11382 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities. 

17. OEA and WTB have taken steps to 

minimize any economic impact of the 

auction procedures on small entities 

through, among other things, the 

Commission’s potential use of 

previously detailed auction procedures 

under the revised inventory. The 

Commission received comments noting 

discrepancies in the initial Auction 108 

inventory that the Commission released 

with the Auction 108 Comment Pubic 

Notice. The revised inventory will allow 

all interested parties, including small 

entities, to further evaluate the potential 

procedures for Auction 108 in light of 

the new licenses included in the revised 

inventory and provide small entities 

with information about the available 

licenses essential to conducting their 

own due diligence. 

18. OEA and WTB have also taken 

steps to minimize any economic impact 

of the auction procedures on small 

entities through, among other things, the 

many resources the Commission 

provides potential auction participants. 

These resources, which are described in 

detail in the Supplemental IRFA 

incorporated into the Auction 108 

Comment Public Notice are provided at 

no cost and include, for example, access 

to an FCC Auctions Hotline for 

information about the auction process 

and procedures; an FCC Auctions 

Technical Support Hotline for technical 

assistance on issues such as access to or 

navigation within the electronic FCC 

Form 175 and use of the FCC’s auction 

bidding system; a web-based, interactive 

online tutorial produced by Commission 

staff to familiarize applicants with 

auction procedures, filing requirements, 

bidding procedures, and other matters 

related to an auction; the opportunity to 

participate in a mock auction; and the 

opportunity to participate in Auction 

108 electronically via the internet. 

Additionally, eligible small businesses 

and rural service providers will be able 

to participate in the bidding credit 

program for Auction 108, which may 

lower their relative costs of 

participation. In the Auction 108 

Revised Inventory Comment Public 

Notice, OEA and WTB incorporate by 

reference the description of the 

additional steps taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities, and significant alternatives 

considered, from the Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis in the Auction 108 

Comment Public Notice and Auction 

108 Further Comment Public Notice. 

19. These procedures for the conduct 

of Auction 108 on which the Auction 

108 Revised Inventory Comment Public 

Notice seeks comment constitute the 

more specific implementation of the 

competitive bidding rules contemplated 

by 47 CFR parts 1 and 27, the 2.5 GHz 

Report and Order, and relevant 

competitive bidding orders, and are 

fully consistent therewith. 

20. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed 

Rules. None. 

B. Deadlines and Filing Procedures 

21. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415(d) and 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on or before the date 

indicated on the first page of the 

Auction 108 Revised Inventory 

Comment Public Notice, in AU Docket 

No. 20–429. Comments may be filed 

using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by 

filing paper copies. 

22. Ex Parte Requirements. This 

proceeding has been designated as a 

permit-but-disclose proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations must file a copy of any 

written presentations or memoranda 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine Period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to the Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with 47 CFR 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

William Huber, 

Associate Chief, Auctions Division, Office of 

Economics and Analytics. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04006 Filed 2–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

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 NonWhiting 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 nonwhiting 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: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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/westcoast-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: colin.sayre@noaa.gov. 

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 atsea 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11384 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

States Marine Fishery Commission 

(PSMFC). The Council and members of 

the fishing industry would like PSMFC 

to continue participating as a NMFScertified, 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 nonwhiting 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 § 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 § 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 firstreceiver, 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 SelfEnforcing 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 selfenforcing 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 selfenforcing 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 noncompliance 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 selfenforcing 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 §§ 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11386 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 selfenforcing 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11388 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§ 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 § 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 statemanaged 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 § 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 § 660.603(a)(1) to 

correctly refer to paragraph 

§ 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 § 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 MagnusonStevens 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, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11390 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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-ofinformation 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 selfenforcing cooperative agreements. 

Collection of information for selfenforcing 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 selfenforcing 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 selfenforcing 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 × 3 agreements/3 years). 

The burden cost of one copy of the selfenforcing agreement is estimated at 

$3.00 ($0.10/page × 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 × 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. In § 660.13 revise paragraph 

(d)(4)(iv)(A) to read as follows: 

§ 660.13 Recordkeeping and reporting. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(1) Limited entry fixed gear, not 

including shorebased IFQ, 

(2) Limited entry groundfish nontrawl, shorebased IFQ, observer, 

(3) Limited entry groundfish nontrawl, 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 660.601, add the definition of 

‘‘Prohibited species’’ in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

§ 660.601 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Prohibited species means those 

species and species groups defined at 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 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: 

§ 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 

§ 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 NMFSapproved 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 

§ 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11392 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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 § 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. 

■ 5. In § 660.604, 

■ a. Revise paragraphs (e) introductory 

text and (e)(1); 

■ b. Remove paragraph (e)(5); 

■ c. Revise paragraphs (f), (i), (m), and 

(n); 

■ d. Add paragraphs (p)(3) and (4); 

■ e. Revise paragraphs (q), (s)(2), (s)(3)(i) 

through (ii); and 

■ f. Remove and reserve paragraph 

(s)(3)(iii). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 selfenforcing 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 selfenforcement 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, trawlendorsed 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 noncompliance 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 selfenforcing 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 selfenforcing 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 

§ 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 ESAlisted seabirds that are brought on 

board, vessel operators must follow any 

relevant instructions for handling and 

disposition under § 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11394 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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 

§ 660.11 Prohibited species, must be 

discarded following instructions in the 

NMFS-accepted VMP per paragraph 

(e)(iii) of this section. For any ESAlisted seabirds that are brought on 

board, vessel operators must follow any 

relevant instructions for handling and 

disposition under § 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 (§ 660.140) and 

MS Coop Program (§ 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1