7660 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required and none has been 

prepared. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665 

Accountability measures, Annual 

catch limits, Fisheries, Fishing, Hawaii, 

Kona crab, Pacific Islands. 

Dated: January 30, 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 665 as follows: 

PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE 

WESTERN PACIFIC 

■ 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 665 continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 665.253, revise paragraph (b)(1) 

to read as follows: 

§ 665.253 Annual Catch Limits (ACL) and 

Annual Catch Targets (ACT). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) In accordance with § 665.4, the 

ACLs for each fishing year are as 

follows: 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(1) 

Fishing year 2024 2025 2026 

ACL (lb) ....................... 30,802 30,802 30,802 

ACT (lb) ....................... 25,491 25,491 25,491 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–02238 Filed 2–2–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

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: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov 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. 

• 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 https://www.regulations.gov 

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 https://www.regulations.gov and 

the NMFS Alaska Region website at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/ 

alaska. 

Per section 313 of the MagnusonStevens 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 https://

meet.google.com/gcz-emgh-kkw. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel 

Kraski, 907–586–7228, joel.kraski@

noaa.gov. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 mid1970s 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 fisherydependent 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 fisherydependent 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 § 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 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7662 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§ 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 exvessel 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 https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/national/fisheries-observers/ 

electronic-technologies-implementationplans). 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, preimplementation 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 costeffective 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7664 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 679.51(a)(1) or § 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 

§ 679.51(b)(1) or § 679.51(b)(2). This 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7665 

proposed rule would establish 

additional observer sampling station 

and monitoring requirements at 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 679.56. 

Partial Coverage Trawl EM Category 

Proposed regulations at 

§ 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 § 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 NMFSapproved 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7666 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 679.52(d), to provide EM 

services, or to review, interpret, or 

analyze EM data as required under 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 atsea 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 § 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7668 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

This proposed rule exempts vessels in 

the trawl EM category from the 

regulations at § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 NMFSapproved CMCP in place. Processors 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 679.51(d). 

This proposed rule would modify 

regulations governing observer provider 

permitting and responsibilities at 

§ 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 § 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 § 679.51(g)(1)(4). 

Consistent with regulations at 

§ 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 

§ 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: 

• Remove the expired prohibition at 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7670 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 679.7(a)(17) to 

prevent confusion, especially as 

§ 679.7(a)(11) contains a similar 

prohibition. 

• 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. 

• This proposed rule would move 

regulations specifying salmon sorting 

and handling practice from 

§ 679.21(f)(15)(ii)(C)(2) through (6) to 

proposed regulations at § 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. 

• Replace all instances of ‘‘video data 

storage device’’ with ‘‘EM data’’ in 

§ 679.51(f) to broaden the language to 

allow for future data formats. 

• Remove fax numbers in §§ 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 forprofit 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7672 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. 

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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 679.2 by: 

■ a. Removing the definition of ‘‘EM 

selection pool’’; 

■ b. Revising the definition of ‘‘EM 

service provider’’ and paragraph (3)(iv) 

of the definition of ‘‘Fishing trip’’; and 

■ 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: 

§ 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 § 679.52(d), to provide 

EM services, or to collect, review, 

interpret, or analyze EM data, as 

required under § 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 § 679.52(d) and is authorized to 

deploy and service EM hardware aboard 

vessels in an EM category as specified 

in § 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 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 § 679.51(g)(1). 

Trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreement 

(TEM IPA) means a voluntary private 

contract in writing, approved by NMFS 

under § 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 (§ 679.7(b)(2)) and MRAs 

(§ 679.20(e)). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 679.5 by adding paragraph 

(a)(1)(iii)(H) and revising paragraph 

(a)(4)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting 

(R&R). 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

If harvest made under . . . program Record the . . . 

For more 

information, 

see . . . 

*******

(H) Trawl EM Category (TEM) .................................................... Management program modifier as TEM .................................... § 679.51 

* * * * * 

(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 § 679.51(g). 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 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: 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 NMFSapproved 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 679.51(f)(5)(vi)(A)(1), or § 679.51(g), 

have been followed. 

(vii) Fail to follow procedures related 

to EM system malfunctions as described 

at § 679.51(f)(5)(vi)(B) or § 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 § 679.51(f)(5)(vii) or 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7674 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 NMFSapproved VMP. 

(xiii) Fail to meet the vessel owner 

and operator responsibilities when 

using an EM system as specified at 

§ 679.51(f)(5) or § 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 

§ 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 NMFSapproved 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 NMFSapproved 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 679.20 by revising 

paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 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: 

§ 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 

§ 679.28(g)(9) and (10) for the receipt, 

sorting, and storage of salmon from 

deliveries of catch from the BS pollock 

fishery. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 679.28 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (d)(10)(i) and 

(g)(1); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (g)(2)(iv); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (g)(3) through 

(6), (g)(7) introductory text, and (g)(7)(v); 

■ d. Removing paragraph (g)(7)(vi)(C); 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (g)(7)(vii) 

through (xi); and 

■ f. Adding paragraphs (g)(8) through 

(10). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 (station.inspections@

noaa.gov), 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 

§ 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 § 679.43. 

(4) How is a CMCP inspection 

arranged? The processor must submit a 

request for a CMCP inspection. The time 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7676 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(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. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 679.51 by: 

■ 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 http://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov’’, ‘‘NMFS 

Alaska Region website http://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov’’, and ‘‘NMFS 

Alaska Region website (http://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov)’’ wherever 

they appear, and adding, in their place, 

the words ‘‘NMFS Alaska Region 

website’’; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iv); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and 

(b)(2)(i); 

■ d. Adding paragraph (b)(3); 

■ 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’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (f), removing the words 

‘‘EM selection pool’’ wherever they 

appear and adding, in their place, the 

words ‘‘nontrawl EM selection pool’’; 

■ g. Revising paragraph (f)(2) 

introductory text; 

■ h. In paragraph (f)(3)(ii), removing the 

phrase ‘‘the video data storage devices’’ 

and adding in its place the phrase ‘‘EM 

data’’; 

■ i. Revising paragraph (f)(4)(v); 

■ j. Adding paragraph (f)(4)(vi); 

■ k. In paragraph (f)(5)(vii), removing 

the phrase ‘‘the video data storage 

device’’ and adding, in its place, the 

words ‘‘EM data’’; and 

■ l. Adding paragraph (g). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 679.51 Observer and Electronic 

Monitoring System requirements for 

vessels and plants. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) Observer workload at shoreside 

processors and stationary floating 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 § 679.57 for 

partial coverage catcher vessels, or 

§ 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7678 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 NMFSapproved 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] 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 679.52 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) 

and (b)(1)(iii) (B)(2), and (b)(3)(i) 

introductory text; 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(11) introductory 

text, removing ‘‘, fax,’’; 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(11)(iv) and 

(b)(11)(vii) introductory text; 

■ d. In paragraph (b)(11)(ix), removing 

the word ‘‘fax’’ and adding, in its place, 

the phrase ‘‘electronic submission 

(email, or online through NMFSdesignated electronic system),’’; 

■ e. In paragraph (b)(11)(x) introductory 

text, removing the phrase ‘‘fax or email’’ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7679 

and adding, in its place, the phrase 

‘‘electronic submission (email, or online 

through NMFS-designated electronic 

system)’’; 

■ f. Revising paragraph (b)(11)(x)(B); 

and 

■ g. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 inperson data review and the observer 

completes a phone, email, or other 

NMFS-specified method for middeployment 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7680 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§ 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 § 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 § 679.51(f) and (g). 

■ 10. Add §§ 679.56 and 679.57 to 

subpart E to read as follows: 

§ 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 noncompliance 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 § 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 § 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 × 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. 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 § 679.21(e) and 

how the incentives encourage vessel 

operators to avoid bycatch and avoid 

exceeding the maximum retainable 

amounts established in § 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 § 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 § 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 

§§ 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 

§§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1