[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11382-11394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03516]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 220204-0040]
RIN 0648-BH70


Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish 
Fishery; Electronic Monitoring Program Regulations for Bottom Trawl and 
Non-Whiting Midwater Trawl Vessels

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would implement electronic monitoring (EM) 
program regulations for vessels using groundfish bottom trawl and non-
whiting midwater trawl gear in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch 
Share Program. The proposed action would allow vessels using bottom 
trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl gear to use EM in place of human 
observers to meet requirements for 100 percent at-sea catch monitoring. 
The proposed action is intended to increase operational flexibility and 
reduce monitoring costs for vessels in the groundfish trawl fishery. 
The proposed rule would also revise some existing regulations for EM 
vessels and EM service providers to clarify and streamline EM program 
requirements.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than 
March 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2021-0127 by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the

[[Page 11383]]

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and 
enter NOAA-NMFS-2021-0127 in the Search box, click the ``Comment'' 
icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
    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 
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).
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS and to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting 
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using 
the search function.

Electronic Access

    This proposed rule is accessible at the Office of the Federal 
Register website at https://www.federalregister.gov. Background 
information and documents are available at the NMFS West Coast Region 
website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/west-coast-groundfish and at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's website at 
https://www.pcouncil.org/managed_fishery/electronic-monitoring/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colin Sayre, phone: 206-526-4656, or 
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3655595a5f581845574f4453765859575718515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97f4f8fbfef9b9e4f6eee5f2d7f9f8f6f6b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 
specifies management measures for over 90 different groundfish species 
in Federal waters off the West Coast states. Target species in the 
commercial fishery include Pacific whiting (hake), sablefish, dover 
sole, and rockfish, which are harvested by vessels primarily using 
midwater trawl and bottom trawl gear, and to a lesser extent ``fixed 
gear'' fish pots and longline. The trawl fishery is managed under the 
West Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program (Catch Share Program), 
which was implemented through Amendment 20 to the FMP in January 2011. 
The Catch Share Program consists of an individual fishing quota (IFQ) 
program for the shorebased trawl fishery (including whiting and non-
whiting sectors), and cooperatives for the at-sea mothership (MS) and 
catcher/processor (C/P) trawl fisheries (whiting only). The Catch Share 
Program requires 100 percent monitoring of vessels at-sea, and dockside 
when offloading, to ensure accountability for all landings and discards 
of allocated IFQ species. The West Coast Groundfish Observer Program 
(WCGOP) is responsible for the training, briefing, and in-season 
support of at-sea observers in the Catch Share Program. WCGOP helps to 
manage and review the catch data collected by observers while at-sea.
    Vessel owners and first receivers are responsible for obtaining and 
funding catch share observers and catch monitors as a condition of 
participating in the Catch Share Program. To provide a potential cost-
saving alternative to human observers, the Pacific Fishery Management 
Council, NMFS, and groundfish stakeholders have been developing an 
electronic monitoring (EM) program as an option to meet at-sea 
monitoring requirements of the Catch Share Program. EM uses cameras and 
associated sensors to record and monitor fishing activities while a 
vessel is operating at sea. Video data is later reviewed by an analyst 
onshore to collect catch and effort information. EM can reduce 
monitoring costs for some vessels because it does not require deploying 
a human observer to the vessel, and associated, labor, travel, and 
logistical expenses.
    On September 6, 2016, NMFS published the proposed rule providing a 
regulatory framework for EM in the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries, 
and specific regulations for EM use with whiting midwater trawl gear 
and fixed gear (81 FR 61161). As discussed in that proposed rule, the 
Council originally contemplated including regulations for all gear 
types used in the Catch Share Program (whiting, non-whiting midwater, 
bottom trawl, and fixed gear) in one regulatory amendment. However, at 
the time, additional information was needed to finalize protocols for 
the use of EM on trips using bottom-trawl and non-whiting midwater 
gear. In April, September, and November 2017, the Council discussed 
various aspects of the EM program and took final action to recommend 
the use of EM with bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl gear.
    On June 28, 2019, NMFS published the final rule to allow the use of 
EM on whiting and fixed gear trips (84 FR 31146). The final rule 
established the overall EM program requirements, including an 
application process and responsibilities for participating vessel 
owners and operators and EM service providers, requirements for first 
receivers receiving catch from EM trips, and detailed gear-specific 
protocols for the use of EM on whiting and fixed gear trips. The final 
rule also set the implementation of third party EM service provider 
data services to January 1, 2021, to provide additional time to prepare 
for implementation.
    At the April and June 2020 meetings, the Council considered and 
ultimately recommended other minor regulatory changes to existing EM 
program regulations implemented under the June 2019 final rule (84 FR 
31146; June 28, 2019). These regulatory changes were identified and 
developed from information collected through exempted fishing permits 
(EFPs) used to test EM systems and protocols, and are intended to 
clarify and streamline EM program requirements. These proposed 
regulatory changes are included under this proposed rule, and are 
described in the following sections of this preamble.
    At its April and June 2020 meetings the Council also recommended a 
delay in program implementation until January 1, 2022. NMFS approved 
the recommendation, to strengthen Council and industry support for the 
EM program, and to increase participation when the program is 
implemented. NMFS published a subsequent proposed rule (85 FR 53313; 
August 28, 2020) and final rule (85 FR 74614; November 23, 2020) that 
delayed implementation of the EM program by one year until January 1, 
2022, to provide additional time for industry and prospective service 
providers to prepare for implementation.
    At the June 2021 meeting, the Council again discussed delaying 
implementation of all EM program regulations, and took action at the 
September 2021 meeting to recommend that NMFS delay implementation of 
the entire EM program until January 1, 2024. NMFS published an interim 
final rule on October 6, 2021 (86 FR 55525) that changed effective 
dates in regulations in order to delay all other EM program regulations 
until at least January 1, 2024, and only after NMFS issues a public 
notice at least 90 calendar days before it will begin accepting 
applications for EM Authorizations for the first year of the Program. 
The Council and the industry have expressed the need to further develop 
a mechanism for the industry to fund video review and storage by 
Pacific

[[Page 11384]]

States Marine Fishery Commission (PSMFC). The Council and members of 
the fishing industry would like PSMFC to continue participating as a 
NMFS-certified, sole-source service provider under the EM regulatory 
program. They assert that PSMFC can provide video review services at 
lower cost than private sector service provider companies. Consistent 
with the existing regulations implemented under the October 6, 2021 
interim final rule (86 FR 55525), these proposed regulations would 
similarly not be implemented before January 1, 2024.
    Despite the delay in implementation of the EM program, NMFS is 
proceeding with this proposed rule that would allow the use of EM on 
trips with bottom-trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl gear. Should the 
Council take action to change EM service provider regulations to allow 
PSMFC to function as a sole-source EM service provider, NMFS would need 
to initiate a separate proposed and final rulemaking to make necessary 
changes to the existing regulations for EM service providers that were 
finalized under the June 2019 final rule (84 FR 31146; June 28, 2019). 
Whether the Council chooses to take action to change EM service 
provider regulations, or not, completing the rulemaking process for the 
use of EM on bottom-trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl trips will 
ensure all regulations are in place for vessels to use EM with any 
legal groundfish gear type in advance of EM program implementation.
    In the October 2021 interim final rule, NMFS acknowledged that some 
permit applications had already been received at the time of the 
rulemaking. NMFS will consider and review these applications in advance 
of the date the program is fully implemented. Upon review NMFS will 
make a determination regarding the status of the applicant and may 
request updated information.
    The Council deemed the proposed regulations necessary and 
appropriate to implement this action in a January 20, 2022, letter from 
Council Executive Director, Merrick Burden, to Regional Administrator 
Barry Thom. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS is required to publish 
proposed rules for comment after preliminarily determining whether they 
are consistent with applicable law. We are seeking comment on the 
proposed regulations in this action and whether they are consistent 
with the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its 
National Standards, and other applicable laws.

II. Proposed Regulations

Proposed Measures for Using EM on Bottom Trawl and Non-Whiting Midwater 
Trawl Trips

    The June 2019 final rule (84 FR 31146; June 28, 2019) implemented 
the overall framework and general requirements for the EM Program, 
including an application process for vessel owners and EM service 
providers and responsibilities for all program participants. This rule 
proposes to allow vessels participating in the EM Program to use bottom 
trawl gear or midwater trawl gear targeting non-whiting species, under 
the same general program requirements already in place for trips 
targeting whiting or using fixed gear. Vessel owners would be able to 
apply to NMFS to use EM in place of human observers to meet the 100-
percent at-sea monitoring requirements of the Catch Share Program for 
bottom trawl or non-whiting midwater trawl trips. As is currently 
required under the EM Program regulations, vessel owners intending to 
use EM for bottom trawl or non-whiting midwater trawl trips would be 
required to develop a vessel monitoring plan (VMP) which documents 
installation of EM systems, including specific plans and procedures for 
system operation, maintenance, and catch handling. This information 
would be submitted to NMFS for review as part of the vessel's 
application for authorization to use EM. The vessel operator would be 
required to record discards of IFQ species on a logbook, which would 
initially be used to debit quota pounds from the vessel's account. The 
EM video data would then be reviewed by the vessel's EM provider and 
used to validate the discards reported in the logbook. The amount of 
video reviewed to audit the logbook would be as specified by NMFS in 
consultation with the Council and based on performance.
    A detailed description of EM program requirements is contained in 
the September 2016 proposed rule (81 FR 61161; September 6, 2016) and 
June 2019 final rule (84 FR 31146; June 28, 2019) and is not repeated 
here. This proposed rule revises the gear-specific requirements of the 
EM Program to add requirements for trips using bottom trawl and non-
whiting midwater trawl gear, and are described in the following 
sections of this preamble.
Catch Retention
    Under this proposed rule, two different discard and catch retention 
rules could be used with EM on bottom trawl, and non-whiting midwater 
trawl trips: ``maximized'' or ``optimized'' retention. Vessel operators 
would be able choose the preferred retention rule under which they 
would plan to operate for a fishing trip using EM. As part of the 
required declaration report, prior to departing on a fishing trip, 
vessel operators would declare whether they intend to use maximized or 
optimized retention rules for the trip. Declaration reports are 
described in additional detail in following sections of this preamble.
    Under proposed ``maximized'' retention requirements, vessels on 
bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl trips would not sort or 
discard catch at-sea, and would be required to retain all catch until 
landing, with exceptions for prohibited and protected species.
    Under ``optimized'' retention, EM vessel operators would be allowed 
to discard species that can be differentiated on camera, and retain 
those species that cannot be easily distinguished in video data. Some 
groundfish species are difficult to distinguish from each other without 
close inspection of certain physical features which cannot be easily 
viewed using video data. Species easily differentiated that may be 
discarded would be listed in Sec.  660.604(p).
    Vessel operators using EM on bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater 
trawl trips would be responsible for ensuring all discarded catch would 
be discarded following catch handling instructions in the NMFS-accepted 
VMP. This proposed rule would allow NMFS to specify alternate retention 
requirements in a NMFS-accepted VMP through the process described at 
Sec.  660.604(f), after consultation with the Council and issuance of a 
public notice notifying the public of the changes.
    Both retention rules have trade-offs, depending on the target 
species and gear type used. ``Maximized'' retention would simplify 
catch handling at sea, and video review as only prohibited and 
protected species discards would need to be differentiated on camera. 
``Optimized'' retention would allow vessel operators to discard catch 
that can be differentiated on camera, and would reduce the burden of 
having to store and later dispose of unmarketable or otherwise 
undesirable fish. The Council originally recommended ``optimized'' 
retention rules as the preferred alternative for bottom trawl and non-
whiting midwater EM trips because the Council considered ``maximized'' 
retention too restrictive. However, some EFP vessel operators on

[[Page 11385]]

non-whiting midwater trawl trips targeting rockfish expressed a 
preference for ``maximized'' retention as it simplified catch handling 
in a manner consistent with vessel operation on midwater whiting trips. 
The Council determined that allowing vessel operators to choose the 
retention rules that best fit the operation of gear and vessel, as well 
as the characteristics of the target species, would provide operational 
flexibility and ensure the reliability of EM video data for discard 
accounting.
    This proposed rule would also expand the definition of prohibited 
species for the purposes of retention requirements under EM regulations 
at Sec.  660.601. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 
recommended this proposed regulatory change to ensure state-managed 
species would be treated in the same manner as prohibited species if 
the vessel operator, or first-receiver, does not have the appropriate 
state permit to land and sell these particular species of fish. Because 
the retention/discard species list can change through time, CDFW 
recommended to the Council regulatory language that would cover any 
state-managed species to eliminate the need for further revisions 
should other state-managed species be added or removed from the lists.
EM Declaration and Switching Between EM and Observers
    Under the proposed rule, vessels on bottom trawl and non-whiting 
midwater trawl trips would be allowed to switch between using EM 
systems on some trips and human observers on others. Current West Coast 
fisheries regulations at Sec.  660.13(d) require vessel operators to 
declare the fishery sector in which they will participate, the area to 
be fished, and the gear and monitoring type (EM or observers) they 
intend to use prior to leaving port, with limited exemptions. The gear 
types or sectors, and monitoring types that must be declared are listed 
in regulations at Sec.  660.13(d)(4)(iv)(A). These declarations are 
sent to the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), and are binding for 
the duration of the fishing trip for which they have been made. This 
proposed rule would modify the list of declarations to include EM as a 
monitoring type that may be selected and declared on trips with bottom 
trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl gear.
    Under current regulations at Sec.  660.604(e)(3)(ii), EM vessel 
operators are required to submit annual tentative fishing plans to 
NMFS. Tentative fishing plans are used by WCGOP and observer providers 
to plan training and deployment of observers. Tentative fishing plans 
are a description of the vessel owner's fishing plans for the year, 
including which fishery the vessel owner plans to participate in, from 
what ports, and when the vessel owner intends to use EM and observers. 
The information provided in tentative fishing plans is for purposes of 
planning observer training and deployments, and is not binding.
    Under this proposed rule, vessel owners and operators taking bottom 
trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl trips would not be restricted on 
the number of times they could switch between EM and observers during 
the year. Vessel operators are required to communicate their intent to 
use either monitoring type before fishing through declarations to NMFS 
OLE. The Council determined that by using tentative fishing plans, 
disruption to observer training and deployment would be mitigated 
should vessel operators choose to switch monitoring types, therefore 
eliminating the need to require limits on switching monitoring types. 
The option to switch between EM and observers provides vessel operators 
flexibility to use the best monitoring strategy when considering 
efficiency, cost, or other operational factors of their individual 
fishing and business plans at a given time. There would be no limit on 
switching between observers and EM for non-whiting midwater trawl and 
groundfish bottom trawl vessels.
Observer Program Declaration
    Under existing regulations at Sec.  660.604(n), as described above, 
a vessel operator must declare their intent to use either EM or 
observers 48 hours prior to leaving port. Under proposed regulations 
for ``maximized'' and ``optimized'' retention, the operator would also 
be required to include the retention rules they intend to use in their 
declaration to WCGOP 48 hours prior to leaving port on a trip using EM 
with bottom trawl or non-whiting midwater trawl gear. This timeframe 
and declaration allows for the planning of observer deployment. 
``Optimized'' retention EM trips would continue to require partial 
observer coverage for the purpose of collecting biological samples of 
discarded catch. Biological samples include age, sex, and length 
specimen data which cannot be obtained through EM systems. Requiring 
the vessel operator to notify WCGOP of their intended retention type 
will ensure optimized retention trips can be selected for biological 
sampling. WCGOP does not require partial observer coverage on maximized 
retention EM trips for biological sampling at this time, but could 
potentially in the future.
Group EM Authorization and Self-Enforcing Agreements
    Under the proposed regulations, a group of eligible vessel owners 
participating in the shorebased IFQ sector, including those that take 
bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl trips, may obtain a group 
EM authorization through a self-enforcing agreement. Through a private, 
contractual arrangement, a self-enforcing agreement allows a co-signed 
group of vessels, owners, operators, and other interested parties to 
cooperatively encourage, and enforce, compliance of EM program 
requirements by members. To be considered for a group EM authorization, 
a group of vessel owners must submit a complete initial EM 
authorization application package to NMFS for review and approval. The 
package must include a copy of the self-enforcing agreement to be 
eligible to receive a group EM authorization. Participating vessel 
owners would be required to agree to conduct fishing operations 
according to the terms of the self-enforcing agreement. NMFS would 
still bear the ultimate responsibility for enforcing the EM 
regulations.
    The self-enforcing agreement would need to include a description of 
participating members, responsibilities, procedures for communication 
with members and NMFS, equipment performance standards, provisions for 
the use and protection of confidential data, measures to enforce 
compliance, procedures for addressing non-compliance of members, and 
annual reports to the Council.
    Under these proposed regulations, NMFS would have the authority to 
invalidate a group EM authorization if determined that any of the 
vessels, owners, and/or operators no longer meet the eligibility 
criteria for the self-enforcing agreement. NMFS would first notify the 
members of the group EM authorization of the deficiencies in writing, 
providing instructions, for members to correct the deficiencies. If the 
deficiencies are not resolved upon review of the first trip following 
the notification, NMFS will notify the members in writing that the 
group EM authorization is invalid and that the members are no longer 
exempt from observer coverage at Sec. Sec.  660.140(h)(1)(i) and 
660.150(j)(1)(i)(B) for that authorization period. After the 
invalidation of a group EM authorization, individual vessels would be 
able to apply for individual authorizations.

[[Page 11386]]

    The Council recommended the allowance of self-enforcing cooperative 
agreements for shorebased IFQ vessels in the EM program based on prior 
participation in EM EFPs by fishing cooperatives. Under proposed 
regulations, a fishing collective that has operated under a cooperative 
self-enforcing agreement to test EM under EFPs would be able to apply 
for authorization to continue self-enforced compliance with the EM 
program. This proposed rule would allow additional groups of shorebased 
IFQ vessels applying for EM authorization to enter in the self-
enforcing cooperative agreements. These agreements would help to 
encourage compliance with the many day-to-day responsibilities for EM 
system maintenance and catch handling requirements of the EM program.

Regulatory Changes To Refine Existing EM Program

    In June 2019, NMFS published the final rule to implement an EM 
program for whiting and fixed gear vessels operating within the trawl 
fishery (84 FR 31146; June 28, 2019), establishing responsibility 
requirements for vessel operators using EM systems, and for EM service 
providers. These responsibilities are detailed in the final rule, and 
include declaration of EM system use by vessel operators, protocols for 
transferring and handling EM data, logbook processing requirements, and 
technical reports by EM service providers. Minor changes necessary to 
clarify these regulations were identified after the publication of the 
2019 final rule. The regulatory changes described below were developed 
through Council discussion with NMFS and members of industry at the 
Council's April and June 2020 meetings. The Council's intent in 
developing these regulatory changes is to refine and clarify certain EM 
program requirements and improve the effectiveness of the EM program 
overall in meeting its intended monitoring goals for the Trawl Catch 
Share Program.
1. Hard Drive Deadline
    This proposed regulatory change would increase the hard drive 
submission deadline to 72 hours from the beginning of the offload 
following a fishing trip in which EM was used. Under current EM program 
regulations at Sec.  660.604(s)(3), vessels using EM systems are 
required to submit hard drives storing EM video data within 24 hours of 
beginning an offload after a fishing trip. Increasing this deadline to 
72 hours would align it with the hard drive submission requirements 
used under EM EFPs. This change would provide additional time for 
vessel operators to comply with hard drive submission requirements with 
minimal impact to the timeliness of data. This change would also ensure 
a smooth transition for vessels operating under EFPs to the full EM 
program regulations when they become effective.
2. Reusing Hard Drives
    This proposed regulatory change would require the scrubbing of EM 
hard drives only if end-to-end encryption is not used. Current EM 
regulations at Sec.  660.603(m)(3) require service providers to remove 
all EM data before hard drives can be reused in the field. This 
requirement was intended to ensure protection of confidential 
information for vessel owners and operators. However, regular scrubbing 
of hard drives can shorten their functional life, and require their 
replacement more frequently, increasing operational costs for EM users. 
NMFS and the Council determined that the use of end-to-end encryption 
would sufficiently protect sensitive information and extend the life of 
EM hard drives. End-to-end encryption protects information encrypted by 
the sender, allowing only recipients with the encryption key to decrypt 
and access the information. Third parties without the encryption key 
would not have the means to read the files. Starting in 2017, NMFS 
stopped requiring scrubbing of hard drives that use end-to-end 
encryption in the EM EFP, which is consistent with practices in other 
regions. This regulatory change would reduce program costs, and still 
allow vessel owners to work with service providers to develop more 
strict requirements for the treatment of hard drives.
3. Limit on Switching Between EM and Observers for Whiting Vessels
    The Council is recommending removing the limit on switching between 
observers and EM for whiting trips. Current regulations at Sec.  
660.604(m) restrict vessel operators on whiting trips from revising a 
monitoring declaration more than twice per calendar year, except in the 
case of an EM system malfunction. The limit was intended to prevent 
frequent switching that could disrupt deployment planning and affect 
the availability of observers. As NMFS described in the September 2016 
proposed rule (81 FR 61161; September 6, 2016), and finalized in the 
June 2019 final rule (84 FR 31146; June 28, 2019), NMFS may waive the 
limit on switching between monitoring types if it is not necessary for 
planning observer deployment. After the final rule published, NMFS and 
the Council determined that a regulatory restriction on how many times 
a vessel taking whiting trips can switch between observers and EM was 
unnecessary. Under current regulations, vessels owners are required to 
provide a tentative fishing plan when they apply for their annual EM 
Authorization, in which the vessel owner gives NMFS advance notice of 
their plans to use EM and observers for the upcoming fishing year. 
WCGOP and observer providers then can use this information for planning 
purposes. This information negates the need for restrictions on 
switching between observers and EM. Therefore, the Council recommended, 
and NMFS proposes eliminating the limit on switching between EM and 
observers for whiting trips under this proposed rule. This proposed 
change would align the flexibility in moving between EM and observer 
coverage for all trip types (bottom trawl, whiting midwater, non-
whiting midwater, and fixed gear).
4. Mothership/Catcher Vessel (MS/CV) Endorsement
    Current EM regulations at Sec.  660.604(e)(1)(iii) require a vessel 
applying to use EM in the mothership sector to have a valid mothership/
catcher vessel (MS/CV) endorsement to qualify for authorization. This 
requirement was initially included for vessels testing EM under EFPs, 
as having valid permits for all intended fishing activities is a 
standard requirement for EFP eligibility. However, the regulations 
governing Mothership cooperatives at Sec.  660.150(g)(1) allow for a 
vessel without an MS/CV endorsement, but that is enrolled in the 
mothership cooperative to deliver to a mothership. It was not the 
Council's and NMFS's intent to restrict participation in EM to only 
those vessels with MS/CV endorsement. Including this eligibility 
criterion was a holdover from the EFP terms and conditions and is not 
consistent with Council intent. Therefore, this proposed rule would 
remove the eligibility requirement at Sec.  660.604(e)(1)(iii) for an 
MS/CV endorsement to be eligible to use EM on MS/CV trips.
5. Logbook Processing
    This proposed regulatory change would require all vessel owners to 
submit discard logbooks directly to their EM service providers 
following a fishing trip in which EM was used. EM service providers 
would receive and process discard logbooks by entering data, performing 
quality assurance and control, and subsequently submit logbook data to 
NMFS for review.

[[Page 11387]]

Service providers would be required to submit initial logbook data to 
NMFS within two business days of receipt from vessel operators.
    Current EM regulations at Sec.  660.604(s) assume vessel operators 
would submit discard logbooks directly to NMFS or its agent for 
processing. Under this model, NMFS would data enter, and check logbooks 
for accuracy and issues, which would then be used to initially debit 
discarded catch from vessel IFQ accounts. EM service providers review 
video data separately, with WCGOP providing some logbook data to EM 
service providers that is necessary for completing the video review, 
such as trawl gear codend capacity, but with most identifying logbook 
data withheld to ensure video review is done blind.
    Under current regulations, having NMFS process logbooks directly 
would require back-and-forth with EM service providers to accurately 
match logbooks with EM trips, select trips or hauls for review, compare 
logbook and EM discard estimates, and investigate any discrepancies. 
Vessel owners must submit logbooks directly to NMFS via a secure 
transmission method to comply with confidentiality and data security 
requirements, limiting the methods by which NMFS can receive logbooks.
    At the November 2020 Groundfish Electronic Monitoring Program 
Advisory Committee (GEMPAC) meeting, GEMPAC members proposed an 
alternative procedure in which EM service providers would receive, 
complete data entry, review logbook data, and submit results to NMFS. 
NMFS and the Council determined it would be more efficient and cost 
effective to have EM service providers receive both logbooks and EM 
data directly from vessel owners for initial processing, entry, and 
quality control, and simply report final data to NMFS. NMFS would also 
receive logbooks, and use its debriefing procedures to carry out 
quality control on the logbook data and to check for potential bias in 
the video review. Having EM service providers process logbooks would 
also allow individual vessel operators to develop optimal submission 
methods for discard logbooks with their respective EM service 
providers. NMFS supports the Council recommendation and therefore 
proposes the change through this proposed rule.
6. Reporting Deadlines for EM Service Providers
    Under current regulations at Sec.  660.603, EM service providers 
are responsible for providing various feedback reports to vessel 
operators, and summaries to NMFS. These reports include logbook data, 
technical assistance, vessel operator feedback, EM summary data, and 
compliance reports. Submission of this information by service providers 
has been required in regulations as of June 2019, however, deadlines 
for the submission of these reports were not originally specified in 
regulation. Under this proposed rule, NMFS would establish submission 
deadlines for these required EM service providers' reports. This 
proposed change would allow NMFS to enforce timely submission of EM 
data. The submission deadlines for each report are specified below.
A. Discard Logbooks
    As described previously in this proposed rule, vessel operators 
would submit discard logbooks directly to EM service providers for 
processing. The Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, that 
service providers would submit the initial logbook data to NMFS within 
two days of receipt from vessel operators. This deadline would help to 
ensure timely debiting of discards from vessel IFQ accounts, and is 
consistent with submission timelines used for EM EFPs, and WCGOP 
observer data. Setting the deadline based on the receipt of initial, 
rather than final, logbook data would ensure service providers are not 
held responsible for late or incomplete submissions from vessel 
operators. After initial logbook submission, the EM service provider 
would work with the vessel operator to review data and, if necessary, 
revise and submit updated logbook data. Under these proposed regulatory 
changes, requiring concrete deadlines for these reports in the 
regulations would ensure the timely submission of discard estimates 
from logbook data, which is essential for discard accounting in the 
Catch Share program, and to provide clear expectations for all 
participants.
B. Reports of Technical Assistance
    Under current regulations at Sec.  660.603(k), EM service providers 
are required to submit reports to NMFS when technical assistance is 
requested by vessels on EM trips. These reports of technical assistance 
allow NMFS to monitor the performance of EM systems and field services, 
and follow up should any potential enforcement issues arise. Under this 
proposed rule, NMFS would require technical assistance reports to be 
submitted within 24 hours of the EM service provider being notified by 
the vessel operator. This change would be consistent with how these 
notifications have occurred in the EM EFP.
C. Vessel Feedback Reports
    Under current regulations at Sec.  660.603(m)(4), EM service 
providers are required to provide feedback reports to vessel operators 
and field services staff. Feedback is required on EM systems, crew 
responsibilities, and any other information that would improve the 
quality and effectiveness of data collection on the vessel. Through 
this proposed rule, NMFS would require feedback to be submitted to 
vessels within three weeks of the date EM data is received from the 
vessel operator for processing by the service provider. Prospective 
service providers, EFP vessel operators, and industry members have 
provided feedback through the Council process that three weeks is a 
reasonable timeline for the submission vessel feedback reports. 
Specifically, a submission deadline of three weeks after the service 
provider receives the hard drive from a vessel would ensure that EM 
service providers are not held responsible for late submissions by 
vessel operators. A shorter timeline may be more difficult for EM 
service providers to meet if they receive several hard drives at once, 
such as during busy times of the year. However, a longer timeline may 
not provide timely feedback to vessel operators and updates to discard 
data. Concrete and enforceable deadlines are necessary to ensure 
service providers submit feedback reports in a timely manner, and 
establish the data processing procedures to meet these deadlines. It is 
critically important to provide timely feedback to vessel captains and 
crew on catch handling, EM system care, and other aspects of operations 
that affect data quality. Timely feedback to vessels would help to 
ensure the quality of EM data, and reliability of the EM program in 
meeting monitoring goals of the Catch Share program.
D. EM Summary Data and Compliance Reports
    Current regulations at Sec.  660.603(m)(5) require service 
providers to submit EM summary data and compliance reports to NMFS 
following completion of video review. EM summary data includes discard 
estimates, fishing activity information, and trip metadata. This 
proposed rule would require EM summary data and compliance reports to 
be submitted to NMFS three weeks from the date the vessel operator 
submits EM data for processing. EM summary data and compliance reports 
are used by NMFS to debit vessel accounts, monitor program and vessel 
performance, and enforce requirements of the EM program. Trip metadata 
is an

[[Page 11388]]

essential record of when and where EM data were created by the vessel, 
submission time, date and location of review, and point of contacts for 
reviewers. Trip metadata ensures fishing data can be accurately 
corroborated with logbook data and is necessary for a complete chain of 
custody and accountability between the vessel, service provider, and 
NMFS. Catch discards would initially be debited from vessel accounts in 
the IFQ database using logbook data, as described previously; discards 
would largely be accounted for following logbook processing, and 
audited using EM data. If there are large discrepancies between the 
logbook and EM summary data, then a longer reporting timeline may 
result in vessel account owners experiencing unexpected debits, or 
being unable to ``close-out'' an account for a fishing trip until the 
EM data are received. In the EM EFP, reporting timelines have ranged 
from one to two weeks after receipt of the hard drive in 2015 to one to 
two months during periods of higher fishing activity in 2019. Feedback 
from prospective EM service providers is that three weeks after receipt 
of the hard drive may be a reasonable timeline for completion of the 
video review and submission of reports. NMFS recommended three weeks, 
with support from the Council's GEMPAC and Groundfish Management Team, 
as being a reasonable amount of time for service providers to complete 
review and subsequently prepare summary data and compliance reports.
7. Retention of EM Data
    This proposed rule would change the minimum length of time service 
providers are required to retain EM data records. Under current 
regulations, service providers must maintain all of a vessel's EM data, 
reports, and other records specified in regulations at Sec.  660.603(m) 
Data services for a period of not less than three years after the date 
of landing for that trip. The rationale for originally adopting a 
three-year minimum retention period for EM data is detailed in the June 
2019 final rule (84 FR 31146; June 28, 2019). Since that final rule, 
NMFS evaluated the feasibility and cost effectiveness of a shorter 
retention period, and has developed a national policy on the minimum 
time that EM data must be retained.
    Under this proposed rule, EM service providers would be required to 
maintain EM data for a period of not less than 12 months starting after 
NMFS has officially completed end-of-year account reconciliation and 
catch monitoring. This proposed regulatory change would align with the 
12-month minimum data retention period in the NMFS Procedural Directive 
04-115-03 (see ADDRESSES) for third-party minimum data retention in EM 
programs for federally managed U.S. fisheries. Review of catch 
monitoring data, including EM data, usually extends beyond the close of 
the fishery at the end of the calendar year. Starting the clock for the 
minimum retention period following end-of-the-year data reconciliation 
would best meet the recommendations of the procedural directive.
8. Change in Definition of Conflict of Interest for EM Service 
Providers
    This proposed change would revise regulations at Sec.  660.603(h) 
defining limitations on conflicts of interest for EM service providers 
to exclude providing other types of technical and equipment services to 
fishing companies. The definition in regulations currently excludes 
``the provision of observer, catch monitor, EM or other biological 
sampling services, in any Federal or state-managed fisheries'' from the 
definition of a ``direct financial interest.'' After the final rule was 
published, an EM service provider brought to the Council's attention 
that many EM vendors provide a range of other services to fishing 
companies, including vessel monitoring systems (VMS), automatic 
identification system (AIS) transponders, telemetry (such as product 
temperature monitoring for seafood safety), buoy and gear monitoring, 
sonar systems, and mandatory safety services. Under the current 
regulatory definition, such EM vendors would be ineligible to provide 
EM services. The EM service provider noted that there is no evidence to 
suggest that providing such technical services to fishing companies 
creates any greater conflict of interest than providing biological 
sampling services, and requested that the definition be revised. 
Therefore, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, revising the 
definition of a conflict of interest at Sec.  660.603(h) to exclude 
providing other types of technical and equipment services to fishing 
companies.
9. Technical Corrections
    In addition to the proposed regulatory changes already described, 
the Council also recommended two clarifying corrections to language in 
the EM program regulations. The first correction is technical and would 
change the reference to ``a NMFS-accepted EM Service Plan'' under Sec.  
660.603(a)(1) to correctly refer to paragraph Sec.  660.603(b)(1)(vii). 
The second correction would change a reference to ``owner or operator'' 
to instead be ``authorized representative of the vessel'' in Sec.  
660.603(n)(3), which is consistent with language in other regulations 
in 50 CFR 660--Fisheries Off West Coast States. This correction would 
clarify that a representative designated by the vessel owner, rather 
than solely the vessel owner or operator, is allowed to transfer EM 
data to service providers for review. NMFS supports these changes, and 
is proposing these changes through this proposed rule.

III. Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is 
consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after 
public comment. In making the final determination, NMFS will take into 
account the complete record, including the data, views, and comments 
received during the comment period.
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed 
after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials 
from the area covered by the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. Under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members 
of the Pacific Council must be a representative of an Indian tribe with 
federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's 
jurisdiction.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
the purposes of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule does not 
contain policies with Federalism or ``takings'' implications as those 
terms are defined in Executive Orders 13132 and 12630, respectively.
    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 
U.S.C. 603). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, 
if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, 
why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are 
contained in the Background section of the preamble. A summary of the 
IRFA follows. A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES).
    When an agency proposes regulations, the RFA requires the agency to 
prepare and make available for public comment an IRFA that describes 
the impact on small businesses, non-profit enterprises,

[[Page 11389]]

local governments, and other small entities. The IRFA is to aid the 
agency in considering all reasonable regulatory alternatives that would 
minimize the economic impact on affected small entities.
    The RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires government agencies to 
assess the effects that regulatory alternatives would have on small 
entities, defined as any business/organization independently owned and 
operated and not dominant in its field of operation (including its 
affiliates). A small harvesting business has combined annual receipts 
of $11 million or less for all affiliated operations worldwide. A small 
fish-processing business is one that employs 750 or fewer persons for 
all affiliated operations worldwide.
    For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is one that 
has annual receipts not in excess of $7.5 million. A wholesale business 
servicing the fishing industry is a small business if it employs 100 or 
fewer persons on a full time, part time, temporary, or other basis, at 
all its affiliated operations worldwide. A nonprofit organization is 
determined to be ``not dominant in its field of operation'' if it is 
considered small under one of the following Small Business 
Administration (SBA) size standards: Environmental, conservation, or 
professional organizations are considered small if they have combined 
annual receipts of $15 million or less, and other organizations are 
considered small if they have combined annual receipts of $7.5 million 
or less.
    The RFA defines small governmental jurisdictions as governments of 
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or 
special districts with populations of less than 50,000.

Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule 
Will Apply

    This proposed rule would impact mainly commercial harvesting 
entities engaged in the groundfish limited entry trawl fishery. 
Although this action proposes an EM program regulations for only two 
trip types in the limited entry trawl fishery--non-whiting midwater 
trawl, and bottom trawl--any limited entry trawl vessel may participate 
in these components, provided they comply with its requirements, and 
therefore may be eligible to use EM as applied to these two trawl gear 
sectors. In addition, vessels deploying EM are likely to be a subset of 
the overall trawl fleet, as some vessels would likely choose to 
continue to use observers. However, as all trawl vessels could 
potentially use EM in the future under the proposed action, this IRFA 
analyzes impacts to the entire trawl fleet. The total number of vessels 
that may be eligible to use EM is 175, the total number of limited 
entry trawl permits in 2021, and includes those vessels that do use 
bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl gear, and those that do 
not. Given these entities participate in the program, they are most 
likely to be impacted by this rule in the short term. This number may 
be an underestimate if additional vessels elect to participate in the 
EM program in the future.

Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This 
Proposed Rule

    The proposed regulations do not create overlapping regulations with 
any state regulations or other Federal laws.

A Description of any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule That 
Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and That 
Minimize any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small 
Entities

    The RFA requires Federal agencies to conduct a full RFA analysis 
unless the agency can certify that the proposed and/or final rule would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This determination can be made at either the proposed or 
final rule stage. If the agency can certify, it need not prepare an 
IRFA, a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA), or a Small Entity 
Compliance Guide or undertake a subsequent periodic review of such 
rules. The NMFS Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Fishery Management 
Actions suggest two criteria to consider in determining the 
significance of regulatory impacts, namely, disproportionality and 
profitability. These criteria relate to the basic purpose of the RFA, 
i.e., to consider the effect of regulations on small businesses and 
other small entities, recognizing that regulations are frequently 
unable to provide short-term cash reserves to finance operations 
through several months or years until their positive effects start 
paying off. If either criterion is met for a substantial number of 
small entities, then the rule should not be certified for not having an 
effect on small entities. These criterion raise two questions: Do the 
regulations place a substantial number of small entities at a 
significant competitive disadvantage to large entities? Do the 
regulations significantly reduce profit for a substantial number of 
small entities?
    The preferred alternative for this rule will not have a significant 
impact when comparing small versus large businesses in terms of 
disproportionality and profitability given available information. These 
regulations are likely to reduce fishing costs for both small and large 
businesses. EM is an optional monitoring alternative to observers, and 
may provide cost savings for some vessels. Economic effects of the 
proposed action are expected to range from neutral to positive when 
compared to the status quo. Nonetheless, NMFS has prepared this IRFA. 
Through the rulemaking process associated with this action, NMFS is 
requesting comments on this conclusion.
    The economic impacts on small entities resulting from the proposed 
action range from neutral to positive; these entities will have a 
choice between hiring an observer, as is status quo, or using EM. The 
choice is expected to be based on relative costs and operational 
flexibility. Observer costs are currently $499 to $537 per seaday. 
Under EM, NMFS estimates vessels in the bottom trawl fishery will spend 
between $342/seaday (which include the cost of new equipment and 
installation) or $285/seaday (without equipment costs). These estimates 
are based on 412 seadays for 10 bottom trawl vessels participating in 
EFPs from 2019-2020. Under EM, NMFS estimates per seaday costs for non-
whiting midwater trawl trips to range from $142/seaday (with equipment 
costs), and $120/seaday (without equipment costs). These estimates are 
based on 3,215 seadays for 30 midwater trawl vessels participating in 
EFPs from 2091-2020, and averaged cost estimates from four prospective 
EM service providers. These cost estimates are detailed in section 4.2 
``Industry Costs'' of the IRFA included in the supporting documents for 
this proposed rule. These costs are likely an overestimate and not an 
accurate estimate of seaday costs for this gear type because it does 
not incorporate revenue from seadays pursuing bottom trawl and whiting 
activities that are also part of these vessels' portfolios. Cost of EM 
service, including equipment installation and maintenance, along with 
video review and data service is expected to vary by service provider. 
Entities participating this fishery are not required to use EM, and 
have the choice to use a human observer instead of EM. Furthermore, the 
cost of EM is likely to decrease as technology used in EM systems 
(cameras, sensors, and electronic storage devices) that meets current 
specification necessary to meet monitoring requirements becomes cheaper 
over time. Therefore, this proposed action would not impose new costs 
on these

[[Page 11390]]

small entities, and will likely provide measurable cost savings over 
time as individual vessels choose the most affordable at-sea monitoring 
systems relative to their fishing operations.
    The components of this rule have the potential to positively impact 
all entities in the catch share sector of the fishery, regardless of 
size. Therefore, the rule would impose effects on ``a substantial 
number'' of small entities, however, these effects are expected to 
range from neutral (if entities choose not to use the added flexibility 
of the provisions in this rule) to positive. Data used to inform this 
analysis was collected through EFPs and collaboration with industry and 
non-government organizations from 2012 to present.
    There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with this action nor are there are no significant alternative 
to the proposed rule that will accomplish the stated objectives and 
that minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on 
small entities. As fishermen are given a choice between two alternative 
monitoring systems (observers vs EM), this rule is likely to have 
neutral to positive effects on small entities.
    These regulations are likely to reduce fishing costs for both small 
and large businesses. Through this proposed rule, NMFS is requesting 
comments on this conclusion. The proposed action and alternatives are 
described in detail in the Council's regulatory amendment and the 
accompanying regulatory impact review (RIR)/IRFA (see ADDRESSES).

Description of the Proposed Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule Under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA)

    The proposed action contains collection-of-information requirements 
that have been previously approved under OMB control number 0648-0785, 
West Coast Region Groundfish Trawl Fishery Electronic Monitoring 
Program, as per the PRA requirements. The requirements include vessel 
owner EM applications, renewals, and reports, EM service providers 
applications, renewals and reports, as well as vessel operator log-
book, and hard drive submission. This proposed rule would revise 
collection-of-information requirements to include submission of 
information for the formation of self-enforcing cooperative agreements. 
The proposed action contains changes to collection-of-information 
requirements that are subject to review and approval by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) as per the PRA requirements. NMFS has 
submitted these requirements to OMB for approval under OMB control 
number 0648-0785 West Coast Region Groundfish Trawl Fishery Electronic 
Monitoring Program. This proposed rule would revise collection-of-
information requirements to include submission of information for the 
formation of self-enforcing cooperative agreements. Collection of 
information for self-enforcing agreements is not mandatory, as self-
enforcing agreements are an optional provision of the EM program under 
collection 0648-0785. Some vessel owners may choose to apply for a 
group EM authorization under a self-enforcing agreement in lieu of 
individual vessel authorizations. The self-enforcing agreement would be 
submitted with the initial applications for vessels in the group, and 
requires approval prior to accepting final applications from the group. 
One self-enforcing agreement would be completed and submitted by a 
designated representative for each group of vessel owners applying 
under a group authorization. NMFS expects no more than three such self-
enforcing group agreements for the first three years of this 
collection. Each self-enforcing agreement is expected to take 
approximately 3 hours to complete. The total annualized time burden to 
prepare self-enforcing agreements would be 3 hours (3 hours x 3 
agreements[hairsp]/[hairsp]3 years). The burden cost of one copy of the 
self-enforcing agreement is estimated at $3.00 ($0.10[hairsp]/
[hairsp]page x 30 pages). A designated representative, or manager of 
the self-enforcing cooperative would hold at least one copy. To be 
deemed eligible to operate under the agreement, vessel owners and 
operators would be required to have executed a copy of the agreement 
for an adherence agreement under which they agree to be bound. At most, 
10 vessel owners are expected to participate in any one self-enforcing 
agreement, each would be required to have a copy of the agreement, plus 
one original copy held by the cooperative manager, is expected to 
result in a total annualized burden of $33.00 ($3.00 x 11).
    This proposed rule includes a minor revision to declaration 
requirements for groundfish vessels using EM under West Coast Region 
Vessel Monitoring Requirement in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 
(OMB Control Number 0648-0573). Vessels in the Pacific Coast Groundfish 
Fishery are required to declare the gear type and monitoring they will 
use on a given trip. Under this proposed rule, vessels would be able to 
declare ``electronic monitoring'' or ``observers'' as possible 
monitoring types on trips with bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater 
trawl gear. The change would add additional potential answers to an 
existing declaration questionnaire, which does not affect the number of 
entities required to comply with the declaration requirement (OMB 
Control Number 0648-0573). Therefore, the proposed rule does not 
increase the time or cost burden associated with this requirement.
    Similarly, this proposed rule would adjust the requirement for EM 
vessels to notify the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program before 
each trip in place of the existing notification to an individual 
vessel's observer provider when using a catch share observer. This 
change would not be expected to increase the time or cost burden 
associated with the existing notification requirements approved under 
the collection Observer Programs' Information That Can be Gathered Only 
Through Questions (OMB Control Number 0648-0593).
    The requirement for first receivers to report protected and 
prohibited species landings was previously approved under the 
collection Northwest Region Groundfish Trawl Fishery Monitoring and 
Catch Accounting Program (OMB Control Number 0648-0619). Under the 
proposed rule, first receivers would continue to report protected and 
prohibited species landings, but would also report landings of catch 
from trips monitored using EM under ``maximized'' and ``optimized'' 
retention rules with bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl gear. 
The change would add additional potential answers to an existing 
questionnaire, and is not be expected to change the time or cost burden 
or number of entities associated with this requirement.
    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 
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    For more information, these collections, and all currently approved 
NOAA collections can be viewed at

[[Page 11391]]

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRASearch# by entering the related 
OMB control number.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, and Indians.

    Dated: February 14, 2022.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

0
1. Authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 
16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  660.13 revise paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.13  Recordkeeping and reporting.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) Limited entry fixed gear, not including shorebased IFQ,
    (2) Limited entry groundfish non-trawl, shorebased IFQ, observer,
    (3) Limited entry groundfish non-trawl, shorebased IFQ, electronic 
monitoring,
    (4) Limited entry midwater trawl, non-whiting shorebased IFQ, 
observer,
    (5) Limited entry midwater trawl, non-whiting shorebased IFQ, 
electronic monitoring,
    (6) Limited entry midwater trawl, Pacific whiting shorebased IFQ, 
observer,
    (7) Limited entry midwater trawl, Pacific whiting shorebased IFQ, 
electronic monitoring,
    (8) Limited entry midwater trawl, Pacific whiting catcher/processor 
sector,
    (9) Limited entry midwater trawl, Pacific whiting mothership sector 
(catcher vessel or mothership), observer,
    (10) Limited entry midwater trawl, Pacific whiting mothership 
sector (catcher vessel), electronic monitoring,
    (11) Limited entry bottom trawl, shorebased IFQ, not including 
demersal trawl or selective flatfish trawl,
    (12) Limited entry bottom trawl, shorebased IFQ, not including 
demersal trawl or selective flatfish trawl, electronic monitoring,
    (13) Limited entry demersal trawl, shorebased IFQ, observer
    (14) Limited entry demersal trawl, shorebased IFQ, electronic 
monitoring,
    (15) Limited entry selective flatfish trawl, shorebased IFQ, 
observer,
    (16) Limited entry selective flatfish trawl, shorebased IFQ, 
electronic monitoring,
    (17) Non-groundfish trawl gear for pink shrimp,
    (18) Non-groundfish trawl gear for ridgeback prawn,
    (19) Non-groundfish trawl gear for California halibut,
    (20) Non-groundfish trawl gear for sea cucumber,
    (21) Open access longline gear for groundfish,
    (22) Open access Pacific halibut longline gear,
    (23) Open access groundfish trap or pot gear,
    (24) Open access Dungeness crab trap or pot gear,
    (25) Open access prawn trap or pot gear,
    (26) Open access sheephead trap or pot gear,
    (27) Open access line gear for groundfish,
    (28) Open access HMS line gear,
    (29) Open access salmon troll gear,
    (30) Open access California Halibut line gear,
    (31) Open access Coastal Pelagic Species net gear,
    (32) Other gear,
    (33) Tribal trawl,
    (34) Open access California gillnet complex gear, or
    (35) Gear testing.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  660.601, add the definition of ``Prohibited species'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  660.601  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Prohibited species means those species and species groups defined 
at Sec.  660.11; Dungeness crab caught south of Point Reyes, 
California; fish in excess of state or Federal limits; fish below a 
state or Federal minimum size; and species for which the vessel or 
vessel representative does not have a state or Federal permit.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec.  660.603, revise paragraphs (a)(1), (h)(1) introductory 
text, (k)(5), (m) introductory text, (m)(1), (m)(3), (m)(4) 
introductory text, (m)(5), (m)(6) and (n)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.603  Electronic monitoring provider permits and 
responsibilities.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Operate under a NMFS-accepted EM Service Plan (see paragraph 
(b)(1)(vii) of this section).
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) EM service providers and their employees must not have a direct 
financial interest, other than the provision of observer, catch 
monitor, EM, other biological sampling services, VMS, AIS transponders, 
telemetry (such as product temperature monitoring for seafood safety), 
buoy and gear monitoring, sonar systems, mandatory safety services 
(i.e., GMDSS), or other technical or equipment services, in any Federal 
or state managed fisheries, including but not limited to:
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (5) The EM service provider must submit to NMFS reports of requests 
for technical assistance from vessels, including when the call or visit 
was made, the nature of the issue, and how it was resolved. Reports 
must be submitted to NMFS within 24 hours of the EM service provider 
being notified of the request for technical assistance.
* * * * *
    (m) Data services. For vessels with which it has a contract (see 
Sec.  660.604(k)), the EM service provider must provide and manage EM 
data and logbook processing, reporting, and record retention services, 
as described below and according to a NMFS-approved EM Service Plan, 
which is required under paragraph (b)(1)(vii) of this section, and as 
described in the EM Program Manual or other written and oral 
instructions provided by the EM Program, and such that the EM Program 
achieves its purpose as defined at Sec.  660.600(b).
    (1) The EM service provider must process vessels' EM data and 
logbooks according to a prescribed coverage level or sampling scheme, 
as specified by NMFS in consultation with the Council, and determine an 
estimate of discards for each trip using standardized estimation 
methods specified by NMFS. NMFS will maintain manuals for EM and 
logbook data processing protocols on its website.
* * * * *
    (3) The EM service provider must track hard drives and EM datasets 
throughout their cycles, including documenting any access and 
modifications. If end-to-end encryption is not used to protect EM data, 
EM data must be removed from hard drives or

[[Page 11392]]

other mediums before returning them to the field.
    (4) The EM service provider must communicate with vessel operators 
and NMFS to coordinate data service needs, resolve specific program 
issues, and provide feedback on program operations. No later than three 
weeks from the date of receipt of EM data for processing from the 
vessel operator, the EM service provider must provide feedback to 
vessel representatives, field services staff, and NMFS regarding:
* * * * *
    (5) Submission of data and reports. On behalf of vessels with which 
it has a contract (see Sec.  660.604(k)), the EM service provider must 
submit to NMFS logbook data, EM summary reports, including discard 
estimates, fishing activity information, and meta data (e.g., image 
quality, reviewer name), and incident reports of compliance issues 
according to a NMFS-accepted EM Service Plan, which is required under 
paragraph (b)(1)(vii) of this section, and as described in the EM 
Program Manual or other written and oral instructions provided by the 
EM Program, such that the EM program achieves its purpose as defined at 
Sec.  660.600(b). Logbook data must be submitted to NMFS within two 
business days of receipt from the vessel operator. EM summary reports 
must be submitted within three weeks of the date the EM data was 
received by the EM service provider from the vessel operator. If NMFS 
determines that the information does not meet these standards, NMFS may 
require the EM service provider to correct and resubmit the datasets 
and reports.
    (6) Retention of records. Following an EM trip, the EM service 
provider must maintain all of a vessel's EM data and other records 
specified in this section, or used in the preparation of records or 
reports specified in this section or corrections to these reports. The 
EM service provider must maintain EM data for a period of not less than 
12 months after NMFS has completed its determination of the total base 
year IFQ catch for all vessels for end-of-year account reconciliation 
(i.e., base year is the year in which the EM trip was taken). NMFS will 
issue a public notice when end-of-the-year account reconciliation has 
been completed, on or about March 1 of each year. The EM service 
provider must maintain summary EM data and other records for a period 
of not less than three years after the date of landing for that trip. 
EM data and other records must be stored such that the integrity and 
security of the records is maintained for the duration of the retention 
period. The EM service provider must produce EM data and other records 
immediately upon request by NMFS or an authorized officer.
    (n) * * *
    (3) Must not release a vessel's EM data and other records specified 
in this section (including documents containing such data and 
observations or summaries thereof) except to NMFS and authorized 
officers as provided in paragraph (m)(6) of this section, or as 
authorized by an authorized representative of the vessel.
0
5. In Sec.  660.604,
0
a. Revise paragraphs (e) introductory text and (e)(1);
0
b. Remove paragraph (e)(5);
0
c. Revise paragraphs (f), (i), (m), and (n);
0
d. Add paragraphs (p)(3) and (4);
0
e. Revise paragraphs (q), (s)(2), (s)(3)(i) through (ii); and
0
f. Remove and reserve paragraph (s)(3)(iii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  660.604  Vessel and first receiver responsibilities.

* * * * *
    (e) Electronic Monitoring Authorization. To obtain an EM 
Authorization, a vessel owner must submit an initial application to the 
NMFS West Coast Region Fisheries Permit Office, and then a final 
application that includes an EM system certification and a vessel 
monitoring plan (VMP). NMFS will only review complete applications. 
NMFS will issue a public notice at least 90 calendar days prior to when 
it will begin accepting applications for EM Authorizations for the 
first year of the Program. Once NMFS begins accepting applications, 
vessel owners that want to have their EM Authorizations effective for 
January 1 of the following calendar year must submit their complete 
application to NMFS by October 1 of the preceding calendar year. Vessel 
owners that want to have their EM Authorizations effective for May 15 
must submit their complete application to NMFS by February 15 of the 
same year. In lieu of individual EM Authorizations, a group of eligible 
vessel owners participating in the shorebased IFQ sector may obtain a 
group EM Authorization through a self-enforcing agreement. This 
agreement allows a group of eligible vessels to encourage compliance 
with the requirements of this section through a private, contractual 
arrangement. To be considered for a group EM Authorization, a group of 
vessel owners must submit a completed application package to NMFS for 
review and approval. As part of a group EM Authorization application, 
participating vessel owners must agree to conduct fishing operations 
according to the self-enforcement agreement. For a vessel to be deemed 
eligible to operate under the agreement, its owner(s) and its 
operator(s) must have executed a copy of the agreement or an adherence 
agreement under which they agree to be bound by the agreement's terms. 
The existence of a self-enforcing agreement among EM vessels does not 
foreclose the possibility of independent enforcement action by NMFS OLE 
or authorized officers.
    (1) Initial application. To be considered for an EM Authorization, 
the vessel owner must:
    (i) Submit a completed application form provided by NMFS, signed 
and dated by an authorized representative of the vessel;
    (ii) Meet the following eligibility criteria:
    (A) The applicant owns the vessel proposed to be used;
    (B) The vessel has a valid Pacific Coast Groundfish limited entry, 
trawl-endorsed permit registered to it;
    (C) The vessel is participating in the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, 
mothership sector, or the Shorebased IFQ sector;
    (D) The vessel is able to accommodate the EM system, including 
providing sufficient uninterrupted electrical power, suitable camera 
mounts, adequate lighting, and fittings for hydraulic lines to enable 
connection of a pressure transducer;
    (E) The vessel owner and operator are willing and able to comply 
with all applicable requirements of this section and to operate under a 
NMFS-accepted VMP; and
    (F) The vessel owner and operator are willing and able to comply 
with the terms and conditions of a self-enforcing agreement that was 
submitted as part of a group authorization application, if applicable.
    (iii) If applying for a group EM Authorization, submit a complete 
proposed self-enforcing agreement that describes how the group's 
operations will be conducted to meet the requirements of this section. 
NMFS will develop EM Program Guidelines containing best practices and 
templates and make them available on NMFS's website to assist vessel 
owners in developing a self-enforcing agreement. The self-enforcing 
agreement must include descriptions of the following:
    (A) A list of all participating vessels, owners, operators, and 
other parties;
    (B) The name and contact information of a designated representative 
who will be responsible for ensuring that each vessel is complying with 
the terms and

[[Page 11393]]

conditions of the agreement and the requirements of this section, and 
who will promptly inform the appropriate parties and NMFS if any vessel 
fails to comply;
    (C) Eligibility criteria for participating vessels, owners, and 
operators;
    (D) The roles and responsibilities of participating vessels, 
owners, operators, the designated representative, and any other parties 
to the agreement;
    (E) Procedures for communication between participating vessels, 
owners, operators, the designated representative, and any other parties 
to the agreement, NMFS or its designated agent, and EM service 
providers, for the execution of the agreement and the requirements of 
this section;
    (F) Performance standards or requirements for equipment, if 
applicable;
    (G) Reporting requirements, if applicable;
    (H) Time and area restrictions, if applicable;
    (I) Provisions for the use and protection of confidential data 
necessary for execution of the agreement;
    (J) Provisions to encourage or enforce the compliance of members 
with the agreement and the requirements of this section;
    (K) Procedures for addressing the non-compliance of members with 
the agreement and the requirements of this section, including 
procedures for restricting or terminating vessel's participation in the 
agreement;
    (L) Procedures for notifying NMFS when a participating vessel or 
its owner(s) or operator(s) are not complying with the terms of the 
agreement or the requirements of this section;
    (M) Procedures for participating vessels, owners, operators, the 
designated representative, or other parties to the agreement, to exit 
the agreement;
    (N) Any other provisions that the applicants deem necessary for the 
execution of the agreement; and
    (O) Procedures for the designated representative to submit an 
annual report to the Council prior to applying to renew a group EM 
authorization containing information about the group's performance from 
the previous year, including a description of any actions taken by the 
self-enforcing group in response to the non-compliance of members with 
the agreement.
* * * * *
    (f) Changes to a NMFS-accepted VMP or NMFS-approved self-enforcing 
agreement. A vessel owner may make changes to a NMFS-accepted VMP by 
submitting a revised plan or plan addendum to NMFS in writing. A group 
may make changes to an approved self-enforcing agreement by submitting 
a revised agreement or agreement addendum to NMFS in writing. NMFS will 
review and accept the change if it meets all the requirements of this 
section. A VMP or self-enforcing agreement addendum must contain:
    (1) The date and the name and signature of the vessel owner, or 
designated representative for a self-enforcing agreement;
    (2) Address, telephone number, fax number and email address of the 
person submitting the revised plan or addendum; and
    (3) A complete description of the proposed change.
* * * * *
    (i) Renewing an EM Authorization. To maintain a valid EM 
Authorization, vessel owners must renew annually prior to the permit 
expiration date. NMFS will mail EM Authorization renewal forms to 
existing EM Authorization holders each year on or about: September 1 
for shorebased IFQ vessels, and January 1 for Pacific whiting IFQ and 
MS/CV vessels. Vessel owners who want to have their Authorizations 
effective for January 1 of the following calendar year must submit 
their complete renewal form to NMFS by October 15. Vessel owners who 
want to have their EM Authorizations effective for May 15 of the 
following calendar year must submit their complete renewal form to NMFS 
by February 15.
* * * * *
    (m) Declaration reports. The operator of a vessel with a valid EM 
Authorization must make a declaration report to NMFS OLE prior to 
leaving port following the process described at Sec.  660.13(d)(4). A 
declaration report will be valid until another declaration report 
revising the existing gear or monitoring declaration is received by 
NMFS OLE.
    (n) Observer requirements. The operator of a vessel with a valid EM 
Authorization must provide advanced notice to NMFS, at least 48 hours 
prior to departing port, of the vessel operator's intent to take a trip 
under EM, including: Vessel name, permit number; contact name and 
telephone number for coordination of observer deployment; date, time, 
and port of departure; and the vessel's trip plan, including area to be 
fished, gear type to be used, and whether the vessel will use maximized 
or optimized retention rules for the trip as defined at paragraphs 
(p)(3) and (4) of this section. NMFS may waive this requirement for 
vessels declared into the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery or mothership 
sector with prior notice. If NMFS notifies the vessel owner, operator, 
or manager of any requirement to carry an observer, the vessel may not 
be used to fish for groundfish without carrying an observer. The vessel 
operator must comply with the following requirements on a trip that the 
vessel owner, operator, or manager has been notified is required to 
carry an observer.
* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (3) Maximized retention bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl 
trips. A vessel operator on a declared maximized retention trip using 
bottom trawl gear, or midwater trawl gear in which Pacific whiting 
constitutes less than 50 percent of the catch by weight at landing, the 
vessel must not sort catch at-sea and must retain all catch until 
landing, with exceptions listed below in paragraphs (p)(3)(i) through 
(v) of this section. All discards must be discarded following 
instructions in the VMP per paragraph (e)(iii) of this section. All 
discards, regardless of the source, must be reported in the bottom 
trawl logbook, including the species (where possible), estimated 
weight, and reason for discard. The vessel operator is responsible for 
ensuring that all catch is handled in a manner that enables the EM 
system to record it.
    (i) Minor operational discards are permitted. Minor operational 
discards include mutilated fish; fish vented from an overfull codend; 
and fish removed from the deck and fishing gear during cleaning. Minor 
operational discards do not include discards that result when more 
catch is taken than is necessary to fill the hold or catch from a tow 
that is not delivered.
    (ii) Large individual marine organisms (i.e., all marine mammals, 
sea turtles, and non-ESA-listed seabirds, and fish species longer than 
6 ft (1.8 m) in length) may be discarded. For any ESA-listed seabirds 
that are brought on board, vessel operators must follow any relevant 
instructions for handling and disposition under Sec.  660.21(c)(1)(v).
    (iii) Crabs, starfish, coral, sponges, and other invertebrates may 
be discarded.
    (iv) Trash, mud, rocks, and other inorganic debris may be 
discarded.
    (v) A discard that is the result of an event that is beyond the 
control of the vessel operator or crew, such as a safety issue or 
mechanical failure, is permitted.
    (4) Optimized retention bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl 
trips. On a declared optimized retention trip

[[Page 11394]]

using bottom trawl gear, or midwater trawl gear in which Pacific 
whiting constitutes less than 50 percent of the catch by weight at 
landing, the vessel owner and operator are responsible for the 
following:
    (i) The vessel must retain IFQ species (as defined at Sec.  
660.140(c)), except for Arrowtooth flounder, English sole, Dover sole, 
deep sea sole, Pacific sanddab, Pacific whiting, lingcod and starry 
flounder; must retain salmon and eulachon; and must retain the 
following non-IFQ species greenland turbot; slender sole; hybrid sole; 
c-o sole; bigmouth sole; fantail sole; hornyhead turbot; spotted 
turbot; California halibut; northern rockfish; black rockfish; blue 
rockfish; shortbelly rockfish; olive rockfish; Puget Sound rockfish; 
semaphore rockfish; walleye pollock; slender codling; Pacific tom cod; 
with exceptions listed in paragraphs (p)(4)(i)(A) and (B) of this 
section.
    (A) Mutilated and depredated fish may be discarded.
    (B) A discard that is the result of an event that is beyond the 
control of the vessel operator or crew, such as a safety issue or 
mechanical failure, is permitted.
    (ii) The vessel must discard Pacific halibut, green sturgeon, 
California halibut (except as allowed by state regulations), and 
nearshore groundfish species below state commercial minimum size 
limits, following instructions in the NMFS-accepted VMP.
    (iii) Incidentally caught marine mammals, non-ESA-listed seabirds, 
sea turtles, other ESA-listed fish, and Dungeness crab caught seaward 
of Washington or Oregon or south of Point Reyes, California, as 
described at Sec.  660.11 Prohibited species, must be discarded 
following instructions in the NMFS-accepted VMP per paragraph (e)(iii) 
of this section. For any ESA-listed seabirds that are brought on board, 
vessel operators must follow any relevant instructions for handling and 
disposition under Sec.  660.21(c)(1)(v).
    (iv) Crabs, starfish, coral, sponges, and other invertebrates may 
be discarded.
    (v) Trash, mud, rocks, and other inorganic debris may be discarded.
    (vi) All discards must be discarded following instructions in the 
VMP per paragraph (e)(iii) of this section. All discards, regardless of 
the source, must be reported in the bottom trawl logbook, including the 
species (where possible), estimated weight, and reason for discard. The 
vessel operator is responsible for ensuring that all catch is handled 
in a manner that enables the EM system to record it.
    (q) Changes to retention requirements. NMFS may specify alternate 
retention requirements in a NMFS-accepted VMP through the process 
described in paragraph (f) of this section, after consultation with the 
Council and issuance of a public notice notifying the public of the 
changes. Alternate retention requirements must be sufficient to provide 
NMFS with the best available information to determine individual 
accountability for catch, including discards, of IFQ species and 
compliance with requirements of the Shorebased IFQ Program (Sec.  
660.140) and MS Coop Program (Sec.  660.150).
* * * * *
    (s) * * *
    (2) Submission of logbooks. Vessel operators must submit copies of 
the Federal discard logbook and state retained logbook to the vessel 
owner's contracted EM service provider and to NMFS or its agent within 
24 hours of the end of each EM trip.
    (3) * * *
    (i) Shorebased IFQ vessels. EM data from an EM trip must be 
submitted within 72 hours after the beginning of the offload (and no 
more than 10 days after the end of the first trip on the hard drive).
    (ii) Mothership catcher vessels. EM data from an EM trip must be 
submitted within 72 hours of the catcher vessel's return to port.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-03516 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>