect scientific data or
biological samples; and
(D) Before sorting of the next offload of any catch may begin, give
the observer(s) the opportunity to complete the count of salmon and the
collection of scientific data or biological samples from the previous
offload of catch. When the observer(s) has completed all counting and
sampling duties for the offload, plant personnel must remove the salmon
in the presence of the observer(s), from the salmon storage container
and location where salmon are counted and biological samples or
scientific data are collected.
(iii) Observer sample collection point. The observer sample
collection point is the location where the observer collects unsorted
catch.
(A) The observer sample collection point (see paragraph
(g)(7)(ix)(A)(3) of this section) must have a diverter mechanism to
allow fish to be diverted from the belt directly into the observer's
sampling baskets. The location and design of the diverter mechanism
must be described in the CMCP; and
(B) The scale drawing of the plant, specified at paragraph
(g)(7)(vii) of this section, must include the location of the observer
sample collection point.
(iv) Observer sampling scales and test weights. (A) Identify by
serial number each observer sampling scale in the CMCP;
(B) Provide observer sampling scales that are accurate and within
the limits specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section;
(C) Test weights must be made available for the observer(s) use, be
kept in good condition, be made of stainless steel or other corrosion-
resistant material, and must meet requirements specified in paragraph
(C)(4)(iii) of this section;
(D) List the serial numbers of the test weights to be used to test
the observer sampling scale in the CMCP; and
(E) The CMCP must identify where the test weights will be stored.
Test weights must be stored within the observer sampling station or
reasonable assistance must be provided upon observer(s) request to move
the weights form the storage location to the observer sampling scale.
(10) AFA pollock and CDQ pollock. In addition to paragraphs (g)(7)
and (9) of this section, all shoreside processors and stationary
floating processors accepting deliveries described in paragraph
(g)(2)(i) of this section have the following additional requirements:
(i) Ensure no salmon of any species pass beyond the last point
where sorting of fish occurs, as identified in the scale drawing of the
plant, paragraph (g)(7)(vii) of this section, in the CMCP; and
(ii) The CMCP must describe the process that will be used to sort
salmon, including the procedures for handling salmon that have passed
beyond the last point where sorting of fish occurs;
(iii) Meet all salmon handling requirements as described in (g)(9)
of this section.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 679.51 by:
0
a. Removing the words ``NMFS Alaska Region website at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/'', ``NMFS Alaska Region website https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/'', ``NMFS Alaska Region website at <a href="http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov">http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov</a>'', ``NMFS Alaska Region website <a href="http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov">http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov</a>'', and ``NMFS Alaska Region website (<a href="http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov">http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov</a>)'' wherever they appear, and adding, in their
place, the words ``NMFS Alaska Region website'';
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iv);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(i);
0
d. Adding paragraph (b)(3);
0
e. In paragraph (c)(3), removing the phrase ``transmitted by facsimile
to 206-526-4066'' and adding, in its place, the phrase ``other method
specified by NMFS on the NMFS Observer Program website'';
0
f. In paragraph (f), removing the words ``EM selection pool'' wherever
they appear and adding, in their place, the words ``nontrawl EM
selection pool'';
0
g. Revising paragraph (f)(2) introductory text;
0
h. In paragraph (f)(3)(ii), removing the phrase ``the video data
storage devices'' and adding in its place the phrase ``EM data'';
0
i. Revising paragraph (f)(4)(v);
0
j. Adding paragraph (f)(4)(vi);
0
k. In paragraph (f)(5)(vii), removing the phrase ``the video data
storage device'' and adding, in its place, the words ``EM data''; and
0
l. Adding paragraph (g).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 679.51 Observer and Electronic Monitoring System requirements
for vessels and plants.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Observer workload at shoreside processors and stationary
floating
[[Page 7677]]
processors. Regarding shoreside processors and stationary floating
processors, the time required for an observer to complete sampling,
data recording, and data communication duties, per this paragraph
(a)(1), may not exceed 12 hours in each 24-hour period.
(2) * * *
(ii) Observer coverage requirements. A vessel listed in paragraphs
(a)(2)(i)(A) through (C) of this section must have at least one
observer aboard the vessel at all times. Some fisheries require
additional observer coverage in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(vi) of
this section. The following exceptions apply:
(A) A vessel subject to the partial observer coverage category as
per paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section;
(B) A vessel approved to be in the full coverage trawl EM category;
vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category are subject to observer
coverage if NMFS determines that at-sea coverage is necessary in the
Annual Deployment Plan.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Coverage level. (A) An AFA inshore processor must provide an
observer for each 12-consecutive-hour period of each calendar day
during which the processor takes delivery of, or processes, groundfish
harvested by a vessel engaged in a directed pollock fishery in the BS.
An AFA inshore processor that, for more than 12 consecutive hours in a
calendar day, takes delivery of or processes pollock harvested in the
BS directed pollock fishery must provide two observers for each such
day.
(B) The owner and operator of an AFA shoreside or stationary
floating processor receiving deliveries from a catcher vessel in the
trawl EM category must provide the necessary number of observers to
meet the criteria prescribed by NMFS in the Annual Deployment Plan for
each calendar day during which the processor takes delivery of, or
processes, groundfish harvested by a vessel engaged in a directed
pollock fishery in the BS.
* * * * *
(3) Shoreside processor and stationary floating processor receiving
a delivery from catcher or tender vessels in the trawl EM category--(i)
Deadline to submit a request to receive trawl EM deliveries. A
shoreside processor and stationary floating processor must submit a
request to NMFS by November 1 of the year prior to the fishing year in
which they intend to receive deliveries from catcher vessels or tender
vessels in the trawl EM category.
(ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) Notification of nontrawl EM trip selection.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(v) If, at any time, changes are required to the VMP to improve the
data collection of the EM system or address fishing operation changes,
the vessel owner or operator must work with NMFS and the EM service
provider to amend the VMP. The vessel owner or operator must sign the
amended VMP and submit these changes to the VMP to NMFS prior to
departing on the next fishing trip selected for EM coverage.
(vi) The VMP will require information regarding:
(A) Vessel and contact information;
(B) Gear used;
(C) EM hardware functionality requirements;
(D) Requirements for meeting program objectives as specified in the
Annual Deployment Plan;
(E) List of potential solutions for hardware malfunctions;
(F) Images of camera locations and camera views;
(G) EM hardware service provider information;
(H) Valid signatures from the EM hardware service provider and
vessel owner or operator; and
(I) Any other information required by the applicable VMP.
* * * * *
(g) Trawl EM category--(1) Vessel placement in the trawl EM
category--(i) Applicability. (A) The owner or operator of a catcher
vessel with a pollock trawl endorsement (PTW) on their FFP in the
partial coverage category under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, or
in the full coverage category in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section,
may request to be placed in the trawl EM category.
(1) Partial coverage trawl EM category. Catcher vessels targeting
pollock with pelagic trawl gear in the GOA or AI fisheries.
(2) Full coverage trawl EM category. Catcher vessels targeting
pollock with pelagic trawl gear in the BS or CDQ fisheries.
(B) The owner or operator of a tender vessel must request to be
placed in the trawl EM category before receiving a delivery from a
catcher vessel in the trawl EM category.
(ii) How to request placement in the trawl EM category. The owner
or operator of a vessel must complete the trawl EM category request and
submit it to NMFS using ODDS. Access to ODDS is available through the
NMFS Alaska Region website. ODDS is described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)
of this section.
(iii) Deadline to submit a trawl EM category request. A vessel
owner or operator must submit an annual trawl EM category request in
ODDS by November 1 of the year prior to the fishing year in which the
vessel would be placed in the trawl EM category.
(iv) Approval for placement in the trawl EM category. NMFS may
approve a vessel for placement in the trawl EM category based on
criteria specified by NMFS in the Annual Deployment Plan, available
through the NMFS Alaska Region website. Criteria for disapproval may
include actions by the vessel leading to data gaps, noncompliance with
program elements such as discarding of catch, vessel configuration or
fishing practices that cannot provide the necessary camera views to
meet data collection goals, failure to follow the trawl EM category
VMP, and/or failure to adhere to an incentive plan agreement as
specified in Sec. 679.57 for partial coverage catcher vessels, or
Sec. 679.21(f)(12) for full coverage catcher vessels. For the trawl EM
application to be considered complete, all fees due to NMFS from the
owner or authorized representative of a catcher vessel subject to the
fees specified at Sec. 679.56 at the time of application must be paid.
(v) Notification of approval for placement in the trawl EM
category. (A) NMFS will notify the owner or operator through ODDS of
approval for the trawl EM category for the following fishing year.
Catcher vessels remain subject to observer coverage under paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) or (a)(2)(i) of this section unless and until NMFS approves
the request for placement of the catcher vessel in the trawl EM
category.
(B) Once NMFS notifies the vessel owner or operator that their
request to be placed in the trawl EM category has been approved, the
vessel owner or operator must comply with the responsibilities in
paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this section and all further instructions
set forth in ODDS.
(vi) Initial Administrative Determination (IAD). If NMFS denies a
request to place a vessel in the trawl EM category, NMFS will provide
an IAD to the vessel owner, which will explain the basis for the
denial.
(vii) Appeal. If the vessel owner wishes to appeal NMFS's denial of
a request to place the vessel in the trawl EM category, the owner may
appeal the determination under the appeals procedure set out at 15 CFR
part 906.
(viii) Duration. Once NMFS approves a vessel for placement in the
trawl EM
[[Page 7678]]
category, that vessel will remain in the trawl EM category for the
following upcoming fishing year or until:
(A) NMFS disapproves the vessel's VMP under paragraph (g)(2) of
this section; or
(B) The vessel no longer meets the trawl EM category criteria
specified by NMFS.
(ix) Procurement of EM services--(A) Partial coverage category. The
owner or operator of a vessel approved for the trawl EM category must
use the EM hardware service provider as outlined by NMFS in the Annual
Deployment Plan.
(B) Full coverage category. The owner or operator of a vessel
approved for the trawl EM category must arrange and pay for EM service
provider services from a permitted EM hardware service provider.
(2) Vessel Monitoring Plan (VMP). Once approved for the trawl EM
category, and prior to the first trawl EM fishing trip in the fishing
year, the vessel owner or operator must develop a VMP with the EM
hardware service provider following the VMP template available through
the NMFS Alaska Region website.
(i) The vessel owner or operator must sign and submit the VMP to
NMFS each fishing year.
(ii) NMFS may approve the VMP for the fishing year if it meets all
the requirements specified in the VMP template available through the
NMFS Alaska Region website.
(iii) If the VMP does not meet all the requirements specified in
the VMP template, NMFS will provide the vessel owner or operator the
opportunity to submit a revised VMP that meets all the requirements
specified in the VMP template.
(iv) If NMFS does not approve the revised VMP, NMFS will issue an
IAD to the vessel owner or operator that will explain the basis for the
disapproval. The vessel owner or operator may file an administrative
appeal under the administrative appeals procedures set out at 15 CFR
part 906.
(v) If, at any time, changes must be made to the VMP to improve the
data collection of the EM system or address fishing operation changes,
the vessel owner or operator must work with NMFS and the EM hardware
service provider to amend the VMP. The vessel owner or operator must
sign the updated VMP and submit those changes to NMFS. NMFS must
approve the amended VMP prior to departing on the next fishing trip
selected for EM coverage.
(vi) The VMP will require information regarding:
(A) Vessel and contact information;
(B) Gear used;
(C) EM hardware functionality requirements;
(D) Requirements for meeting program objectives as specified in the
Annual Deployment Plan;
(E) List of potential solutions for hardware malfunctions;
(F) Images of camera locations and camera views;
(G) EM hardware service provider information;
(H) Valid signatures from the EM hardware service provider and
either the vessel owner or operator; and
(I) Any other information required by the applicable VMP.
(3) Responsibilities. To use an EM system under this section the
vessel owner and operator must:
(i) Make the vessel available for the installation of EM equipment
by an EM hardware service provider;
(ii) Provide access to the vessel's EM system and reasonable
assistance to the EM hardware service provider;
(iii) Maintain a copy of a NMFS-approved VMP onboard the vessel at
all times when the vessel is directed fishing in a fishery subject to
EM coverage;
(iv) Comply with all elements of the VMP during fishing trips
conducted under paragraph (g)(5) of this section;
(v) Maintain the EM system, including by doing the following:
(A) Ensure the EM system is functioning before departing on a
fishing trip.
(B) Ensure power is maintained to the EM system for the duration of
a trawl EM category fishing trip;
(C) Ensure the system is functioning for the entire fishing trip,
camera views are unobstructed and clear in quality, and discards may be
completely viewed, identified, and quantified; and
(D) Ensure EM system components are not tampered with, disabled,
destroyed, or operated or maintained improperly.
(vi) Communicate catch information to the shoreside processor or
stationary floating processor receiving catch through a NMFS approved
system. The following information must be transmitted as outlined in
the VMP:
(A) Vessel name;
(B) Identify which Management areas the vessel was operating in;
(C) Most precise estimate available of tonnage aboard the vessel;
(D) Estimated deckload size, if present;
(E) Estimated time of arrival at shoreside processor or stationary
floating processor; and
(F) Information to meet other requirements of this part, if
requested by NMFS.
(4) EM coverage duration and duties. (i) A fishing trip in the
trawl EM category may not begin until all previously harvested fish
have been landed.
(ii) At the end of the fishing trip in the trawl EM category, the
vessel operator must follow the instructions in the VMP and submit the
EM data and associated documentation identified in the VMP.
(iii) The vessel operator must complete daily tests of equipment
functionality as instructed in the vessel's VMP.
(A) During a fishing trip in the trawl EM category, before each
haul is retrieved, the vessel operator must verify all cameras are
recording and all sensors and other required EM system components are
functioning as instructed in the vessel's VMP.
(1) If a malfunction is detected prior to retrieving the haul the
vessel operator must attempt to correct the problem using the
instructions in the vessel's VMP.
(2) If the malfunction cannot be repaired at sea, the vessel
operator must notify the EM hardware service provider of the
malfunction at the end of the fishing trip. The malfunction must be
repaired prior to departing on the next fishing trip in the trawl EM
category.
(B) [Reserved]
(iv) Make the EM system and associated equipment available for
inspection upon request by OLE, a NMFS-authorized officer, or other
NMFS-authorized personnel.
(5) ODDS requirements for trawl EM category catcher vessels in the
partial coverage category. (i) EM trips. Prior to embarking on each
fishing trip, the operator of a catcher vessel in the partial coverage
trawl EM category with a NMFS-approved VMP must register the
anticipated trip with ODDS. The owner or operator must specify the use
of pelagic trawl gear to determine trawl EM category participation for
the upcoming fishing trip.
(ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec. 679.52 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) and (b)(1)(iii) (B)(2), and
(b)(3)(i) introductory text;
0
b. In paragraph (b)(11) introductory text, removing ``, fax,'';
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(11)(iv) and (b)(11)(vii) introductory text;
0
d. In paragraph (b)(11)(ix), removing the word ``fax'' and adding, in
its place, the phrase ``electronic submission (email, or online through
NMFS-designated electronic system),'';
0
e. In paragraph (b)(11)(x) introductory text, removing the phrase ``fax
or email''
[[Page 7679]]
and adding, in its place, the phrase ``electronic submission (email, or
online through NMFS-designated electronic system)'';
0
f. Revising paragraph (b)(11)(x)(B); and
0
g. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 679.52 Observer provider permitting and responsibilities.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) That all of the observer's in-season catch messages (data)
between the observer and NMFS are submitted to the Observer Program as
outlined in the current Observer Sampling Manual.
(B) * * *
(2) The observer does not at any time during his or her deployment
travel through a location where an Observer Program employee is
available for an in-person data review and the observer completes a
phone, email, or other NMFS-specified method for mid-deployment data
review, as described in the Observer Sampling Manual; and
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) An observer provider must develop, maintain, implement, and
enforce a policy addressing observer conduct and behavior for their
employees that serve as observers. The policy shall address the
following behavior and conduct regarding:
* * * * *
(11) * * *
(iv) Observer deployment/logistics report. An accurate deployment/
logistics report must be submitted within 24 hours of the observer
assignment, or daily by 4:30 p.m., Pacific time, each business day with
regard to each observer. The deployment/logistics report must include
the observer's name, cruise number, current vessel, shoreside
processor, or stationary floating processor assignment and vessel/
processor code, embarkation date, and estimated or actual
disembarkation dates.
* * * * *
(vii) Observer provider contracts. Observer providers must submit
to the Observer Program a completed and unaltered copy of each type of
signed and valid contract (including all attachments, appendices,
addendums, and exhibits incorporated into the contract) between the
observer provider and those entities requiring observer services under
Sec. 679.51(a)(2) and (b)(2), by February 1 of each year. Observer
providers must also submit to the Observer Program upon request, a
completed and unaltered copy of the current or most recent signed and
valid contract (including all attachments, appendices, addendums, and
exhibits incorporated into the contract and any agreements or policies
with regard to observer compensation or salary levels) between the
observer provider and the particular entity identified by the Observer
Program or with specific observers. The copies must be submitted by
electronic transmission (email or through an electronic system as
designated by NMFS), or other method specified by NMFS within 5
business days of the request for the contract at the address listed in
Sec. 679.51(c)(3). Signed and valid contracts include the contracts an
observer provider has with:
* * * * *
(x) * * *
(B) Within 72 hours after the observer provider determines that an
observer violated the observer provider's conduct and behavior policy
described at paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section; these reports shall
include the underlying facts, circumstances, and provider responses to
the violation, including the steps taken to enforce the provider's
conduct and behavior policy.
* * * * *
(d) EM hardware service provider permit--(1) Permit. The Regional
Administrator may issue a permit authorizing a person's participation
as an EM hardware service provider for operations requiring EM system
coverage per Sec. 679.51(f) and (g). Persons seeking to provide EM
services under this section must obtain an EM hardware service provider
permit from the NMFS Alaska Region.
(2) EM hardware service provider. An applicant seeking an EM
hardware service provider permit must submit a completed application to
the Regional Administrator for review. This application can be found on
the NMFS Alaska Region website.
(3) Contents of application. An application for an EM hardware
service provider permit must contain the following:
(i) Contact information. (A) The permanent phone number and email
address of the owner(s) of the EM hardware service provider.
(B) Current physical location, business mailing address, business
telephone, and business email address for each office of the EM
hardware service provider.
(ii) Hardware testing. Description of testing conducted to ensure
that the EM hardware is capable of withstanding environmental
conditions in the North Pacific Ocean. NMFS will provide specifications
for EM hardware upon request.
(iii) Data review. Provide a sample of EM data to NMFS that can be
reviewed by NMFS EM data review software for compliance with program
objectives as specified in Sec. 679.51(f) and (g).
(iv) Conflict of interest. A statement signed under penalty of
perjury from each owner or, if the owner is an entity, each board
member and officer, that they have no conflict of interest as described
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(v) Criminal convictions and Federal contracts. A statement signed
under penalty of perjury from each owner or, if the owner is an entity,
each board member officer, if a corporation, describing:
(A) Any criminal convictions; and
(B) Any Federal contracts they have had and the performance rating
they received for each such contract.
(vi) Prior experience. A description of any prior experience the EM
hardware service provider may have in placing individuals in remote
field and/or marine work environments. This includes recruiting,
hiring, deployment, working with fishing fleets, and operations in
remote areas.
(vii) Responsibilities and Duties. A description of the EM hardware
service provider's ability to carry out the responsibilities and duties
of an EM hardware service provider as set out under paragraph (e) of
this section, and the arrangements to be used.
(4) Application evaluation. NMFS staff will evaluate the
completeness of the application, the application's consistency with
needs and objectives of the EM program, and other relevant factors.
NMFS will provide specifications for EM hardware upon request.
(5) Agency determination on an application. NMFS will send the
Agency's determination on the application to the EM hardware service
provider. If an application is approved, NMFS will issue an EM hardware
service provider permit to the applicant. If an application is denied,
the reason for denial will be explained in the electronic
determination.
(6) Transferability. An EM hardware service provider permit is not
transferable. To prevent a lapse in authority to provide EM hardware
services, a provider that experiences a change in ownership that
involves a new person may submit a new permit application prior to sale
and ask to have
[[Page 7680]]
the application approved under this paragraph (a) prior to date of
sale.
(7) Expiration of EM hardware service provider permit--(i) Permit
duration. An EM hardware service provider permit will expire after a
period of 12 continuous months during which no EM services are provided
to vessels in an EM category.
(ii) Permit expiration. The Regional Administrator will provide a
written initial administrative determination (IAD) of permit expiration
to a provider if NMFS records indicate that the provider has not
provided EM services to vessels in an EM category during a period of 12
continuous months. A provider who receives an IAD of permit expiration
may appeal the IAD under Sec. 679.43. A provider that appeals an IAD
will be issued an extension of the expiration date of the permit until
after the final resolution of the appeal.
(8) Removal of permit. Performance of the EM hardware service
provider will be assessed annually on the ability of the provider to
meet program objectives as outlined in Sec. 679.51 and the Annual
Deployment Plan. If the EM hardware service provider is unable to meet
program objectives, the permit will be removed.
(e) Responsibilities of EM hardware service providers.
Responsibilities of EM hardware service providers are specified in
section Sec. 679.51(f) and (g).
0
10. Add Sec. Sec. 679.56 and 679.57 to subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 679.56 Full coverage trawl Electronic Monitoring fee.
(a) Full coverage trawl Electronic Monitoring (EM) category fee--
(1) Responsibility. The owner of a catcher vessel in the full coverage
trawl EM category must comply with the requirements of this section.
Subsequent opting out of the trawl EM category does not affect the FFP
permit holder's liability for paying the full coverage trawl EM
category fee for any fishing year in which the vessel was approved to
be in the full coverage trawl EM category and made pollock landings.
Subsequent transfer of an AFA catcher vessel or AFA permit does not
affect the catcher vessel owner's liability for non-compliance with
this section.
(2) Landings subject to the observer fee. The full coverage trawl
EM fee is assessed on pollock landings by catcher vessels in the full
coverage trawl EM category as specified in Sec. 679.51(g).
(3) Fee collection. The owner of a catcher vessel (as identified
under paragraph (a)(1) of this section) is responsible for paying the
full coverage trawl EM fee for all pollock landings.
(4) Payment--(i) Payment due date. The owner of a catcher vessel
(as identified under paragraph (a)(1) of this section) must submit all
full coverage trawl EM fee payments to NMFS no later than May 31 of the
fishing year following the year in which the pollock landings occurred.
(ii) Payment recipient and method. The owner of a catcher vessel
(as identified under paragraph (a)(1) of this section) must make
electronic payment to NMFS. Submit payment and related documents as
instructed on the fee submission form. Payments must be made
electronically through the NMFS Alaska Region website. Instructions for
electronic payment will be made available on both the payment website
and a fee liability summary letter mailed to each permit holder.
(b) Full coverage standard ex-vessel value determination and use.
NMFS will use the standard prices calculated for AFA cost recovery per
Sec. 679.66(b).
(c) Full coverage fee percentages--(1) Established percentages. The
trawl EM fee percentage is the amount as determined by the factors and
methodology described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. These
amounts will be announced by publication in the Federal Register in
accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(2) Calculating fee percentage value. Each year NMFS will calculate
and publish the trawl EM fee percentage for the full coverage trawl EM
category catcher vessels according to the following factors and
methodology:
(i) Factors. NMFS will use the following factors to determine the
fee percentages:
(A) The catch to which the full coverage trawl EM fee will apply;
(B) The ex-vessel value of that catch; and
(C) The costs directly related to the EM data collection, EM data
review, VMP approval, and trawl EM category data.
(ii) Methodology. NMFS will use the following equations to
determine the trawl EM fee percentage: 100 x DPC / V, where:
(A) DPC equals the trawl EM category costs for the directed full
coverage pollock fisheries for the most recent fiscal year (October 1
through September 30) with any adjustments to the account from payments
received in the previous year.
(B) V equals the total of the standard ex-vessel value of the catch
subject to the trawl EM fee liability for the current year.
(iii) Program costs. Trawl EM category costs will be calculated
only for catcher vessels that NMFS approves to be in the full coverage
trawl EM category.
(3) Publication--(i) General. NMFS will calculate and announce the
trawl EM fee percentage in a Federal Register notice by December 1 of
the year following the year in which the full coverage pollock landings
were made. NMFS will calculate the trawl EM fee percentage based on the
calculations described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(ii) Effective period. Effective period. NMFS will apply the
calculated trawl EM fee percentage to all full coverage trawl EM
category directed pollock landings made by vessels in the trawl EM
category between January 1 and December 31 of the previous year.
(4) Applicable percentage. A designated representative must use the
AFA fee percentage applicable at the time a Bering Sea directed pollock
landing is debited from an AFA pollock fishery allocation to calculate
the AFA fee liability for any retroactive payments for that landing.
Sec. 679.57 Trawl EM incentive plan agreements.
(a) Parties to a trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreement (TEM IPA). (1) A
catcher vessel owner or operator must be a party to a TEM IPA to be
approved for the trawl EM partial coverage category.
(2) Once a party to a TEM IPA, a catcher vessel owner or operator
cannot withdraw from the TEM IPA, and must comply with the terms of the
TEM IPA for the duration of the fishing year.
(b) Request for approval of a proposed TEM IPA. The TEM IPA
representative must submit a proposed TEM IPA to NMFS. The proposed TEM
IPA must contain the following information:
(1) Affidavit. The TEM IPA must include an affidavit affirming that
each party to the TEM IPA is subject to the same terms and conditions.
(2) Name. Name of the TEM IPA.
(3) Representative. The TEM IPA must include the name, telephone
number, and email address of the TEM IPA representative who is
responsible for submitting the proposed TEM IPA on behalf of the TEM
IPA parties, any proposed amendments to the TEM IPA, and the annual
report required under paragraph (f) of this section.
(4) Incentive plan. The TEM IPA must contain provisions that
address or contain the following:
(i) Restrictions, penalties, or performance criteria that will
limit changes in fishing behavior.
(ii) Incentive measures to ensure that that catcher vessels do not
retain or land pollock catch in excess of 300,000
[[Page 7681]]
pounds per fishing trip, on average in the GOA and an explanation of
how the incentive(s) encourage vessel operators to limit landings in
excess of 300,000 pounds of pollock per fishing trip in the GOA.
(iii) Incentive measures to prevent catcher vessels from exceeding
the MRAs established in Sec. 679.21(e) and how the incentives
encourage vessel operators to avoid bycatch and avoid exceeding the
maximum retainable amounts established in Sec. 679.20(e).
(iv) Acknowledgment by the parties that NMFS will disclose to the
public their vessels' performance under the TEM IPA and any
restrictions, penalties, or performance criteria imposed under the TEM
IPA by vessel name.
(5) Compliance agreement. The TEM IPA must include a provision that
all parties to the TEM IPA agree to comply with all provisions of the
TEM IPA.
(6) Signatures. The name and signature of the owner or operator for
each vessel that is a party to the TEM IPA.
(c) Deadline and duration--(1) Deadline for proposed TEM IPA. A
proposed TEM IPA must be received by NMFS no later than 1700 hours,
A.l.t., on December 1 of the year prior to the fishing year for which
the TEM IPA is proposed to be effective.
(2) Duration. Once approved, a TEM IPA is effective starting
January 1 of the fishing year following the year in which NMFS approves
the IPA, unless the TEM IPA is approved between January 1 and January
19, in which case the TEM IPA is effective starting in the year in
which it is approved. Once approved, a TEM IPA is effective until
December 31 of the first year in which it is effective or until
December 31 of the year in which the TEM IPA representative notifies
NMFS in writing that the TEM IPA is no longer in effect, whichever is
later. A TEM IPA may not expire mid-year. No party may leave a TEM IPA
once it is approved, except as allowed under paragraph (d)(3) of this
section.
(d) NMFS review of a proposed TEM IPA--(1) Approval. A TEM IPA will
be approved by NMFS if the TEM IPA meets the following requirements:
(i) Complies with the submission requirements of paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section; and
(ii) Contains the information required in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(2) Amendments to a TEM IPA. Amendments in writing to an approved
TEM IPA may be submitted to NMFS at any time and will be reviewed under
the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. An amendment to an
approved TEM IPA is effective when NMFS notifies the TEM IPA
representative in writing of NMFS approval.
(3) Disapproval. (i) NMFS will disapprove a proposed TEM IPA or a
proposed amendment to a TEM IPA:
(A) If the proposed TEM IPA fails to meet any of the requirements
of paragraph (b) of this section; or
(B) If a proposed amendment to a TEM IPA would cause the TEM IPA to
no longer comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) Initial Administrative Determination (IAD). If NMFS identifies
deficiencies in the proposed TEM IPA, NMFS will notify the applicant in
writing that the proposed TEM IPA will not be approved. The TEM IPA
representative will be provided one 30-day period to address, in
writing, all deficiencies identified by NMFS. Additional information or
a revised TEM IPA received by NMFS after the expiration of the 30-day
period specified by NMFS will not be considered. NMFS will evaluate any
additional information submitted by the TEM IPA representative within
the 30-day period. If the Regional Administrator determines that the
additional information addresses the deficiencies in the proposed TEM
IPA, the Regional Administrator will approve the proposed TEM IPA under
paragraph (d) of this section. However, if NMFS determines that the
proposed TEM IPA does not comply with the requirements of paragraph (b)
of this section, NMFS will issue an IAD providing the reasons for
disapproving the proposed TEM IPA.
(5) Appeal. A TEM IPA representative who receives an IAD
disapproving a proposed TEM IPA may appeal under the procedures set
forth at 15 CFR part 906. If the TEM IPA representative fails to timely
file an appeal of the IAD pursuant to 15 CFR part 906, the IAD will
become the final agency action. If the IAD is appealed and the final
agency action approves the proposed TEM IPA, the TEM IPA will be
effective as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(6) Pending approval. While appeal of an IAD disapproving a
proposed TEM IPA is pending, proposed parties to the TEM IPA subject to
the IAD, which are not currently parties to an approved TEM IPA, are
not authorized to participate in trawl EM category.
(e) Public release of a TEM IPA and performance metrics. Each
fishing year NMFS will release to the public and publish on the NMFS
Alaska Region website:
(1) Approved TEM IPAs and Approval Memos;
(2) List of parties to each approved TEM IPA; and
(3) Names of vessels covered by each approved TEM IPA that:
(i) On average, retain or land pollock catch in excess of 300,000
pounds per fishing trip in the GOA; and
(ii) Harvest bycatch in quantities that exceed MRAs.
(iii) Vessels' performance under the TEM IPA and any restrictions,
penalties, or performance criteria imposed under the TEM IPA by vessel
name.
(f) TEM IPA Annual Report. The representative of each approved TEM
IPA must submit a written annual report to the Council at the address
specified in Sec. 679.61(f). The Council will make the annual report
available to the public.
(1) Submission deadline. The TEM IPA Annual Report must be received
by the Council no later than May 15 of the following fishing year.
(2) Information requirements. The TEM IPA Annual Report must
contain the following information:
(i) A comprehensive description of the incentive measures in effect
in the previous year;
(ii) A description of how these incentive measures affected
individual vessels;
(iii) An evaluation of whether incentive measures were effective in
limiting changes in vessel behavior including the effectiveness of:
(A) Measures to ensure that trips by participating vessels, on
average, do not retain or land pollock catch in excess of 300,000
pounds per fishing trip in the GOA;
(B) Measures that incentivize participating vessels to avoid
exceeding MRAs established in Sec. 679.20(e) applicable to non-EM
vessels;
(C) Restrictions, penalties, or performance criteria that were
imposed to prevent vessels from consistently exceeding catcher vessel
harvest limit for pollock in the GOA or MRAs relative to non-EM vessels
by vessel name (see Sec. Sec. 679.7(b)(2) and 679.20(e)); and
(D) The frequency of vessels exceeding the catcher vessel harvest
limit for pollock in the GOA and MRA limit relative to non-EM vessels
(see Sec. Sec. 679.7(b)(2) and 679.20(e)).
(iv) A description of any amendments to the TEM IPA that were
approved by NMFS since the last annual report and the reasons that the
amendments to the TEM IPA were requested.
[FR Doc. 2024-01952 Filed 2-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 5, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.