Source: http://thefederalregister.com/2012/09/26/2012-23721.html
Timestamp: 2018-03-24 04:17:40
Document Index: 68788008

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 902', 'ART 679', 'art 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', 'art 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679', '§ 679']

SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations that modify equipment and operational requirements for freezer longliners (catcher/processors) named on License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses endorsed to catch and process Pacific cod at sea with hook-and-line gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). These regulations require vessel owners to select between two monitoring options: carry two observers so that all catch can be sampled, or carry one observer and use a motion-compensated scale to weigh Pacific cod before it is processed. The selected monitoring option is required to be used when the vessel is operating in either the BSAI or Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries when directed fishing for Pacific cod is open in the BSAI, or while the vessel is fishing for groundfish under the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program. A vessel owner who notifies NMFS that the vessel will not be used to conduct directed fishing for Pacific cod in the BSAI or to conduct groundfish CDQ fishing at any time during a particular year will not be required to select one of the monitoring options and will continue to follow observer coverage and catch reporting requirements that apply to catcher/processors not subject to this action. These regulatory amendments address the need for enhanced catch accounting, monitoring, and enforcement created by the formation of a voluntary cooperative by the BSAI longline catcher/processor subsector in 2010, and are necessary to improve the precision of the accounting for allocated quota species. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable laws.
DATES: Effective October 26, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the proposed rule, the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR) for this action may be obtained fromhttp://www.regulations.govor from the Alaska Region Web site athttp://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted by mail to NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; in person at NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, Alaska; and by email toOIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov,or by fax to 202-395-7285.
NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the exclusive economic zone off Alaska under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). The FMPs were prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and approved by the Secretary of Commerce under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801et seq.(Magnuson-Stevens Act). The FMPs are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR parts 679 and 680.
Under the voluntary cooperative, members in the longline C/P subsector allocate a proportion of the available Pacific cod resources among their members based on private contractual arrangements. The voluntary cooperative operates as ade factocatch share program because the cooperative includes all members of the subsector and together they control harvest of the sector's allocation of Pacific cod in the BSAI. Vessels fishing under a voluntary cooperative require a higher level of monitoring to ensure accurate reporting of the catch allocated to the subsector.
The proposed rule for this action was published in theFederal Registeron June 15, 2012 (77 FR 35925). The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule ended July 16, 2012. The regulatory provisions implemented by this action are summarized here. Additional information and a description of this action are provided in detail in the preamble to the proposed rule and are not repeated here.
Under the scales monitoring option, the vessel owner and operator will be required to use a NMFS-approved scale to weigh all Pacific cod, provide and maintain a NMFS-approved electronic monitoring system to monitor sorting and weighing of Pacific cod, carry one lead level 2 observer, and provide an observer sampling station meeting location and space requirements. Each set must be weighed and recorded separately. NMFS will use the weight of all catch that passes over the scale to account for Pacific cod catch. The vessel operator will be required to use anelectronic logbook to report catch at all times during that year.
Comment 1:The commenter supports the proposed requirements for two observers on longline catcher/processors, but does not support the proposed requirements for the use of a flow scale and a lead level 2 observer because of the difficult work schedule observers must follow when only one observer is aboard and the cost of installing the flow scale and camera equipment onboard.
Response:NMFS acknowledges this comment. The requirements provide vessel owners two options to meet NMFS' monitoring objectives. A vessel owner may select the scales option or the increased observer coverage option depending on which option best meets the vessel's annual fishing plan and is the most cost effective for their vessel. Either monitoring option will result in quality data and enable NMFS to estimate Pacific cod catch in the longline C/P sector. The costs associated with both monitoring options are described in section 1.3 of the EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES). NMFS agrees that the scale option will increase the complexity of the observer's job and, as described in section 1.3.4 of the EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES), this is part of the rationale for requiring that the single observer under this option be lead level 2 certified.
Comment 2:The increase in the total number of lead level 2 observers needed to cover the BSAI freezer longline fleet is unsustainable and, in the long term, will lead to a shortage of qualified observers. Further, all freezer longline vessels will choose the scale option in the next two years. When this occurs, the training opportunity for observers to gain lead level 2 experience will no longer be available. If adequate observers are not available in a timely manner the vessel will have to stop fishing and wait for an observer to become available, which will have negative economic consequences.
Response:NMFS disagrees. NMFS acknowledges in section 1.3 of the EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES) that obtaining lead level 2 observers may be more difficult for fishing vessels than in the past and the demand for fixed gear lead level 2 observers will be much greater than in the past. NMFS notes that there are uncertainties associated with the new observer employment market conditions that we anticipate will accompany the introduction of the restructured observer program (77 FR 23326, April 18, 2012). The proposed action for the restructured observer program would add a funding and deployment system for observer coverage to the existing North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program) and amend existing observer coverage requirements for vessels and processing plants. The new funding and deployment system would allow NMFS to determine when and where to deploy observers according to management and conservation needs. We anticipate the restructured observer program will be implemented in 2013. NMFS also notes that there are additional uncertainties with the freezer longline sector's observer coverage needs as vessel operations evolve under the cooperative's catch share program.
Section 1.3.4 of the EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES) describes other ways observers can gain lead level 2 experience. While opportunities for obtaining lead level 2 qualifications within the freezer longline fleet will be limited, observers may gain experience aboard the fixed gear catcher vessels, vessels in the affected fleet that choose to “opt out” of fishing under the program, freezer longliners that fish only in the GOA, pot catcher vessels, and pot catcher/processors. However, the EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES) highlights that the restructured observer program will provide the most new opportunities for observers to acquire lead level 2 certification. In addition, through this action NMFS reduced the number of sampled sets required for lead level 2 certification by half. Both of these factors increase the likelihood that there will be sufficient lead level 2 observers in the long term. The analysis suggests that it is likely that the number of qualified lead level 2 observers will exceed the number required in any given year. The analysis highlights mobilizing fixed gear lead level 2 observers is an essential component to ensuring vessels obtain the observer coverage required without stranding vessels at the dock.
Methods exist to obtain, train, and retain the needed lead level 2 observers as explained in section 1.3.4 of the EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES). These methods include paying observers higher wages and using the voluntary cooperative's structure to compensate vessels that choose to carry an additional observer to gain the experience required for lead level 2 certification. The cooperative may be able to arrange for its members to compensate some vessels to carry an observer in addition to the lead level 2 observer, and that observer could obtain the sampling experience needed to qualify for a lead level 2 position. The freezer longline fleet may also use the cooperative arrangements to adjust their fishing operations to ensure that a lead level 2 observer is available to the fleet and vessels are not stranded at the dock without observer coverage.
Comment 3:The assumptions in the analysis about the numbers of deployments, days, and sets needed to qualify as a lead level 2 observer for nontrawl gear and the number of days that a lead level 2 observer are needed are inaccurate. NMFS has not accurately estimated the sets per day, and has failed to take account of the impact of total allowable catch (TAC) fluctuations on the need for observers.
Response:NMFS agrees in part. The freezer longline fishery's exact future observer needs are uncertain. The EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES) uses the best available information to evaluate the potential number of lead level 2 observers that may be available. NMFS has reviewed its sets per day estimates. After this review, NMFS found that it had based its estimates on longline sets rather than longline and pot sets and that it had not adequately distinguished between vessel days when an observer was aboard and vessel days at sea on which gear was retrieved. The EA/RIR(seeADDRESSES) has been revised to use the broader fixed gear (longline and pot) estimates and the more conservative parameter of vessel days when an observer was aboard. This led to a change in the number of catcher vessel sets per fishing day from 2.63 to 1.87. The new value is known to be a conservative estimate, but NMFS believes it is an improvement from the original value.
Comment 4:The analysis did not consider whether the fixed gear lead level 2 observers were also trawl lead level 2 certified. If observers are lead level 2 qualified for both gear types, then they may be deployed into the trawl fishery where they are also required and unavailable to observe aboard fixed gear vessels. Therefore, the analysis may have overestimated the number of lead level 2 observers that will be available to the freezer longliners.
Response:NMFS acknowledges this comment. Section 1.3.4 of the EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES) describes that, while there were about 208 lead level 2 observers under current qualification requirements, only 39 were needed in 2010-2011. The analysis found that despite the large difference between the number of persons with the qualification and the number of persons used, the industry had difficulty finding enough lead level 2 observers. This difficulty in finding enough lead level 2 observers could be due to many factors, including observers with both trawl and fixed gear lead level 2 certification. While the analysis did not originally discuss the reasons for the difficulties in obtaining lead level 2 observers, it has been modified to include this discussion, including the difficulties that could be associated with finding enough lead level 2 observers because some observers may have both trawl and fish gear lead level 2 certification. Although some vessel operators had problems obtaining lead level 2 observers, NMFS does not have information that suggests this difficulty prevented vessel operators from fishing. As described in the response to comment 3, NMFS cannot guarantee that lead level 2 observers will always be available. Rather, NMFS analyzed available information and assumptions to estimate potential observer availability.
Comment 5:The analysis suggests that the restructured observer program, which will start in 2013, will be a training ground for lead level 2 observers. This is an assumption about a future program that has not yet been implemented and could be wrong. It is possible that the restructured observer program will yield fewer lead level 2 observers at a slower pace than the current observer program. The lead level 2 requirement in this rule should be dropped until the restructured observer program is implemented and has fully functioned for several years.
Response:NMFS agrees that there are uncertainties about the restructured observer program's effect on the availability of lead level 2 observers to the freezer longline fleet, as discussed in section 1.3.4 of the EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES). However, NMFS disagrees that these uncertainties should delay implementation of this action. The EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES) acknowledges that the number of observers that will gain experience as a result of the restructured observer program is uncertain; a wide range of observer availability scenarios has been examined in the analysis. NMFS examined different observer coverage levels in the restructured observer program and the resulting observer recruitment levels, as well as different attrition rates, at these different observer recruitment levels.
Comment 6:The industry can increase the wages it pays for lead level 2 observers, but this will not lead to sufficient increases in the numbers of observers undertaking this work. Observers are motivated by important non-wage considerations. Even if freezer longliners and observer providers invest the resources to increase the number of lead level 2 observers, there is no certainty that the observer would remain available to the freezer longline fleet.
Response:NMFS does not have statistical information about the responsiveness of observer supply to different types of compensation packages. NMFS recognizes at Section 1.3.4 of the EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES) that many observers do not recognize observing as a career, that for almost all it is a seasonal job, and that observers are motivated by many things besides their pay.
As discussed in section 1.3.4 of the EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES), an increase in wages paid for fixed gear lead level 2 observers should increase the number of fixed gear lead level 2 observers and decrease the demand for them as well. Freezer longliner owners could change fishing operations to increase daily production to reduce the number of days each vessel fishes each year and thereby reduce the number of days an observer is required. Vessel owners may also take steps to provide non-monetarybenefits to the observers, such as improved living and working conditions to increase an observer's desire to return or to work longer aboard these freezer longliners. NMFS again acknowledges that steps like these would be a cost to freezer longliner owners and would reduce the benefits they obtain from cooperative fishing arrangements.
Comment 7:Lead level 2 observers are not needed in this program, because NMFS can collect quality data on these vessels with the current level of observer coverage. Current training already provides the observer with all of the necessary skills to work on a freezer longliner with scales and accurately provide catch and bycatch information to NMFS on a daily basis.
Response:NMFS disagrees. As stated in section 1.3.4 of the EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES), lead level 2 observers are required in this program under both the scale option and the increased observer coverage options to ensure that NMFS has quality data available on a haul-by-haul basis. The lead level 2 qualification is required for several reasons:
• Catch share programs create new incentives for operators to circumvent management measures. These incentives can be addressed in part by deploying experienced observers with specialized experience with the gear being deployed. In recent years, observer reports of harassment and intimidation in the freezer longline sector have increased. NMFS believes that, at least partly as a response to the new cooperative arrangements, vessel owners and operators are becoming more interested in haul-by-haul observer data in the freezer longline sector. As a result, some vessel operators are pressuring observers to change sample numbers, sample more, sample less, or sample differently. Experienced observers are more likely to identify vessel operator and crew actions that lead to sampling of unrepresentative sets, be more confident in their sampling decisions, and withstand pressure, particularly when only one observer may be on board.
• Performances issues with new observers can impact NMFS' monitoring of scale performance; of halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) and viability; and of all discard estimates, including Pacific cod. Experienced observers are familiar with different vessel layouts and operations. They can adapt quickly to vessel-specific conditions when assigned to a new freezer longliner. New observers or observers with little experience on fixed gear vessels need extra time to develop the best sampling techniques for that specific vessel. Lack of experience results in unsampled sets or lower data quality. Observers with experience aboard a fixed gear vessel should be able to quickly familiarize themselves with a new vessel and establish an unbiased sampling protocol.
• The scales option requires that only Pacific cod be weighed on the flow scale. Flow scales will be new to freezer longliners and NMFS believes that the sole observer must be a lead level 2 in order to detect and minimize problems that could occur. An observer with this level of experience should have the skills necessary to solve sampling and data collection problems in this new monitoring program. An observer unfamiliar with fixed gear operations will have difficulty determining if the scale is being used correctly. An experienced observer can address scale performance issues with the responsible vessel representatives prior to disembarking the vessel.
Comment 8:The only way to maintain a sustainable supply of lead level 2 observers for the freezer longline fleet in the future is for NMFS to either eliminate the single lead level 2 requirement for most boats, or mandate a lead level 2 observer and require a second observer whose only reason for being on board would be to gain experience toward lead level 2 certification.
Response:NMFS disagrees. As discussed in the response to comment 2, our analysis indicates that a sustainable supply of lead level 2 observers should be available in the short, as well as the long, term. NMFS does not believe that mandating a second observer for training purposes is necessary. To the extent the fleet believes there may be a shortage of trained lead level 2 observers, the cooperative structure of the fleet enables participants to voluntarily work with observer providers to provide training opportunities on board participating vessels. Some of the vessels could also choose to fish under the increased observer coverage option and increase the training opportunities for new observers.
Comment 9:Compared to other fleets that require lead level 2 observers, the Pacific cod freezer longline fleet has relatively low catch rates and less species diversity. NMFS should not rely on the experience in these other fleets as a demonstration for a need for lead level 2 observers for the smaller less productive freezer longliners.
Response:NMFS disagrees. As described in the EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES) and the response to comment 7, the lead level 2 observer requirement addresses fleet incentives to circumvent management measures, the increased reliance by NMFS and industry for haul-by-haul catch composition and discard information, and the need to monitor compliance with the scale requirements.
Comment 10:The freezer longliner fishery is similar to other fixed gear quota share fisheries, such as the halibut and sablefish individual fishing quota and the Bering Sea crab catcher/processor fleets. No lead level 2 observer requirement exists for these similar fleets.
Response:NMFS disagrees. NMFS did not use the measures implemented in other programs as a rationale for determining the measures necessary for this program. NMFS examined and developed specific monitoring requirements necessary for accurate catch monitoring in the freezer longline fleet based on the specific fishery characteristics. As different programs have been developed, the nature of those programs, their goals, and the history and nature of the fishery prior to rationalization has differed and therefore, NMFS has developed different monitoring requirements for each program. The rationale for a lead level 2 observer is discussed in comment 7 and section 1.3.4 of the EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES).
Comment 11:The proposed rule and the analysis discount repeated input from industry leaders and the years of experience and knowledge of the entire pool of observer providers. Rather than accept input from these entities, NMFS is choosing to push forward with the requirement for lead level 2 observers based on the position that this is necessary in the case of the freezer longliners because it was found to be necessary in previous rationalized fisheries.
Response:NMFS disagrees. NMFS has considered input from observer providers and freezer longline operators in preparing this final rule. NMFS staff presented the proposed requirements at a fleet meeting in May 2011 and responded to questions about the lead level 2 requirement at that time. NMFS received public testimony regarding the lead level 2 requirements during the October 2011 North Pacific Fisheries Management Council meeting and responded by explaining that the lead level 2 requirement ensures a quality monitoring program for this fishery. Following the October 2011 letter from the observer providers, NMFS contacted several observer providers to further understand their concerns. The EA/RIR (seeADDRESSES) was revised to add a new section on the lead level 2 requirement analyzing issues raised byproviders. The proposed rule for this action (77 FR 35972, June 15, 2012), proposed reducing the number of sampled sets currently required to achieve lead level 2 status. This proposed change directly responded to public input. Finally, because of the public interest in the lead level 2 requirement, NMFS posted the analysis to NMFS Alaska region Web site earlier than required.
Comment 12:We agree that the scale, 100 percent observer coverage, and camera requirements under the scale option will provide more precise estimates and strengthen management and enforcement under this program.
Response:NMFS agrees that the addition of flow scales, observer sampling stations, video monitoring to ensure all Pacific cod are sorted and weighed correctly, and the requirement for every vessel in this fleet to be observed will serve to improve the catch and fishing effort data in the freezer longline fleet.
Comment 13:The idea that freezer longline vessels could carry an observer in addition to the lead level 2 observer is flawed because Federal law mandates that vessel owners and operators cannot request particular individuals to work on their vessels.
Response:NMFS disagrees. Vessel owners and operators may request from the observer providers additional observers aboard their vessels. The regulations do prohibit vessels from requesting a preference for a specific observer, but there is no prohibition against requesting an additional observer in much the same way vessels currently request observers. In other fleets, vessel owners or operators have voluntarily requested an additional observer to improve data quality and observer working conditions. Similarly, freezer longline vessels have voluntarily taken extra observer coverage to monitor halibut PSC in the GOA fisheries.
No changes to the regulations were made based on public comment. However, NMFS has identified two minor issues that require revisions to the proposed rule. First, this final rule does not include the proposed rule revisions to §§ 679.51, 679.53, and 679.32(c)(3)(i)(E)(1). When this proposed rule was published (June 15, 2012), NMFS expected that the final rule to restructure the Observer Program, which would add these sections, would be in effect. NMFS predicts that the final rule to restructure the Observer Program will be published and effective after this final rule takes effect. Therefore, the proposed revisions to §§ 679.51, 679.53 and 679.32(c)(3)(i)(E)(1) in the proposed rule are reflected as revisions to §§ 679.50 and 679.32(c)(3)(i)(F)(1) in this final rule. The intent and effect of these regulations has not changed.
Second, this final rule corrects an error made in § 679.32(c)(3)(i)(F)(1) in a final rule published on February 8, 2012 (77 FR 6492). NMFS identified the error in July, 2012, after CDQ groups and other affected Pacific cod harvesting entities asked NMFS for clarification on sampling requirements for CDQ sets on vessels using nontrawl gear. When NMFS reorganized the CDQ catch monitoring regulations in the February 8, 2012, final rule, NMFS inadvertently substituted “hook-and-line gear” for “nontrawl gear” in the requirement that each set be sampled by an observer. Because nontrawl gear includes both longline and pot gear, this regulatory amendment unintentionally expanded the requirement that each set be sampled to pot catcher/processors participating in groundfish CDQ fisheries. This was not NMFS' intent. In addition, NMFS carried this error forward in the proposed rule for this action (77 FR 35925; June 15, 2012). NMFS corrects this error by revising § 679.32(c)(3)(i)(F)(1) to remove the requirement that catcher/processors using pot gear to refer only to the observer coverage requirements that apply to these vessels and to remove the requirement that each set be sampled by an observer. This change is consistent with the regulations in effect prior to the error.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on the correction to § 679.32(c)(3)(i)(F)(1) that is made in this final rule, as notice and comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. After it received CDQ and affected fishery participants' clarification requests, NMFS recognized that the proposed rule inadvertently carried forward an error in § 679.32(c)(3)(i)(F)(1) that had been made in a previous final rule. This error affects only catcher/processors using pot gear in the groundfish CDQ fisheries. However, the error unintentionally increases observer sampling requirements on these vessels. By letter dated July 31, 2012, NMFS provided the CDQ groups actual notice of the error in the regulations and NMFS' intent to correct the error as soon as possible. Providing prior notice and opportunity to comment is contrary to the public interest. Unless the error is corrected immediately, public confusion regarding sampling requirements would persist and vessels would continue to be required to sample sets at a higher rate than NMFS meant to impose and was anticipated by the fishery participants. The correction will reduce the amount of sampling effort, thus freeing the affected participants from an unintended burden that affects their operations. Further, unless the error is corrected now, affected participants would continue to pay higher observer costs than was intended. No interested party will be adversely affected by this waiver.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, aregulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
These reporting burden 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. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (seeADDRESSES) and by email toOIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov,or fax to 202-395-7285.
Dated: September 21, 2012. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
2. In § 902.1, in the table in paragraph (b), under the entry “50 CFR”, add entries in alphanumeric order for ” 679.28(k)”; “679.100(a) and (b)”; “679.100(c)”; and “679.100(d)”. The additions read as follows:
CFR part or section where the information collection requirement is located Current OMB control number (all numbers begin with 0648-) ***** 50 CFR ***** 679.28(k) −0330, −0610 ***** 679.100(a) and (b) −0330, −0515 679.100(c) −0515 679.100(d) −0330 *****
50 CFR CHAPTER VI—FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 3. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows: Authority:
4. In § 679.5, revise paragraph (f)(1)(ii) and add paragraph (f)(1)(viii) to read as follows:
(ii)Catcher/processor longline and pot gear ELB.Except for catcher/processors subject to § 679.100(b), the operator of a catcher/processor using longline or pot gear may use a combination of a NMFS-approved catcher/processor longline and pot gear ELB and eLandings to record and report groundfish information. The operator may use a NMFS-approved catcher/processor longline and pot gear ELB to record daily processor identification information and catch-by-set information. In eLandings, the operator must record daily processor identification, groundfish production data, and groundfish and prohibited species discard or disposition data.
(viii)Longline catcher/processor subsector.The operator of a catcher/processor subject to § 679.100(b) must use a NMFS-approved catcher/processor longline and pot gear ELB to record processor identification information, catch-by-set information, and, if required to weigh Pacific cod on a NMFS-approved scale, the total Pacific cod weight from the scale for each set. This requirement applies for the entire year that the vessel is subject to § 679.100(b) and operating as a catcher/processor using either longline or pot gear.
5. In § 679.7, add paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
(1) For vessel owners and operators subject to § 679.100(a), to use the vessel as a catcher/processor to conduct directed fishing for Pacific cod with hook-and-line gear in the BSAI or to conduct groundfish CDQ fishing.
6. In § 679.28, add paragraph (k) to read as follows:
(k)Electronic monitoring in the longline catcher/processor subsector.The owner and operator of a catcher/processor subject to § 679.100(b)(2) must provide and maintain a NMFS-approved electronic monitoring system at all times when the vessel is operating in either the BSAI or GOA groundfish fisheries when directed fishing for Pacific cod is open in the BSAI, or while the vessel is groundfish CDQ fishing.
(6)Additional information required for an electronic monitoring system inspection.(i) A diagram drawn to scale showing all sorting locations, the location of the motion-compensated scale, the location of each camera and its coverage area, and the location of any additional video equipment must be submitted with the Inspection Request for an Electronic Monitoring System form.
7. In § 679.32, revise paragraph (c)(3)(i)(F)(1), and remove paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(G) to read as follows:
§ 679.32 CDQ fisheries monitoring and catch accounting.
(1) Operators of catcher/processors using hook-and-line gear must comply with § 679.100. Operators of catcher/processors using pot gear must comply with observer coverage requirements at § 679.50(c)(4)(iii)(D); and
8. In § 679.50, remove and reserve paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(C), revise paragraph (c)(1) introductory text and paragraph (j)(1)(v)(E)(3), and add paragraph (c)(8) to read as follows:
§ 679.50 Groundfish Observer Program.
(8)Longline catcher/processor subsector.The owner and operator of a catcher/processor subject to § 679.100(b) must comply with the following observer coverage requirements:
(i)Increased observer coverage option.If the vessel owner selects the increased observer coverage option under § 679.100(b)(1), at least two observers must be aboard the vessel at all times when the vessel is operating in either the BSAI or GOA groundfish fisheries when directed fishing for Pacific cod is open in the BSAI, or while the vessel is groundfish CDQ fishing. At least one of the observers must be certified as a lead level 2 observer as described at § 679.50(j)(1)(v)(E)(3). More than two observers are required if the observer workload would otherwise preclude sampling as required under § 679.100(b)(1)(ii).
(ii)Scales option.If the vessel owner selects the scales option under § 679.100(b)(2), one lead level 2 observer as described at paragraph (j)(1)(v)(E)(3) of this section must be aboard the vessel at all times when the vessel is operating in either the BSAI or GOA groundfish fisheries when directed fishing for Pacific cod is open in the BSAI, or while the vessel is groundfish CDQ fishing.
9. Add subpart I to part 679 to read as follows: Subpart I—Equipment and Operational Requirements for the Longline Catcher/Processor Subsector
§ 679.100 Applicability.
(a)Opt out selection.Each year, the owner of a vessel subject to this subpart who does not intend to directed fish for Pacific cod in the BSAI or conduct groundfish CDQ fishing at any time during a year may, by November 1 of the year prior to fishing, submit to NMFS a completed notification form to opt out of directed fishing for Pacific cod in the BSAI and groundfish CDQ fishing in the upcoming year. The notification form is available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site (http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/). Once the vessel owner has selected to opt out, the owner must ensure that the vessel is not used as a catcher/processor to conduct directed fishing for Pacific cod with hook-and-line gear in the BSAI or to conduct groundfish CDQ fishing during the specified year.
(b)Monitoring option selection.Each year, the owner of a vessel subject to this subpart that does not opt out under paragraph (a) of this section must, by November 1 of the year prior to fishing, submit a completed notification form for one of two monitoring options to NMFS. The notification form is available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site (http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/). The vessel owner must comply with the selected monitoring option at all times when the vessel is operating in either the BSAI or GOA groundfish fisheries when directed fishing for Pacific cod is open in the BSAI, or while the vessel is groundfish CDQ fishing for the entire upcoming calendar year. If NMFS does not receive a notification to opt out or a notification for one of the two monitoring options by November 1 of the year prior to fishing, NMFS will assign that vessel to the increased observer coverage option under paragraph (b)(1) of this section for the upcoming calendar year.
(1)Increased observer coverage option.Under this option, the vessel owner and operator must ensure that—
(i) The vessel is in compliance with observer coverage requirements described at § 679.50(c)(8)(i).
(iii) An observer sampling station meeting the requirements at § 679.28(d) is available at all times, unless otherwise approved by NMFS.
(2)Scales option.Under this option—
(A) The vessel is in compliance with observer coverage requirements described at § 679.50(c)(8)(ii).
(B) All Pacific cod brought onboard the vessel is weighed on a NMFS-approved scale in compliance with the scale requirements at § 679.28(b), and that each set is weighed and recorded separately.
(C) An observer sampling station meeting the requirements at § 679.28(d) is available at all times, unless otherwise approved by NMFS.
(D) The vessel is in compliance with the electronic monitoring requirements described at § 679.28(k).
(A)Scale prior to bleeding.If the scale is located before the location where Pacific cod are bled, a PRR of 1.00 will be applied to all catch weighed on the motion-compensated scale.
(B)Scale between bleeding and holding area.If Pacific cod are bled before being weighed and prior to the bleeding holding area, a PRR of 0.99 will be applied to all catch weighed on the scale.
(C)Scale after holding area.If Pacific cod are bled and placed in a bleeding holding area before being weighed, a PRR of 0.98 will be applied to all catch weighed on the scale.
(c)Electronic logbooks.The operator of a vessel subject to paragraph (b) of this section at any time during a year must comply with the requirements for electronic logbooks at § 679.5(f) at all times during that year.