11014 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Fris, Field Supervisor, 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 

2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 

95825; telephone 916–414–6700. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 28, 2021, we published 

a proposed rule (86 FR 73914) to list the 

South Sierra and South Coast DPSs of 

the foothill yellow-legged frog as 

endangered and the North Feather and 

Central Coast DPSs of the foothill 

yellow-legged frog as threatened with 

rules issued under section 4(d) of the 

Act. The proposed rule opened a 60-day 

comment period, ending February 28, 

2022. On January 31, 2022, we received 

a request to extend the public comment 

period. With this document, we extend 

the public comment period for an 

additional 30 days, as specified above in 

DATES. 

Public Comments 

We will accept written comments and 

information during the extended 

comment period on our proposed rule to 

list the South Sierra, South Coast, North 

Feather, and Central Coast DPSs of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog. We will 

consider information and 

recommendations from all interested 

parties. We intend that any final action 

resulting from the proposal will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available. Our final 

determination will take into 

consideration all comments and any 

additional information we receive 

during the open comment period on the 

proposed rule. 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information we receive 

during the open comment period, our 

final determinations may differ from our 

December 28, 2021, proposed rule (86 

FR 73914). In addition, we may change 

the parameters of the prohibitions or the 

exceptions to those prohibitions in the 

proposed rule issued under section 4(d) 

of the Act (i.e., the ‘‘proposed 4(d) rule’’) 

for the North Feather or Central Coast 

DPS if we conclude it is appropriate in 

light of comments and new information 

received. For example, we may expand 

the prohibitions in the proposed 4(d) 

rule for the North Feather or Central 

Coast DPS to include prohibiting 

additional activities if we conclude that 

those additional activities are not 

compatible with conservation of either 

DPS. Conversely, we may establish 

additional exceptions to the 

prohibitions in the final rule if we 

conclude that the activities would 

facilitate or are compatible with the 

conservation and recovery of either 

DPS. 

If you already submitted comments or 

information on the December 28, 2021, 

proposed rule, please do not resubmit 

them. Any such comments are 

incorporated as part of the public record 

of the rulemaking proceeding, and we 

will fully consider them in the 

preparation of our final determinations. 

Comments should be as specific as 

possible. Please include sufficient 

information with your submission (such 

as scientific journal articles or other 

publications) to allow us to verify any 

scientific or commercial information 

you assert. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, do not provide 

substantial information necessary to 

support our determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered species or a 

threatened species must be made 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available.’’ 

We request that you send comments 

and materials only by one of the 

methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you 

submit information via https://

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including your personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing the proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2021–0108. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment 

Team and the California Great Basin 

Regional Office (Interior Region 10). 

Authority 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), is 

the authority for this action. 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04257 Filed 2–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No.: 220214–0046] 

RIN 0648–BK17 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Northeast Multispecies 

Fishery; Amendment 23 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to approve, 

and implement through regulations, 

measures included in Amendment 23 to 

the Northeast Multispecies Fishery 

Management Plan, which the New 

England Fishery Management Council 

adopted and submitted to NMFS for 

approval. This action would adjust the 

existing industry-funded at-sea 

monitoring program for groundfish 

sectors to improve the accuracy of 

collected catch data (landings and 

discards) and catch accounting. The 

measures selected by the New England 

Fishery Management Council in 

Amendment 23 are intended to ensure 

there is a precise and accurate 

representation of catch to set catch limit 

levels that prevent overfishing and 

determine when catch limits are 

exceeded. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 30, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) has 

prepared an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for this action that 

describes the proposed measures in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11015 

Amendment 23 to the Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) and other considered 

alternatives, and analyzes the impacts of 

the proposed measures and alternatives. 

The Council submitted the amendment 

to NMFS, including the EIS, a 

description of the Council’s preferred 

alternatives, the Council’s rationale for 

selecting each alternative, and a 

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR). Copies 

of supporting documents used by the 

Council, including the EIS and RIR, are 

available from: Thomas A. Nies, 

Executive Director, New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Newburyport, MA 01950 and 

accessible via the internet in documents 

available at: https://www.nefmc.org/ 

library/amendment-23. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by NOAA–NMFS–2020–0144, by the 

following method: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA– 

NMFS–2020–0144 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 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). 

Comments regarding the burden-hour 

estimates or other aspects of the 

collection-of-information requirements 

contained in this proposed rule may be 

submitted 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Grant, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

(978) 281–9145. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Amendment 23 Summary 

The Council initiated Amendment 23 

to consider changes to the groundfish 

monitoring and reporting system to 

ensure it is providing accurate catch 

information necessary to manage the 

fishery effectively. The alternatives 

considered in this action focus on 

measures that adjust the existing 

industry-funded sector monitoring 

program to improve the accuracy of 

collected catch data (landings and 

discards) and catch accounting. To 

address these issues, the Council 

adopted Amendment 23 to make a 

number of changes to the industryfunded sector monitoring program in 

order to: 

• Replace the current process for 

calculating an annual monitoring 

coverage target for at-sea monitoring 

(ASM) with a fixed monitoring coverage 

target as a percentage of trips, 

dependent on Federal funding. The 

coverage target would be 100 percent of 

trips for 4 years, but could be set at less 

than 100 percent at the maximum level 

for which there are sufficient Federal 

funds to support all agency and industry 

costs. Beginning in year 5, the ASM 

coverage target would be 40 percent of 

trips but NMFS could increase ASM 

coverage above the 40-percent target 

when Federal funding is available to 

support all industry costs. For years 

with a 40-percent coverage target, 

Federal funding would be used to first 

pay NMFS costs and then support as 

much of industry costs as possible. 

Sectors would be responsible for paying 

only the industry costs above the 

portion supported by Federal funding. 

• Approve additional electronic 

monitoring (EM) technologies as an 

alternative to human at-sea monitors; 

• Exclude from the monitoring 

requirement all trips in geographic areas 

with low groundfish catch; 

• Require periodic evaluation of the 

monitoring program and exclusions 

from the monitoring requirement; 

• Remove the management 

uncertainty buffer from the portion of 

the ABC allocated to the sector catch 

share when the monitoring coverage 

target is 100 percent; and 

• Grant authority to the Northeast 

Regional Administrator to revise sector 

reporting requirements to streamline 

reporting for the industry. 

The proposed measures are discussed 

in detail below under Discussion of 

Proposed Rule Measures. Under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), we are 

required to publish proposed rules for 

comment after preliminarily 

determining that they are consistent 

with applicable law. The MagnusonStevens Act allows us to approve, 

partially approve, or disapprove 

measures proposed by the Council 

based only on whether the measures are 

consistent with the fishery management 

plan, plan amendment, the MagnusonStevens Act and its National Standards, 

and other applicable law. Otherwise, we 

must defer to the Council’s policy 

choices. We are seeking comment on the 

Council’s proposed measures in 

Amendment 23 and whether they are 

consistent with the Northeast 

Multispecies FMP, the MagnusonStevens Act and its National Standards, 

and other applicable law. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule Measures 

ASM Coverage Target 

Amendment 23 would replace the 

current method for determining the 

ASM coverage target for deploying 

human at-sea monitors, including the 

coefficient of variation (CV) standard, 

stock status criteria, and the need for an 

annual determination by NMFS, with a 

fixed coverage target as a percentage of 

trips, dependent on Federal funding. 

Currently, NMFS is required to 

determine an ASM coverage target that 

at least meets the 30-percent CV 

specified in the Standardized Bycatch 

Reporting Methodology at the overall 

stock level for each stock of regulated 

species and ocean pout; and to monitor 

sector operations, to the extent 

practicable, in order to reliably estimate 

overall catch by sector vessels. Analyses 

included in the Amendment 23 EIS (see 

ADDRESSES) demonstrated the CV 

standard was no longer an effective 

basis for determining coverage due to 

bias that results from differences 

between trips that are monitored and 

trips that are not monitored. 

To address bias, the coverage target 

would be 100 percent of trips for 4 

years, provided Federal funding can 

support agency and industry costs. The 

ASM coverage target in years 1–4 could 

be less than 100 percent, and would be 

set at the maximum level for which 

there are sufficient Federal funds to 

support all agency and industry costs. 

The at-sea monitoring coverage target 

would default to 40 percent in years 1– 

4 if Federal funding cannot completely 

support all industry costs for a coverage 

target greater than 40 percent. In year 5 

and beyond, the coverage target would 

be 40 percent unless replaced by a 

subsequent Council action. However, 

Amendment 23 would also allow for 

increased coverage in year 5 and 

beyond, when Federal funding is 

available to support industry costs. For 

years with a 40-percent ASM coverage 

target, Federal funding would be used to 

first pay NMFS costs and then support 

as much of industry costs as possible. 

The current method used to set ASM 

target coverage levels is not effective to 

estimate catch because observed trips 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11016 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

are not representative of unobserved 

trips. As a result, biased catch data 

undermines management of the fishery. 

It is not possible at this time to calculate 

an ASM coverage target less than 100 

percent that would eliminate or 

minimize bias sufficiently to ensure 

catch accountability because the current 

catch data are not representative of the 

entirety of the sector fishery. The 

Council chose a fixed ASM coverage 

target of 100 percent to address bias by 

establishing a baseline of accurate and 

precise catch information for the 

fishery. The 100-percent coverage target 

would increase the accuracy of catch 

estimates and reduce the potential for 

bias more than any other coverage target 

considered. Setting the coverage target 

at 100 percent also simplifies 

compliance and enforceability of the 

monitoring program by removing a 

complex system of stratified random 

sampling. In addition, while improved 

monitoring would not solve all of the 

issues facing the fishery, a 100-percent 

coverage target is expected to provide 

more information to support better 

management of this fishery. Making the 

coverage target contingent on Federal 

funding for industry costs balances the 

need for improved monitoring with the 

economic effects to the fishery. 

Combined with the option for vessels to 

use EM (see ‘‘Electronic Monitoring’’ 

below) and removing the management 

uncertainty buffers from the sector 

portion of the annual catch limit (ACL) 

(see ‘‘Elimination of Management 

Uncertainty Buffer for Sector ACLs’’ 

below), the increased cost to industry is 

reduced. ASM coverage targets of at 

least 40-percent on a consistent basis 

would be an increase from attained 

coverage levels to date. Higher ASM 

coverage, even for a limited time, along 

with data from EM, could improve the 

cost-effectiveness of the monitoring 

system by providing a baseline of 

accurate and precise catch information 

to be used in the evaluation of the 

program that is planned (see ‘‘Review 

Process for Monitoring Coverage Rates’’ 

below). 

The Council also selected a minimum 

ASM coverage target of 40 percent in the 

event that Federal funds are not 

available in a given year in order to 

ensure accurate catch information is 

still provided while addressing 

concerns about industry costs. The 

minimum target level of 40 percent will 

be funded either by sectors (if no 

Federal funds are available) or a 

combination of sectors and Federal 

funds. 

The availability of EM also provides 

a potential option for sector monitoring 

programs to ensure catch accountability. 

The EM models address bias by 

requiring cameras to monitor fishing 

activity during the entirety of all sector 

groundfish trips. The availability and 

use of EM will also provide additional 

data to compare to ASM coverage and 

inform NMFS and the Council on the 

Amendment 23 coverage target’s 

performance. NMFS proposes several 

administrative procedural changes to 

implement the revised ASM coverage 

target, but would retain other aspects of 

the current requirements. All vessels 

would continue to provide advanced 

notice to NMFS through the pre-trip 

notification systems (PTNS) for the 

purposes of selecting vessels for ASM 

and observer deployment. The agency 

would continue to issue waivers from 

ASM for selected trips in specific 

circumstances, including if an observer 

or at-sea monitor is not available to 

cover the trip, or for other logistical 

reasons (e.g., late observer, safety), 

consistent with its current practice. 

Each year, NMFS would evaluate 

available Federal funding. Consistent 

with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 

other applicable laws, NMFS would 

determine how much Federal funding is 

available for the groundfish sector 

monitoring program and then use that in 

conjunction with other available 

information (e.g., recent monitoring 

costs, estimate of the number of vessels 

choosing EM) to calculate the ASM 

coverage target between 40 and 100 

percent for the coming fishing year. This 

funding-based determination would 

replace the current annual process for 

determining the ASM coverage target for 

the sector monitoring program. 

NMFS would announce the ASM 

coverage target at least 3 weeks before 

the annual sector enrollment deadline 

set by NMFS, if Federal funding 

information is available (see 

‘‘Determining Total Monitoring 

Coverage at a Time Certain’’ below). 

NMFS currently anticipates that existing 

available Federal funding would be 

sufficient to fund at least 2 years with 

a 100-percent ASM coverage target. 

Electronic Monitoring 

Amendment 23 would approve the 

Audit Model and the maximized 

retention model of EM (MREM) for 

sector vessels to use, in place of ASM, 

to satisfy the sector monitoring 

requirement. EM is expected to provide 

important information for NMFS and 

the Council to consider during the first 

4 years and to provide a suitable basis 

for sector monitoring programs to 

ensure catch accountability. A vessel 

using EM would still be subject to 

Northeast Fishery Observer Program 

(NEFOP) coverage, which is set at a 

level to meet the standardized bycatch 

reporting methodology requirements of 

the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. Amendment 23 does not remove or 

alter the existing authority for the 

Regional Administrator to deem types of 

EM technology sufficient to be used in 

place of human at-sea monitors. 

However, the two EM models in 

Amendment 23 would be available for 

sectors to include in their operations 

plans without requiring a separate 

determination by the Regional 

Administrator. Additional forms of EM 

would still be subject to approval or 

disapproval by NMFS. 

The audit model is one of the EM 

models included in Amendment 23. 

NMFS previously determined the EM 

audit model is sufficient to verify a 

vessel’s submission of information on 

groundfish discards and other relevant 

information (e.g., date and time, gear 

category, location) for the purpose of 

catch accounting, provided that the 

vessel’s captain and crew adhere to 

catch handling and reporting 

requirements as described in the vesselspecific monitoring plan (VMP) (86 FR 

16686; March 31, 2021). The VMP 

details specific fish handling protocols, 

policies, and procedures; as well as the 

number and location of cameras. VMPs 

are reviewed and approved by NMFS 

prior to a vessel enrolling in EM to 

ensure the set-up is adequate to support 

data collection needs and requirements. 

Under the audit model, the vessel 

operator and crew hold groundfish 

discards on a measuring board and 

under a camera prior to discarding, and 

discard other species in view of cameras 

at designated discard control points. 

The vessel operator estimates the total 

weight of groundfish discards on an 

electronic vessel trip report (eVTR), and 

submits the video footage to the EM 

service provider. The EM service 

provider reviews trips selected for audit 

and develops an independent estimate 

of groundfish discards for the trip. The 

EM data are compared to verify the 

eVTR-reported catch and discards. 

NMFS sets the video review rates for 

audit model trips and conducts a 

secondary review of some trips to 

evaluate EM provider performance. 

NMFS may revise audit rates to ensure 

accurate reporting and minimize costs. 

For instance, vessels that demonstrate 

higher performance in terms of 

compliance with the VMP and accuracy 

of discard reporting could have lower 

review rates than vessels that do not 

perform as well. Additional detail of the 

audit model requirements are contained 

in the Fishing Years 2021–2022 Sector 

Operations Plan, Contract, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11017 

Environmental Assessment 

Requirements guide (https://bit.ly/ 

3pdau1L). 

Amendment 23 would also approve 

the MREM model. The goal of MREM is 

to verify compliance with catch 

retention requirements and use 

dockside monitoring (DSM) to collect 

information on allocated groundfish 

discards at the dock that otherwise 

would be collected at sea. Under the 

MREM model, on all sector EM trips, 

the vessel operator and crew are 

required to retain and land all catch of 

allocated groundfish, including fish 

below the minimum size, specified at 50 

CFR § 648.83, that they would otherwise 

be required to discard. Unallocated 

regulated species, ocean pout, and nongroundfish species must be handled in 

accordance with standard commercial 

fishing operations. Any allowable 

discards must occur at designated 

discard control points on the vessel, 

described in the vessel’s VMP. EM data 

from the trip would be reviewed by the 

EM service provider to verify that the 

vessel operator and crew complied with 

the catch retention requirements. A 

human dockside monitor would meet 

the vessel at port upon its return from 

each trip to observe the offload and 

collect information on the catch 

(particularly fish below the minimum 

size). Landings of all fish by MREM 

vessels, including fish below the 

minimum size in the regulations, would 

be reported to NMFS by the dealer. 

Approving EM models as alternatives 

to human ASM provides each sector the 

flexibility to choose the monitoring 

options (ASM, audit model EM, MREM) 

that best meet the needs of its members 

and ensure catch accountability. 

Through their operations plans, sectors 

would develop monitoring plans that 

describe how the sector would use the 

chosen monitoring tools. The intent of 

implementing the audit model and 

MREM through Amendment 23 is to 

make alternatives to human ASM 

available now while also retaining 

authority for the Regional Administrator 

to approve additional tools in the future. 

The goal is to provide sectors with 

additional tools to monitor catch that 

ensure precise and accurate catch 

estimation and minimize the potential 

for bias because EM is active on 100 

percent of sector groundfish trips. These 

EM options are expected to eliminate 

bias and eliminate the coordination of 

human logistics for trips not assigned 

NEFOP coverage. Both EM models 

increase flexibility for sectors and their 

vessels to choose the monitoring option 

that best suits their business and 

operational needs while offering 

potential reductions in monitoring 

costs. The audit model may be most 

suitable for lower volume groundfish 

trips because it requires extra catch 

handling. MREM may be better suited 

for larger volume vessels where the 

catch handling protocols of the audit 

model present logistical challenges. 

DSM is a required component of MREM 

and may be easier to facilitate at dealers 

that are prepared to handle large volume 

offloads. The economic analyses in the 

EIS suggest that when both the audit 

model and MREM are available to 

vessels, as alternatives to ASM, the costs 

of 100-percent monitoring may be 

reduced for individual vessels and the 

fishery as a whole. 

A vessel may only use the audit 

model or MREM to meet the sector 

monitoring requirement if its sector 

includes that EM model in its approved 

operations plan. A vessel must opt into 

an EM program for an entire fishing 

year, with two exceptions. First, a sector 

may allow a vessel a single opportunity 

to opt in/out of EM at any time during 

a fishing year if the sector operations 

plan includes both an approved ASM 

and EM plan. Second, if a vessel 

changes to a gear type not covered in the 

VMP, the vessel may temporarily 

become an ASM vessel until the VMP 

authorizing the use of the new gear type 

is approved. Vessels using EM must 

have their EM system operational and 

running on every sector groundfish trip, 

including trips that would be excluded 

from the ASM requirement (see 

‘‘Exclusion from Monitoring 

Requirements for Certain Vessel Under 

Certain Conditions’’ below), unless 

issued a waiver by NMFS or assigned an 

ASM. During each sector EM trip taken 

by a vessel, the EM system records all 

fishing activity onboard the vessel. The 

vessel operator and crew sort fish and 

make any allowable discards within 

view of the cameras in accordance with 

the catch handling protocols described 

in the VMP. 

NMFS proposes to implement the 

audit model consistent with the 

operational program implemented in 

fishing year 2021. Amendment 23 

specified that vessels using audit model 

EM in place of ASM would be required 

to report discards at the haul level. 

However, the current operational audit 

model allows vessels to report discards 

at the sub-trip level, rather than the haul 

level. Haul-level reporting would 

require the vessel to fill out a new eVTR 

for each haulback of a trawl net, each 

haul of a string of gillnets, and each 

haul of fixed hook gear while sub-triplevel reporting requires a new eVTR 

only when a vessel changes gear type or 

mesh size, or physically changes 

location to a different statistical area. As 

part of implementing Amendment 23, 

NMFS proposes to allow vessels using 

the audit model to continue reporting 

discards at the sub-trip level, rather than 

the haul level, and is soliciting 

comment on this proposal (see ‘‘Sector 

Reporting’’ below). 

NMFS proposes to implement MREM 

consistent with the NOAA Fisheries 

MREM program detailed in the draft 

Sector Operations Plan, Contract, and 

Environmental Assessment 

Requirements guide for fishing year 

2022 available at: https://

media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-01/ 

210826_SectorOpsEAGuidanceFY2021_

2022_Revised.pdf. Under MREM, the 

vessel operator and crew must adhere to 

the following catch handling 

requirements: Retain and land all catch 

of allocated groundfish, including any 

sublegal-size catch and unmarketable 

fish; discard unallocated groundfish 

stocks (i.e., windowpane flounder, 

ocean pout, wolffish, Atlantic halibut) at 

designated discard control points; 

handle all other species in accordance 

with standard commercial fishing 

operations, including adhering to 

possession limits for halibut and nongroundfish species; and sort 

unmarketable fish separately from fish 

below the minimum legal size. 

MREM vessels must also participate 

in a DSM program. NMFS proposes to 

initially continue to operate a DSM 

program for MREM vessels while 

working with partners to pilot a thirdparty DSM program. Subsequently, an 

industry-funded DSM model would be 

implemented and sectors would be 

required to contract with approved DSM 

providers to cover their MREM vessels. 

The vessel operator must notify the 

DSM program of its intention to sail 

prior to beginning a sector EM trip. 

Either the vessel operator or dealer must 

provide an offload time to the DSM 

program in advance of landing. The 

advance notice of landing and offload 

schedule will be dependent on the 

nature of the vessel’s activity (e.g., day 

boat vs trip boat vessels) and will be 

defined in the vessel’s VMP. The vessel 

operator, crew, and dealer must offload 

all allocated groundfish in the presence 

of the dockside monitor. The vessel 

operator and crew may not begin 

offloading unless a dockside monitor is 

present or they have received a waiver 

from the DSM program. The vessel 

operator must allow the dockside 

monitor access to the fish hold 

immediately following the offload in 

order to confirm all allocated groundfish 

were offloaded. The vessel operator and 

crew or dealer personnel must separate 

sublegal allocated groundfish catch by 

species, except in instances where the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11018 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

sublegal component of a high-volume 

target species (i.e., redfish, haddock, 

and pollock) is combined with fish in 

the terminal legal-sized market category. 

The vessel operator and crew or dealer 

personnel must also separate 

unmarketable fish from fish below the 

minimum size. 

NMFS also proposes requirements for 

Northeast multispecies dealers to 

facilitate DSM for MREM vessels. 

Federally permitted Northeast 

multispecies dealers would be required 

to allow dockside monitors access to 

their premises, scales, and any fish 

received from vessels participating in 

the MREM program for the purpose of 

collecting fish species and weights of 

fish received by the dealer, fish length 

measurements, and the collection of age 

structures such as otoliths or scales. The 

primary dealer would be required to 

retain all sublegal allocated groundfish 

catch in order to be weighed and 

sampled by the dockside monitor. 

Dealers would be required to clearly 

mark all containers containing sublegal 

catch to facilitate tracking, and would 

be required to provide settlement 

documents to the DSM program for any 

allocated groundfish forwarded to 

secondary dealers. This is intended to 

provide a ready means for dealers to 

show when they possess undersized fish 

landed from MREM vessels. The 

implementing regulations deemed by 

the Council inadvertently omitted this 

requirement, but it is included in the 

regulations proposed in this rule. We 

highlight this change from the deeming 

requirements to ensure the Council and 

the public have an opportunity to 

comment on this addition to the 

implementing regulations. 

Dealers would also be required to 

provide dockside monitors with access 

to facilities equivalent to what is 

provided to the dealer’s staff, including: 

A safe sampling station, with shelter 

from weather, for dockside monitors to 

conduct their duties and process catch; 

access to bathrooms; and access to 

facilities for washing equipment with 

fresh water. The intent of the dealer 

requirements is not to require dealers to 

create or provide facilities that do not 

already exist, but to ensure dockside 

monitors have access to facilities 

equivalent to what is available to the 

dealer’s staff. 

The proposed EM programs raise 

several implementation issues that 

NMFS is highlighting for comment. 

First, as noted above, NMFS proposes 

that vessels using EM must have their 

EM system operational and running on 

every sector groundfish trip, including 

trips that would be excluded from the 

ASM requirement, unless issued a 

waiver by NMFS or assigned an ASM. 

Throughout the development of EM, we 

have found that vessels are most 

successful at complying with their VMP 

when it is followed on all groundfish 

trips. Further, this requirement is 

consistent with the Council’s intent that 

EM tools meet or exceed the ASM 

coverage target to ensure catch 

accountability. Vessels that are 

interested in fishing in ways that would 

be excluded from ASM (see ‘‘Exclusion 

from Monitoring Requirements for 

Certain Vessel Under Certain 

Conditions’’ below) may choose to use 

ASM, rather than adopting EM, and be 

excluded from the sector monitoring 

requirement on trips with low 

groundfish catch. Second, some 

discards of allocated groundfish occur 

on MREM trips and the Council should 

consider how to account for those fish. 

This would include operational discards 

(fish that drop out of the gear into the 

ocean, fish taken by birds), accidental 

discards, and intentional discards. 

These discards cannot always be 

estimated using EM technology. Third, 

vessels must discard any red hake in 

excess of the possession limit, but those 

fish cannot be distinguished from white 

hake using cameras. The Council may 

want to consider this interaction 

between the NE Multispecies FMP and 

the small-mesh fishery and potential 

methods for fully accounting for catch 

of these two stocks by MREM vessels. 

Determining Total Monitoring Coverage 

at a Time Certain 

Amendment 23 would require the 

Regional Administrator to determine the 

ASM coverage target at least 3 weeks 

prior to the annual sector enrollment 

deadline set by NMFS. The date NMFS 

announces the annual ASM coverage 

target in past years has varied from 

January 25 to March 26 and has 

sometimes been later than the sector 

roster deadline for that fishing year (see 

Table 65 in the EIS, see ADDRESSES). 

This action sets a fixed ASM coverage 

target; however, the monitoring 

coverage target is dependent on 

available Federal funding (see ‘‘ASM 

Coverage Target’’ above and ‘‘Higher 

Monitoring Coverage Levels if NMFS 

Funds Are Available’’ below). The 

Council identified the importance for 

industry to know the ASM coverage 

target at a time certain in advance of the 

start of the fishing year because the 

ASM coverage target may have industry 

costs when Federal funding cannot at 

least support NMFS and industry costs 

for a 40-percent ASM coverage target. 

Therefore, this rule proposes NMFS will 

announce the ASM coverage target at 

least 3 weeks before the annual sector 

enrollment deadline set by NMFS, if 

Federal funding information is 

available. In years when Federal 

funding information is not available 

prior to the sector enrollment deadline, 

the ASM coverage target will be 

announced as soon as practicable. 

Review Process for Monitoring Coverage 

Rates 

As part of the revisions to the 

groundfish sector monitoring program, 

Amendment 23 includes a Council 

review process to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the increased ASM 

coverage target. The Council would 

undertake the review once two full 

fishing years of data are available (likely 

in year 3 following implementation), 

and periodically thereafter. The Council 

review process is intended to be flexible 

and somewhat general, but would 

include establishing metrics and 

indicators of how well the monitoring 

program improved accuracy while 

maximizing value and minimizing costs. 

As a priority for 2021, the Council 

recommended that the Groundfish Plan 

Development Team develop the review 

process metrics based on the Council’s 

final preferred alternatives in 

Amendment 23. The Council discussed 

that the scope of the review would be 

different if 100 percent coverage levels 

are selected compared to lower coverage 

levels. The Council selected a fixed 

ASM coverage target 100 percent of 

trips, but also selected a default ASM 

coverage target of 40-percent coverage in 

the event that Federal funds are not 

available to support industry costs for 

higher monitoring coverage. The review 

process if the ASM coverage target is 

100 percent could include metrics such 

as discard estimate CVs and a measure 

of how catch (discards and landings) 

changed following implementation of 

comprehensive monitoring. For lower 

ASM coverage targets, the review may 

include additional metrics to ensure 

monitoring targets were met and were 

effective, and might include analyses of 

whether the program is operating in a 

way the Council intended, whether 

catch is being measured accurately, or 

whether there is evidence of bias. 

The intent of the review process is to 

evaluate whether the revised groundfish 

sector monitoring program, and 

particularly the increased ASM coverage 

target, is meeting the Council’s goal of 

improved accuracy of catch data and 

catch monitoring while maximizing the 

value of the data collected and 

minimizing the costs of the monitoring 

program. The Council would be 

responsible for the review and the 

results would support potential future 

Council action to refine the groundfish 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11019 

sector monitoring program or revise the 

ASM coverage target. NMFS may also 

review the sector monitoring program to 

assist the Council in its review and to 

ensure the sector monitoring program 

meets requirements of the MagnusonStevens Act, particularly the 

requirement to specify ACLs at a level 

that prevents overfishing, including 

measures to ensure accountability. 

Waivers From Monitoring Requirements 

Amendment 23 includes a provision 

to allow waivers exempting individual 

vessels from industry-funded 

monitoring requirements, for either a 

trip or the fishing year, if coverage 

would be unavailable due to insufficient 

funding for NMFS administrative costs 

to meet the ASM coverage target. The 

waivers would include coverage for 

ASM and EM, including DSM for 

MREM vessels. Allowing the potential 

to issue these waivers preserves the 

Council’s intent to increase monitoring 

in the groundfish fishery without 

creating a requirement that could 

prevent vessels from participating in the 

groundfish fishery if monitoring 

coverage was not available. 

As described above, NMFS would 

evaluate available Federal funding each 

year (see ‘‘ASM Coverage Target’’ 

above). If NMFS determines that there is 

insufficient funding to pay for its cost 

responsibilities, as defined in 

§ 648.11(g)(3), for an ASM coverage 

target of at least 40 percent, then vessels 

would continue to be required to notify 

NMFS of all trips through the PTNS, but 

NMFS would issue a waiver for a sector 

trip exempting the vessel from the 

sector monitoring program coverage 

requirements. If NMFS waives 

monitoring requirements due to 

insufficient funding, as part of its 

review the Council would consider 

whether changes to the FMP were 

necessary to ensure effective 

management if the ASM coverage target 

was less than 40 percent. 

Exclusion From Monitoring 

Requirements for Certain Vessel Under 

Certain Conditions 

Amendment 23 excludes sector 

fishing trips fished in their entirety west 

of 71°30′ W Longitude from the ASM 

requirement. The Council included this 

provision to minimize the costs of the 

overall increase in monitoring because 

the majority of groundfish are caught in 

waters east of this boundary. The catch 

composition includes little to no catch 

of many groundfish stocks, with 

substantial catch of a few groundfish 

stocks, for sector vessels fishing 

exclusively west of 71°30′ W Longitude 

(see Table 73 of the EIS). However, the 

proportion of commercial catches for 

some stocks (Southern New England 

yellowtail flounder and winter flounder, 

southern windowpane flounder, and 

ocean pout) caught in this area has been 

over 25 percent in recent years. 

Vessels would continue to be required 

to notify NMFS of all trips through the 

PTNS, but NMFS would issue a waiver 

for a sector trip exempting the vessel 

from ASM on a trip fishing exclusively 

west of 71°30′ W Longitude. Vessels on 

a trip excluded from the ASM 

requirement under this provision would 

be required to comply with the VMS 

declaration requirements at 

§ 648.10(g)(3), and the transiting 

requirements at § 648.81(e) when east of 

71°30′ W Longitude. Vessels using EM 

to satisfy the sector monitoring 

requirement would be required to have 

their system turned on and comply with 

their vessel monitoring plan on all trips, 

including trips fishing exclusively west 

71°30′ W Longitude. 

This proposed exclusion from the 

ASM requirements raises several 

implementation issues and concerns 

that NMFS is highlighting for comment 

and future Council consideration. First, 

as discussed in more detail above (see 

‘‘Electronic Monitoring’’ above), NMFS 

proposes that vessels using EM must 

have their EM system operational and 

running on every sector groundfish trip, 

including trips that would otherwise be 

excluded from the ASM requirement 

under this provision, unless issued a 

waiver by NMFS or assigned an ASM. 

Therefore, this exclusion would not 

apply to EM vessels. Second, any catch 

of groundfish on these trips would not 

be monitored and because the 71°30′ W 

Longitude line splits three statistical 

areas (533, 537, and 539), some trips in 

those statistical areas will have ASM 

coverage and others will not, 

complicating any attempt to use 

observed trips to estimate catch on 

unobserved trips in those areas, 

including during the Council’s review 

(see ‘‘Review Process for Monitoring 

Coverage Rates’’ above). The Council 

should consider these issues when 

considering uncertainty buffers in future 

actions setting specifications. 

Review Process for Vessels Excluded 

Exempted From Commercial Groundfish 

Monitoring Program Requirements 

The monitoring revisions in 

Amendment 23 establish a process for 

reviewing measures that exclude certain 

vessels from the groundfish monitoring 

program requirements based on catch 

composition. This includes the existing 

gear-based exclusion from the ASM 

requirement, implemented by 

Framework 55, for sector trips that 

exclusively fish using gillnets of 10-inch 

(24.5-cm) or larger mesh in the Inshore 

Georges Bank and/or the Southern New 

England Broad Stock Areas; and the 

Amendment 23 provision excluding 

sector fishing trips taken in their 

entirety west of 71°30′ W Longitude (see 

‘‘Exclusion from Monitoring 

Requirements for Certain Vessel Under 

Certain Conditions’’ above). The 

Council will conduct this review after 

two years of fishing data are available 

and every three years after that. 

The intent of the review process is to 

evaluate whether the trips excluded 

from the ASM requirement continue to 

catch small amounts of groundfish. The 

Council raised a concern that it did not 

want vessels to change their fishing 

behavior and target groundfish on trips 

excluded from the ASM requirement. 

The review would also be important to 

evaluate whether exclusions from the 

ASM requirement undermine the 

monitoring program or other measures 

of the FMP. The Council would be 

responsible for the review and the 

results would support potential future 

Council action. 

Higher Monitoring Coverage Levels if 

NMFS Funds Are Available 

Amendment 23 would allow for ASM 

at higher coverage levels than the ASM 

coverage target selected by the Council, 

up to 100 percent, if NMFS determines 

funding is available to cover the 

additional administrative costs to NMFS 

and sampling costs to industry in a 

given year. This measure would apply 

to year 5 and later, when the ASM 

coverage target would otherwise be 40 

percent of sector trips. 

Monitoring coverage of 100 percent of 

trips, or as close to 100 percent as 

achievable increases the accuracy of 

catch estimates and at least reduces, if 

not eliminates, the potential for bias. 

Higher coverage levels, even for a 

limited time, could inform 

understanding of the magnitude of bias, 

and inform future actions on the value 

of higher monitoring coverage levels. 

ASM coverage of 100 percent of trips is 

currently considered to remove or 

reduce bias to the greatest extent 

practicable; however, it may be 

impracticable for industry or NMFS to 

fund costs associated with complete 

ASM coverage, resulting in a lower 

ASM coverage level. Higher levels of 

ASM coverage would substantially 

increase costs to NMFS and sectors. 

Making the ASM coverage target 

contingent on Federal funding for 

industry costs balances the need for 

improved monitoring with the economic 

impacts on the fishery. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11020 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Each year, NMFS would evaluate 

available Federal funding and determine 

how much Federal funding is available 

for the groundfish sector monitoring 

program and then use that in 

conjunction with other available 

information (e.g., recent monitoring 

costs, estimate of the number of vessels 

choosing EM) to calculate the ASM 

coverage target for the coming fishing 

year. 

Elimination of Management Uncertainty 

Buffer for Sector ACLs 

Amendment 23 includes an option to 

revise the management uncertainty 

buffer for the sector portion of the ACL 

for each allocated groundfish stock to be 

set to zero. The NE Multispecies 

includes a process for setting an 

overfishing limit (OFL) for groundfish 

stocks. The OFL represents the 

maximum amount of fish that can be 

caught in a year without resulting in 

overfishing. The Council typically 

recommends an acceptable biological 

catch (ABC) for a groundfish stock that 

is lower than the OFL to account for 

scientific uncertainty. The Council sets 

an ACL at a level below the ABC to 

account for management uncertainty, 

and this serves as a buffer to prevent the 

fishery from exceeding the ABC. The 

management uncertainty buffer 

accounts for the possibility that 

management measures will result in a 

level of catch greater than expected. The 

Council evaluates the management 

uncertainty buffers in each 

specification-setting action. 

The revised management uncertainty 

buffers would apply only to sectors, and 

not to the common pool component of 

the fishery, or other sub-ACLs or subcomponents for any stocks. The 

management uncertainty buffer may be 

removed only in years in which the 

ASM coverage target is 100 percent. The 

process by which the Council evaluates 

and sets management uncertainty 

buffers remains unchanged and the 

Council could adjust management 

uncertainty buffers in future actions. 

The need for a management uncertainty 

buffer for the sector sub-ACL would 

continue to be evaluated as part of each 

specification action. 

Monitoring adequacy, precision, and 

enforceability of management measures 

are three of the elements considered in 

setting the management uncertainty 

buffer. An ASM coverage target of 100 

percent could minimize all of those 

sources of management uncertainty for 

the sector fishery. The full 

accountability associated with 

comprehensive monitoring could 

remove uncertainty about whether 

management measures successfully 

restrain catch by sector vessels to the 

sector quotas. Eliminating uncertainty 

in quantifying true sector catch could 

make the management uncertainty 

buffer unnecessary for the sector 

program. Removing the buffer provides 

direct benefits to the fishery by 

providing opportunity for additional 

catch and revenue. Increased catch and 

revenue may reduce the net costs of 

increased monitoring. 

NMFS would make an annual 

determination prior to the start of the 

fishing year as to whether the buffers 

would be eliminated based on the ASM 

coverage target set for the fishing year. 

If Federal funds are not available for 100 

percent ASM coverage and a lower 

target coverage level is set, the 

management uncertainty buffers would 

be in place for that fishing year, subject 

to the Council’s review as part of each 

specification action. If 100-percent 

monitoring coverage is determined not 

to be effective, or if any additional 

elements evaluated when setting the 

management uncertainty buffers have 

the potential to result in catches that 

could exceed ACLs, the PDT would 

recommend an appropriate management 

uncertainty buffer for the sector subACLs as part of actions setting 

specifications. 

This proposed elimination of the 

uncertainty buffer for sectors raises 

several issues that NMFS is highlighting 

for comment and future Council 

consideration. First, as discussed above, 

Amendment 23 excludes sector fishing 

trips taken in their entirety west of 

71°30′ W Longitude from the ASM 

requirement, but for some stocks 

(southern New England yellowtail 

flounder and winter flounder, southern 

windowpane flounder, and ocean pout) 

catch in this area has been over 25 

percent in recent years. Further, 71°30′ 

W Longitude splits three statistical areas 

(533, 537, and 539), making estimation 

of catch on those trips more 

complicated. Second, some operational 

discards (e.g., fish fall from the net, 

birds steal fish) of allocated groundfish 

occur on MREM trips and the Council 

should consider how to account for 

those fish. Third, eliminating the 

uncertainty buffer from the sector 

allocations would result in negligible 

sector carryover because sector 

carryover from one year to the next is 

limited by the management uncertainty 

buffer between the ACL and ABC in 

year 2. These issues arose after the 

Council made its final decision on 

Amendment 23. We highlight these 

issues to ensure the Council and the 

public have an opportunity to comment 

on how NMFS proposes to address these 

issues. 

Sector Reporting 

Amendment 23 would authorize the 

Regional Administrator to modify the 

sector monitoring requirements at 

§ 648.87(b)(1)(v) and the sector reporting 

requirements at § 648.87(b)(1)(vi) to 

streamline the sector reporting process. 

Each week, each sector must submit to 

NMFS a summary catch report, 

including quota balances; a detailed 

catch report with catch for each trip; 

and a trip issue report detailing any 

enforcement or reporting compliance 

issues, violations of sector operations 

and regulations, and general problems 

with monitoring or sector operations. 

When a sector has caught 90 percent of 

any quota, that sector must submit daily 

catch reports. Each sector must also 

submit an annual report that 

summarizes the fishing activities of 

participating vessels. 

More efficient methods might be 

developed that would still involve 

timely monitoring and reconciliation of 

data sources between sectors and 

NMFS. For example, NMFS could 

eliminate the requirement for sectors to 

submit weekly and daily reports and 

instead provide monitoring summaries 

for the sectors to use for catch 

accounting and managing annual catch 

entitlements, while continuing the 

process where NMFS and sectors 

reconcile catch data to confirm 

accuracy. Authorizing the Regional 

Administrator to streamline the sector 

reporting process could help to reduce 

reporting redundancies, provide 

flexibility to sectors and sector 

managers, and improve timeliness of 

data processing. 

As discussed above (see ‘‘Electronic 

Monitoring’’), Amendment 23 specified 

that vessels using Audit Model EM in 

place of ASM would be required to 

report discards at the haul level. 

However, the current operational Audit 

Model allows vessels to report discards 

at the sub-trip level, rather than the haul 

level. As part of implementing 

Amendment 23, NMFS proposes using 

the authority to streamline sector 

reporting requirements to allow vessels 

using the Audit Model to continue 

reporting discards at the sub-trip level, 

rather than the haul level, and is 

soliciting comment on this proposal. 

Addition to List of Framework Items 

The regulations at § 648.90 list 

management measures that may be 

changed or implemented through 

specifications or framework actions. 

During the development of Amendment 

23, the Council identified a list of 

specific issues that may be addressed 

through future specifications actions or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11021 

framework adjustments. All alternatives 

considered in Amendment 23 would be 

added to the list of FMP items that may 

be considered in a future framework. 

Specifically, this includes: 

• The addition of new sector 

monitoring tools (e.g., EM, other 

technologies or approaches) that meet or 

exceed the Council’s selected 

monitoring standard; 

• Setting vessel-specific coverage 

targets instead of coverage targets 

applicable at the sector level; and 

• All the Amendment 23 measures 

discussed in detail above. 

Amendment 23 includes two options 

for electronic monitoring that would be 

available for sectors to include in their 

operations plans without requiring a 

separate determination of sufficiency by 

NMFS. Further evolution of technology 

or development of analytical methods 

could lead to additional or better tools 

for achieving the goals of the monitoring 

program. It is not possible to forecast 

technology changes, but it is expected 

that in the future there may be 

additional technologies that would 

benefit the monitoring program that the 

Council could adopt through a 

framework. 

A vessel-specific coverage level 

would require each vessel to meet the 

target coverage level, rather than 

evaluating the target at the sector level. 

The intent would be to reduce the 

variation in the amount of industryfunded monitoring coverage applicable 

to each vessel. 

The intent of adding all alternatives 

considered in Amendment 23 to the list 

of framework items is to allow 

adjustments to groundfish monitoring 

program to be considered in a 

framework action. This would support a 

Council response to the new review 

requirements that would be 

implemented as part of Amendment 23. 

The regulations at § 648.90(a)(2)(iii) 

would be revised to specify that the 

Council could consider these items in a 

future framework adjustment. 

Regulatory Adjustments and 

Corrections Under Regional 

Administrator Authority 

NMFS is proposing several changes to 

the regulations consistent with section 

305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

which provides that the Secretary of 

Commerce may promulgate regulations 

necessary to ensure that amendments to 

an FMP are carried out in accordance 

with the FMP and the MagnusonStevens Act. These adjustments do not 

make any substantive changes to the 

current regulations, but are intended to 

improve the clarity of the regulations. 

First, NMFS would revise § 648.2 to 

add definitions of terms related to EM 

that are used in the implementing 

regulations for Amendment 23 and 

clarify and consolidate definitions 

related to individuals that collect data 

for NMFS. Second, NMFS would move 

the sector monitoring program 

regulations from § 648.87 to § 648.11. 

Third, NMFS would revise § 648.11 to 

update the names of divisions within 

NMFS. Fourth, NMFS would revise 

§§ 648.2, 648.10, 648.11, 648.14, 648.51, 

648.80, 648.86, and 648.202 to clarify 

that individuals undergoing observer 

training are included in regulatory 

provisions that apply to certified 

observers. Finally, NMFS would revise 

§ 648.14(k) to correct a typographical 

error where text is missing and to clarify 

application of the prohibitions to EM. 

Finally, due to the extensive 

regulatory changes in this action, we are 

updating references throughout the 

groundfish regulations that will change 

based on the proposed regulatory 

adjustments. We have included a 

summary of all of the proposed 

regulatory changes in this rule in Table 

1. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REGULATORY CHANGES TO 50 CFR PART 648 

Section Authority Summary of proposed changes 

§ 648.2 ................... Amendment 23 

and 305(d).

The existing definition of ‘‘electronic monitoring’’ is revised and new definitions for ‘‘electronic monitoring audit model’’ and 

‘‘electronic monitoring maximized retention model’’ are added to address the EM models included in Amendment 23. A 

new definition for ‘‘electronic monitoring provider staff’’ is added to accommodate monitoring staff that are not involved 

in at-sea or dockside monitoring tasks. The existing definition of ‘‘observer/sea sampler’’ is deleted and the existing definition of ‘‘observer or monitor’’ is revised to cover any person, including trainees, who collects observer information, 

operational fishing data, biological data, or economic data for conservation and management purposes, whether they 

work on a vessel or on shore. The definitions of ‘‘slippage in the Atlantic herring fishery,’’ ‘‘slip(s) or slipping catch in the 

Atlantic herring fishery,’’ and ‘‘video reviewer’’ are revised to include staff in training. 

§ 648.10 ................. 305(d) ................... Paragraph (f)(4)(i) is revised to include staff in training. 

§ 648.11 ................. Amendment 23 

and 305(d).

The monitoring coverage regulations are revised to include the groundfish sector monitoring program regulations currently 

codified in § 648.87. The newly added groundfish sector monitoring program regulations include revisions and additions 

to the text formerly codified in § 648.87 to incorporate the proposed measures to implement Amendment 23. This section is also revised to clarify the insurance requirements for monitoring providers, to clarify that individuals undergoing 

observer training are included in regulatory provisions that apply to certified observers, and to update the names of divisions within NMFS. 

§ 648.14 ................. Amendment 23 

and 305(d).

The prohibitions are revised to address new regulations implementing Amendment 23 and to revise citations associated 

with moving the groundfish sector monitoring program regulations currently codified in § 648.87 to § 648.11. The prohibitions are also revised to address changes to the definitions in § 648.2 that include monitoring staff that are not involved 

in at-sea or dockside monitoring tasks and trainees. Prohibitions are added to address the dockside monitoring requirements applicable to dealers at § 648.11 that implement Amendment 23. Section 648.14(k)(3) is revised to incorporate 

missing text stating it is prohibited to engage in the behaviors listed in sub-paragraphs. Sections 648.14(i)(1)(ix)(B) and 

(r)(2)(iv) are also revised to include staff in training. 

§ 648.51 ................. 305(d) ................... §§ 648.51(c)(4) and (e)(3)(iii) are revised to include staff in training. 

§ 648.80 ................. 305(d) ................... §§ 648.80(d)(3) and (e)(2)(ii) are revised to include staff in training. 

§ 648.83(a)(1) ........ Amendment 23 ..... The text regarding minimum fish sizes for commercial vessels is revised to exclude fish landed by MREM vessels from 

the minimum sizes to implement Amendment 23. 

§ 648.85 ................. Amendment 23 

and 305(d).

Section 648.85(e)(1)(viii)(C) is revised to address the participation of MREM vessels in the universal sector exemption for 

targeting redfish. 

§ 648.86 ................. Amendment 23 ..... The text regarding NE multispecies possession limits for commercial vessels is revised to exclude fish landed by MREM 

vessels to implement Amendment 23. Section 648.86(a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) is also revised to include staff in training. 

§ 648.87 ................. Amendment 23 ..... Section 648.87 is revised by removing the groundfish sector monitoring program regulations that are being moved to 

§ 648.11, redesignating the remaining paragraphs, and updating citations to the new locations of the monitoring regulations. 

§ 648.90 ................. Amendment 23 ..... Section 648.90 is revised to include all Amendment 23 measures as frameworkable items. The potential to implement 

vessel-specific ASM coverage targets was also added to the list of frameworkable items consistent with Amendment 23. 

New regulatory text was added specifying that the sector portion of the management uncertainty buffer for allocated 

stocks would be set to zero when the coverage target is 100 percent, unless the Council chooses to incorporate a different amount of management uncertainty for sectors. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11022 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REGULATORY CHANGES TO 50 CFR PART 648—Continued 

Section Authority Summary of proposed changes 

§ 648.202 ............... 305(d) ................... Section 648.202(b)(1) is revised to include staff in training. 

Classification 

NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to 

sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provide 

specific authority for implementing this 

action. Pursuant to Magnuson-Stevens 

Act section 305(d), this action is 

necessary to carry out the NE 

Multispecies FMP, through 

administrative changes revising the 

existing implementing regulations for 

the groundfish sector monitoring 

program to be consistent with the 

industry-funded monitoring program 

regulations, moving the groundfish 

monitoring program implementing 

regulations to the same chapter as other 

industry-funded monitoring programs, 

and improving the clarity of the existing 

regulations. Pursuant to section 

304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator 

has made a preliminary determination 

that this proposed rule is consistent 

with the NE Multispecies FMP, other 

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, and other applicable law, subject to 

further consideration after public 

comment. 

The New England Fishery 

Management Council prepared a final 

environmental impact statement for 

Amendment 23 to the NE Multispecies 

FMP; a notice of availability was 

published on January 21, 2022 (87 FR 

3298). A target ASM coverage rate of 

100 percent, higher than past and 

current coverage levels, will be in place, 

if sufficient Federal funds are available, 

which should result in more accurate 

information on catch (landings and 

discards) of target and non-target 

species, and fully account for discard 

mortality. In the short term, improved 

catch accounting is expected to reduce 

fishing effort and fishing mortality, 

which in the long term should allow for 

rebuilding of overfished stocks. In the 

longer-term analytical assessments 

should improve with better catch data. 

If the proposed coverage level target of 

100 percent results in reduced 

groundfish fishing activity, then it may 

provide some minor short-term benefits 

to habitat. Over the long term, if 100- 

percent coverage contributes to higher 

catch limits, fishing effort could 

increase in the future, which could have 

negative impacts to habitat. The 

modifications in management measures 

may indirectly affect protected 

resources, but are not expected to have 

substantial impacts on protected 

resources. This action is expected to 

have a range of potential socioeconomic 

impacts, depending on the availability 

of Federal funding for monitoring and 

the ultimate ASM coverage target. A 

target at-sea monitoring coverage rate of 

100 percent will be in place, if sufficient 

Federal funds are available, which will 

result in relatively neutral impacts on 

operating costs compared to those under 

past and current coverage levels. 

However, if no Federal funding is 

available, the ASM coverage rate target 

would be 40 percent, which would 

increase fleet wide operating costs by an 

estimated $2.09 million per year. 

Economic effects could be lower if any 

subsidy is available to offset the cost of 

monitoring, or depending on the 

number of vessels that use electronic 

monitoring (EM) in lieu of human at-sea 

monitoring. Initial costs of installing 

and purchasing EM equipment may be 

high which may have negative impacts 

in the short term, if not subsidized, but 

over the long term EM may be more cost 

effective than human at-sea monitors. 

EM is expected to be more cost effective 

for vessels who fish more in the 

groundfish fishery (i.e., greater than 20 

days per year). Based on the amount of 

available funds that have been allocated 

to reimburse sectors for monitoring as of 

2021, there appears to be sufficient 

funds for at least 2 years of 100-percent 

monitoring starting in fishing year 2022. 

In addition, 100-percent at-sea 

monitoring coverage may be seen as 

overly burdensome by fishing 

communities. However, under 100- 

percent monitoring coverage the 

enforceability of the FMP and the risk 

of non-compliance both improve, which 

should improve the fairness and 

equitability of management measures. In 

the short term, economic impacts of 

100-percent at-sea monitoring coverage 

on human communities would be 

reduced while Federal reimbursements 

for monitoring costs are available. 

Impacts over the long term will vary 

depending on whether Federal 

reimbursements of monitoring costs 

continue into the future. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

An initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 

required by section 603 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 

IRFA describes the economic impact 

this proposed rule, if adopted, would 

have on small entities. A copy of the 

IRFA, contained in the Environmental 

Impact Statement, is available from the 

Council (see ADDRESSES). A description 

of the action, why it is being considered, 

and the legal basis for this action are 

contained at the beginning of this 

section in the preamble and in the 

SUMMARY section of the preamble. No 

relevant Federal rules duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this proposed 

rule. A summary of the analysis follows. 

Description of the Reasons Why Action 

by the Agency Is Being Considered and 

Statement of the Objectives of, and 

Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule 

This action is taken under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

and regulations at 50 CFR part 648. 

The primary purpose of this action is 

to improve accounting of landings and 

discards in the commercial groundfish 

fishery, while also taking into account 

the costs of such monitoring. Catch of 

commercial groundfish in the sector 

component of the fishery is managed via 

a quota system, where pounds of each 

groundfish species are allocated 

annually to sectors (essentially 

cooperatives) and all fish caught, 

including discards, must be accounted 

against these shares of quota. Quota 

shares (pounds) are ‘‘leased’’ (traded) 

among sectors, with each sector agreeing 

to a lease price prior to executing the 

trade. Catch that is discarded or landed 

without accounting would save sectors 

and the businesses that comprise those 

sectors the value of the leased quota 

pounds. To ensure that all sectors are 

accountable to their annual allocations, 

various monitoring methods were 

considered in Amendment 23. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which This 

Proposed Rule Would Apply 

This action would regulate all 

commercial fishing businesses issued a 

Federal limited access NE multispecies 

vessel permit and/or a NE multispecies 

dealer permit. As of June 1, 2020, NMFS 

had issued 828 commercial limited 

access groundfish permits associated 

with vessels and 148 permits associated 

with dealers. Therefore, 976 permits are 

regulated by this action. Each vessel or 

dealer may be individually owned or 

part of a larger corporate ownership 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11023 

structure, and for RFA purposes, it is 

the ownership entity that ultimately 

would be regulated by the proposed 

action. Ownership entities are identified 

on June 1 of each year, based on the list 

of all permit numbers, for the most 

recent complete calendar year, that have 

applied for any type of Northeast 

Federal fishing permit. The current 

ownership data set is based on calendar 

year 2019 permits and contains gross 

sales associated with those permits for 

calendar years 2017 through 2019. 

For RFA purposes only, NMFS has 

established a small business size 

standard for businesses, including their 

affiliates, whose primary industry is 

commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). 

A business primarily engaged in 

commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) 

is classified as a small business if it is 

independently owned and operated, is 

not dominant in its field of operation 

(including its affiliates), and has 

combined annual receipts not in excess 

of $11 million for all its affiliated 

operations worldwide. The 

determination as to whether the entity 

is large or small is based on the average 

annual revenue for the three years from 

2017 through 2019. Ownership data 

collected from vessel permit holders 

indicate that there are 667 distinct 

business entities that hold at least one 

vessel permit regulated by the proposed 

action. Of these, all are engaged 

primarily in commercial fishing, and 80 

did not have any revenues (were 

inactive) in 2019. Of these distinct 

business entities, 661 are categorized as 

small entities and 6 are categorized as 

large entities, per the NMFS guidelines. 

Ownership data collected from dealer 

permit holders indicate there are 148 

distinct business entities that hold at 

least one dealer permit regulated by this 

action. Of these, 135 distinct businesses 

are categorized as small entities and 13 

are categorized as large entities, per the 

NMFS guidelines. 

Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed 

Rule 

The proposed action does not 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any 

other Federal rules. 

Description of Significant Alternatives 

to the Proposed Action Which 

Accomplish the Stated Objectives of 

Applicable Statutes and Which 

Minimize Any Significant Economic 

Impact on Small Entities 

The New England Fishery 

Management Council selected all 

alternatives that met the objectives of 

the action, and minimized costs, to 

provide regulated businesses the ability 

to choose the monitoring options that 

best suit their operations while meeting 

the catch accounting requirements. 

Description of the Projected Reporting, 

Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements of This Proposed Rule 

A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of this 

proposed action, including an estimate 

of the classes of small entities that will 

be subject to the requirements is 

contained in the Notice of Information 

Collection published December 17, 2021 

(86 FR 71624), and summarized below. 

This proposed rule contains a 

collection-of-information requirement 

subject to review and approval by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA). This rule revises, and 

renews, the existing requirements for 

the collection of information 0648– 

0605, titled ‘‘Northeast Multispecies 

Amendment 16.’’ These revisions are 

due to an increased monitoring and 

reporting burden from higher ASM 

coverage targets; additional reporting 

and data collection through voluntary 

options for sector monitoring tools 

(audit model EM and MREM); potential 

for increases or decreases in monitoring 

and reporting burden as a result of 

coverage level changes from funding 

provisions; and an additional VMS 

declaration required for vessels fishing 

on a trip exclusively west of 71°30′ W 

longitude to be excluded from the ASM 

requirement. 

In 2010, we implemented a new suite 

of regulations for the NE multispecies 

fishery through Amendment 16 to the 

NE Multispecies FMP. Amendment 16 

required sectors to develop and fund an 

independent third-party ASM program. 

Amendment 16 allowed sectors to use 

EM instead of human monitors to meet 

ASM requirements, provided that the 

Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator 

deemed EM sufficient. Using the 

authority and process granted to it in 

Amendment 16, NMFS announced its 

determination that sectors may use EM 

to meet monitoring requirements (86 FR 

16686; March 31, 2021). To implement 

this change, we are proposing to collect 

additional data elements necessary to 

support an EM program. Specifically, 

we propose to require the development 

and submission of VMPs and trip-level 

feedback reports, both of which are 

critical for accurate catch data and 

management of ACLs. We also propose 

to require the collection of information 

related to the purchase and installation 

of EM equipment. This is necessary for 

NMFS to reimburse industry’s ASM 

costs as directed and funded by 

Congressional appropriations. 

We estimate 1,309 entities will be 

subject to the existing and new elements 

of the information collection. The 

estimated total annual burden hours are 

73,198. The estimated total annual cost 

to the public is $10,632,454 in 

recordkeeping and reporting costs. 

These estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. The estimated time per 

response varies by item within the suite 

of information collected, as follows: 

Sector operations plan and membership 

list updates, 110 hours; monitoring 

service provider initial application, 10 

hours; monitoring service provider 

response to application disapproval, 10 

hours; data entry for sector discard 

monitoring system, 3 minutes; sector 

weekly catch report, 4 hours; sector 

annual report, 10 hours; notification of 

expulsion from a sector, 30 minutes; 

request to transfer sector annual catch 

entitlement, 5 minutes; request to lease 

DAS, 5 minutes; request to downgrade 

DAS baseline, 5 minutes; VMS area and 

DAS declaration, 5 minutes; VMS triplevel catch report; VMS daily catch 

reports when fishing in multiple broad 

stock areas, 15 minutes; daily VMS 

catch reports when fishing in the U.S./ 

Canada Management Area and Closed 

Area II Special Access Programs, 15 

minutes; daily VMS catch reports when 

fishing in the Regular B DAS Program, 

15 minutes; pre-trip hail report, 2 

minutes; trip-end hail report, 15 

minutes; pre-trip notification system 

notification, 2 minutes; vessel 

notification of selection for ASM 

coverage, 5 minutes; at-sea monitor 

deployment report, 10 minutes; ASM 

and EM service provider catch report to 

NMFS upon request, 5 minutes; at-sea 

monitor or EM staff report of 

harassment, safety concerns, and other 

issues, 30 minutes; ASM and EM service 

provider contracts upon request, 30 

minutes; ASM and EM service provider 

information materials upon request, 30 

minutes; EM VMP development and 

submission, 2 hours; EM vessel 

feedback letters, 30 minutes; EM 

equipment installation, 16 hours; EM 

equipment purchase and installation 

reimbursement form, 30 minutes; Office 

of Law Enforcement debriefing of at-sea 

monitors and EM staff, 2 hours; ASM 

database and data entry requirements, 0 

minutes; DAS Transfer Program, 

5minutes; submission of proposed 

special access programs, 20 hours; and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11024 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

NAFO Reporting Requirements, 23 

hours. 

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. 

Notwithstanding any other provisions 

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 648 

Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

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 648 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE 

NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 648 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 648.2 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Electronic monitoring’’; 

■ b. Adding the definition for 

‘‘Electronic monitoring audit model’’; 

■ c. Adding the definition for 

‘‘Electronic monitoring maximized 

retention model’’; 

■ d. Adding the definition for 

‘‘Electronic monitoring provider staff’’; 

■ e. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Observer or monitor’’; 

■ f. Removing the definition for 

‘‘Observer/sea sampler’’; 

■ g. Republishing in alphabetical order 

the definition of ‘‘Ocean quahog’’. 

■ h. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Slippage in the Atlantic herring 

fishery’’; 

■ i. Revising the definition for ‘‘Slip(s) 

or slipping catch in the Atlantic herring 

fishery’’; and 

■ j. Revising the definition for ‘‘Video 

reviewer’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 648.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Electronic monitoring means a 

network of equipment that uses a 

software operating system connected to 

one or more technology components, 

including, but not limited to, cameras 

and recording devices to collect data on 

catch and vessel operations. With 

respect to the groundfish sector 

monitoring program, electronic 

monitoring means any equipment that is 

used to meet sector monitoring 

requirements in lieu of at-sea monitors 

as part of an approved sector at-sea 

monitoring program, including the audit 

model and maximized retention model. 

Electronic monitoring audit model 

with respect to the groundfish sector 

monitoring program means a program in 

which all eligible trips must be 

electronically monitored; discards are 

reported at the haul level; fish must be 

handled in view of cameras; species 

identification and length must be 

collected for regulated species and 

ocean pout discards for catch 

estimation; allowed discarding must 

occur at controlled points in view of 

cameras; and electronic monitoring data 

are compared to the area fished, 

regulated species and ocean pout 

discards, and other information reported 

on the vessel trip report on a subset of 

trips for validation. 

* * * * * 

Electronic monitoring maximized 

retention model with respect to the 

groundfish sector monitoring program, 

means a program in which all eligible 

trips are electronically monitored; fish 

must be handled in view of cameras; 

allowed discarding must occur at 

controlled points in view of cameras; all 

allocated regulated species stocks must 

be retained; electronic monitoring is 

used to verify compliance; and offloads 

are subject to observation by dockside 

monitors. 

* * * * * 

Electronic monitoring provider staff 

means any video reviewer, or any 

person employed or contracted by an 

electronic monitoring service provider 

to provide electronic monitoring 

services to vessels. 

* * * * * 

Observer or monitor means any 

person authorized by NMFS to collect 

observer information, operational 

fishing data, biological data, or 

economic data for conservation and 

management purposes on or from 

fishing vessels or federally permitted 

dealers as required by the regulations, 

including, but not limited to, observers, 

at-sea monitors, observer/sea samplers, 

portside samplers, or dockside 

monitors. 

Ocean quahog means the species 

Arctica islandica. 

* * * * * 

Slippage in the Atlantic herring 

fishery means discarded catch from a 

vessel issued an Atlantic herring permit 

that is carrying an observer or monitor 

prior to the catch being brought on 

board or prior to the catch being made 

available for sampling and inspection by 

an observer or monitor after the catch is 

on board. Slippage also means any catch 

that is discarded during a trip prior to 

it being sampled portside by a portside 

sampler on a trip selected for portside 

sampling coverage by NMFS. Slippage 

includes releasing catch from a codend 

or seine prior to the completion of 

pumping the catch aboard and the 

release of catch from a codend or seine 

while the codend or seine is in the 

water. Fish that cannot be pumped and 

remain in the codend or seine at the end 

of pumping operations are not 

considered slippage. Discards that occur 

after the catch is brought on board and 

made available for sampling and 

inspection by an observer or monitor are 

also not considered slippage. 

* * * * * 

Slip(s) or slipping catch in the 

Atlantic herring fishery means 

discarded catch from a vessel issued an 

Atlantic herring permit that is carrying 

an observer or monitor prior to the catch 

being brought on board or prior to the 

catch being made available for sampling 

and inspection by an observer or 

monitor after the catch is on board. 

Slip(s) or slipping catch also means any 

catch that is discarded during a trip 

prior to it being sampled portside by a 

portside sampler on a trip selected for 

portside sampling coverage by NMFS. 

Slip(s) or slipping catch includes 

releasing fish from a codend or seine 

prior to the completion of pumping the 

fish on board and the release of fish 

from a codend or seine while the 

codend or seine is in the water. Slippage 

or slipped catch refers to fish that are 

slipped. Slippage or slipped catch does 

not include operational discards, 

discards that occur after the catch is 

brought on board and made available for 

sampling and inspection by an observer 

or monitor, or fish that inadvertently fall 

out of or off fishing gear as gear is being 

brought on board the vessel. 

* * * * * 

Video reviewer means any electronic 

monitoring service provider staff 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11025 

approved/certified or training to be 

approved/certified by NMFS for 

providing electronic monitoring video 

review services consistent with 

electronic monitoring program 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 648.10 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f)(4)(i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 648.10 VMS and DAS requirements for 

vessel owners/operators. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) For trips greater than 24 hours, the 

owner or operator of a limited access or 

LAGC scallop vessel with an IFQ permit 

that fishes for, possesses, or retains 

scallops, and is not fishing under a NE 

Multispecies DAS or sector allocation, 

must submit reports through the VMS, 

in accordance with instructions to be 

provided by the Regional Administrator, 

for each day fished, including open area 

trips, access area trips as described in 

§ 648.59(b)(9), Northern Gulf of Maine 

RSA trips, and trips accompanied by an 

observer. The reports must be submitted 

for each day (beginning at 0000 hr and 

ending at 2400 hr) and not later than 

0900 hr of the following day. Such 

reports must include the following 

information: 

(A) VTR serial number; 

(B) Date fish were caught; 

(C) Total pounds of scallop meats 

kept; and 

(D) Total pounds of all fish kept. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 648.11 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d), 

(h)(1), (h)(3)(vii), (h)(3)(ix) and (x), 

(h)(5)(i) through (iv), (h)(5)(vi) and (vii), 

(h)(7), (i)(1) and (2), (i)(3)(i), (i)(4)(ii), 

(i)(5) and (6); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (i)(7); and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (j), (k)(4)(i) and 

(ii), (l), (m)(1)(i) and (v), (m)(2)(iii)(A), 

(m)(4)(i), (m)(6) introductory text, and 

(n)(2) introductory text. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 648.11 Monitoring coverage. 

(a) Coverage. The Regional 

Administrator may request any vessel 

holding a permit for Atlantic sea 

scallops, NE multispecies, monkfish, 

skates, Atlantic mackerel, squid, 

butterfish, scup, black sea bass, bluefish, 

spiny dogfish, Atlantic herring, tilefish, 

Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, or 

Atlantic deep-sea red crab; or a 

moratorium permit for summer 

flounder; to carry a fisheries observer. A 

vessel holding a permit for Atlantic sea 

scallops is subject to the additional 

requirements specific in paragraph (g) of 

this section. Also, any vessel or vessel 

owner/operator that fishes for, catches 

or lands hagfish, or intends to fish for, 

catch, or land hagfish in or from the 

exclusive economic zone must carry a 

fisheries observer when requested by 

the Regional Administrator in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this section. The requirements of this 

section do not apply to vessels with 

only a Federal private recreational 

tilefish permit. 

(b) Facilitating coverage. If requested 

by the Regional Administrator or their 

designees, including observers, 

monitors, and NMFS staff, to be 

sampled by an observer or monitor, it is 

the responsibility of the vessel owner or 

vessel operator to arrange for and 

facilitate observer or monitor placement. 

Owners or operators of vessels selected 

for observer or monitor coverage must 

notify the appropriate monitoring 

service provider before commencing any 

fishing trip that may result in the 

harvest of resources of the respective 

fishery. Notification procedures will be 

specified in selection letters to vessel 

owners or permit holder letters. 

* * * * * 

(d) Vessel requirements associated 

with coverage. An owner or operator of 

a vessel on which an observer or 

monitor is embarked must: 

(1) Provide accommodations and food 

that are equivalent to those provided to 

the crew. 

(2) Allow the observer or monitor 

access to and use of the vessel’s 

communications equipment and 

personnel upon request for the 

transmission and receipt of messages 

related to the observer’s or monitor’s 

duties. 

(3) Provide true vessel locations, by 

latitude and longitude or loran 

coordinates, as requested by the 

observer or monitor, and allow the 

observer or monitor access to and use of 

the vessel’s navigation equipment and 

personnel upon request to determine the 

vessel’s position. 

(4) Notify the observer or monitor in 

a timely fashion of when fishing 

operations are to begin and end. 

(5) Allow for the embarking and 

debarking of the observer or monitor, as 

specified by the Regional Administrator, 

ensuring that transfers of observers or 

monitors at sea are accomplished in a 

safe manner, via small boat or raft, 

during daylight hours as weather and 

sea conditions allow, and with the 

agreement of the observers or monitors 

involved. 

(6) Allow the observer or monitor free 

and unobstructed access to the vessel’s 

bridge, working decks, holding bins, 

weight scales, holds, and any other 

space used to hold, process, weigh, or 

store fish. 

(7) Allow the observer or monitor to 

inspect and copy any the vessel’s log, 

communications log, and records 

associated with the catch and 

distribution of fish for that trip. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) General. An entity seeking to 

provide monitoring services, including 

services for IFM Programs described in 

paragraph (g) of this section, must apply 

for and obtain approval from NMFS 

following submission of a complete 

application. Monitoring services include 

providing observers, monitors (at-sea 

monitors and portside samplers), and/or 

electronic monitoring. A list of 

approved monitoring service providers 

shall be distributed to vessel owners 

and shall be posted on the NMFS 

Fisheries Sampling Branch (FSB) 

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

resource/data/observer-providersnortheast-and-mid-atlantic-programs. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(vii) Evidence of holding adequate 

insurance to cover injury, liability, and 

accidental death for any observers, 

monitors (at-sea or dockside/roving 

monitors), or electronic monitoring 

provider staff who provide electronic 

monitoring services onboard vessels, 

whether contracted or directly 

employed by the service provider, 

during their period of employment 

(including during training). 

(A) A monitoring service provider 

must hold Workers’ Compensation and 

Maritime Employer’s Liability for 

observers, monitors, vessel owners, and 

their operations. The minimum 

combined coverage required is $5 

million. 

(B) An electronic monitoring service 

provider must hold Worker’s 

Compensation and commercial general 

liability coverage for electronic 

monitoring provider staff. The 

minimum combined coverage required 

is $1 million. 

(C) Upon request by a vessel owner, 

operator, or vessel manager, a 

monitoring service provider must 

provide a certificate of insurance, or 

other evidence, that demonstrates they 

have the required coverages under (A) 

and (B) of this paragraph as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

(ix) The names of its fully equipped 

certified observers, monitors, or video 

reviewers on staff; or a list of its training 

candidates (with resumes) and a request 

for an appropriate NMFS-certified 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11026 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Training class. All training classes have 

a minimum class size of eight 

individuals, which may be split among 

multiple vendors requesting training. 

Requests for training classes with fewer 

than eight individuals will be delayed 

until further requests make up the full 

training class size. 

(x) An Emergency Action Plan (EAP) 

describing its response to an emergency 

with an observer, monitor, or electronic 

monitoring provider staff on a vessel at 

sea or in port, including, but not limited 

to, personal injury, death, harassment, 

or intimidation. The EAP shall include 

communications protocol and 

appropriate contact information in an 

emergency. 

* * * * * 

(5) Responsibilities of monitoring 

service providers. To maintain an 

approved monitoring service provider 

status, a monitoring service provider, 

including electronic monitoring service 

providers, must demonstrate an ability 

to provide or support the following 

monitoring services: 

(i) Certified observers or monitors. 

Provide observers or monitors that have 

passed a NMFS-certified Observer or 

Monitor Training class pursuant to 

paragraph (i) of this section for 

deployment in a fishery when contacted 

and contracted by the owner, operator, 

or vessel manager of a fishing vessel, 

unless the monitoring service provider 

refuses to deploy an observer or monitor 

on a requesting vessel for any of the 

reasons specified at paragraph 

(h)(5)(viii) of this section. 

(ii) Support for observers, monitors, or 

electronic monitoring provider staff. 

Ensure that each of its observers, 

monitors, or electronic monitoring 

provider staff procures or is provided 

with the following: 

(A) All necessary transportation, 

lodging costs and support for 

arrangements and logistics of travel for 

observers, monitors, or electronic 

monitoring provider staff to and from 

the initial location of deployment, to all 

subsequent vessel assignments, to any 

debriefing locations, and for 

appearances in Court for monitoringrelated trials as necessary; 

(B) Lodging, per diem, and any other 

services necessary for observers, 

monitors, or electronic monitoring 

provider staff assigned to a fishing 

vessel or to attend an appropriate NMFS 

training class; 

(C) The required observer, monitor, or 

electronic monitoring equipment, in 

accordance with equipment 

requirements, prior to any deployment 

and/or prior to certification training; 

and 

(D) Individually assigned 

communication equipment, in working 

order, such as a mobile phone, for all 

necessary communication. A monitoring 

service provider may alternatively 

compensate observers or monitors for 

the use of the observer’s or monitor’s 

personal mobile phone, or other device, 

for communications made in support of, 

or necessary for, the observer’s or 

monitor’s duties. 

(iii) Deployment logistics. (A) Assign 

an available observer or monitor to a 

vessel upon request. For service 

providers contracted to meet the 

requirements of the NE multispecies 

monitoring program in paragraph (l) of 

this section, assign available at-sea 

monitors, electronic monitoring 

provider staff, and other approved at-sea 

monitoring mechanisms fairly and 

equitably in a manner that represents 

fishing activities within each sector 

throughout the fishing year without 

regard to any sector manager or vessel 

representative preference. 

(B) Enable an owner, operator, or 

manager of a vessel to secure monitoring 

coverage or electronic monitoring 

technical support when requested, 24 

hours per day, 7 days per week via a 

telephone or other notification system 

that is monitored a minimum of four 

times daily to ensure rapid response to 

industry requests. 

(iv) Observer deployment limitations. 

(A) A candidate observer’s first several 

deployments and the resulting data 

shall be immediately edited and 

approved after each trip by NMFS prior 

to any further deployments by that 

observer. If data quality is considered 

acceptable, the observer would be 

certified. 

(B) For the purpose of coverage to 

meet SBRM requirements, unless 

alternative arrangements are approved 

by NMFS, a monitoring service provider 

must not deploy any observer on the 

same vessel for more than two 

consecutive multi-day trips, and not 

more than twice in any given month for 

multi-day deployments. 

(C) For the purpose of coverage to 

meet IFM requirements, a monitoring 

service provider may deploy any 

observer or monitor on the same vessel 

for more than two consecutive multiday trips and more than twice in any 

given month for multi-day deployments. 

* * * * * 

(vi) Observer and monitor training 

requirements. Ensure all observers and 

monitors attend and complete a NMFScertified Observer or Monitor Training 

class. Requests for training must be 

submitted to NMFS 45 calendar days in 

advance of the requested training. The 

following information must be 

submitted to NMFS at least 15 business 

days prior to the beginning of the 

proposed training: A list of observer or 

monitor candidates; candidate resumes, 

cover letters and academic transcripts; 

and a statement signed by the candidate, 

under penalty of perjury, that discloses 

the candidate’s criminal convictions, if 

any. A medical report certified by a 

physician for each candidate is required 

7 business days prior to the first day of 

training. CPR/First Aid certificates and 

a final list of training candidates with 

candidate contact information (email, 

phone, number, mailing address and 

emergency contact information) are due 

7 business days prior to the first day of 

training. NMFS may reject a candidate 

for training if the candidate does not 

meet the minimum qualification 

requirements as outlined by NMFS 

minimum eligibility standards for 

observers or monitors as described on 

the National Observer Program website: 

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

fishery-observers#become-an-observer. 

(vii) Reports and Requirements. (A) 

Deployment reports. 

(1) Report to NMFS when, where, to 

whom, and to what vessel an observer 

or monitor has been deployed, as soon 

as practicable, and according to 

requirements outlined by NMFS. The 

deployment report must be available 

and accessible to NMFS electronically 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

(2) Ensure that the raw (unedited) 

data collected by the observer or 

monitor is provided to NMFS at the 

specified time per program. Electronic 

data submission protocols will be 

outlined in training and may include 

accessing government websites via 

personal computers/devices or 

submitting data through government 

issued electronics. 

(B) Safety refusals. Report to NMFS 

any trip or landing that has been refused 

due to safety issues (e.g., failure to hold 

a valid USCG Commercial Fishing 

Vessel Safety Examination Decal or to 

meet the safety requirements of the 

observer’s or monitor’s safety checklist) 

within 12 hours of the refusal. 

(C) Biological samples. Ensure that 

biological samples, including whole 

marine mammals, sea turtles, sea birds, 

and fin clips or other DNA samples, are 

stored/handled properly and 

transported to NMFS within 5 days of 

landing. If transport to NMFS Observer 

Training Facility is not immediately 

available then whole animals requiring 

freezing shall be received by the nearest 

NMFS freezer facility within 24 hours of 

vessel landing. 

(D) Debriefing. Ensure that the 

observer, monitor, or electronic 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11027 

monitoring provider staff remains 

available to NMFS, either in-person or 

via phone, at NMFS’ discretion, 

including NMFS Office of Law 

Enforcement, for debriefing for at least 

2 weeks following any monitored trip/ 

offload or electronic monitoring trip 

report submission. If requested by 

NMFS, an observer or monitor that is at 

sea during the 2-week period must 

contact NMFS upon his or her return. 

Monitoring service providers must pay 

for travel and land hours for any 

requested debriefings. 

(E) Availability report. The 

monitoring service provider must report 

to NMFS any inability to respond to an 

industry request for observer or monitor 

coverage due to the lack of available 

observers or monitors as soon as 

practicable. Availability report must be 

available and accessible to NMFS 

electronically 24 hours a day, 7 days a 

week. 

(F) Incident reports. Report possible 

observer, monitor, or electronic 

monitoring provider staff harassment, 

discrimination, concerns about vessel 

safety, or marine casualty; concerns 

with possible electronic monitoring 

system tampering, data loss, or catch 

handling protocols; or observer or 

monitor illness or injury; or other events 

as specified by the Regional 

Administrator; and any information, 

allegations, or reports regarding 

observer, monitor, or electronic 

monitoring provider staff conflict of 

interest or breach of the standards of 

behavior, to NMFS within 12 hours of 

the event or within 12 hours of learning 

of the event. 

(G) Status report. (1) Provide NMFS 

with an updated list of contact 

information for all observers or monitors 

that includes the identification number, 

name, mailing address, email address, 

phone numbers, homeports or fisheries/ 

trip types assigned, and must include 

whether or not the observer or monitor 

is ‘‘in service,’’ indicating when the 

observer or monitor has requested leave 

and/or is not currently working for an 

industry-funded program. 

(2) Place any Federally contracted 

observer not actively deployed on a 

vessel for 30 days on Leave of Absence 

(LOA) status (or as specified by NMFS) 

according to most recent Information 

Technology Security Guidelines. 

(3) Ensure Federally contracted 

observers on LOA for 90 days or more 

conduct an exit interview with NMFS 

and return any NMFS issued gear and 

Common Access Card (CAC), unless 

alternative arrangements are approved 

by NMFS. NMFS requires 2-week 

advance notification when a Federally 

contracted observer is leaving the 

program so that an exit interview may 

be arranged and gear returned. 

(H) Vessel contract. Submit to NMFS, 

if requested, a copy of each type of 

signed and valid contract (including all 

attachments, appendices, addendums, 

and exhibits incorporated into the 

contract) between the monitoring 

service provider and those entities 

requiring monitoring services. 

(I) Observer, monitor, or video 

reviewer contract. Submit to NMFS, if 

requested, a copy of each type of signed 

and valid contract (including all 

attachments, appendices, addendums, 

and exhibits incorporated into the 

contract) between the monitoring 

service provider and specific observers, 

monitors, or video reviewers. 

(J) Additional information. Submit to 

NMFS, if requested, copies of any 

information developed and/or used by 

the monitoring service provider and 

distributed to vessels, observers, 

monitors, or electronic monitoring 

provider staff such as informational 

pamphlets, payment notification, daily 

rate of monitoring or review services, 

description of observer or monitor 

duties, etc. 

(K) Discard estimates. Estimate 

discards for each trip and provide such 

information to the sector manager and 

NMFS when providing monitoring 

services to meet catch estimation and/or 

at-sea or electronic monitoring service 

requirements in paragraph (l) of this 

section. 

(L) Data system. If contracted to meet 

the groundfish sector monitoring 

program in paragraph (l) of this section, 

maintain an electronic monitoring 

system to record, retain, and distribute 

to NMFS upon request for a minimum 

of 12 months after receiving notice from 

NMFS that catch data are finalized for 

the fishing year, the following 

information: 

(1) The number of at-sea monitor 

deployments and other approved 

monitoring equipment deployments or 

video reviews, including any refusal to 

provide service when requested and 

reasons for such refusals; 

(2) Incident/non-compliance reports 

(e.g., failure to offload catch); 

(3) Vessel hail reports and landings 

records; 

(4) Electronic monitoring data and 

reports; and 

(5) A means to protect the 

confidentiality and privacy of data 

submitted by vessels, as required by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

(M) Data retention. Ensure that 

electronic monitoring data and reports 

are retained for a minimum of 12 

months after catch data are finalized for 

the fishing year. NMFS will notify 

monitoring service providers of the 

catch data finalization date each year. 

The electronic monitoring service 

provider must provide NMFS access to 

electronic monitoring data or reports 

upon request. 

(N) Software requirements. Provide 

NMFS with all software necessary for 

accessing, viewing, and interpreting the 

data generated by the electronic 

monitoring system, including 

submitting the agency’s secondary 

review data to the application 

programming interface and maintenance 

releases to correct errors in the software 

or enhance software functionality. The 

software must: 

(1) Support a ‘‘dual user’’ system that 

allows NMFS to complete and submit 

secondary reviews to the application 

programming interface. 

(2) Allow for the export or download 

of electronic monitoring data in order 

for the agency to make a copy if 

necessary. 

(O) Software training. Provide 

software training for NMFS staff. 

(P) Facilitation. Provide the following 

to NMFS upon request: 

(1) Assistance in electronic 

monitoring system operations, 

diagnosing/resolving technical issues, 

and recovering lost or corrupted data; 

(2) Responses to inquiries related to 

data summaries, analyses, reports, and 

operational issues; 

(3) Access to video reviewers for 

debriefing sessions; 

(Q) Litigation support. Provide 

technical and expert information 

substantiating electronic monitoring 

system data, testing procedures, error 

rates, peer review or other issues raised 

in litigation, including but not limited 

to, a brief summary of the litigation and 

any court findings on the reliability of 

the technology. 

* * * * * 

(7) Removal of monitoring service 

provider from the list of approved 

service providers. A monitoring service 

provider that fails to meet the 

requirements, conditions, and 

responsibilities specified in paragraphs 

(h)(5) and (6) of this section shall be 

notified by NMFS, in writing, that it is 

subject to removal from the list of 

approved monitoring service providers. 

Such notification shall specify the 

reasons for the pending removal. A 

monitoring service provider that has 

received notification that it is subject to 

removal from the list of approved 

monitoring service providers may 

submit written information to rebut the 

reasons for removal from the list. Such 

rebuttal must be submitted within 30 

days of notification received by the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11028 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

monitoring service provider that the 

monitoring service provider is subject to 

removal and must be accompanied by 

written evidence rebutting the basis for 

removal. NMFS shall review 

information rebutting the pending 

removal and shall notify the monitoring 

service provider within 15 days of 

receipt of the rebuttal whether or not the 

removal is warranted. If no response to 

a pending removal is received by NMFS, 

the monitoring service provider shall be 

automatically removed from the list of 

approved monitoring service providers. 

The decision to remove the monitoring 

service provider from the list, either 

after reviewing a rebuttal, or if no 

rebuttal is submitted, shall be the final 

decision of NMFS and the Department 

of Commerce. Removal from the list of 

approved monitoring service providers 

does not necessarily prevent such 

monitoring service provider from 

obtaining an approval in the future if a 

new application is submitted that 

demonstrates that the reasons for 

removal are remedied. Observers and 

monitors under contract with observer 

monitoring service provider that has 

been removed from the list of approved 

service providers must complete their 

assigned duties for any fishing trips on 

which the observers or monitors are 

deployed at the time the monitoring 

service provider is removed from the list 

of approved monitoring service 

providers. A monitoring service 

provider removed from the list of 

approved monitoring service providers 

is responsible for providing NMFS with 

the information required in paragraph 

(h)(5)(vii) of this section following 

completion of the trip. NMFS may 

consider, but is not limited to, the 

following in determining if a monitoring 

service provider may remain on the list 

of approved monitoring service 

providers: 

(i) Failure to meet the requirements, 

conditions, and responsibilities of 

monitoring service providers specified 

in paragraphs (h)(5) and (6) of this 

section; 

(ii) Evidence of conflict of interest as 

defined under paragraph (h)(6) of this 

section; 

(iii) Evidence of criminal convictions 

related to: 

(A) Embezzlement, theft, forgery, 

bribery, falsification or destruction of 

records, making false statements, or 

receiving stolen property; or 

(B) The commission of any other 

crimes of dishonesty, as defined by state 

law or Federal law, that would seriously 

and directly affect the fitness of an 

applicant in providing monitoring 

services under this section; and 

(iv) Unsatisfactory performance 

ratings on any Federal contracts held by 

the applicant; and 

(v) Evidence of any history of 

decertification as either an observer, 

monitor, or monitoring service provider. 

(i) Observer, monitor, or video 

reviewer certification. (1) Requirements. 

To be certified as an observer, or 

monitor, or video reviewer, a 

monitoring service provider employee 

or contractor must meet the criteria in 

paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this 

section for observers, or paragraphs 

(i)(1), (2), and (4) of this section for 

monitors, and paragraphs (i)(1), (2), and 

(5) of this section for video reviewers, 

respectively. In addition, observers must 

meet NMFS National Minimum 

Eligibility Standards for observers 

specified at the National Observer 

Program website: https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/topic/fisheryobservers#become-an-observer. 

(2) Training. In order to provide 

observer or monitor services and be 

deployed on any fishing vessel, a 

candidate observer or monitor must 

have passed an appropriate NMFScertified Observer or Monitor Training 

course and must adhere to all NMFS 

program standards and policies. In order 

to perform electronic monitoring video 

review, a candidate video reviewer must 

have passed an appropriate NMFScertified Video Review Training course 

and must adhere to all NMFS program 

standards and policies. NMFS will 

immediately notify any candidate that 

fails training and the monitoring service 

provider. Observer or monitor training 

may include an observer training trip, as 

part of the observer’s training, aboard a 

fishing vessel with a trainer. Contact 

NMFS for the required number of 

program specific observer and monitor 

training certification trips for full 

certification following training. 

(3) * * * 

(i) Have a valid NMFS fisheries 

observer certification pursuant to 

paragraph (i)(1) of this section; 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) Have a valid NMFS certification 

pursuant to paragraph (i)(1) of this 

section; 

* * * * * 

(5) Video reviewer requirements. All 

video reviewers must: 

(i) Hold a high school diploma or 

legal equivalent; 

(ii) Have a valid NMFS certification 

pursuant to paragraph (i)(1) of this 

section; and 

(iii) Accurately record sampling data, 

write complete reports, and report 

accurately any observations relevant to 

conservation of marine resources or 

their environment. 

(6) Probation and decertification. 

NMFS may review observer, monitor, 

and video reviewer certifications and 

issue observer, monitor, and video 

reviewer certification probations and/or 

decertifications as described in NMFS 

policy. 

(7) Issuance of decertification. Upon 

determination that decertification is 

warranted under paragraph (i)(6) of this 

section, NMFS shall issue a written 

decision to decertify the observer, 

monitor, or video reviewer to the 

observer, monitor, or video reviewer 

and approved monitoring service 

provider via certified mail at the 

observer’s, monitor’s, or video 

reviewer’s most current address 

provided to NMFS. The decision shall 

identify whether a certification is 

revoked and shall identify the specific 

reasons for the action taken. 

Decertification is effective immediately 

as of the date of issuance, unless the 

decertification official notes a 

compelling reason for maintaining 

certification for a specified period and 

under specified conditions. 

Decertification is the final decision of 

NMFS and the Department of Commerce 

and may not be appealed. 

(j) Coverage. In the event that a vessel 

is requested by the Regional 

Administrator to carry a fisheries 

observer pursuant to paragraph (a) of 

this section and is also selected to carry 

an at-sea monitor as part of an approved 

sector at-sea monitoring program 

specified in paragraph (l) of this section 

for the same trip, only the fisheries 

observer is required to go on that 

particular trip. Vessels using electronic 

monitoring to satisfy the groundfish 

sector monitoring program requirement 

must comply with their vessel 

monitoring plan on all trips, including 

a trip that has been selected to carry, or 

a trip that carries, a fisheries observer. 

(k) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) An owner of a scallop vessel 

required to carry an observer under 

paragraph (k)(3) of this section must 

arrange for carrying an observer that has 

passed a NMFS-certified Observer 

Training class certified by NMFS from 

an observer service provider approved 

by NMFS under paragraph (h) of this 

section. The owner, operator, or vessel 

manager of a vessel selected to carry an 

observer must contact the observer 

service provider and must provide at 

least 48-hr notice in advance of the 

fishing trip for the provider to arrange 

for observer deployment for the 

specified trip. The observer service 

provider will notify the vessel owner, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11029 

operator, or manager within 18 hr 

whether they have an available 

observer. A list of approved observer 

service providers shall be posted on the 

NMFS/FSB website: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/data/ 

observer-providers-northeast-and-midatlantic-programs. The observer service 

provider may take up to 48 hr to arrange 

for observer deployment for the 

specified scallop trip. 

(ii) An owner, operator, or vessel 

manager of a vessel that cannot procure 

an observer within 48 hr of the advance 

notification to the provider due to the 

unavailability of an observer may 

request a waiver from NMFS from the 

requirement for observer coverage for 

that trip, but only if the owner, operator, 

or vessel manager has contacted all of 

the available observer service providers 

to secure observer coverage and no 

observer is available. NMFS shall issue 

such a waiver within 24 hr, if the 

conditions of this paragraph (k)(4)(ii) are 

met. A vessel may not begin the trip 

without being issued a waiver. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(1) Groundfish sector monitoring 

program goals and objectives. The 

primary goal of the at-sea/electronic 

monitoring program is to verify area 

fished, as well as catch and discards by 

species and gear type, in the most costeffective means practicable. The 

following goals and objectives of 

groundfish monitoring programs are 

equally-weighted secondary goals by 

which monitoring programs established 

for the NE multispecies are to be 

designed to be consistent with: 

(i) Improve documentation of catch: 

(A) Determine total catch and effort, 

for each sector and common pool, of 

target or regulated species and ocean 

pout; and 

(B) Achieve coverage level sufficient 

to minimize effects of potential 

monitoring bias to the extent possible 

while maintaining as much flexibility as 

possible to enhance fleet viability. 

(ii) Reduce the cost of monitoring: 

(A) Streamline data management and 

eliminate redundancy; 

(B) Explore options for cost-sharing 

and deferment of cost to industry; and 

(C) Recognize opportunity costs of 

insufficient monitoring. 

(iii) Incentivize reducing discards: 

(A) Determine discard rate by smallest 

possible strata while maintaining costeffectiveness; and 

(B) Collect information by gear type to 

accurately calculate discard rates. 

(iv) Provide additional data streams 

for stock assessments: 

(A) Reduce management and/or 

biological uncertainty; and 

(B) Perform biological sampling if it 

may be used to enhance accuracy of 

mortality or recruitment calculations. 

(v) Enhance safety of monitoring 

program. 

(vi) Perform periodic review of 

monitoring program for effectiveness. 

(2) Sector monitoring programs. A 

sector must develop and implement an 

at-sea and/or electronic monitoring 

program that may be approved by NMFS 

as both sufficient to monitor catch, 

discards, and use of sector ACE; and as 

consistent with the sector monitoring 

program goals and objectives. The 

details of any at-sea or electronic 

monitoring program must be specified 

in the sector’s operations plan, pursuant 

to paragraph § 648.87(b)(2)(xi), and must 

meet the operational standards specified 

in paragraph (l)(10) of this section. 

Maximized retention electronic 

monitoring and audit electronic 

monitoring models, meeting the 

requirements in paragraph (l)(10) of this 

section, may be used in place of at-sea 

monitoring to ensure a sector’s 

monitoring programs may be approved. 

Other types of electronic monitoring 

may be used in place of at-sea monitors 

if the technology is deemed sufficient by 

NMFS, in a manner consistent with the 

Administrative Procedure Act, for a 

specific trip type based on gear type and 

area fished. The Regional Administrator 

will approve or disapprove at-sea/ 

electronic programs, including vessel 

monitoring plans, as part of a sector’s 

operations plans in a manner consistent 

with the Administrative Procedure Act. 

(3) Pre-trip notification. For the 

purpose of selecting vessels for observer 

or at-sea monitor deployment, as 

instructed by the Regional 

Administrator, the owner, operator, or 

manager of a vessel (i.e., vessel manager 

or sector manager) issued a limited 

access NE multispecies permit that is 

fishing under a NE multispecies DAS or 

on a sector trip, as defined in this part, 

must provide advance notice to NMFS 

at least 48 hr prior to departing port on 

any trip declared into the NE 

multispecies fishery pursuant to 

§ 648.10 or § 648.85 of the following: 

The vessel name, permit number, and 

sector to which the vessel belongs, if 

applicable; contact name and telephone 

number for coordination of observer or 

at-sea monitor deployment; date, time, 

and port of departure; and the vessel’s 

trip plan, including area to be fished, 

whether a monkfish DAS will be used, 

and gear type to be used, unless 

otherwise specified in this paragraph (l) 

or notified by the Regional 

Administrator. For trips lasting 48 hr or 

less in duration from the time the vessel 

leaves port to begin a fishing trip until 

the time the vessel returns to port upon 

the completion of the fishing trip, the 

vessel owner, operator, or manager may 

make a weekly notification rather than 

trip-by-trip calls. For weekly pre-trip 

notification, a vessel must notify NMFS 

by 0001 hr of the Friday preceding the 

week (Sunday through Saturday) that it 

intends to complete at least one NE 

multispecies DAS or sector trip during 

the following week and provide the 

vessel’s trip-plans for that week, 

including each trip’s date, time, port of 

departure, area to be fished, whether a 

monkfish DAS will be used, and gear 

type to be used. Pre-trip notification 

calls must be made no more than 10 

days in advance of each fishing trip. The 

vessel owner, operator, or manager must 

notify NMFS of any trip plan changes at 

least 24 hr prior to vessel departure 

from port. A vessel may not begin the 

trip without being issued either an 

observer notification, an at-sea monitor 

notification, or a waiver by NMFS. 

(4) Vessel selection for observer or atsea monitor coverage. NMFS shall 

notify the vessel owner, operator, or 

manager whether the vessel must carry 

an observer or at-sea monitor for the 

specified trip within 24 hr of the vessel 

owner’s, operator’s or manager’s pre-trip 

notification of the prospective trip, as 

specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this 

section. All pre-trip notifications shall 

be issued a unique confirmation 

number. A vessel may not fish on a NE 

multispecies DAS or sector trip with an 

observer waiver confirmation number 

that does not match the vessel’s trip 

plan that was called in to NMFS. 

Confirmation numbers and the vessel’s 

observer or observer waiver status for 

pre-trip notification calls remain valid 

for 48 hr from the intended sail date. 

After a trip begins, that trip’s 

confirmation number and observer or 

observer waiver status remains valid 

until the trip ends. If a trip is 

interrupted and the vessel returns to 

port due to bad weather or other 

circumstance beyond the operator’s 

control, the vessel’s observer or observer 

waiver status and confirmation number 

for the interrupted trip remains the 

same if the vessel departs within 48 hr 

from the vessel’s return to port. If the 

layover time is greater than 48 hr, the 

vessel owner, operator, or manager must 

provide a new pre-trip notification. If an 

observer or at-sea monitor is assigned to 

a particular trip, a vessel may not leave 

port without the at-sea monitor on 

board, unless NMFS issues a waiver. If 

a vessel is using electronic monitoring 

to comply with the monitoring 

requirements of this part, it may not 

leave port without an operational 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11030 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

electronic monitoring system on board, 

unless NMFS issues a waiver, or 

assigned other at-sea monitoring 

coverage. 

(5) Sector monitoring coverage levels. 

Coverage levels for an at-sea or 

electronic monitoring program, 

including video review requirements, 

shall be specified by NMFS, pursuant to 

paragraph (l)(5)(i) of this section. 

(i) At-sea monitoring coverage target. 

The at-sea monitoring coverage target 

for the sector monitoring program will 

be set as a percentage of all eligible 

sector trips based on available federal 

funding for NMFS and industry cost 

responsibilities as defined in paragraph 

(g)(3) of this section. Sectors are 

responsible for industry costs for at-sea 

monitoring coverage up to the coverage 

target for all trips not observed by a 

Northeast Fishery Observer Program 

observer. In fishing years 2022, 2023, 

2024, and 2025, the ASM coverage 

target will be set at the highest level that 

available federal funding for NMFS and 

industry cost responsibilities supports, 

up to 100 percent of trips. Beginning in 

fishing year 2026, the target coverage 

will be set at 40 percent of trips, unless 

replaced by the Council after a review, 

as detailed in paragraph (l)(5)(v) of this 

section. In the absence of available 

federal funds sufficient to fund both 

NMFS costs and industry costs 

associated with a coverage target of at 

least 40 percent of all sector trips, 

sectors must pay the industry’s costs for 

coverage necessary to achieve a 40- 

percent coverage target. As an example, 

if, after paying NMFS costs, available 

federal funding is sufficient only to fund 

industry costs for 15-percent coverage, 

sectors must pay the industry costs for 

the remaining 25-percent coverage to 

achieve a 40-percent coverage target. 

Any coverage provided by the Northeast 

Fisheries Observer Program through 

deployment of an observer would be 

deducted from the industry’s cost 

responsibility. To ensure coverage is 

both sufficient to monitor sector catch, 

discards, and sector ACE; and consistent 

with sector monitoring goals and 

objectives, at-sea monitoring coverage 

may be higher than the at-sea 

monitoring coverage target, up to 100 

percent of all eligible trips, if available 

federal funding is sufficient for NMFS 

and industry cost responsibilities, 

respectively. NMFS will announce the 

coverage target at least 3 weeks before 

the annual sector enrollment deadline 

set by NMFS, if federal funding 

information is available. 

(ii) Gear-based exclusion from the atsea monitoring program. A sector vessel 

that notifies NMFS of its intent to 

exclusively fish using gillnets with a 

mesh size of 10-inch (25.4-cm) or greater 

in either the Inshore GB Stock Area, as 

defined at § 648.10(k)(3)(ii), and/or the 

SNE Broad Stock Area, as defined at 

§ 648.10(k)(3)(iv), is not subject to the 

coverage level for at-sea monitoring 

specified in § 648.11(l)(5)(i) provided 

that the trip is limited to the Inshore GB 

and/or SNE Broad Stock Areas and that 

the vessel only uses gillnets with a mesh 

size of 10-inches (25.4-cm) or greater. 

When on such a trip, other gear may be 

on board provided that it is stowed and 

not available for immediate use as 

defined in § 648.2. A sector trip fishing 

with 10-inch (25.4-cm) mesh or larger 

gillnets will still be subject to at-sea 

monitoring coverage if the trip declares 

its intent to fish in any part of the trip 

in the GOM Stock area, as defined at 

§ 648.10(k)(3)(i), or the Offshore GB 

Stock Area, as defined at 

§ 648.10(k)(3)(iii). Vessels using 

electronic monitoring to satisfy the 

sector monitoring requirement must 

have their system turned on and comply 

with their vessel monitoring plan on all 

trips, including a trip that is limited to 

the Inshore GB and/or SNE Broad Stock 

Areas where the vessel only uses 

gillnets with a mesh size of 10-inches 

(25.4-cm) or greater. 

(iii) Geographic exclusion from the atsea monitoring program. Vessels fishing 

exclusively west of 71 degrees 30 

minutes west longitude on a sector trip 

are excluded from the requirement to 

carry an at-sea monitor. Vessels on a trip 

excluded from the at-sea monitoring 

requirement under this provision must 

comply with the VMS declaration 

requirements at § 648.10(g)(3), and the 

transiting requirements at § 648.81(e) 

when east of 71 degrees 30 minutes. 

Vessels using electronic monitoring to 

satisfy the sector monitoring 

requirement must have their system 

turned on and comply with their vessel 

monitoring plan on all trips, including 

trips fishing exclusively west of 71 

degrees 30 minutes west longitude. 

(iv) Waivers. In addition to the safety 

waivers in § 648.11(c), NMFS may issue 

a waiver for a sector trip exempting the 

vessel from the sector monitoring 

program coverage requirements for the 

following reasons. 

(A) Funding waivers. NMFS will issue 

a waiver for a sector trip exempting the 

vessel from the sector monitoring 

program coverage requirements if 

coverage is unavailable due to 

insufficient funding for NMFS cost 

responsibilities as defined in paragraph 

(g)(3) of this section. 

(B) Logistics waivers. NMFS may issue 

a waiver for a sector trip exempting the 

vessel from the sector monitoring 

program coverage requirements for 

logistical and technical reasons, 

including, but not limited to: No 

monitor is available; the assigned 

observer is unable to make the trip; the 

trip will have no fishing effort; and 

electronic monitoring system technical 

problems. 

(C) Set-only trip waivers. Vessels on a 

set-only trip, as defined at § 648.2, are 

excluded from the groundfish sector 

monitoring program requirements in 

§ 648.11(l). If a vessel is using electronic 

monitoring to comply with the 

monitoring requirements of this part, 

that vessel may turn off its cameras on 

a set-only trip. 

(v) Review of exclusions from the atsea monitoring program. A Council 

review of the exclusions from the at-sea 

monitoring program in § 648.11(l)(5)(ii) 

and (iii) will evaluate whether the 

exclusions continue to meet the intent 

of the Council to exclude trips with 

little catch of regulated species and 

ocean pout. The review will be 

conducted using complete data from 2 

fishing years once the data are available 

(fishing years 2022 and 2023) and every 

3 years after the initial review. 

(6) Groundfish sector monitoring 

program review. A Council review of the 

NE multispecies monitoring program 

will evaluate whether the monitoring 

program is meeting the goal of improved 

accuracy of catch data, while 

maximizing value and minimizing costs 

of the program, using complete data 

from 2 fishing years once the data are 

available (fishing years 2022 and 2023) 

and periodically after the initial review. 

The review process should be flexible 

and general, and include establishing 

metrics and indicators of how well the 

monitoring program improved accuracy 

while maximizing value and 

minimizing costs. 

(7) Hail reports. For the purposes of 

the monitoring requirements specified 

in paragraph (l)(2) of this section, sector 

vessels must submit all hail reports for 

a sector trip in which the NE 

multispecies catch applies against the 

ACE allocated to a sector, as specified 

in this part, to their respective 

contracted monitoring service providers. 

The mechanism and timing of the 

transmission of such hail reports must 

be consistent with instructions provided 

by the Regional Administrator for any 

at-sea or electronic monitoring program 

required by paragraph (l)(2) of this 

section, or specified in the annual sector 

operations plan, consistent with 

§ 648.87(b)(5). 

(8) Notification of monitoring service 

provider change. If, for any reason, a 

sector decides to change approved 

service providers used to provide at-sea 

or electronic monitoring services 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11031 

required in paragraph (l)(2) of this 

section, the sector manager must first 

inform NMFS in writing in advance of 

the effective date of the change in 

approved monitoring service providers 

in conjunction with the submission of 

the next weekly sector catch report 

specified in § 648.87(b)(1)(v)(B). A 

sector may use more than one 

monitoring service provider at any time, 

provided any monitoring service 

provider employed by or contracted 

with a sector meets the standards 

specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section. 

(9) Discards. A sector vessel may not 

discard any legal-sized regulated species 

or ocean pout allocated to sectors 

pursuant to § 648.87(b)(1)(i), unless 

otherwise required pursuant to 

§ 648.86(l). Discards of undersized 

regulated species or ocean pout by a 

sector vessel must be reported to NMFS 

consistent with the reporting 

requirements specified in 

§ 648.87(b)(1)(v). Discards shall not be 

included in the information used to 

calculate a vessel’s PSC, as described in 

§ 648.87(b)(1)(i)(E), but shall be counted 

against a sector’s ACE for each regulated 

species allocated to a sector. 

(10) Sector monitoring program 

operational standards. In addition to the 

monitoring service provider standards 

specified in paragraph (h)(5) of this 

section, any at-sea/electronic 

monitoring program developed as part 

of a sector’s yearly operations plan 

pursuant to paragraph (l)(2) of this 

section must meet the following 

operational standards to be approved by 

NMFS: 

(i) Vessel requirements. (A) Electronic 

monitoring system requirements. A 

vessel owner or operator using 

electronic monitoring to meet sector 

monitoring requirements must do the 

following: 

(1) Ensure that the electronic 

monitoring system is fully operational 

for every sector trip, which means it is 

operating, recording, and retaining the 

recording for the duration of every trip. 

A vessel may not fish without a fully 

operational electronic monitoring 

system, unless issued a waiver by NMFS 

for that trip; 

(2) Conduct a system check of the 

electronic monitoring system prior to 

departing on a fishing trip. An 

electronic monitoring system check 

must show that the electronic 

monitoring system is fully operational 

and there is sufficient video storage 

capacity to retain the recording of the 

entire fishing trip; 

(3) Maintain clear and unobstructed 

camera views at all times. Ensure 

lighting is sufficient in all 

circumstances to illuminate catch so 

that catch and discards are visible and 

may be identified and quantified as 

required; and 

(4) Ensure no person tampers with, 

disconnects, or destroys any part of the 

electronic monitoring system, associated 

equipment, or recorded data. 

(B) Vessel monitoring plan 

requirements for electronic monitoring 

vessels. A vessel must have a NMFSapproved vessel monitoring plan to use 

electronic monitoring to meet sector 

monitoring requirements. The vessel 

monitoring plan describes how an 

electronic monitoring system is 

configured on a particular vessel and 

how fishing operations must be 

conducted to effectively monitor catch. 

(1) The vessel monitoring plan must 

be onboard the vessel at all times. 

(2) The vessel owner, operator and 

crew must comply with all catch 

handling protocols and other 

requirements described in the vessel 

monitoring plan, including sorting catch 

and processing any discards within 

view of the cameras and consistent with 

the vessel monitoring plan. 

(3) Modifications to any vessel 

monitoring plan must be approved by 

NMFS prior to such vessel fishing under 

the conditions of the new vessel 

monitoring plan. 

(4) A vessel owner or operator using 

electronic monitoring to meet sector 

monitoring requirements must submit 

all electronic monitoring data to the 

monitoring service provider in 

accordance with the electronic 

monitoring program requirements in 

§ 648.11, or as otherwise instructed by 

the Regional Administrator. 

(5) A vessel owner or operator must 

make the electronic monitoring system, 

associated equipment, electronic 

monitoring data, or vessel monitoring 

plan available to NMFS for inspection, 

upon request. 

(6) A vessel owner or operator using 

electronic monitoring to meet sector 

monitoring requirements must turn on 

its camera for 100 percent of sector 

trips. 

(7) A vessel owner or operator using 

electronic monitoring to meet sector 

monitoring requirements must comply 

with the requirements in 

§ 648.11(l)(10)(ii)(B) or the Regional 

Administrator may withdraw approval 

for the vessel to use electronic 

monitoring. 

(8) The Regional Administrator may 

revise vessel monitoring plan 

requirements and approval standards 

consistent with the Administrative 

Procedure Act. Any revisions will be 

published on the agency’s website. 

(C) Safety hazards. The operator of a 

sector vessel must detail and identify 

any safety hazards to any at-sea monitor 

assigned pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(5)(iii)(B)(1) of this section prior to 

leaving port. A vessel may not begin a 

trip if it has failed a review of safety 

issues pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(5)(iv)(B) of this section, until the 

identified safety deficiency has been 

resolved, pursuant to § 600.746(i). 

(D) Dockside monitoring. Vessels 

using maximized retention electronic 

monitoring must participate in either an 

independent third party dockside 

monitoring program approved by 

NMFS, or the dockside monitoring 

program operated by NMFS, as 

instructed by NMFS. 

(E) Retention of fish. Vessels using 

maximized retention electronic 

monitoring must retain all fish from 

each allocated regulated species, 

regardless of length. 

(ii) Sector monitoring plan monitoring 

service provider requirements. In 

addition to the monitoring service 

provider standards in paragraph (h) of 

this section, sector monitoring plans 

must include the following operational 

requirements for any monitoring 

provider contracted to meet sector 

monitoring program requirements in 

this paragraph (l): 

(A) At-sea monitoring report. Within 

48 hours of the completion of a trip, or 

as otherwise instructed by the Regional 

Administrator, electronic submission to 

NMFS and the sector a report detailing 

the area fished and the amount of each 

species kept and discarded. A standard 

format for submission shall be specified 

by NMFS and distributed to all 

monitoring service providers and 

sectors. NMFS will accept only 

monitoring data that passes automated 

NMFS data quality checks. 

(B) Electronic monitoring report. A 

report detailing area fished and the 

amount of each species discarded must 

be submitted electronically in a 

standard acceptable form to the 

appropriate sector and NMFS within 10 

business days of a trip being selected for 

video review, or as otherwise instructed 

by the Regional Administrator. The 

format for submission shall be specified 

by NMFS and distributed to all 

monitoring service providers and 

sectors. NMFS will accept only 

monitoring data that passes automated 

NMFS data quality checks. 

(C) Vessel feedback report. A report 

must be submitted to the vessel owner 

following a trip with detailed feedback 

on the vessel operator’s and crew’s 

catch handling, camera maintenance, 

and vessel monitoring plan compliance. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11032 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

A copy must be submitted to NMFS 

upon request. 

(D) Safety hazards. Completion by an 

at-sea monitor of a pre-trip vessel safety 

checklist provided by NMFS before an 

at-sea monitor can leave port onboard a 

vessel on a sector trip. If the vessel fails 

a review of safety issues pursuant to this 

paragraph (l)(10)(ii)(E), an at-sea 

monitor cannot be deployed on that 

vessel for that trip. 

(E) Gear. Provision of all equipment 

specified by the Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center to each at-sea monitor 

before the at-sea monitor may be 

deployed on a vessel. A list of such 

equipment is available from the 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center upon 

request. This gear shall be inspected by 

NMFS upon the completion of training 

required pursuant to paragraph (i)(2) of 

this section. 

(F) Adjustment to service provider 

requirements and approval standards. 

The Regional Administrator may revise 

monitoring service provider 

requirements and approval standards 

consistent with the Administrative 

Procedure Act. 

(iii) Sector requirements. Each sector 

shall monitor catch by participating 

sector vessels to ensure that ACEs are 

not exceeded during the fishing year, as 

specified in this paragraph (l)(10)(iii). 

The sector shall summarize trips 

validated by dealer reports; oversee the 

use of electronic monitoring equipment 

and review of associated data; maintain 

a database of VTR, dealer, observer, and 

electronic monitoring reports; determine 

all species landings by stock areas; 

apply discard estimates to landings; 

deduct catch from ACEs allocated to 

sectors; and report sector catch on a 

weekly basis to NMFS, as required in 

paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section. 

Unless otherwise specified in this 

paragraph (l)(10), all catches of stocks 

allocated to sectors by vessels on a 

sector trip shall be deducted from the 

sector’s ACE for each regulated species 

stock regardless of the fishery the vessel 

was participating in when the fish was 

caught. For the purposes of this 

paragraph (l)(10), any regulated species 

or ocean pout caught using gear capable 

of catching NE multispecies (i.e., gear 

not listed as exempted gear under this 

part) would be deducted from a sector’s 

ACE if such catch contributed to the 

specification of PSC, as described in 

§ 648.87(b)(1)(i)(E), and would not apply 

to another ACL sub-component 

pursuant to § 648.90(a)(4). For example, 

any regulated species or ocean pout 

landed while fishing for or catching 

skates or monkfish pursuant to the 

regulations for those fisheries would be 

deducted from the sector’s ACE for each 

stock because such regulated species or 

ocean pout were caught while also 

operating under a NE multispecies DAS. 

However, for example, if a sector vessel 

is issued a limited access General 

Category Atlantic Sea Scallop permit 

and fishes for scallops under the 

provisions specific to that permit, any 

yellowtail flounder caught by the vessel 

on such trips would be deducted from 

the appropriate non-groundfish 

component, such as the other subcomponent or the appropriate yellowtail 

flounder stock’s ACL specified for the 

Atlantic Sea Scallop fishery and not 

from the yellowtail flounder ACE for the 

sector. 

(iv) Dealer requirements. Federally 

permitted NE multispecies dealers must 

allow dockside monitors access to their 

premises, scales, and any fish received 

from vessels participating in the 

maximized retention electronic 

monitoring program for the purpose of 

collecting fish species and weights of 

fish received by the dealer, fish length 

measurements, and the collection of age 

structures such as otoliths or scales. 

(A) Facilitation. Federally permitted 

NE multispecies dealers must facilitate 

dockside monitoring for vessels 

participating in a maximized retention 

electronic monitoring program, 

including, but not limited to, the 

following requirements: 

(1) Provide a safe sampling station, 

including shelter from weather, for 

dockside monitors to conduct their 

duties and process catch, that is 

equivalent to the accommodations 

provided to the dealer’s staff. 

(2) Allow dockside monitors access to 

bathrooms equivalent to the 

accommodations provided to the 

dealer’s staff. 

(3) Allow dockside monitors access to 

any facilities for washing equipment 

with fresh water that are provided to the 

dealer’s staff. 

(B) Processing, sorting, labeling, and 

reporting. Federally permitted NE 

multispecies dealers must process fish 

for vessels participating in a maximized 

retention electronic monitoring program 

consistent with and including, but not 

limited to, the following requirements: 

(1) Offload from vessels participating 

in the maximized retention monitoring 

program all fish below the minimum 

size specified at § 648.83 before other 

fish that meet the minimum size, sort 

the undersized fish by species, and 

provide the dockside monitor access to 

those at the safe sampling station. 

(2) Sort by species all redfish, 

haddock, and pollock, except that fish 

of the same species below the minimum 

size specified at § 648.83 may be mixed 

with the same species of fish in the 

smallest market category. 

(3) Sort by species all unmarketable 

fish from other fish, when identifiable to 

species. 

(4) Clearly identify, mark, or label all 

containers with fish below the 

minimum size specified in § 648.83 as 

containing undersized fish, the fishing 

vessel from which they were offloaded, 

and the date of offloading. 

(5) Report all fish below the minimum 

size specified in § 648.83, and all 

unmarketable fish, as instructed by 

NMFS. 

(v) Adjustment to operational 

standards. The at-sea/electronic 

monitoring operational standards 

specified in paragraph (l)(10) of this 

section may be revised by the Regional 

Administrator in a manner consistent 

with the Administrative Procedure Act. 

(m) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) In addition to the requirement for 

any vessel holding an Atlantic herring 

permit to carry an observer described in 

paragraph (a) of this section, vessels 

issued a Category A or B Herring Permit 

are subject to industry-funded 

monitoring (IFM) requirements on 

declared Atlantic herring trips, unless 

the vessel is carrying an observer to 

fulfill Standard Bycatch Reporting 

Methodology requirements. An owner of 

a midwater trawl vessel, required to 

carry an observer when fishing in 

Northeast Multispecies Closed Areas at 

§ 648.202(b), may purchase an IFM high 

volume fisheries (HVF) observer to 

access Closed Areas on a trip-by-trip 

basis. General requirements for IFM 

programs in New England Council 

FMPs are specified in paragraph (g) of 

this section. Possible IFM monitoring 

for the Atlantic herring fishery includes 

observers, at-sea monitors, and 

electronic monitoring and portside 

samplers, as defined in § 648.2. 

* * * * * 

(v) To provide the required IFM 

coverage aboard declared Atlantic 

herring trips, observers and monitors 

must hold a high volume fisheries 

certification from NMFS. 

(2) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(A) For IFM observer coverage aboard 

vessels fishing with midwater trawl gear 

to access the Northeast Multispecies 

Closed Areas, consistent with 

requirements at § 648.202(b), at any 

point during the trip; 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) An owner of an Atlantic herring 

vessel required to have monitoring 

under paragraph (m)(3) of this section 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11033 

must arrange for monitoring by an 

observer from a monitoring service 

provider approved by NMFS under 

paragraph (h) of this section. The owner, 

operator, or vessel manager of a vessel 

selected for monitoring must contact a 

monitoring service provider prior to the 

beginning of the trip and the monitoring 

service provider will notify the vessel 

owner, operator, or manager whether 

monitoring is available. A list of 

approved monitoring service providers 

shall be posted on the NMFS website: 

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

resource/data/observer-providersnortheast-and-mid-atlantic-programs. 

* * * * * 

(6) Sampling requirements for 

observers and monitors. In addition to 

the requirements at § 648.11(d)(1) 

through (7), an owner or operator of a 

vessel issued a limited access herring 

permit on which an observer or monitor 

is embarked must provide observers or 

monitors: 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(2) Sampling requirements for limited 

access Atlantic mackerel and longfin 

squid/butterfish moratorium permit 

holders. In addition to the requirements 

in paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this 

section, an owner or operator of a vessel 

issued a limited access Atlantic 

mackerel or longfin squid/butterfish 

moratorium permit on which an 

observer is embarked must provide 

observers: 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 648.14 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(7), (e), and 

(i)(1)(ix)(B); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (k)(2)(vii); and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (k)(3), 

(k)(14)(ix) through (xiii), and (r)(2)(v). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 648.14 Prohibitions. 

(a) * * * 

(7) Possess, import, export, transfer, 

land, or have custody or control of any 

species of fish regulated pursuant to this 

part that do not meet the minimum size 

provisions in this part, unless such 

species were harvested exclusively 

within state waters by a vessel that does 

not hold a valid permit under this part, 

or are species included in the NE 

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan 

that were either harvested by a vessel 

participating in the maximized retention 

electronic monitoring program 

consistent with § 648.11(l)(10)(i)(E) or 

harvested by a vessel issued a valid 

High Seas Fishing Compliance permit 

that fished exclusively in the NAFO 

Regulatory Area. 

* * * * * 

(e) Observer program. It is unlawful 

for any person to do any of the 

following: 

(1) Assault, resist, oppose, impede, 

harass, intimidate, or interfere with or 

bar by command, impediment, threat, or 

coercion any observer or monitor 

conducting his or her duties; any 

electronic monitoring provider staff who 

collects data required under this part; 

any authorized officer conducting any 

search, inspection, investigation, or 

seizure in connection with enforcement 

of this part; any official designee of the 

Regional Administrator conducting his 

or her duties, including those duties 

authorized in §§ 648.7(g) and 

648.11(l)(10)(v). 

(2) Refuse monitoring coverage by an 

observer or monitor if selected for 

monitoring coverage by the Regional 

Administrator or the Regional 

Administrator’s designee. 

(3) Fail to provide information, 

notification, accommodations, access, or 

reasonable assistance to either an 

observer, monitor, or electronic 

monitoring provider staff conducting his 

or her duties as specified in § 648.11. 

(4) Submit false or inaccurate data, 

statements, or reports. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ix) * * * 

(B) Fail to provide information, 

notification, accommodations, access, or 

reasonable assistance to an observer 

conducting his or her duties aboard a 

vessel, as specified in § 648.11. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(vii) Fish under a waiver from the 

groundfish sector monitoring program 

issued under § 648.11(l)(5)(ii) or (iii) 

without complying with the VMS 

declaration requirements at 

§ 648.10(g)(3) and the pre-trip 

notification requirements at 

§ 648.11(l)(1). 

(3) Dealer requirements. It is unlawful 

for any person to: 

(i) Purchase, possess, import, export, 

or receive as a dealer, or in the capacity 

of a dealer, regulated species or ocean 

pout in excess of the possession limits 

specified in §§ 648.82, 648.85, 648.86, 

or 648.87 applicable to a vessel issued 

a NE multispecies permit, unless 

otherwise specified in § 648.17, or 

unless the regulated species or ocean 

pout are purchased or received from a 

vessel that caught them on a sector trip 

and such species are exempt from such 

possession limits in accordance with an 

approved sector operations plan, as 

specified in § 648.87(c). 

(ii) Sell or transfer to another person 

for a commercial purpose, other than 

solely for transport on land, any NE 

multispecies harvested from the EEZ by 

a vessel issued a Federal NE 

multispecies permit, unless the 

transferee has a valid NE multispecies 

dealer permit. 

(iii) Purchase, possess, import, export, 

or receive as a dealer, or in the capacity 

of a dealer, regulated species or ocean 

pout from a vessel participating in the 

maximized retention electronic 

monitoring program in § 648.11(l) 

unless the offload of catch was observed 

by a dockside monitor or NMFS issued 

a waiver from dockside monitoring for 

the trip. 

(iv) Assault, resist, oppose, impede, 

harass, intimidate, or interfere with or 

bar by command, impediment, threat, or 

coercion any observer or monitor 

conducting his or her duties or any 

electronic monitoring provider staff who 

collects data required under this part. 

(v) Impede a dockside monitors’ 

access to their premises, scales, and any 

fish received from vessels participating 

in the maximized retention electronic 

monitoring program; fail to facilitate 

dockside monitoring for vessels 

participating in a maximized retention 

electronic monitoring program; or fail to 

process, sort, label, and report fish from 

vessels participating in the maximized 

retention monitoring program, as 

required in § 648.11(l)(10)(iv). 

* * * * * 

(14) * * * 

(ix) Fail to comply with the reporting 

requirements specified in 

§ 648.11(l)(10)(iii) and § 648.87(b)(1)(v). 

(x) Leave port to begin a trip before an 

at-sea monitor has arrived and boarded 

the vessel if assigned to carry an at-sea 

monitor for that trip, or without an 

operational electronic monitoring 

system installed on board, as specified 

in §§ 648.11(l)(3) and (l)(10)(i). 

(xi) Leave port to begin a trip if a 

vessel has failed a review of safety 

issues by an at-sea monitor and has not 

successfully resolved any identified 

safety deficiencies, as prohibited by 

§ 648.11(l)(10)(i)(C). 

(xii) Fail to comply with the 

electronic monitoring system 

requirements as specified in 

§ 648.11(l)(10)(i)(A), including, but not 

limited to: Ensuring the electronic 

monitoring system is fully operational; 

conducting a system check of the 

electronic monitoring system; ensuring 

camera views are unobstructed and 

clear; and ensuring that no person 

tampers with the electronic monitoring 

system. 

(xiii) Fail to comply with the vessel 

monitoring plan requirements as 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11034 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

specified in § 648.11(l)(10)(i)(B), 

including, but not limited to: Carrying 

the vessel monitoring plan onboard the 

vessel at all times; complying with all 

catch handling protocols and other 

requirements in the vessel monitoring 

plan; submitting electronic monitoring 

data as required; and making the 

electronic monitoring system available 

to NMFS for inspection upon request. 

* * * * * 

(r) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(v) Fish with midwater trawl gear in 

any Northeast Multispecies Closed Area, 

as defined in § 648.81(a)(3) through (5) 

and (c)(3) and (4), without an observer 

on board, if the vessel has been issued 

an Atlantic herring permit. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 648.51 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (e)(3)(iii) 

to read as follows: 

§ 648.51 Gear and crew restrictions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) An at-sea observer is on board, as 

required by § 648.11(k). 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iii) An at-sea observer is on board, as 

required by § 648.11(k). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 648.80 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d)(3) and (e)(2)(ii) 

to read as follows: 

§ 648.80 NE Multispecies regulated mesh 

areas and restrictions on gear and methods 

of fishing. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) The vessel carries an observer, if 

requested by the Regional 

Administrator; 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) The vessel carries an observer, if 

requested by the Regional 

Administrator; 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 648.83 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 648.83 Multispecies minimum fish sizes. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Minimum fish sizes for 

recreational vessels and charter/party 

vessels that are not fishing under a NE 

multispecies DAS are specified in 

§ 648.89. Except as provided in 

§ 648.11(l)(10)(i)(E) and § 648.17, all 

other vessels are subject to the following 

minimum fish sizes, determined by total 

length (TL): 

MINIMUM FISH SIZES (TL) FOR

COMMERCIAL VESSELS

Species Size in inches 

Cod ........................................ 19 (48.3 cm). 

Haddock ................................ 16 (40.6 cm). 

Pollock ................................... 19 (48.3 cm). 

Witch flounder (gray sole) ..... 13 (33 cm). 

Yellowtail flounder ................. 12 (30.5 cm). 

American plaice (dab) ........... 12 (30.5 cm). 

Atlantic halibut ....................... 41 (104.1 cm). 

Winter flounder (blackback) .. 12 (30.5 cm). 

Redfish .................................. 7 (17.8 cm). 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 648.85 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(1)(viii)(C) to read 

as follows: 

§ 648.85 Special management programs. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(viii) * * * 

(C) Administration of Thresholds. (1) 

For the purpose of determining a 

sector’s monthly redfish landings 

threshold performance described in 

paragraph (e)(1)(viii)(A)(1) of this 

section and the annual redfish landings 

threshold described in paragraph 

(e)(1)(viii)(B)(1) of this section, landings 

of allocated regulated species by vessels 

participating in a maximized retention 

electronic monitoring program 

consistent with § 648.11(l), including 

landings of allocated stocks below the 

minimum size at § 648.83(a)(1), will be 

counted as landings and not discards. 

(2) For the purpose of determining a 

sector’s monthly discards threshold 

performance described in paragraph 

(e)(1)(viii)(A)(2) of this section, a trip by 

a vessel participating in a maximized 

retention electronic monitoring program 

consistent with § 648.11(l) will be 

excluded from evaluation of the 

monthly discard threshold. 

(3) If a sector fails to meet the 

monthly redfish landings threshold or 

the monthly discards threshold 

described in paragraphs (e)(1)(viii)(A)(1) 

and (2) of this section for four or more 

months total, or three or more 

consecutive months, in a fishing year, 

the Regional Administrator shall 

prohibit all vessels in that sector from 

fishing under the provisions of the 

Redfish Exemption Program for the 

remainder of the fishing year, and place 

the sector and its vessels in a 

probationary status for one fishing year 

beginning the following fishing year. 

(4) If a sector fails to meet the annual 

redfish landings threshold described in 

paragraph (e)(1)(viii)(B)(1) of this 

section in a fishing year, the Regional 

Administrator shall place the sector and 

its vessels in a probationary status for 

one fishing year beginning the following 

fishing year. 

(5) While in probationary status as 

described in paragraph (e)(1)(viii)(C)(3) 

or (4) of this section, if the sector fails 

to meet the monthly redfish landings 

threshold or the monthly discards 

threshold described in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(viii)(A)(1) and (2) of this section 

for four or more months total, or three 

or more consecutive months, in that 

fishing year, the Regional Administrator 

shall prohibit all vessels in that sector 

from fishing under the provisions of the 

Redfish Exemption Program for the 

remainder of the fishing year and the 

following fishing year. 

(6) If a sector fails to meet the annual 

redfish landings threshold in 

(e)(1)(viii)(B)(1) of this section for any 

fishing year during which the sector is 

in a probationary status as described in 

paragraph (e)(1)(viii)(C)(3) or (4) of this 

section, the Regional Administrator 

shall prohibit all vessels in that sector 

from fishing under the provisions of the 

Redfish Exemption Program for the 

following fishing year. 

(7) The Regional Administrator may 

determine a sector has failed to meet 

required monthly or annual thresholds 

described in paragraphs (e)(1)(viii)(A) 

and (B) of this section using available 

information including, but not limited 

to, vessel declarations and notifications, 

vessel trip reports, dealer reports, and 

observer and electronic monitoring 

records. 

(8) The Regional Administrator shall 

notify a sector of a failure to meet the 

required monthly or annual thresholds 

and the sector’s vessels prohibition or 

probation status consistent with the 

provisions in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(viii)(C)(1) through (7) of this 

section. The Regional Administrator 

shall also make administrative 

amendments to the approved sector 

operations plan and issue sector vessel 

letters of authorization consistent with 

the provisions in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(viii)(C)(1) through (7) of this 

section. These administrative 

amendments may be made during a 

fishing year or during the sector 

operations plan and sector contract 

approval process. 

(9) A sector may request in writing 

that the Regional Administrator review 

and reverse a determination made under 

the provisions of this section within 30 

days of the date of the Regional 

Administrator’s determination. Any 

such request must be based on 

information showing the sector 

complied with the required thresholds, 

including, but not limited to, landing, 

discard, observer or electronic 

monitoring records. The Regional 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11035 

Administrator will review and maintain 

or reverse the determination and notify 

the sector of this decision in writing. 

Any determination resulting from a 

review conducted under this provision 

is final and may not be reviewed 

further. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 648.86 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 648.86 NE Multispecies possession 

restrictions. 

Except as provided in § 648.11(l), 

§ 648.17, or elsewhere in this part, the 

following possession restrictions apply: 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(1) Haddock incidental catch cap. 

When the Regional Administrator has 

determined that the incidental catch 

allowance for a given haddock stock, as 

specified in § 648.90(a)(4)(iii)(D), has 

been caught, no vessel issued an 

Atlantic herring permit and fishing with 

midwater trawl gear in the applicable 

stock area, i.e., the Herring GOM 

Haddock Accountability Measure (AM) 

Area or Herring GB Haddock AM Area, 

as defined in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A)(2) 

and (3) of this section, may fish for, 

possess, or land herring in excess of 

2,000 lb (907.2 kg) per trip in or from 

that area, unless all herring possessed 

and landed by the vessel were caught 

outside the applicable AM Area and the 

vessel’s gear is stowed and not available 

for immediate use as defined in § 648.2 

while transiting the AM Area. Upon this 

determination, the haddock possession 

limit is reduced to 0 lb (0 kg) for a vessel 

issued a Federal Atlantic herring permit 

and fishing with midwater trawl gear or 

for a vessel issued a Category A or B 

Herring Permit fishing on a declared 

herring trip, regardless of area fished or 

gear used, in the applicable AM area, 

unless the vessel also possesses a NE 

multispecies permit and is operating on 

a declared (consistent with § 648.10(g)) 

NE multispecies trip. In making this 

determination, the Regional 

Administrator shall use haddock 

catches observed by observers or 

monitors by herring vessel trips using 

midwater trawl gear in Management 

Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3, as defined in 

§ 648.200(f)(1) and (3), expanded to an 

estimate of total haddock catch for all 

such trips in a given haddock stock area. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 648.87 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(1) 

introductory text, and (b)(1)(v) through 

(viii); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (b)(1)(ix); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(2) and (3); 

and 

■ d. Removing paragraphs (b)(4) and (5). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 648.87 Sector allocation. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) All sectors approved under the 

provisions of paragraph (a) of this 

section must submit the documents 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(2), and 

(3) of this section, comply with the 

conditions and restrictions of this 

paragraph (b)(1), and comply with the 

groundfish sector monitoring program 

in § 648.11(l). 

* * * * * 

(v) Sector reporting requirements. In 

addition to the other reporting/ 

recordkeeping requirements specified in 

this part, a sector’s vessels must comply 

with the reporting requirements 

specified in this paragraph (b)(1)(v). 

(A) VMS declarations and trip-level 

catch reports. Prior to each sector trip, 

a sector vessel must declare into broad 

stock areas in which the vessel fishes 

and submit the VTR serial number 

associated with that trip pursuant to 

§ 648.10(k). The sector vessel must also 

submit a VMS catch report detailing 

regulated species and ocean pout catch 

by statistical area when fishing in 

multiple broad stock areas on the same 

trip, pursuant to § 648.10(k). 

(B) Weekly catch report. Each sector 

must submit weekly reports to NMFS 

stating the remaining balance of ACE 

allocated to each sector based upon 

regulated species and ocean pout 

landings and discards of vessels 

participating in that sector and any 

compliance/enforcement concerns. 

These reports must include at least the 

following information, as instructed by 

the Regional Administrator: Week 

ending date; species, stock area, gear, 

number of trips, reported landings 

(landed pounds and live pounds), 

discards (live pounds), total catch (live 

pounds), status of the sector’s ACE 

(pounds remaining and percent 

remaining), and whether this is a new 

or updated record of sector catch for 

each regulated species stock allocated to 

that particular sector; sector 

enforcement issues; and a list of vessels 

landing for that reporting week. These 

weekly catch reports must be submitted 

no later than 0700 hr on the second 

Monday after the reporting week, as 

defined in this part. The frequency of 

these reports must be increased to more 

than a weekly submission when the 

balance of remaining ACE is low, as 

specified in the sector operations plan 

and approved by NMFS. If requested, 

sectors must provide detailed trip-bytrip catch data to NMFS for the 

purposes of auditing sector catch 

monitoring data based upon guidance 

provided by the Regional Administrator. 

(C) Year-end report. An approved 

sector must submit an annual year-end 

report to NMFS and the Council, no 

later than 60 days after the end of the 

fishing year, that summarizes the fishing 

activities of participating permits/ 

vessels, which must include at least the 

following information: Catch, including 

landings and discards, of all species by 

sector vessels; the permit number of 

each sector vessel that fished for 

regulated species or ocean pout; the 

number of vessels that fished for nonregulated species or ocean pout; the 

method used to estimate discards by 

sector vessels; the landing port used by 

sector vessels; enforcement actions; and 

other relevant information required to 

evaluate the biological, economic, and 

social impacts of sectors and their 

fishing operations consistent with 

confidentiality requirements of 

applicable law. 

(D) Streamlining sector reporting 

requirements. The reporting/ 

recordkeeping requirements specified in 

§ 648.11(l) and this paragraph (b)(1)(v) 

may be revised by the Regional 

Administrator in a manner consistent 

with the Administrative Procedure Act. 

(vi) Interaction with other fisheries. 

(A) Use of DAS. A sector vessel must 

comply with all measures specified for 

another fishery pursuant to this part, 

including any requirement to use a NE 

multispecies DAS. If the regulations of 

another fishery require the use of a NE 

multispecies DAS, the DAS allocation 

and accrual provisions specified in 

§ 648.82(d) and (e), respectively, apply 

to each trip by a sector vessel, as 

applicable. For example, if a sector 

vessel is also issued a limited access 

monkfish Category C permit and is 

required to use a NE multispecies DAS 

concurrent with a monkfish DAS under 

this part, any NE multispecies DAS used 

by the sector vessel accrues, as specified 

in § 648.82(e)(1)(ii) based upon the 

vessel’s NE multispecies DAS allocation 

calculated pursuant to 

§ 648.82(d)(1)(iv)(B). 

(B) Availability of ACE. 

Notwithstanding the requirements in 

paragraph (b)(1)(vi)(A) of this section, if 

a sector has not been allocated or does 

not acquire sufficient ACE available to 

cover the catch of a particular stock of 

regulated species while participating in 

another fishery in which such catch 

would apply to the ACE allocated to a 

sector, vessels participating in that 

sector cannot participate in those other 

fisheries unless NMFS has approved a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11036 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

sector operations plan that ensures that 

regulated species or ocean pout will not 

be caught while participating in these 

other fisheries. 

(vii) ACE transfers. All or a portion of 

a sector’s ACE for any NE multispecies 

stock may be transferred to another 

sector at any time during the fishing 

year and up to 2 weeks into the 

following fishing year (i.e., through May 

14), unless otherwise instructed by 

NMFS, to cover any overages during the 

previous fishing year. A sector is not 

required to transfer ACE to another 

sector. An ACE transfer only becomes 

effective upon approval by NMFS, as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1)(vii)(B) of 

this section. 

(A) Application to transfer ACE. ACE 

may be transferred from one sector to 

another through written request to the 

Regional Administrator. This request 

must include the name of the sectors 

involved, the amount of each ACE to be 

transferred, the fishing year in which 

the ACE transfer applies, and the 

amount of compensation received for 

any ACE transferred, as instructed by 

the Regional Administrator. 

(B) Approval of an ACE transfer 

request. NMFS shall approve/ 

disapprove a request to transfer ACE 

based upon compliance by each sector 

and its participating vessels with the 

reporting requirements specified in this 

part. The Regional Administrator shall 

inform both sectors in writing whether 

the ACE transfer request has been 

approved within 2 weeks of the receipt 

of the ACE transfer request. 

(C) Duration of transfer. 

Notwithstanding ACE carried over into 

the next fishing year pursuant to 

paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C) of this section, 

ACE transferred pursuant to this 

paragraph (b)(1)(vii) is only valid for the 

fishing year in which the transfer is 

approved, with the exception of ACE 

transfer requests that are submitted up 

to 2 weeks into the subsequent fishing 

year to address any potential ACE 

overages from the previous fishing year, 

as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of 

this section, unless otherwise instructed 

by NMFS. 

(viii) Trip limits. With the exception 

of stocks listed in § 648.86(1) and the 

Atlantic halibut trip limit at § 648.86(c), 

a sector vessel is not limited in the 

amount of allocated NE multispecies 

stocks that can be harvested on a 

particular fishing trip, unless otherwise 

specified in the operations plan. 

(2) Operations plan and sector 

contract. To be approved to operate, 

each sector must submit an operations 

plan and preliminary sector contract to 

the Regional Administrator no later than 

September 1 prior to the fishing year in 

which the sector intends to begin 

operations, unless otherwise instructed 

by NMFS. A final roster, sector contract, 

and list of Federal and state permits 

held by participating vessels for each 

sector must be submitted by December 

1 prior to the fishing year in which the 

sector intends to begin operations, 

unless otherwise instructed by NMFS. 

The operations plan may cover a 1- or 

2-year period, provided the analysis 

required in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section is sufficient to assess the 

impacts of sector operations during the 

2-year period and that sector 

membership, or any other parameter 

that may affect sector operations during 

the second year of the approved 

operations plan, does not differ to the 

point where the impacts analyzed by the 

supporting NEPA document are 

compromised. Each vessel and vessel 

operator and/or vessel owner 

participating in a sector must agree to 

and comply with all applicable 

requirements and conditions of the 

operations plan specified in this 

paragraph (b)(2) and the letter of 

authorization issued pursuant to 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section. It shall 

be unlawful to violate any such 

conditions and requirements unless 

such conditions or restrictions are 

identified in an approved operations 

plan as administrative only. If a 

proposed sector does not comply with 

the requirements of this paragraph 

(b)(2), NMFS may decline to propose for 

approval such sector operations plans, 

even if the Council has approved such 

sector. At least the following elements 

must be contained in either the final 

operations plan or sector contract 

submitted to NMFS: 

(i) A list of all parties, vessels, and 

vessel owners who will participate in 

the sector; 

(ii) A list of all Federal and state 

permits held by persons participating in 

the sector, including an indication for 

each permit whether it is enrolled and 

will actively fish in a sector, or will be 

subject to the provisions of the common 

pool; 

(iii) A contract signed by all sector 

participants indicating their agreement 

to abide by the operations plan; 

(iv) The name of a designated 

representative or agent of the sector for 

service of process; 

(v) If applicable, a plan for 

consolidation or redistribution of ACE 

detailing the quantity and duration of 

such consolidation or redistribution 

within the sector; 

(vi) A list of the specific management 

rules the sector participants will agree 

to abide by in order to avoid exceeding 

the allocated ACE for each stock, 

including a plan of operations or 

cessation of operations once the ACEs of 

one or more stocks are harvested and 

detailed plans for enforcement of the 

sector rules; 

(vii) A plan that defines the 

procedures by which members of the 

sector that do not abide by the rules of 

the sector will be disciplined or 

removed from the sector, and a 

procedure for notifying NMFS of such 

expulsions from the sector; 

(viii) If applicable, a plan of how the 

ACE allocated to the sector is assigned 

to each vessel; 

(ix) If the operations plan is 

inconsistent with, or outside the scope 

of the NEPA analysis associated with 

the sector proposal/framework 

adjustment as specified in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section, a supplemental 

NEPA analysis may be required with the 

operations plan; 

(x) Detailed information about overage 

penalties or other actions that will be 

taken if a sector exceeds its ACE for any 

stock; 

(xi) Detailed plans for the monitoring 

and reporting of landings and discards 

by sector participants, including, but 

not limited to, detailed information 

describing the sector’s at-sea/electronic 

monitoring program for monitoring 

utilization of ACE allocated to that 

sector; identification of the independent 

third-party service providers employed 

by the sector to provide at-sea/electronic 

monitoring services; the mechanism and 

timing of any hail reports; a list of 

specific ports where participating 

vessels will land fish, with specific 

exemptions noted for safety, weather, 

etc., allowed, provided the sector 

provides reasonable notification to 

NMFS concerning a deviation from the 

listed ports; and any other information 

about such a program required by 

NMFS; 

(xii) ACE thresholds that may trigger 

revisions to sector operations to ensure 

allocated ACE is not exceeded, and 

details regarding the sector’s plans for 

notifying NMFS once the specified ACE 

threshold has been reached; 

(xiii) Identification of any potential 

redirection of effort into other fisheries 

expected as a result of sector operations, 

and, if necessary, proposed limitations 

to eliminate any adverse effects 

expected from such redirection of effort; 

(xiv) If applicable, description of how 

regulated species and ocean pout will be 

avoided while participating in other 

fisheries that have a bycatch of 

regulated species or ocean pout if the 

sector does not have sufficient ACE for 

stocks of regulated species or ocean 

pout caught as bycatch in those 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11037 

fisheries, as specified in paragraph 

(b)(1)(vi)(B) of this section; and 

(xv) A list of existing regulations that 

the sector is requesting exemption from 

during the following fishing year 

pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section. 

(3) NEPA analysis. In addition to the 

documents required by paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (b)(2) of this section, before NMFS 

can approve a sector to operate during 

a particular fishing year, each sector 

must develop and submit to NMFS, in 

conjunction with the yearly operations 

plan and sector contract, an appropriate 

NEPA analysis assessing the impacts of 

forming the sector and operating under 

the measures described in the sector 

operations plan. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. In § 648.90, revise paragraphs 

(a)(2)(iii) and (4)(i)(B) to read as follows: 

§ 648.90 NE multispecies assessment, 

framework procedures and specifications, 

and flexible area action system. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) In addition, the PDT may develop 

ranges of options for any of the 

management measures in the FMP and 

the following conditions that may be 

adjusted through a framework 

adjustment to achieve FMP goals and 

objectives including, but not limited to: 

(A) Revisions to DAS measures, 

including DAS allocations (such as the 

distribution of DAS among the four 

categories of DAS), future uses for 

Category C DAS, and DAS baselines, 

adjustments for steaming time, etc.; 

(B) Accumulation limits due to a 

permit buyout or buyback; 

(C) Modifications to capacity 

measures, such as changes to the DAS 

transfer or DAS leasing measures; 

(D) Calculation of area-specific ACLs 

(including sub-ACLs for specific stocks 

and areas (e.g., Gulf of Maine cod)), area 

management boundaries, and adoption 

of area-specific management measures 

including the delineation of inshore/ 

offshore fishing practices, gear 

restrictions, declaration time periods; 

(E) Sector allocation requirements and 

specifications, including the 

establishment of a new sector, the 

disapproval of an existing sector, the 

allowable percent of ACL available to a 

sector through a sector allocation, an 

optional sub-ACL specific to Handgear 

A permitted vessels, management 

uncertainty buffers, and the calculation 

of PSCs; 

(F) Sector administration provisions, 

including at-sea, electronic, dockside, 

and other monitoring tools, coverage 

requirements and processes, monitoring 

program review, or other measures; 

sector reporting requirements; vesselspecific coverage levels; 

(G) State-operated permit bank 

administrative provisions; 

(H) Measures to implement the U.S./ 

Canada Resource Sharing 

Understanding, including any specified 

TACs (hard or target); 

(I) Changes to administrative 

measures; 

(J) Additional uses for Regular B DAS; 

(K) Reporting requirements; 

(L) Declaration requirements 

pertaining to when and what time 

period a vessel must declare into or out 

of a fishery management area; 

(M) The GOM Inshore Conservation 

and Management Stewardship Plan; 

(N) Adjustments to the Handgear A or 

B permits; 

(O) Gear requirements to improve 

selectivity, reduce bycatch, and/or 

reduce impacts of the fishery on EFH; 

(P) SAP modifications; 

(Q) Revisions to the ABC control rule 

and status determination criteria, 

including, but not limited to, changes in 

the target fishing mortality rates, 

minimum biomass thresholds, 

numerical estimates of parameter 

values, and the use of a proxy for 

biomass may be made either through a 

biennial adjustment or framework 

adjustment; 

(R) Changes to the SBRM, including 

the CV-based performance standard, the 

means by which discard data are 

collected/obtained, fishery stratification, 

the process for prioritizing observer seaday allocations, reports, and/or 

industry-funded observers or observer 

set aside programs; and 

(S) Any other measures currently 

included in the FMP. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) ACL recommendations. The PDT 

shall develop ACL recommendations 

based upon ABCs recommended by the 

SSC and the pertinent recommendations 

of the Transboundary Management 

Guidance Committee (TMGC). The ACL 

recommendations of the PDT shall be 

specified based upon total catch for 

each stock (including both landings and 

discards), if that information is 

available. The PDT shall describe the 

steps involved with the calculation of 

the recommended ACLs and 

uncertainties and risks considered when 

developing these recommendations, 

including whether different levels of 

uncertainties were used for different 

sub-components of the fishery and 

whether ACLs have been exceeded in 

recent years. Based upon the ABC 

recommendations of the SSC and the 

ACL recommendations of the PDT, the 

Council shall adopt ACLs that are equal 

to or lower than the ABC recommended 

by the SSC to account for management 

uncertainty in the fishery. In years that 

the coverage target for the groundfish 

sector monitoring program specified in 

§ 648.11(l) is set at 100 percent, the 

management uncertainty buffer will 

default to zero for the sector sub-ACL 

for the allocated regulated species 

stocks specified at § 648.87(b)(1)(i)(A), 

but the need for a management 

uncertainty buffer for the sector subACL will continue to be evaluated as 

part of each specification action. The 

PDT will recommend an appropriate 

management uncertainty buffer for the 

sector sub-ACLs if 100-percent 

monitoring coverage is determined not 

to be effective, or if any additional 

elements evaluated when setting the 

management uncertainty buffers have 

the potential to result in catches that 

could exceed ACLs. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Section 648.202 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 648.202 Season and area restrictions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) No vessel issued an Atlantic 

herring permit and fishing with 

midwater trawl gear, may fish for, 

possess or land fish in or from the 

Closed Areas, including Cashes Ledge 

Closure Area, Western GOM Closure 

Area, Closed Area I North (February 1– 

April 15), and Closed Area II, as defined 

in § 648.81(a)(3), (4), and (5) and (c)(3) 

and (4), respectively, unless it has 

declared first its intent to fish in the 

Closed Areas as required by 

§ 648.11(m)(1), and is carrying onboard 

an observer. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–03572 Filed 2–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS