31146 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE electronic_monitoring.html. The FRFA The Council developed this regulatory assessing the impacts of the final amendment to respond to concerns National Oceanic and Atmospheric measures adopted as originally about the industry’s ability to support Administration proposed on small entities and observer costs and to implement EM as describing steps taken to minimize any an alternative option to meet the 100- 50 CFR Part 660 significant economic impact on such percent at-sea monitoring requirement [Docket No. 1511169999493–02] entities consists of the FRFA, preamble, in the fishery. As described in Chapter and the summary of impacts and 2 of the EA, this action is necessary to RIN 0648–BF52 alternatives contained in the increase operational flexibility; decrease Classification section of this final rule incentives to fish in unsafe conditions; Fisheries off West Coast States; and the regulatory amendment. reduce monitoring costs; increase Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; revenues; reduce the physical Electronic Monitoring Program FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: intrusiveness of the monitoring system; Melissa Hooper, Permits and Monitoring AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries use the technology most suitable and Branch Chief, phone: 206–526–4353, cost effective for the monitoring system; Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and fax: 206–526–4461. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and to maintain monitoring capabilities Commerce. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: in small ports. This action specifies the detailed requirements necessary to ACTION: Final rule. Background implement an EM option for two SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP components of the trawl fishery— implement an electronic monitoring specifies management measures for over catcher vessels using midwater trawl (EM) program for two sectors of the 90 different species of rockfish, flatfish, gear to target whiting in the mothership limited entry trawl fishery, consistent roundfish, sharks, skates, and other and shorebased sectors and trawl- with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery species, in federal waters off the West permitted vessels using fixed gear to Conservation and Management Act Coast states. Target species in the target other species in the shorebased sector. The Council has also developed (MSA) and the Pacific Coast Groundfish commercial fishery include Pacific hake EM regulations for the remaining two Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The (whiting), sablefish, dover sole, and components of the shorebased IFQ action allows catcher vessels in the rockfish, which are harvested by vessels fishery—vessels using bottom trawl and Pacific whiting fishery and fixed gear using primarily midwater and bottom midwater trawl to target non-whiting vessels in the shorebased Individual trawl gear, but also fish pots and hook species—which NMFS will propose in a Fishing Quota (IFQ) fishery to use EM and line. The trawl fishery is managed separate rulemaking anticipated in mid- in place of observers to meet the under a catch share program called the 2019. A more extensive discussion of requirements of the Trawl Trawl Rationalization Program, which the development of the regulatory Rationalization Program for 100-percent was implemented through Amendments amendment and EM measures is at-sea observer coverage. This action is 20 and 21 to the FMP in January 2011. necessary to increase operational available in the proposed rule (81 FR The Program consists of an IFQ program 61161; September 6, 2016) and is not flexibility and reduce monitoring costs for the shorebased trawl fleet (including for vessels in the trawl fishery by repeated here. whiting and non-whiting sectors) and Public comments were accepted on providing an alternative to observers. cooperatives for the at-sea mothership Data from the EM program will be used the proposed rule from September 6, and catcher/processor trawl fleets 2016, through October 6, 2016. After to debit discards of IFQ species from (whiting only). As part of the catch IFQs and mothership cooperative review of public comments, NMFS has share program, Amendment 20 determined that the regulations are allocations. Through this action, NMFS implemented requirements for 100- has also approved and is implementing consistent with the goals and objectives percent monitoring at-sea and dockside of the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, the following measures: An application in order to ensure accountability for all process for interested vessel owners; and the requirements of the MSA and landings and discards of allocated other applicable law. This performance standards for EM systems; species. Catcher/processors and determination is based on NMFS’ requirements for vessel operators; a motherships are required to carry two review of the administrative record, permitting process and standards for EM observers at all times, depending on the including the Council’s record, and service providers; and, requirements for length of the vessel, and catcher vessels NMFS’ consideration of comments processors (first receivers) for receiving are required to carry one observer, received during the comment period for and disposing of prohibited and including while in port until all fish are the proposed rule. After considering the protected species from EM trips. offloaded. In addition, first receivers, required statutory factors and the goals DATES: Effective July 29, 2019. which are processors that are licensed to and objectives of the Pacific Coast ADDRESSES: Copies of the regulatory receive IFQ landings, are required to Groundfish FMP, NMFS has determined amendment and analysis prepared by have catch monitors to monitor 100- that the Council’s recommended EM the Pacific Fishery Management Council percent of IFQ offloads. Vessel owners program provides for an alternative (Council) are available from Chuck and first receivers are responsible for method of meeting the monitoring Tracy, Executive Director, Pacific obtaining and funding catch share requirements of the Trawl Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE observers and catch monitors as a Rationalization Program that reduces Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, necessary condition of their the costs and operational burden of OR 97220–1384. The Regulatory Impact participation in the program. However, these requirements, while ensuring the Review (RIR), final environmental NMFS provided funds for the cost of best scientific information available for assessment (EA), and Final Regulatory observers for the first five years of the conservation and management. Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared for program to assist the industry in this action are accessible at http:// transitioning to the catch share program. Final Measures www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/ The amount of these funds declined This section summarizes the measures fisheries/groundfish_catch_shares/ each year and ended in September 2015. contained in this final rule. To

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 31147

implement these measures NMFS consistent with the goals and objectives analysis of the EM data and submission revises the trawl fishery regulations in of the FMP. EM would also increase of reports to NMFS. Without these §§ 660.13, 660.19, 660.130, 660.140, and operational flexibility for groundfish elements, the EM Program would not 660.150, to allow for vessel owners to vessels by providing them the option to meet the goals and objectives of the use EM in place of an observer and choose the tool that best suits their Trawl Rationalization Program and, establishes new regulations in individual operations. For some vessels, consequently, the Pacific Coast §§ 660.600–660.604 governing the use of EM may be preferable because it does Groundfish FMP. NMFS understands EM. not require accommodating or the industry’s concerns about the costs coordinating with an observer, of monitoring overall and has 1. EM Program particularly in small or remote ports committed to working with the Council NMFS determined that the proposed where an observer may not be readily to continue to find ways to improve the EM program for Pacific whiting catcher available. In this way, EM also reduces cost savings of the EM program, such as vessels in the shorebased and the logistical burden and adverse by reducing the amount of video mothership sectors and fixed gear economic impacts of the 100-percent at- reviewed to prepare EM summary vessels in the shorebased sector of the sea monitoring requirements on these reports, and the length of time that groundfish fishery is consistent with the vessels and their communities, industry must store its EM data Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, MSA, consistent with National Standard 8 of (specifically the video data), while still and other applicable law because it the MSA. ensuring that the EM Program provides increases operational flexibility and The EM program maintains high an appropriate alternative to observers. reduces costs for these vessels, while quality information on discards of IFQ In addition, as explained in response to maintaining the best scientific species for management decisions, comment 2 below, NMFS has paid for information available for management. while minimizing the costs of data EM video review and storage under the Vessel owners will be able to apply to collection requirements, consistent with EM Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) NMFS to receive an exemption from the National Standards 2 and 7 of the MSA. program, which has been testing camera 100-percent observer coverage The EM program would continue to systems and EM video data review requirement, provided that they use an provide estimates of discards of IFQ protocols, and intends to continue to do EM system and follow the catch species, which is necessary for so through 2020, subject to available handling, reporting, and other maintaining accountability for total appropriations. However, NMFS cannot requirements of the EM program. Vessel mortality of these species, as well as commit to providing funds beyond owners authorized to use EM would be individual IFQ allocations. While EM 2020, because NMFS’ funding is required to obtain an EM system from a cannot collect all the information uncertain and subject to Congressional NMFS-permitted service provider, as collected by human observers, NMFS appropriations. To do so would also be well as services to install and maintain and the Council have made every effort inconsistent with NMFS’ national the EM system, process and store EM to ensure consistent protocols between Policy on Electronic Technologies and data (i.e., video imagery, sensor data, the human observer and EM programs, Fishery-Dependent Data Collection in and other associated data files), and to ensure comparable quality, and allow which NMFS stated that it would not report EM summary data and their integration for management. To approve any EM program that created an compliance information to NMFS. ensure that the EM Program continues unfunded cost of implementation or Vessel owners have the choice of to provide NMFS with the best scientific operation. For these reasons, NMFS contracting with any NMFS-permitted information available for management, determined that the data services service provider. Vessel operators NMFS and the Council have also requirements for EM vessels in this final would be required to submit a logbook established strict performance standards rule are consistent with the Pacific reporting their discards of IFQ species. in the regulations for EM units, vessels, Coast Groundfish FMP, MSA, and other NMFS would use the logbook data to and providers. In addition, NMFS applicable laws. debit discards of IFQ species from IFQs intends to maintain some level of and cooperative allocations, and use the NMFS’ West Coast Groundfish Observer 2. Catch Retention Requirements EM summary data reports to audit the Program coverage on EM trips to Through this final rule, NMFS is logbook data. EM data would also be continue to collect biological and other implementing a clarified definition of used to monitor compliance with the information that EM cannot collect. ‘‘maximized retention’’ for whiting requirements of the catch share NMFS and the Council have also vessels for the purposes of the EM program. NMFS’ incremental costs to established retention rules that program (see 50 CFR 660.604(p)(1)). administer the EM program would be minimize the mortality of bycatch to the Under the clarified definition, the recoverable through Trawl Program cost extent practicable consistent with following discards would be permitted recovery fees. The requirements of the National Standard 9 of the MSA, by on whiting trips as ‘‘minor operational program for vessel owners, operators, allowing discarding of those species that discards’’: Mutilated fish, large animals first receivers, and service providers, are can be identified on camera. (longer than 6 feet (1.8 meters) in described in more detail in the proposed NMFS received some public length), fish inadvertently spilled from rule (81 FR 61161; September 6, 2016) comments expressing concern that the the codend during transfer to the and are not repeated here. cost of EM data services (i.e., video mothership, damaged or mutilated fish According to NMFS’ analysis, EM review, storage, and reporting) picked from the gear or washed from the may save some shorebased whiting beginning in 2020 (now 2021) would deck during cleaning, and fish vented vessels as much as $27,777 a year on undercut the cost savings of EM and from an overfull codend. Discards of monitoring relative to human observers. requesting delay of these requirements invertebrates, trash, and debris, and Mothership catcher vessels and fixed to a later rulemaking. As NMFS discard events outside the control of the gear vessels may save up to $5,900 and addresses further in the response to vessel operator would also be allowed. $7,575 annually, respectively. These these comments, EM is not a viable Minor operational discards would not savings would be expected to increase alternative to observers to meet the 100- include discards as a result from taking net revenues and improve profitability percent at-sea monitoring requirement more catch than is necessary to fill the for these vessels, and the fishery overall, of the catch share program without hold (a.k.a. ‘‘topping off’’), which would

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 31148 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

continue to be prohibited. Minor prohibited discards include: A portion goals and objectives of the FMP to operational discards would also not of a haul is retained and the remainder minimize the burden of management include discards of fish from a tow that is discarded because there is not enough requirements while providing the best was not delivered. This occurs when room in the hold; discard when more scientific information available, as well there is not enough catch worth catch is taken than is necessary to fill as National Standards 2, 7, and 8 of the delivering to a mothership or not of the the hold due to failure of a catch sensor; MSA. Allowing the discard of bycatch desired species composition, sometimes discarding the remainder of a haul by species that can be identified on camera called ‘‘test tows’’ or ‘‘water tows.’’ This flushing the codend; large amounts of would also minimize mortality of clarified definition was not included in fish hosed off the deck, out the bycatch to the extent practicable, the version of the regulations deemed by scuppers, or down the stern ramp, after consistent with MSA National Standard the Council because the need for a portion of the haul is retained. Thus, 9. clarification occurred after deeming, so discarding an entire haul or discarding NMFS revised the final regulations at NMFS proposed the revised definition for marketability reasons, including § 660.604(p)(2) to reflect optimized in the proposed rule as a technical discards of small fish, would also be retention accordingly. The proposed change needed for clarity. NMFS prohibited. Whiting vessels may also regulations contained the more specifically requested comment on this not selectively discard non-whiting restrictive maximized retention rules, proposed definition but did not receive species (e.g., rockfish, salmon) other which were deemed by the Council at any comments opposing this revised than large marine organisms. its April 2016 meeting. NMFS further definition. To assist vessel captains and crew consulted with the Council at its April NMFS determined this definition in with complying with the clarified 2016 meeting about its intentions to the final regulations is necessary to definition, NMFS will provide further propose and implement the Council’s implement the program because it guidance in a compliance guide, EM preferred alternative of optimized minimizes discards in the whiting EM program guidance documents, and the retention in the final rule, pending program, reduces uncertainty in the mandatory captain training. NMFS public comment and final data from the species composition of discards, and intends to continue to work with EM 2016 EM EFPs to support this ensures data produced through the participants as appropriate to address alternative. As NMFS has determined program is the best scientific any issues that may arise related to that optimized retention is consistent information available for management. discard rules. with the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, These discards are currently allowed if Through this final rule, NMFS is also the MSA, and other applicable law, first sampled by an observer, but in an implementing ‘‘optimized retention’’ for NMFS has revised the final regulations EM program, an observer would no fixed gear vessels. Optimized retention to reflect the Council’s preferred longer be on board to sample the catch was the Council’s preferred alternative alternative. before discarding. In addition, as no and would allow vessels to discard any 3. Video Data Retention catch from the haul would be delivered species that could be differentiated on to either a mothership or a plant, there camera, except for salmon. NMFS EM service providers will be required would be no species composition to requested comment on both maximized to maintain EM data and other vessel extrapolate to the discarded weight. and optimized retention options in the owner records for a minimum of three Because these tows can sometimes proposed rule. NMFS received one years (see § 660.603(m)(6)). This data include overfished or endangered public comment in favor of optimized storage would be part of the data species, these discards will be retention for fixed gear vessels. As services that a vessel owner receives prohibited under the EM program. detailed further in the Comments and from its EM service provider. Vessel The proposal to clarify the definition Responses section, The Nature owners would be responsible for these of minor operational discards is also Conservancy supported optimized storage costs, along with the other supported by the apparent failure of retention for fixed gear vessels, because services rendered by the EM provider, many of the whiting vessels it was being practiced with success in as a condition of the vessel owner’s participating in the EM EFP program to the EM EFP program and would be more participation in the program. In the comply with the EFP discard consistent with traditional operations proposed rule, NMFS specifically requirements over the past year, and less disruptive to continue under requested comment on the length of resulting in a troubling increase in the regulations. time that a vessel owner must store its discards under the EFP. Through this NMFS agrees and is implementing the EM data through its EM provider. NMFS final rule, NMFS is providing additional Council’s preferred optimized retention initially recommended a five-year examples of allowable and prohibited for fixed gear vessels in this final rule, retention period, based on the five-year discards to further clarify the definition. because it is more consistent with statute of limitations for violations of Additional examples of allowable traditional fishing practices than the MSA, to ensure that the EM data and discards include discards for verifiable maximized retention and therefore less other records used to produce summary safety reasons; opening a blow-out panel burdensome for fixed gear vessels. and compliance reports for NMFS are because the net is otherwise too large to Optimized retention is also consistent available to NMFS and authorized bring up the stern ramp; on mothership with the protocols used in the 2016– officers for inspection to evaluate the (MS)/catcher vessel (CV) trips, loss of 2018 EFP program and would be less providers’ and vessels’ performance and fish forward of where the codend is confusing for EM vessels to maintain. In to effectively administer the EM tied-off for transfer to the mothership; addition, updated data from the 2016 program and enforce the regulations. As net bleeds/venting of overfull codend and 2017 EFPs in the final EA shows indicated by public comment on the that is outside the vessel operator’s that optimized retention would not proposed rule and at Council meetings control; damaged or mutilated fish substantially increase uncertainty in during development of this action, some picked from the gear or washed from the catch estimates, because fixed gear trips industry members are concerned about deck during cleaning up to 1,000 lb per continue to have low bycatch and the costs of storing such a large amount haul; and discards due to mechanical discards. For these reasons, NMFS of video data, as well as the potential for failure (but not including failure of a determined that optimized retention for enforcement personnel or other entities catch sensor). Additional examples of fixed gear vessels is consistent with the to access it for other purposes. They

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 31149

would prefer the EM data be destroyed determined the three-year retention Service. Therefore, NMFS has revised after one year, and only the summary requirement in the proposed regulations the final retention rules for fixed gear reports resulting from the video review is consistent with the Pacific Coast vessels to reference and not contradict be retained. As a compromise, NMFS Groundfish FMP, MSA, and other the requirements of the Seabird proposed and the Council supported a applicable laws. Avoidance Program. In 50 CFR 660.604(e)(3)(iii)(H), NMFS three-year retention period in the draft 4. Switching Between Observers and EM regulations. However, the Council also changed the requirement that a vessel recommended that NMFS review this NMFS is waiving the limit on the monitoring plan (VMP) include requirement before implementation to number of times whiting vessels may measurements for bins and baskets to determine if it can be reduced. NMFS switch between EM and observers in the include other tools, because some specifically requested comment on same calendar year, because NMFS has species are measured using a length whether a one, three, or five year, determined that it is not necessary for board and length-weight regression retention period is appropriate for EM purposes of observer deployment. The rather than volumetric estimates. data. regulations implemented through this NMFS also revised the regulations rule (§ 660.604(m)) limit the number of governing the transmission and NMFS received two public comments times whiting vessels may switch handling of EM data throughout 50 CFR stating that EM data should only be between EM and observers, in order to 660.603 and 660.604 to reference EM retained for a few months to one year. limit disruption to observer data more generally, rather than hard The commenters asserted that deployments. These regulations allow drives specifically, to allow for other information of value would be extracted NMFS to waive this requirement, with types of technology to be used to from the EM data in the initial analysis prior notice, if NMFS determines that it transmit EM data in the future (e.g., and any additional value of retaining is not necessary for purposes of observer satellite, WiFi). NMFS discussed this the video further was low. As NMFS deployment. NMFS has determined that change with the Council at its June 2018 discusses further in its response to these information that will be gathered in the meeting. comments, at this time NMFS believes annual application process for EM In 50 CFR 660.603(b) and 660.604(e), that the three-year retention period vessels and the pre-trip declaration to NMFS also revised the renewal proposed by the Council and NMFS the observer program is all the procedures for vessel authorizations and strikes the right balance between information that is needed to plan provider permits to clarify the effective minimizing the costs of the EM program observer deployments at this time. date and conditions under which and ensuring that vessel owners’ EM NMFS reserves the right to reinstitute authorizations and permits may expire. data is available to NMFS and its the limit on switching for whiting The proposed regulations were not clear authorized officers to inspect or obtain vessels, with prior notice, should it that EM authorizations and provider for review for data quality assurance become necessary. If reinstituted, a permits have an expiration date and that and compliance and enforcement. whiting vessel would be limited to vessels and providers must apply to NMFS believes that, in the future, a changing its monitoring declaration renew them. This is in contrast to shorter video retention period may be twice in the same calendar year. VMPs, which will be living documents appropriate, once all the protocols have Additional revisions may be made if the that are effective unless changed. A been established to extract the necessary EM system has malfunctioned and the renewal requirement for EM information from the EM data before it vessel operator has chosen to carry an Authorizations is necessary for NMFS to is destroyed and the costs and benefits observer; or subsequently, the EM maintain up-to-date information on an of different retention periods have been system has been repaired; and upon individual’s eligibility to continue to weighed by the Council and NMFS. expiration or invalidation of the vessel’s participate in the program. To address However, at this time, the groundfish EM Authorization. NMFS requested EM service providers’ desire for stability EM program is still in its early stages comment on the two-change limit in the in planning, NMFS has made EM and NMFS and the Council are still proposed rule but no comments were provider permits effective for two years developing the video sampling and received. instead of one. auditing protocols and timelines. These In 50 CFR 660.603(i), NMFS has protocols would factor heavily into 5. Additional Corrections removed the requirement for EM NMFS’ and the Council’s analysis of the NMFS identified a number of providers to maintain insurance costs and benefits of different retention corrections and clarifications to the coverage under the Jones Act and the periods. NMFS understands the proposed regulations that were needed U.S. Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Council’s and industry’s concerns to clarify the regulations and to achieve Compensation Act. NMFS proposed regarding the cost of storing EM data the objectives of the FMP. NMFS requiring insurance to cover potential (specifically the video data) and the consulted with the Council on these claims by EM provider employees under desire to minimize the costs of the EM changes, as allowed by section 304(b)(3) these Acts. However, after further program. NMFS has committed to of the MSA, through an exchange of review, NMFS has determined that working with the Council to evaluate letters dated October 24 and November these Acts do not apply to EM service whether shorter retention periods may 5, 2018 and May 23 and 30, 2019. providers and technicians and, be feasible in the future, and is in the In 50 CFR 660.604(p)(2), NMFS therefore, are unnecessary. process of developing a national policy revised the fixed gear retention rules to NMFS revised 50 CFR 660.13 to be on the minimum time that EM data be consistent with the Seabird consistent with changes made to VMS must be retained. However, at present, Avoidance Program at 50 CFR 660.21. declarations by the final rule that NMFS believes that a three-year The proposed regulations required fixed revised trawl gear requirements in the retention period is necessary to ensure gear vessels to discard seabirds. While Pacific Coast Groundfish regulations (83 that the EM data is available for NMFS this is correct for pot vessels, longline FR 62269, December 3, 2018). to inspect to evaluate the providers’ and vessels are required by the Seabird NMFS added definitions for ‘‘EM vessels’ performance and to effectively Avoidance Program to retain short- data’’ and ‘‘EM datasets’’ and administer the EM program and enforce tailed albatross carcasses and turn them accordingly revised the regulations the regulations. Therefore, NMFS over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife throughout to clarify the difference

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 31150 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

between different types of raw and received from two environmental Comment 2: The Nature Conservancy summary EM data, and different types organizations, one EM service provider, (TNC) and a letter from groundfish of EM program records. and one member of the public. One of industry representatives, consisting of NMFS revised 50 CFR 660.603(l) to the same environmental organizations the California Groundfish Collective, clarify that EM service providers must and some members of the fishing Oregon Trawl Commission, Fort Bragg provide NMFS information, rather than industry submitted two additional Groundfish Association, Half Moon Bay support, that may be used in litigation letters to the NMFS West Coast Regional Groundfish Marketing Association, and enforcement action, in response to Administrator and the Council at the Morro Bay Community Quota Fund, the a public comment. April 2017 Council meeting EM Fixed Gear EFP, and an individual NMFS clarified the terminology used commenting further on the proposed commercial fisherman, supported to describe those with the authority to rule. Although these letters were implementing EM as a lower-cost access and obtain EM data and other received outside of the public comment monitoring option, but opposed records, and other technical and period, we have addressed them in this requiring industry to procure video litigation information to be consistent in final rule. Four comments generally review, data storage, and reporting 50 CFR 660.603(l), m(6), and (n)(3), and supported the EM program. One of the services from third party service 660.604(o) and (t). comments did not address the proposed providers in this rulemaking and NMFS revised 50 CFR 660.603(n)(3) measures and thus it is not included instead requested these requirements be in response to a public comment to here. Where possible, responses to postponed to a later rulemaking. TNC make clear that a vessel owner or similar comments on the proposed and the California Groundfish Collective authorized representative may authorize measures have been consolidated. et al. commented that requiring industry the EM service provider to the release of Comment 1: Environmental Defense to bear these costs now would undercut the vessel owner’s EM data. Fund (EDF) generally supported the cost-savings of EM and should be NMFS revised 50 CFR 660.600(b) and implementing the EM program because delayed until the costs of the program 660.603(b)(1)(vii), (k) and (m), to it would reduce the costs of monitoring. requirements can be reduced and/or centralize the defined purpose of the industry is able to find a way to defray EM program and reduce repetition Response: NMFS agrees with EDF that EM provides a lower-cost option for the costs of the program, such as by throughout, and to clarify how the EM securing rights to access and sell their Program Guidelines and EM Program vessel owners to meet the 100-percent at-sea observer coverage requirements of EM data. They noted that for bottom Manual will be used to evaluate EM trawl vessels EM is approximately equal service provider and vessel plans and the catch share program and has approved the EM program for whiting to the cost of observers and EM only performance. provides a small amount of savings for NMFS revised the regulations at 50 and fixed gear vessels through this final rule. According to the economic fixed gear vessels. The California CFR 660.603(a), (b)(5)(iii), (h)(2), (m), Groundfish Collective et al. want to (m)(1), (m)(5)–(6), (n) and (n)(1) to analysis, a shorebased whiting vessel may save an estimated $27,777 per year, defer third party video review to clarify the role of EM service providers maintain Pacific States Marine Fisheries in the EM Program as the contracted an MS/CV vessel $5,900 per year, and a fixed gear vessel $7,575 per year, Commission (PSMFC) as a video agents of participating vessel owners. reviewer, because they believe it is less NMFS revised 50 CFR 660.600(a), compared to the cost of using an costly than a private sector service 660.603(m), and 660.604(b)(7), to observer. These savings would increase provider. implement third party EM service net revenues for these vessels and the provider data services (i.e., video fishery overall, consistent with the Response: NMFS disagrees with the review, reporting, and data storage) Council’s objectives for the program. commenters about delaying beginning January 1, 2021, consistent The EM program also increases requirements to a later rulemaking. As with the updated timeline discussed by operational flexibility for vessel owners, NMFS has previously stated in the Council at its April 2019 meeting. by providing an alternative to observers discussions on this issue at the NMFS proposed the revised timeline, for meeting the monitoring requirements September and November 2015 and and the Council agreed, to provide of the catch share program. Having the April 2016 Council meetings, excluding additional time to NMFS and the option to use EM or an observer allows requirements for participants to procure Council to work on the EM program vessel owners to choose the tool that is video review, data storage, and guidelines and to prepare for the most cost effective and suitable for reporting services from this rulemaking implementation of third party video their individual operation. Although the would not be consistent with the goals review. In addition, NMFS was able to cost savings relative to observers may be and objectives of the Trawl locate funding to support PSMFC to smaller for some vessels, some vessel Rationalization Program and the Pacific continue to review video from the EM owners may choose to use EM in order Coast Groundfish FMP and, therefore, is EFP through 2020. Vessels may to avoid carrying another person not a reasonable alternative. A vessel’s continue to participate in the EM EFP onboard, or because it gives them the raw EM data (e.g. imagery, sensor data, Program through 2019. The Council is flexibility to depart on trips without and other associated data files) cannot scheduled to renew the EM EFP through carrying an observer, which may not be be used by NMFS for catch accounting. 2020 at their September 2019 meeting. available at the desired time, Without the required analysis and Finally, NMFS made a number of particularly in some remote ports. reporting, the EM data would not be a other minor revisions to clarify the NMFS finds that the EM program usable substitute for observer data and prohibitions at 50 CFR 660.602 and to reduces the burden from the 100- the EM Program would not be an correct typos throughout the percent at-sea monitoring requirement equivalent alternative to human regulations. of the catch share program and increases observers for meeting the 100-percent profitability and flexibility for at-sea monitoring requirements of the Comments and Responses participating vessels, and it is consistent catch share program. Therefore, the NMFS received a total of four with the goals and objectives of the requirement for participants to procure comments on the proposed rule during FMP, the MSA, and other applicable services to analyze the vessel’s EM data the public comment period. Letters were laws. and report EM summary data to NMFS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 31151

cannot be severed and postponed to a services are spread among more sea party video review and the cost of separate rulemaking. days, creating a lower average sea day scientific observer coverage that NMFS Furthermore, NMFS has determined rate. For vessels that fish comparatively intends to maintain on EM trips, which that a vessel owner that chooses EM in few sea days, EM has high initial and may be passed on to harvesters through lieu of a human observer must be annual costs that may not be worth the cost recovery fees. The California responsible for the cost of processing of investment and using an observer may Groundfish Collective et al. commented his or her EM data and delivery of actually be cheaper. However, as that the economic analysis was based on summary data to NMFS. NMFS has paid described in the response to Comment PSMFC’s costs, a quasi-government, these costs under the EM EFP program, 1, EM can provide substantial cost non-profit entity, which are not which has been testing camera systems savings for some vessels, even after representative of and likely and EM video data review protocols, NMFS’ funding has ended. For those underestimate the costs of private sector and intends to continue to do so vessels for whom cost savings are service providers. They further argued through 2020. Thereafter, vessel owners marginal, EM may provide other that private sector, third party provider who choose to participate in the EM benefits that may make it preferable to costs cannot be estimated because some program will be responsible for paying an observer, such as flexibility in components of the program, such as for analysis and storage of their EM data scheduling trips and not having to sampling rates, remain unspecified. and for delivery of the vessel owner’s accommodate another person onboard. TNC also asserted that the economic summary data to NMFS. NMFS would Although EM may not be the most cost analysis should have evaluated the continue to pay for its costs to effective option for everyone, NMFS affordability of EM and observers administer components of the EM believes this should not preclude relative to vessel revenues, rather than program, including the agency’s review making an EM option available for those simply comparing the costs of the two of any EM data selected for secondary it may benefit. For these operations, the options. evaluation or compliance and EM program is consistent with the Response: NMFS believes the enforcement purposes, and the storage objectives of the FMP and the MSA, to commenters are misunderstanding the costs of any EM data that NMFS obtains increase flexibility, minimize costs, and assumptions used in the economic and makes part of its records for these avoid adverse economic impacts from analysis. Contrary to the commenters’ purposes. NMFS cannot commit to monitoring requirements. In addition, assertions, the analysis did include providing funds to pay for the industry’s NMFS and the Council are continuing to NMFS’ costs to administer the program portion of the video review and storage work to identify ways to reduce the once it transitions to third party video beyond 2020 because NMFS funding is costs of the EM program to increase review and the amount of this cost that uncertain and subject to Congressional benefits for all participants, such as by would be expected to be recovered from appropriation and to do so would be reducing the amount of video reviewed industry through cost recovery fees. inconsistent with NMFS’ own Policy on and stored. Therefore, NMFS Pages 8–10 of the draft RIR/IRFA and Electronic Technologies and Fishery determined the EM program final RIR/FRFA describe NMFS’ Dependent Data Collection. As NMFS recommended by the Council is anticipated duties and costs when the has stated at Council meetings on this consistent with the Pacific Coast program transitions to third party video issue, and in the preamble to the Groundfish FMP, MSA, and other review, including a table on page 10 that proposed rule and this final rule, the applicable laws. shows the expected change in cost analysis and storage of the vessel Finally, with respect to delaying the recovery fees as a result—no change for owner’s EM data is the vessel owner’s regulations in order to maintain PSMFC the shorebased sector, which is already responsibility. Industry-funded, third as a video reviewer, NMFS stated to the at the 3-percent limit allowed by the party video review is needed beginning Council in its supplemental NMFS MSA, and an increase of approximately in 2021 if the program is to continue report at the September 2017 Council 0.02-percent for the mothership sector. and provide a viable alternative to meeting that PSMFC may obtain a The estimated change to the cost observers. As with the observer and permit as a third party EM service recovery fee for the mothership sector catch monitor programs, when provider from NMFS, same as any other was not included in the estimated EM appropriations were available NMFS third party provider through the sea day rate used to compare to the provided funds to assist with testing regulations. The regulations do not observer sea day rate in earlier tables, cameras and protocols. However, after preclude PSMFC from continuing to which may be the source of confusion. the EM funds are expended in 2020, conduct video review on industry’s The change to the cost recovery fee was industry must assume its share of the behalf after 2020 and, therefore, no not included in the estimated EM sea EM program costs as it did with change or delay to the regulations is day rate, because the portion of the cost observer and catch monitor costs in needed. recovery fee from NMFS’ costs to 2015. Therefore, NMFS determined that Comment 3: TNC and the California administer the observer program are not the requirements for third-party data Groundfish Collective et al. further included in the observer sea day rate services in this final rule are consistent commented that the final rule should be and so including it in the EM sea day with the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, delayed because the economic analysis rate would not have been appropriate MSA, and other applicable laws. underestimated the cost of the program for comparison. Regarding the modest savings for to the fleet and did not analyze a The cost to NMFS for maintaining some vessels, the EM program is not a significant alternative, which would scientific observer coverage on EM trips panacea for all fishing operations. As have considered deferring requirements was not included in the estimated costs has been shown by NMFS’ cost for industry to procure third party video of the EM program, because NMFS analyses, the amount of savings relative review services until confidentiality intends to cover these costs itself as it to using observers is largely driven by requirements could be revised to allow did prior to the beginning of the Trawl the number of days fished due to the industry to sell their EM data. They Program. This is consistent with NMFS’ high initial fixed costs of EM. Vessels stated that the economic analysis failed policy of not recovering the portion of fishing more sea days see a greater to account for costs that NMFS would its costs for administering the catch savings from EM because the fixed costs continue to perform after the program share observer program that corresponds of equipment, installation, and field transitions to industry-funded, third to the level of coverage NMFS provided

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 31152 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

to the fleet prior to the beginning of the objective of the action was not to revisit rights with respect to their data does not Trawl Program. the requirement for 100-percent at-sea affect the authority of NMFS or its Regarding third party service provider observer coverage and whether it is authorized officers to obtain EM data or costs, NMFS disagrees that the affordable or justifiable; a decision that other records directly from an EM economic analysis does not capture the was analyzed and made in Amendment service provider for the purposes likely costs to industry from third party 20. Therefore, it would not have been specified in the regulations. See video review services. NMFS made appropriate to analyze the affordability §§ 660.603(m)(6), (n)(3). EM data and estimates of these costs based on the of the EM and observer programs, records that NMFS receives from the EM actual costs of the EM EFP program relative to less or no monitoring, service provider will be handled since 2015, which are summarized as because those are not alternatives under consistent with section 402(b) of the the video review and data storage costs consideration in this action. Instead, MSA, the Federal Records Act (FRA), in tables on pages 7 and 8 of the RIR/ NMFS’ analysis compared the cost and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), FRFA and Table 17 in the final EA other aspects of EM relative to and other applicable law. EM data that (available at regulations.gov, see observers, because this action is offering NMFS does not receive from the EM ADDRESSES). Although it is not known a choice between the two and the data provider are not records for what exact fees third party providers decision for NMFS and the Council is purposes of the FRA or FOIA. will charge for these services, NMFS whether having a choice is of greater NMFS has also made other minor used various assumptions in the benefit than not having a choice. In edits to simplify or clarify the text, economic analysis to provide an addition, TNC’s analysis focused in part including deleting the phrase estimate of these costs to industry based on differences in revenues for bottom ‘‘consistent with the MSA.’’ NMFS has on the best scientific information trawl vessels depending on target concluded that the rule overall is available. While private sector service species, because NMFS’ economic consistent with the MSA; it is not providers may charge higher fees than analysis included bottom trawl vessels. necessary to reiterate that in a PSMFC, the economic analysis also However, EM for bottom trawl vessels is subparagraph of the regulatory text. contained conservative assumptions not part of this rulemaking, but will be Comment 5: Two commenters about the amount of video that would considered in a separate rulemaking. commented that the length that EM data need to be reviewed and stored. These NMFS’ economic analysis included (specifically video data) must be conservative assumptions were bottom trawl vessels for purposes of retained by the EM service provider necessary to capture the range of apportioning those costs from the EM should be shorter than 3 years. An EM potential sampling rates, and resulting EFP program to each gear type for the service provider commented that EM costs, for video review and data storage analysis. NMFS has added language to datasets should not be retained for more to industry. For example, NMFS’ the final RIR/FRFA to clarify this point. than a few months, except where analysis assumed that 100 percent of NMFS disagrees that deferring compliance issues are identified, due to EM data would be reviewed and stored. industry-funded, third party video the costs of archiving large video This level of review and storage is not review to a later rulemaking is a datasets. He further stated that the data expected to continue into the future as significant alternative that should have of interest is the fishery activities which the program transitions to the logbook been analyzed in the RIR/IRFA. See are already extracted from the initial audit model, so these costs were likely response to Comment 2 for a detailed video review. He cited the Canadian EM an overestimate of the actual costs to explanation. With regard to vessel program as an example, where datasets industry. Although PSMFC may be able owner access to EM data, see response are generally deleted about a month to carry out these duties at a lower cost to Comment 4. after they are processed unless a than a private sector service provider, Comment 4: TNC commented that the compliance issue is identified, in which private sector providers will likely be requirement for EM service providers to case the full video is turned over to the conducting the video review and storage maintain the confidentiality of the EM government. EDF commented that the at lower rates once a logbook audit data was too restrictive and would not video imagery should be held for one protocol is implemented. NMFS also allow EM vessels to extract additional year, because the catch data extracted assumed that EM units would need to economic value from the EM data that from the video review will be held be replaced every 3 years, rather than 5 might be used to offset the costs of the permanently and the need to review or 10 years as has been seen in some EM program. TNC requested that NMFS past imagery is likely low. EDF further programs, likely overestimating the revise the proposed regulations at commented that the standards for record annual, amortized equipment costs. § 660.603(n)(3) to explicitly allow vessel retention should not be higher than for Therefore, NMFS anticipates that even if owners to have rights to control access vessels carrying observers, or for vessels it has underestimated the overhead to their EM data. in other fisheries. costs or video review costs charged by Response: Proposed § 660.603(n)(3) Response: NMFS disagrees with the providers, the total costs estimated have was not intended to affect vessel commenters that the EM data should be captured the total costs of the program owners’ ability to access or authorize held for a few months to one year at this to industry. release of EM data collected on board time. It is not reasonable to compare the NMFS disagrees with the commenters their vessels or other related records. current groundfish EM program to the that the economic analysis was deficient NMFS considers EM data and related Canadian EM program where protocols because it did not examine the records that a vessel owner stores with are well established and the program affordability of monitoring relative to its EM service provider as owned by the has demonstrated performance over vessel revenues for different vessel owner. In response to comments, many years. The current groundfish EM components of the fishery. NMFS NMFS has revised § 660.603(n)(3) to program is in its early stages and not all believes that the commenters have clarify that an EM service provider and the protocols and associated timelines misunderstood the purpose of the its employees may release a vessel’s EM have been established. NMFS and the action, which was to evaluate making data and related records to other Council are still developing sampling EM an option for meeting monitoring persons if authorized by the vessel protocols for the video review that requirements of the catch share owner or their authorized would be expected to influence how program, compared to observers. The representative. Note that vessel owners’ much video would need to be archived

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 31153

and for how long. For example, at this be impossible to manage or budget and be short phone conversations to quality time, PSMFC is only reviewing video difficult to recoup through fees charged assure/quality check trip data at imagery from gear retrievals during to industry and, therefore, unfair to the approximately 15 minutes per trip. which time most discarding occurs and EM service providers. The EM service Some trips may require more extensive only reviews other parts of the video ad- provider also stated that the potential inquiries if an EM system malfunction hoc, such as when compliance issues costs of this requirement were not or compliance issue occurred, are suspected. This additional review addressed in the economic impacts potentially up to 25 hours. Assuming 90 may not occur until after the end of the analysis and that this was a major percent of trips require some follow-up season. In some cases, errors may be oversight. The EM service provider at 15 minutes per trip and 10 percent of found or video review protocols may be stated that NMFS should instead pay for trips require more extensive changed, that would require reviewers service requests. investigation (25 hours/trip) results in a to re-review parts of video already Response: EM service providers will total annual burden of 4,778 hours ((175 analyzed. The costs and benefits of the provide services to vessel owners with trips × 25 hours/trip) + (1,575 trips × 15 retention period must take into account whom they have contracts. In addition, minutes/trip)). This information was the sampling schemes developed for the though, EM service providers need to summarized in the Classification section video review and NMFS and the have permits from NMFS. As a of the preamble to the proposed rule Council must weigh the risks and condition of their permits, NMFS and again in this final rule. These costs uncertainty introduced by deleting clarifies in the final rule at § 660.603(l) were also assumed to be included in the video that has not been reviewed. NMFS that, upon request, EM service providers field services and data services costs for understands the cost burden of this must provide information—not third party service providers in the RIR/ requirement to industry and has litigation support—to the agency FRFA, which were based on the number committed to work with the Council to regarding their EM systems and related of such inquiries seen in the EM EFP evaluate shorter retention periods. The data issues. NMFS may use such program to which service providers and cost of storing video data is a problem information for litigation, including PSMFC have responded. facing all EM programs, and NMFS has enforcement cases. As a condition of Comment 7: One commenter made it a priority to develop a national their permits, EM service providers will commented on the level of video review policy for the minimal retention of EM be required to respond to and remedy specified in the proposed regulations at data (especially the video imagery) by technical issues identified by NMFS, § 660.603(m)(1). EDF commented that service providers. NMFS agrees that in such as recovery of corrupt data, and more detail was needed on the the future, it may be possible to delete provide NMFS software to view and conditions under which the review rate the EM data more quickly after the analyze the EM data to evaluate would be reduced in order to provide review once protocols are well providers’ and vessels’ performance and guidance to industry and service established and the costs and benefits of to effectively administer the EM providers and incentives for industry to different retention periods have been program and enforce the regulations. comply. EDF also commented that the weighed and looks forward to working Vessels participating in the fishery 100-percent review rate and 50-percent with the Council and other stakeholders using EM, and their contracted EM audit rate used in the analysis was too on developing options. At this time, service providers, gain a benefit from high and the costs outweighed any NMFS believes that a retention period of the EM program. Therefore, it is benefits from this level of review. three years is necessary to ensure that reasonable for NMFS to require EM Response: NMFS believes the EM data is available for inspection for service providers to provide NMFS with commenter may be misunderstanding NMFS to evaluate providers’ and information, respond to issues NMFS the purpose of the 100-percent review vessels’ performance and to effectively identifies with vessels’ EM systems and rate and 50-percent audit rate in the administer the EM program and enforce data, and to provide NMFS with the economic analysis. The regulations at the regulations. proprietary tools to evaluate that data, at § 660.603(m)(1) specify that the EM NMFS also believes a three-year no additional expense to NMFS. NMFS service provider must conduct the video retention period is necessary to preserve maintains similar requirements in the review according to a sampling scheme NMFS’ ability to establish a national regulations for vessel monitoring system established by NMFS but does not policy for minimum video data (VMS) service providers (see provide a specific rate in the retention. NMFS is currently developing § 600.1508). regulations. As the commenter noted, it a draft national policy for retention of NMFS did estimate the cost and time is important to maintain flexibility in video imagery from EM programs, burden to providers from these the regulations, given that the audit rate which is expected to be finalized in the requirements as part of the Paperwork may change over time based on program next year or two. It is important that Reduction Act (PRA) package that and fleet performance, to ensure that the video imagery from the groundfish EM accompanied this rule, which was EM program continues to provide the program not be deleted before NMFS summarized in the Classification section best scientific information available for can finalize this policy. If the final of the proposed rule and this final rule. catch accounting and monitoring policy is different from the three year As part of estimating the burden of compliance. NMFS used a 100-percent retention period in this final rule, NMFS reporting and recordkeeping review rate in the analysis only to intends to revise the groundfish requirements of the proposed provide a high-end estimate of a regulations to be consistent with the regulations, NMFS estimated that each potential range of costs to the industry. final national policy through a proposed service provider would receive no more Although PSMFC, on behalf of NMFS, is and final rulemaking at that time. than 10 requests from NMFS each year reviewing 100 percent of the fishing Comment 6: An EM service provider for the information listed in § 660.603(l). activity at this time, NMFS is working commented on the proposed The largest time burden would be with the Council to develop an alternate requirement for EM service providers to associated with responding to inquiries review rate with the objective of provide support to NMFS, free of charge from NMFS following-up on data auditing the logbooks, which would be to NMFS (see § 660.603(l)). The EM summaries, analyses, reports, and the primary source of discard service provider commented that such a operational issues with vessel information, that would be based on blanket, open-ended requirement would representatives. Most inquiries would fleet performance. NMFS does not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 31154 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

anticipate requiring EM service successfully in the EFP and would not Changes From the Proposed Rule providers to review 100 percent of the undermine data quality relative to video all the time, but this number was maximized retention protocols, as NMFS has made the following simply provided to capture the highest shown in updated information in the changes from the proposed rule. NMFS possible cost of video review for the final EA. Optimized retention would revised the regulations to incorporate purpose of analysis. Similarly, NMFS also minimize discard mortality, by optimized retention for fixed gear anticipates its rate of review to audit the minimizing the amount of catch that vessels (see Item 2 in the preamble). provider’s review, i.e., the EM summary must be retained. In this way, optimized NMFS also revised the fixed gear reports, would be less than 50 percent. retention best meets the Council’s retention regulations at § 660.604(p)(2) NMFS used 50 percent in the analysis objectives for this action to provide to be consistent with the Seabird because sometimes NMFS may need to flexibility and reduce monitoring costs Avoidance Program (see Item 5 in the review additional video from some to the fleet while maintaining data preamble). NMFS also clarified the providers, more than the standard audit quality and accountability. Therefore, regulations governing VMPs and rate, such as if an error is discovered NMFS determined that optimized submission and handling of EM data to that affects multiple vessels or trips. retention for fixed gear vessels in this use more general language that would Therefore, 50 percent was only intended final rule is consistent with the Pacific encompass a range of tools that may be as a high-end estimate of the range of Coast Groundfish FMP, MSA, and other used. NMFS also clarified the potential costs to industry and is likely applicable laws. regulations governing EM service an overestimate of actual audit costs. Comment 9: EDF commented in provider and EM vessel owner Comment 8: The Nature Conservancy support of the halibut discard mortality applications to make clear under what commented in support of optimized rate (DMR) method in the rule for circumstances EM certifications expire retention rules for fixed gear vessels, whiting and fixed gear vessels, but and must be renewed (see Item 5 of the because fixed gear vessels have been commented that a different approach is preamble). NMFS removed the fishing under optimized retention in the needed for bottom trawl trips, where requirement for EM service providers to EFP and to return to maximized Pacific halibut is encountered more have insurance for potential claims filed retention now would be confusing for frequently and can constrain fishing for by their employees under the Jones Act captains and crew. Optimized retention target species caught with it. and the U.S. Longshore and Harbor is less disruptive to fishing operations Response: NMFS agrees that the Workers’ Compensation Act, because we because it is what captains and crew are halibut DMRs are appropriate for determined that these acts do not apply used to doing when an observer is whiting and fixed gear and has to EM providers. Finally, NMFS made a onboard. Maximized retention would approved this measure in the final rule. number of other minor clarifications to require vessels to change practices and The DMRs in use in the EM program the regulations in the final rule, as update their vessel monitoring plans. have been approved by the International described in Item 5. Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and Optimized retention rules were Classification developed collaboratively with industry represent the best available scientific in the EFP and not implementing them information for estimating mortality in The Administrator, West Coast would undermine confidence in the EFP these fleets. NMFS, the IPHC, and Region, has determined that the process. Optimized retention has Council have been working on approved measures in this final rule are worked well in the EFPs and provides alternative methods for estimating consistent with the Pacific Coast more flexibility to vessels and the mortality in the bottom trawl fleet, Groundfish FMP, MSA, and other Council to adapt the program over time. which were implemented in 2018 in the applicable laws. Response: NMFS agrees and has EFPs and will be addressed in a separate This final rule has been determined to implemented optimized retention for rulemaking for EM regulations for be not significant for the purposes of fixed gear vessels in this final rule. The bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. proposed regulations contained trawl vessels. As discussed below in the FRFA, this maximized retention, although Comment 10: EDF commented that rule is anticipated to result in cost optimized retention was the Council’s NMFS should put EM information, such savings and is a deregulatory action final preferred alternative, because EFP as forms, applications, etc. online on the under E.O. 13771. data on optimized retention was not vessel account system website where available at the time of the Council’s vessels already access their personal This final rule does not contain final action in April 2016. However, account information. policies with federalism or ‘‘takings’’ NMFS also proposed and solicited Response: NMFS agrees and intends implications as those terms are defined comment on optimized retention in the to post links to applications forms, etc. in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, preamble to the proposed rule in order on its website along with its other respectively. to enable us to implement optimized permit applications. Currently, the NMFS prepared a FRFA under section retention in the final rule, if supported vessel account system presents 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act by updated EFP results. This approach information to the user on IFQ account (RFA), which incorporates the initial was discussed with and approved by the balances, etc., but does not allow the regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). A Council at its April 2016 meeting. user to upload documentation, as in the summary of any significant issues raised Optimized retention is consistent case of signed applications or Vessel by the public comments in response to with what has been practiced in the EFP Monitoring Plans. NMFS is interested in the IRFA, and NMFS’ responses to those since 2016 and would be less disruptive moving to online forms for all its permit comments, and a summary of the to captains and crew to maintain. In renewals and will include EM forms if analyses completed to support the addition, it would provide maximum it does. NMFS is in the process of action are addressed below. NMFS also flexibility in vessel operations and developing an online system for vessel prepared an RIR for this action. A copy allow captains and crew to maintain owners to review their EM summary of the RIR and FRFA are available from operations more closely between trips and compliance reports and plans to NMFS (see ADDRESSES), and per the with EM and trips with observers. make this available to EM vessels as requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604(a), the text Optimized retention has been practiced soon as possible. of the FRFA follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 31155

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis portion thereof (e.g., user group, gear this IRFA analyzes impacts to the entire As applicable, section 604 of the RFA type, geographic area), that segment will trawl fleet. A general description of the limited requires an agency to prepare a FRFA be considered the universe for purposes entry trawl fishery and catch share after being required by that section or of this analysis. In preparing a FRFA, an agency may program is contained in the preamble to any other law to publish a general provide either a quantifiable or this section. Most recent permit notice of proposed rulemaking and numerical description of the effects of a information indicates that there are when an agency promulgates a final rule rule (and alternatives to the rule), or approximately 175 limited entry trawl under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. more general descriptive statements, if permits. According to information from Code. The following paragraphs quantification is not practicable or the Northwest Fishery Science Center constitute the FRFA for this action. reliable. Economic Data Collection Program, in This FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a 2014, the fourth year of the catch share summary of any significant issues raised Need for and Objective of This Final program, there were 102 catcher vessels Rule by the public comments, NMFS’ that participated in the West Coast responses to those comments, and a A description of the reasons why this Groundfish Trawl Catch Share program. summary of the analyses completed to action is being taken, and the objectives Catcher vessels generated $85 million in support the action. Analytical of and legal basis for this final rule, is income and 954 jobs from deliveries of requirements for the FRFA are described contained in the preambles to the fish caught in the catch share program. in the RFA, section 604(a)(1) through proposed rule and this final rule and is Catcher vessels spent an average of 62 (6). FRFAs contain: not repeated here. days fishing in the catch share program 1. A statement of the need for, and and spent an average of 80 additional objectives of, the rule; Summary of Significant Issues Raised in Public Comments days fishing in non-catch share 2. A statement of the significant issues fisheries. West Coast catcher vessels raised by the public comments in NMFS published the proposed rule on deliver to ports in Washington, Oregon, response to the IRFA, a statement of the September 6, 2016 (81 FR 61161). An California, and at-sea; the two ports assessment of the agency of such issues, IRFA was prepared and summarized in with the highest landings in 2014 were and a statement of any changes made in the Classification section of the Astoria and Newport, both in Oregon. the proposed rule as a result of such preamble to the proposed rule. The An average of 2.4 crew members worked comments; comment period on the proposed rule aboard each West Coast catcher vessel, 3. The response of the agency to any ended on October 6, 2016. NMFS each earning an average compensation comments filed by the Chief Counsel for received 6 comment letters on the of $54,500. In 2014, 31 percent of Advocacy of the Small Business proposed rule. Two comments raised vessels were owner-operated at least Administration (SBA) in response to the significant issues with respect to the part of the year. The average ex-vessel proposed rule, and a detailed statement economic analysis, asserting that NMFS’ revenue per vessel from participation in of any change made to the proposed rule analysis was deficient because it did not the catch share program was $646,000. in the final rule as a result of the consider a significant alternative and Average variable cost net revenue (ex- comments; did not include some future costs. The vessel revenue minus variable costs) per 4. A description and an estimate of Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA vessel was $256,000 from participation the number of small entities to which did not file any comments on the IRFA in the catch share program, and the the rule will apply, or an explanation of or the proposed rule. NMFS’ response to fleet-wide variable cost net revenue was why no such estimate is available; all comments received on the proposed $26.2 million. Average total cost net 5. A description of the projected rule, including those that raised revenue (ex-vessel revenue minus reporting, recordkeeping, and other significant issues or commented on the variable costs and fixed costs) per vessel compliance requirements of the rule, economic analyses summarized in the was $127,000 and the fleet-wide total including an estimate of the classes of IRFA can be found in the ‘‘Comments cost net revenue was $12.9 million small entities which will be subject to and Responses’’ section of this rule and (Northwest Fisheries Science Center the requirement and the type of is not repeated here. (NWFSC), 2014; http:// professional skills necessary for Description and Estimate of Number of www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/ preparation of the report or record; and 2016/06/G5b_NMFS_Rpt4_MS_ElecVer_ 6. A description of the steps the Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply JUN2016BB.pdf). It should be noted that agency has taken to minimize the some industry members have significant economic impact on small This regulatory amendment impacts questioned the results of economic data entities consistent with the stated mainly commercial harvesting entities collection (EDC) data which is based on objectives of applicable statutes, engaged in the groundfish limited entry cost-earnings surveys where all including a statement of the factual, trawl fishery. Although this action participants are required to respond to. policy, and legal reasons for selecting proposes an EM program for only two However, NMFS’ NWFSC economists the alternative adopted in the final rule components of the limited entry trawl conduct extensive QA/QC of the data and why each one of the other fishery—the Pacific whiting fishery and and it represents the best available significant alternatives to the rule the fixed gear shorebased IFQ fishery— scientific information on costs in the considered by the agency which affect any limited entry trawl vessel may fishery. the impact on small entities was participate in these components, With respect to monitoring costs, the rejected. provided they comply with its NWFSC 2014 EDC report states the The ‘‘universe’’ of entities to be requirements, and therefore may be following: ‘‘One other change resulting considered in a FRFA generally eligible to use EM. In addition, vessels from the implementation of the catch includes only those small entities that deploying EM are likely to be a subset share program was a shift to 100% can reasonably be expected to be of the overall trawl fleet, as some vessels observer coverage with partial industry directly regulated by the action. If the would likely choose to continue to use funding. Prior to catch shares, there was effects of the rule fall primarily on a observers. However, as all trawl vessels approximately 20% observer coverage, distinct segment of the industry, or could potentially use EM in the future, paid for by NMFS’’ (page 16 of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 31156 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

report https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/ vessels ranged from $0 to $5.0 million. costs for administering the shorebased research/divisions/fram/documents/ Based on these ranges, NMFS concludes sector already exceed 3 percent, so the EDC_Catcher_Vessel_Report_October_ that the remaining vessels would be shorebased sector would not be likely to 2016.pdf). The report noted that in order considered ‘‘small’’ even after factoring see a change in fees from the preferred to lessen the cost of transitioning to the in the possibility of the vessels alternative in the short term. The required 100-percent observer coverage, participating in Alaska fisheries. mothership sector fees are currently below 3 percent of ex-vessel revenue, so catcher vessels received a maximum of Impacts of the Action on Small Entities $328.50 per day in 2011 and 2012, $256 NMFS would be able to recover this per day in 2013, $216 per day in 2014, This action allows vessels in the sector’s portion of EM program costs by and $108 per day in 2015 with NMFS groundfish fishery to use EM in place of increasing the fees. funding ending in 2015. Catcher vessels observers, and the no action alternative, As mentioned in the preamble to this spent on average $14,400 on observer which would not create an EM option. final rulethe, NMFS intends to fund coverage (excluding the NMFS funding) The proposed regulatory amendment PSMFC to conduct the video review while operating in the catch share also considered several sub-options for through 2020, contingent on available program in 2014. Note that in 2011, design elements within the preferred funding, while the standards and observer costs represented 0.6 percent of alternative, which are described in the protocols for third party service total vessel operational costs, and this accompanying EA and summarized in providers are developed. The increased to 2.8 percent in 2014. the preamble to the proposed rule and requirement for industry to fund the Currently the industry is paying about are not repeated here. This final rule video review would take effect in 2021. $500 per day for observers. implements the Council’s preferred When video review responsibilities shift alternative as originally proposed. to third party providers, NMFS’ This rule would apply to those This final rule is presenting a choice responsibilities would be reduced to entities that elect to use EM in lieu of to fishermen—they can either continue oversight and quality assurance, which observers. In 2015, a total of 36 vessels to pay for 100-percent observer coverage may include auditing the service participated in the EM EFP program. or elect to pay for EM (i.e., equipment, providers’ video review results. To This total includes 20 vessels that maintenance, and video review). Using conservatively estimate government participated in the Pacific whiting 2015 EFP cost estimates developed costs and corresponding fee increases, fishery (11 that participated in both the jointly by PSMFC and NMFS, NMFS NMFS assumes that service providers shorebased and mothership sectors, 9 developed a model for assessing the would review 100 percent of the video that fished only in mothership) and 7 vessel, fleet, and government costs from and that NMFS would audit 50 percent fixed gear vessels. This is likely an the preferred alternative. The results of the video. Government costs include underestimate of the number of vessels indicate economic impacts on small video review and storage costs for trips that would use EM in the future. For entities from the preferred alternative that NMFS reviewed as part of its audit RFA purposes only, NMFS has would be positive as these entities or for enforcement purposes, as well as established a small business size would have a choice between hiring an program management costs, statistician standard for businesses, including their observer and using EM. The current cost costs, database management, and affiliates, whose primary industry is of an observer is approximately $500 overhead. With the full transition in commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). per day. Presumably, vessel owners 2021, NMFS estimates the government A business primarily engaged in would choose between using an costs would be approximately $286,000 commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) observer or EM based on relative costs per year. Under current fee rates, only is classified as a small business if it is and operational flexibility. NMFS the portion of the costs related to the independently owned and operated, is estimates indicate fixed gear vessels will mothership catcher vessel fleet would not dominant in its field of operation save approximately $98 per day, be recouped by the cost recovery fee, (including its affiliates), and has mothership catcher vessels $159 per which would result in an increase of combined annual receipts not in excess day, and shoreside vessels $330, using 0.02 percent. NMFS estimates that of $11 million for all its affiliated EM. Vessels that participated in the compared to the costs of observers, the operations worldwide. For for-hire EFPs already own EM systems (most preferred alternative would still present fishing and fish processing entities, the whiting vessels and approximately half a lower cost option for whiting and Small Business Administration (SBA) of the fixed gear vessels), so they may fixed gear vessels. defines a small business as one that is: see a greater cost savings compared to Under Alternative 2, seven sub- Independently owned and operated; not new entrants, until such time that the options were developed to address dominant in its field of operation; has cameras need to be replaced. Annual various aspects of program design. annual receipts not in excess of $7.0 vessel estimates show fixed gear and These sub-options are summarized in million in the case of for-hire fishing mothership catcher vessels saving the preamble to the proposed rule. entities; or if it has fewer than 500 $3,000 to $4,000 and shoreside whiting Generally speaking, the Council’s sub- employees in the case of fish processors, vessels saving $24,000 per year, relative options would either have no effect on or 100 employees in the case of fish to the cost of observers. Annual fleet the overall cost of the program (sub- dealers. When applying for their estimates show similar results. options A2, D1, E1), reduce the cost of permits, entities were asked to classify In addition to the direct costs of the the program (sub-options E1, B1), or themselves as a small business based on program, vessel owners would be provide industry additional flexibility the finfish standard of $20.5 million. responsible for reimbursing NMFS for (sub-options C2, F1, G1-Fixed Gear, G2- Only 5 indicated that they were ‘‘large’’ its incremental costs for administering Whiting). businesses and thus would continue to the EM program. NMFS collects cost be large businesses under the $11.0 recovery fees to cover the incremental Measures Proposed To Mitigate Adverse million standard. In 2015, ex-vessel costs of management, data collection, Economic Impacts of the Final Rule revenues for all west coast fisheries for and enforcement of the trawl There are no significant alternatives to the remaining vessels ranged from rationalization program. Fees are the final rule that would accomplish the $1,000 to $1.4 million. In 2014, ‘‘other limited to a maximum of 3 percent of stated objectives and that minimize any fisheries revenue’’ collected on these ex-vessel revenues. NMFS’ incremental significant economic impact of the final

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 31157

rule on small entities. Alternatives that cost burden associated with the existing vessel owners’ contact information, were considered and rejected, and the notification requirements approved VMPs, and fishing plans remain up to reason the Council or NMFS rejected under OMB Control Number 0648–0593. date. Industry participants raised them, are summarized in Section 3.3 of The requirement for first receivers to concerns with the time burden the EA. The other sub-options report protected and prohibited species associated with having to complete the considered, and the reasons the Council landings was previously approved application process each year, as was and NMFS did not propose them, are under OMB Control Number 0648–0619 proposed in an earlier draft of the summarized in the preamble to the and this action is not expected to regulations. To address these concerns, proposed rule. As fishermen would be change the time or cost burden or NMFS is proposing to instead provide given a choice between two alternative number of entities associated with this vessel owners with pre-filled renewal monitoring systems (observers versus requirement. forms and their current VMPs to review EM), this rule is likely to have positive This final rule also requires vessel and certify as correct in a simplified effects on small entities. NMFS believes owners to submit an application to renewal process. NMFS estimates a time that the preferred alternative for this NMFS to be approved to use EM in burden of approximately 0.5 hours per rule would not have a significant impact place of an observer. This application entity to review and return the pre-filled when comparing small versus large includes an application form, the package. businesses in terms of purchase or lease and installation of an Vessel operators would be required to disproportionality and profitability EM system, a VMP, and attendance of a complete and submit a logbook for each given available information. These mandatory training session. The time trip, with an estimated time burden of regulations are likely toreduce fishing burden associated with these 10 minutes per submission. The costs for both small and large requirements is estimated to be logbooks are provided by NMFS and businesses. Nonetheless, NMFS has approximately 10 hours per vessel state agencies, so the cost of prepared this FRFA. The final rule and owner to prepare and submit the requirement mainly derives from alternatives are described in detail in application package, install the EM postage at $0.46 per submission. To the Council’s regulatory amendment system, and attend training. The eliminate duplication, NMFS would and the accompanying EA and RIR/ training would be given via webinar to allow vessel operators to submit a state IRFA, and the preamble to the proposed maximize convenience and minimize logbook that contains all the required rule (see ADDRESSES). travel costs for vessel captains. The cost information. Vessel operators would of an EM system and installation is also be required to submit the EM data Description of the Projected Reporting, estimated at $12,000 per vessel. to the vessels’ EM service providers Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Approximately half the active vessels in using a method that provides a return Requirements the fleet have already received EM units receipt. This is necessary for NMFS and The final rule contains a collection-of- through their participation in the EFPs vessel operators to be able to track information requirement subject to and would not need to purchase a new submissions. This requirement has an review and approval by OMB under the unit to participate in the program. average cost of $15.00 per submission Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This Vessel owners would likely have to and a time burden of 10 min to retrieve requirement will be submitted to OMB purchase new EM units every 5–10 and package the hard drive for mailing. for approval. The final rule does not years, depending on the life of the EM service providers would be duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any equipment. Vessel owners would also required to apply to receive a permit other Federal rules. be responsible for maintaining the EM from NMFS to provide EM services for This final rule adjusts notification units in good working order, likely vessels. EM service providers would be requirements for groundfish vessels through a service contract with a NMFS- required to submit an application to using EM and first receivers receiving permitted EM service provider. NMFS NMFS that includes an application catch from EM trips. Vessels will now estimates the annual average cost form, an EM Service Plan that describes be required to declare the type of burden per vessel from this requirement how they plan to provide services, and monitoring they will use on a given to be approximately $5,600. statements of prior experience and trip—observer or EM. This change is If denied an EM Authorization, vessel qualifications. If requested, the EM necessary to provide vessels the owners would be able to appeal NMFS’ service provider may also be required to flexibility to switch between different decision through the existing appeal provide NMFS copies of contracts with types of monitoring, depending on what process at § 660.25(g). NMFS estimates vessel owners and standard operating is most cost effective and efficient for the time burden associated with procedures and manuals describing their operation at that time, while preparing and submitting an appeal to their operations in more detail. In an allowing NMFS to track which fleets be approximately 4 hours per entity, earlier draft of the regulations, NMFS vessels are participating in. This change with a cost of $3.00 for copies and proposed requirements very similar to would only add additional potential postage. Vessel owners would be able to those for observer service providers, answers to an existing question and not make modifications to their VMPs with minimal requirements for the affect the number of entities required to during the year by submitting a request provider and NMFS training and comply with the declaration and amended VMP to NMFS. These certifying individual observers. requirement (OMB Control Number requests would be made electronically However, at the November 2015 Council 0648–0573). Therefore, this change is via email and, therefore, would not be meeting EM service providers not be expected to increase the time or expected to have a cost burden commented that different service cost burden associated with this associated with them. NMFS estimates providers may have different models requirement. Similarly, the requirement the time burden associated with this and that the observer model is not for EM vessels to notify the observer requirement from preparing and appropriate for EM services providers. program before each trip would be in submitting the request to be 0.5 hours Some EM service providers may employ place of the existing notification to an per request per entity. less highly trained analysts to initially individual vessel’s observer provider Vessel owners would be required to review video and a biologist to verify when using a catch share observer, and renew their EM authorization annually. species identification, whereas another is not expected to increase the time or This is necessary to ensure that the service provider may employ highly

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 31158 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

trained biologists to do it all. They final regulations to make provider to all members of the groundfish email recommended that the regulations permits effective for 2 years. NMFS group. To sign-up for the groundfish provide more flexibility for different estimates the annual time and cost email group, click on the ‘‘subscribe’’ business models. This final rule burden of the renewal to be 1 hour and link on the following website: http:// contains an expanded application $5 per entity. www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/ process, incorporating an EM Service EM service providers would be publications/fishery_management/ Plan, to provide the flexibility that responsible for providing technical groundfish/public_notices/recent_ service providers seek. The addition of assistance and maintenance services to public_notices.html. The guide and this an EM Service Plan allows NMFS to their contracted EM vessels. EM service final rule will also be available on the consider different business models providers would be required to provide West Coast Region’s website (see proposed by different providers as technical support to vessels at sea, with ADDRESSES) and upon request. meeting the EM program requirements. an annual time burden of approximately Send comments regarding these However, this requires EM service 7 hours per entity. Under the terms of burden estimates or any other aspect of providers to prepare and submit a their permit, EM service providers and this data collection, including detailed service plan and other their employees would also be required suggestions for reducing the burden, to documents, in order to provide NMFS to report instances of non-compliance NMFS (see ADDRESSES), and by email to with sufficient information to evaluate by vessel owners and intimidation or [email protected], or fax them. NMFS estimates the time and cost harassment of EM technicians to NMFS. to 202–395–5806. burden associated with preparing and The estimated burden for reporting Notwithstanding any other provision submitting the permit application to be these events is 30 minutes per report (18 of the law, no person is required to 47 hours and $30 (for copies and hours per entity per year). Employees of respond to, nor shall any person be postage). Most likely much of this EM service providers have to respond to subject to a penalty for failure to comply information would be submitted inquiries by NMFS staff or authorized with, a collection of information subject electronically. If requested by NMFS, officers on technical or compliance to the requirements of the PRA, unless EM service providers would be required issues with an estimated burden of 1 that collection of information displays a to provide NMFS two EM units and two hour per trip (350 hours per entity per currently valid OMB control number. copies of any software for EM data year). All currently approved NOAA analysis for a minimum of 90 days for On behalf of their contracted vessels, collections of information may be evaluation. Due to their use by NMFS, EM service providers would also be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/ the value of the EM units may responsible for reviewing vessels’ services_programs/prasubs.html. depreciate and the EM service providers videos from trips, preparing and Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, submitting vessels’ catch data and may not be able to resell the EM units this rule was developed after compliance reports to NMFS, and for their full value. NMFS estimates the meaningful collaboration with tribal providing feedback to vessel operators EM providers would be able to recoup officials from the area covered by the on their catch handling, camera views, 50 percent of the EM unit value at FMP. Under the MSA at 16 U.S.C. etc. NMFS would prepare burden approximately $5,000 per unit. This 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of estimates for these requirements for results in a total cost associated with the Council must be a representative of OMB approval and public comment this requirement at $10,215 per provider an Indian tribe with federally through a Federal Register notice in (including $215 in materials and recognized fishing rights from the area 2020 or earlier. of the Council’s jurisdiction. The postage to send the equipment to Public reporting burden for these regulations do not require the tribes to NMFS). requirements includes the time for change from their current practices. An EM service provider would be able reviewing instructions, searching to appeal a permit decision to NMFS existing data sources, gathering and List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 following the procedures at § 660.19. maintaining the data needed, and Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian NMFS estimates the time and cost completing and reviewing the collection Fisheries. burden of preparing and submitting an of information. appeal to be 4 hours and $5 per entity. Dated: June 18, 2019. EM service providers would be able to Small Entity Compliance Guide Samuel D. Rauch, III, make modifications to their EM Service Section 212 of the Small Business Deputy Assistant Administrator for Plans during the year by submitting a Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of Regulatory Programs, National Marine request and amended EM Service Plan 1996 states that, for each rule or group Fisheries Service. to NMFS via email (2 hours per of related rules for which an agency is For the reasons stated in the submission). EM service providers required to prepare a final regulatory preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended would be required to renew their flexibility analysis, the agency shall as follows: permits annually. At the April 2016 publish one or more guides to assist Council meeting, EM service providers small entities in complying with the PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST requested a longer effective period to rule, and shall designate such COAST STATES provide more stability for planning for publications as ‘‘small entity ■ future fishing years. In response to that compliance guides.’’ The agency shall 1. The authority citation for part 660 request, this final rule contains an explain the actions a small entity is continues to read as follows: abbreviated renewal process in which required to take to comply with a rule Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. NMFS would provide pre-filled renewal or group of rules. As part of this 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq. forms and the current EM Service Plan rulemaking process, a small entity ■ 2. In § 660.13, revise paragraph for the EM service provider to review compliance guide (the guide) was (d)(4)(ii) through (iv) to read as follows: and certify. This would reduce the time prepared. Copies of this final rule are burden for EM service providers, while available from the West Coast Regional § 660.13 Recordkeeping and reporting. ensuring NMFS has up-to-date Office (see ADDRESSES), and the guide * * * * * information. NMFS has also revised the will be included in a public notice sent (d) * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 31159

(4) * * * (8) Limited entry midwater trawl, (d) * * * (ii) A declaration report will be valid Pacific whiting mothership sector (2) * * * until another declaration report revising (catcher vessel or mothership), observer, (ii) Catcher vessels. All catch must be the existing gear, monitoring, or fishery, (9) Limited entry midwater trawl, sorted to the species groups specified in declaration is received by NMFS OLE. Pacific whiting mothership sector paragraph (d)(1) of this section for The vessel operator must send a new (catcher vessel), electronic monitoring, vessels with limited entry permits, declaration report before leaving port on (10) Limited entry bottom trawl, except those engaged in maximized a trip that meets one of the following shorebased IFQ, not including demersal retention while declared into a Pacific criteria: trawl, whiting IFQ trip. The catch must not be (A) A gear type that is different from (11) Limited entry demersal trawl, discarded from the vessel and the vessel the gear type most recently declared for shorebased IFQ, must not mix catch from hauls until the the vessel will be used, or (12) Non-groundfish trawl gear for observer has sampled the catch, unless (B) A monitoring type that is different pink shrimp, otherwise allowed under the EM from the monitoring type most recently (13) Non-groundfish trawl gear for Program requirements at § 660.604 of declared for the vessel will be used, or ridgeback prawn, subpart J. Prohibited species must be (C) A vessel will fish in a fishery other (14) Non-groundfish trawl gear for sorted according to the following than the fishery most recently declared. California halibut, species groups: Dungeness crab, Pacific (15) Non-groundfish trawl gear for sea (iii) During the period of time that a halibut, Chinook salmon, other salmon. vessel has a valid declaration report on cucumber, (16) Open access longline gear for Non-groundfish species must be sorted file with NMFS OLE, it cannot fish with as required by the state of landing. a gear and monitoring type other than a groundfish, (17) Open access Pacific halibut (3) * * * gear type and monitoring type declared (ii) If sorting occurs on a catcher by the vessel or fish in a fishery other longline gear, (18) Open access groundfish trap or vessel in the MS Co-op Program, the than the fishery most recently declared. catch must not be discarded from the (iv) Declaration reports will include: pot gear, (19) Open access Dungeness crab trap vessel and the vessel must not mix catch The vessel name and/or identification or pot gear, from hauls until the observer has number, gear type, and monitoring type (20) Open access prawn trap or pot sampled the catch, or unless otherwise where applicable, (as defined in gear, allowed under the EM Program paragraph (d)(5)(iv)(A) of this section). (21) Open access sheephead trap or requirements at § 660.604 of subpart J. Upon receipt of a declaration report, pot gear, * * * * * NMFS will provide a confirmation code (22) Open access line gear for ■ or receipt to confirm that a valid 5. In § 660.140, revise paragraph (g)(1) groundfish, and add paragraph (h)(1)(i)(A)(4) to read declaration report was received for the (23) Open access HMS line gear, vessel. Retention of the confirmation (24) Open access salmon troll gear, as follows: code or receipt to verify that a valid (25) Open access California Halibut § 660.140 Shorebased IFQ Program. declaration report was filed and the line gear, (26) Open access Coastal Pelagic * * * * * declaration requirement was met is the (g) * * * Species net gear, responsibility of the vessel owner or (1) General. Shorebased IFQ Program operator. Vessels using nontrawl gear (27) Other gear, (28) Tribal trawl, or vessels may discard IFQ species/species may declare more than one gear type groups, provided such discards are with the exception of vessels (29) Open access California gillnet complex gear. accounted for and deducted from QP in participating in the Shorebased IFQ the vessel account. With the exception Program (i.e. gear switching), however, * * * * * ■ of vessels on a declared Pacific whiting vessels using trawl gear may only 3. In § 660.19, revise paragraph (a) to IFQ trip and engaged in maximized declare one of the trawl gear types listed read as follows: retention, and vessels fishing under a in paragraph (d)(5)(iv)(A) of this section valid EM Authorization in accordance on any trip and may not declare § 660.19 Appeals process for catch monitors, observers, and provider permits. with § 660.604 of subpart J, prohibited nontrawl gear on the same trip in which (a) Allowed appeals. This section and protected species must be discarded trawl gear is declared. at sea; Pacific halibut must be discarded (A) One of the following gear types or describes the procedure for appealing as soon as practicable and the discard sectors, and monitoring type where IADs described at §§ 660.17(g), mortality must be accounted for and applicable, must be declared: 660.18(d) and (f), 660.140(h), 660.150(j), deducted from IBQ pounds in the vessel (1) Limited entry fixed gear, not 660.160(g), 660.603(b)(3) for catch account. Non-IFQ species and non- including shorebased IFQ, monitor decertification, observer (2) Limited entry groundfish non- decertification, provider permit groundfish species may be discarded at trawl, shorebased IFQ, observer, expirations due to inactivity, and EM sea, unless otherwise required by EM (3) Limited entry groundfish non- service provider permit denials. Any Program requirements at § 660.604 of trawl, shorebased IFQ, electronic person whose interest is directly and subpart J. The sorting of catch, the monitoring, adversely affected by an IAD may file a weighing and discarding of any IBQ and (4) Limited entry midwater trawl, written appeal. For purposes of this IFQ species, and the retention of IFQ non-whiting shorebased IFQ, section, such person will be referred to species must be monitored by the (5) Limited entry midwater trawl, as the ‘‘applicant.’’ observer or EM system. Pacific whiting shorebased IFQ, * * * * * * * * * * observer, ■ 4. In § 660.130, revise paragraphs (h) * * * (6) Limited entry midwater trawl, (d)(2)(ii) and (d)(3)(ii) to read as follows: (1) * * * Pacific whiting shorebased IFQ, (i) * * * electronic monitoring, § 660.130 Trawl fishery—management (A) * * * (7) Limited entry midwater trawl, measures. (4) Is exempt from the requirement to Pacific whiting catcher/processor sector, * * * * * carry an observer if the vessel has a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 31160 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

valid EM Authorization and is fishing West coast groundfish fishery Section document provided by NMFS, signed by with EM under § 660.604 of subpart J. a representative of a NMFS-permitted * * * * * (iv) Service providers ...... 660.603 electronic monitoring service provider (2) [Reserved]. that attest that an EM system and ■ 6. In § 660.150, revise paragraphs (i) associated equipment meets the and (j)(1)(i)(B) to read as follows: (b) EM program purpose. The purpose performance standards defined at § 660.150 Mothership (MS) Coop Program. of the EM program is to provide NMFS § 660.604(j) of this subpart, as required with the best scientific information * * * * * by § 660.604(e)(3)(i). available to determine individual EM data means the information (i) Retention requirements. Catcher accountability for catch (including output of the Electronic Monitoring vessels participating in the MS Co-op discards) of IFQ species and compliance System (e.g., imagery, sensor data, and Program may discard minor operational with requirements of the Shorebased other associated data files). amounts of catch at sea if the observer IFQ Program (§ 660.140) and MS Co-op EM dataset means a collection of EM or EMS has accounted for the discard Program (§ 660.150). NMFS will develop data from a single EM trip or group of (i.e., a maximized retention fishery). EM Program Guidelines, which will EM trips. (j) * * * document best practices and other EM data processing means the review, (1) * * * information that NMFS will use to interpretation, and analysis of EM data (i) * * * evaluate proposed service and vessel and associated meta data. (B) Catcher vessels. Any vessel monitoring plans submitted by EM EM Program means the Electronic delivering catch to any MS vessel must service providers and vessel owners Monitoring Program of the West Coast carry one certified observer each day under this subpart, and to evaluate the Region, National Marine Fisheries that the vessel is used to take performance of EM service providers Service. groundfish, unless the catcher vessel and vessels, in meeting the EM Service Plan means the document has a valid EM Authorization and is requirements of this subpart to achieve required under § 660.603 that describes fishing with EM under § 660.604 of the purpose of the EM program. NMFS in detail how the EM service provider subpart J. will develop the EM Program will provide EM services. * * * * * Guidelines in consultation with the EM service provider means any Council and publish notice of their person, including their employees or ■ 7. Add subpart J to part 660 read as availability in the Federal Register. agents, that is granted a permit by follows: NMFS will maintain the EM Program NMFS to provide EM services for Subpart J—West Coast Groundfish Guidelines on its website and make vessels as required under § 660.603 and Electronic Monitoring Program them available to vessel owners and § 660.604. Sec. operators and EM service providers to Electronic Monitoring System or EMS 660.600 Applicability. assist in developing service plans and means a data collection tool that uses a 660.601 Definitions. vessel monitoring plans that comply software operating system connected to 660.602 Prohibitions. with the requirements of this subpart an assortment of electronic components, 660.603 Electronic monitoring provider and meet the purpose of the EM including video recorders, to create a permits and responsibilities. program. collection of data on vessel activities. 660.604 Vessel and first receiver EM technician means an employee of responsibilities. § 660.601 Definitions. the EM service provider that provides Subpart J—West Coast Groundfish These definitions are specific to this support for EM systems and technical Electronic Monitoring Program subpart. General groundfish definitions assistance. are found at § 660.11, subpart C, and EM trip means any fishing trip for § 660.600 Applicability. trawl fishery definitions are found at which electronic monitoring is the (a) General. This subpart contains § 660.111, subpart D. declared monitoring type. requirements for vessels using EM in Active sampling unit means the Initial Administrative Determination lieu of observers, as authorized under portion of the groundfish fleet in which (IAD) means a formal, written § 660.140(h)(1)(i) (Shorebased IFQ an observer coverage plan is being determination made by NMFS on an Program) and § 660.150(j)(1)(i) (MS Co- applied. application or permit request that is Discard control point means the op Program), and requirements for EM subject to an appeal within NMFS. location on the vessel designated by a Non-trawl shorebased IFQ vessel service providers. Vessel owners, vessel operator where allowable means a vessel on a declared limited operators, and managers are jointly and discarding may occur. entry groundfish non-trawl, shorebased severally liable for a vessel’s compliance Discard event means a single IFQ trip. with EM requirements under this occurrence of discarding of fish or other Pacific whiting fishery refers to the subpart. This subpart also contains species. Pacific whiting primary season fisheries requirements for a first receiver Electronic Monitoring or EM consists described at § 660.131. The Pacific receiving catch from a trip monitored by of the use of an electronic monitoring whiting fishery is composed of vessels EM (see § 660.604(u)). The table below system (EMS) to passively monitor participating in the C/P Co-op Program, provides references to the sections that fishing operations through observing or the MS Co-op Program, or the Pacific contain vessel owner, operator, first tracking. whiting IFQ fishery. receiver, and service provider Electronic Monitoring Authorization Pacific whiting IFQ fishery is responsibilities. means the official document provided composed of vessels on Pacific whiting by NMFS that allows a vessel with a IFQ trips. West coast groundfish fishery Section limited entry trawl permit to use Pacific whiting IFQ trip means a trip (1) Limited entry trawl fishery: electronic monitoring under the in which a vessel uses midwater (i) Vessel owners ...... 660.604 provisions of this subpart. groundfish trawl gear during the dates (ii) Vessel operators ...... 660.604 Electronic Monitoring System of the Pacific whiting primary season to (iii) First receivers ...... 660.604 Certification Form means the official target Pacific whiting, and Pacific

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 31161

whiting constitutes 50 percent or more (11) Fail to submit complete and (3) Provide technical and litigation of the catch by weight at landing as accurate logbook(s) and EM data for information to NMFS or its agent (see reported on the state landing receipt. each EM trip as specified at § 660.604(s), § 660.603(l)). Vessels on Pacific whiting IFQ trips (12) Tamper with, disconnect, (4) Provide technical support to must have a valid declaration for damage, destroy, alter, or in any way contracted fishing vessels 24-hours per limited entry midwater trawl, Pacific distort, render useless, inoperative, day, seven days per week, and year- whiting shorebased IFQ. ineffective, or inaccurate any round as provided under Shorebased IFQ Program or component of the EM system or § 660.603(k)(4); Shorebased IFQ sector, refers to the associated equipment. (5) Provide EM data processing, fishery described at § 660.140, subpart (13) Assault, resist, oppose, impede, reporting, and record retention services D, and includes all vessels on IFQ trips. intimidate, harass, sexually harass, to contracted vessels using EM (see Vessel Monitoring Plan (VMP) means bribe, or interfere with an EM service § 660.603(m)). the document that describes how fishing provider, EM field services staff, or EM (6) Comply with data integrity and operations on the vessel will be data processing staff. security requirements, including conducted and how the EM system and (14) Interfere with or bias the requirements pertaining to hard drives associated equipment will be configured sampling procedure employed by EM and data files containing EM data, (see to meet the performance standards and data processing staff including either § 660.603(n)). purpose of the EM Program. mechanically or manually sorting or (b) Provider permits. To be an EM service provider, a person must obtain § 660.602 Prohibitions. discarding catch outside of camera view or inconsistent with the NMFS-accepted an EM service provider permit and In addition to the general prohibitions VMP. endorsement by submitting an specified in § 600.725 of this chapter, it (15) Fail to meet the vessel owner or application to the NMFS West Coast is unlawful for any person to: operator responsibilities specified in Region Fisheries Permit Office. A (a) Electronic monitoring program.— person may meet some requirements of (1) Make a false or inaccurate/incorrect section 660.604. (16) Fail to meet the first receiver this section through a partnership or statement on an application for responsibilities specified at subcontract with another entity, in issuance, renewal, or changes to an EM § 660.604(u). which case the application for an EM Authorization or NMFS-accepted VMP. service provider permit must include (2) Fish for or land fish from a trip (17) Fail to meet the EM service information about the partnership. An without electronic monitoring or provider responsibilities specified in applicant may submit an application at observer coverage when a vessel is section § 660.603. any time. If a new EM service provider, required to carry electronic monitoring (18) Fish without an observer when a or an existing EM service provider or an observer under §§ 660.140(h) or vessel is required to carry an observer 660.150(j). under subpart J of this part if: seeking to deploy a new EMS or (3) Fish for or land fish from a trip (i) The vessel is inadequate for software version, submits an application taken under electronic monitoring observer deployment as specified at by June 1, NMFS will issue a new without a valid EM Authorization and § 600.746 of this chapter; permit by January 1 of the following NMFS-accepted vessel monitoring plan (ii) The vessel does not maintain safe calendar year. Applications submitted onboard, and a valid gear and conditions for an observer as specified after June 1 will be processed as soon as monitoring declaration with NMFS OLE at § 660.604(n); practicable. NMFS will only process as required by § 660.604(c)(1) and (iii) NMFS, the observer provider, or complete applications. Additional § 660.604(m). the observer determines the vessel is endorsements to provide observer or (4) Fail to comply with the terms of inadequate or unsafe pursuant to vessel catch monitor services may be obtained a NMFS-accepted VMP. responsibilities to maintain safe under § 660.18. (5) Fail to notify the NMFS West conditions as specified at § 660.604(n); (1) Contents of provider application. Coast Groundfish Observer Program at (19) Fail to meet the vessel To be considered for an EM service least 48-hours prior to departing port of responsibilities and observer coverage provider permit and endorsement, the the vessel operator’s intent to take a trip requirements specified at § 660.604(n). service provider must submit a under EM, as required by § 660.604(n). (b) [Reserved] complete application that includes the (6) Fail to conduct a pre-departure test following information. The same § 660.603 Electronic monitoring provider information must be included for any of the EM system prior to departing port permits and responsibilities. as required by § 660.604(l)(2). partners or subcontractors if the (7) Fish on an EM trip without a fully (a) General. This section contains applicant intends to satisfy any of the functional EM system, unless requirements for EM service providers EM service provider requirements authorized by a NMFS-accepted VMP as providing EM services, pursuant to through a partnership or contractual required by § 660.604(l)(3). contracts with vessel owners whose relationship with another entity. (8) Fail to make the EM system, vessels operate in the Shorebased IFQ (i) Certify that the applicant meets the associated equipment, logbooks, EM Program (§ 660.140) or the MS Co-op following eligibility criteria: data, and other records available for Program (§ 660.150) and use EM under (A) The EM service provider and its inspection immediately upon request by this subpart. A person must obtain a employees do not have a conflict of NMFS, its agent, or authorized officers, permit and endorsement as provided interest as defined at § 660.603(h), and, as required by §§ 660.604(o) and under § 660.603(b) in order to be an EM (B) The EM service provider is willing 660.604(t). service provider. An EM service and able to comply with all applicable (9) Discard species other than those provider must: requirements of this section and to allowed to be discarded as specified at (1) Operate under a NMFS-accepted operate under a NMFS-accepted EM § 660.604(p). EM Service Plan (see Service Plan. (10) Fail to handle fish and other § 660.603(b)(3)(vii)). (ii) Applicant’s contact information. marine organisms in a manner that (2) Provide and manage EM systems, (iii) Legal name of applicant enables the EM system to record it as field services, and technical assistance organization. If the applicant required by § 660.604(r). as required under § 660.603(k); organization is a United States business

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 31162 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

entity, include the state registration locations, response timelines, and the purpose of the EM Program as number. procedures for services, repairs, defined at § 660.600(b). (iv) Description of the management, technical support, and other program (viii) Provide NMFS the following, if organizational structure, and ownership services; requested: structure of the applicant’s business, (C) Procedures for hiring and training (A) Two EM system units loaded with including identification by name and of competent program staff to carry out software for a minimum of 90 calendar general function of all controlling EM field services and data services, days for testing and evaluation. management interests in the company, including procedures to maintain the (B) Thorough documentation for the including but not limited to owners, skills of EM data processing staff in: EM system, including: User manuals, board members, officers, authorized (1) Use of data processing software; any necessary interfacing software, agents, and employees. List all office (2) Species identification; performance specifications, technical locations and their business mailing (3) Fate determination and metadata support information, and tamperproof address, business phone, fax number, reporting requirements; or tamper evident features. and email addresses. If the applicant is (4) Data processing procedures; (C) The results of at-sea trials of the a corporation, the articles of (5) Data tracking; and, EM system. incorporation must be provided. If the (6) Reporting and data upload (D) Two copies of video review and applicant is a partnership, the procedures. analysis software for a minimum of 90 partnership agreement must be (D) Procedures for tracking hard calendar days for testing and evaluation. provided. drives and/or data files throughout their (E) Thorough documentation for the (v) A narrative statement describing use cycle, including procedures to video review and analysis software, prior relevant experience in providing ensure the integrity and security of hard including: User manuals, performance EM services, technical support, or drives or data files in transit, and for specifications, and technical support fishery data analysis services, including removing EM data from hard drives or information. recruiting, hiring, training, deploying, other medium before returning them to (F) Descriptions of database models and managing of individuals in marine the field; and analysis procedures for EM data work environments and of individuals (E) Procedures for data processing, and associated meta data to produce working with fishery data, in the including tracking of EM datasets required reports. groundfish fishery or other fisheries of throughout their processing cycle and (2) Application evaluation. NMFS similar scale. documenting any access and may request additional information or (vi) A statement signed under penalty modifications; revisions from the applicant until NMFS of perjury by an authorized agent of the (F) Procedures for correction and is satisfied that the application is applicant about each owner, or owners, resubmission of EM summary data complete. Complete applications will be board members, and officers if a reports and other reports that NMFS has forwarded to the EM Program for review corporation, authorized agents, and determined are not of sufficient quality and evaluation by the EM provider employees, regarding: to meet the purpose of the EM program, permit review board. If the applicant is (A) Conflict of interest as described in as described at § 660.603(m)(5), and to an entity, the review board also will § 660.603(h), ensure that future reports are sufficient evaluate the application criteria for each (B) Criminal convictions, for use by NMFS. owner, board member, officer, (C) Federal contracts they have had (G) Policies on data access, handling, authorized agent, and employee. NMFS and the performance rating they and release to prevent unauthorized will evaluate the application based on received on each contract, and disclosure of EM data and other records the EM Program Guidelines (see (D) Any previous history of specified in this section by the EM § 660.600(b)) and the following criteria: decertification or permit sanction action provider as required under § 660.603(n); (i) The applicant’s relevant experience while working as an observer, catch (H) Procedures for retention of records and qualifications; monitor, observer provider, catch as required under § 660.603(m)(6); (ii) Review of any conflict of interest monitor provider, or electronic (I) Identifying characteristics of the as described in § 660.603(h); monitoring provider. EMS to be deployed and the video (iii) Review of any criminal (vii) EM Service Plan. An EM Service review software to be used in the convictions; Plan that describes in detail how the fishery, including but not limited to: (iv) Review of the proposed EM applicant will provide EM services for Manufacturer, brand name, model Service Plan, including evaluation of vessels. To ensure that the EM Program name, model number, software version EM equipment and software; achieves its purpose, NMFS will and date, firmware version number and (v) Satisfactory performance ratings develop EM Program Guidelines (see date, hardware version number and on any federal contracts held by the § 660.600(b)) and use them to evaluate date, monitor/terminal number and applicant; proposed EM Service Plans. NMFS may date, pressure sensor model number and (vi) Review of any history of consider alternative, but equivalent, date, drum rotation sensor model decertification or permit sanction as an methods proposed by EM service number and date, and GPS model observer, catch monitor, observer providers and vessel owners in their number and date. provider, catch monitor provider, or EM plans to meet the requirements of this (J) EM system and software service provider; and, subpart, if they achieve the purpose of specifications, including a narrative (vii) Review of any performance the EM program. An EM Service Plan statement describing how the EM history as an EM service provider. must include descriptions of the system and associated equipment meets (3) Agency determination on an following (using pictures and diagrams the performance standards at application. Based on a complete where appropriate): § 660.604(j). application, if NMFS determines that (A) Contact information for a primary (K) EM video review software the applicant has met the requirements point of contact for program operations specifications, including a narrative of this section, NMFS will issue an inseason; statement describing how the software initial administrative determination (B) A plan for provision of services meets the EM Program Guidelines and (IAD). If the application is approved, the including communications, service will provide NMFS with data to achieve IAD will serve as the EM service

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 31163

provider’s permit and endorsement. If EM Service Plan by submitting a revised (2) EM service providers and their the application is denied, the IAD will plan or plan addendum to NMFS in employees must not solicit or accept, provide an explanation of the denial in writing. NMFS will review and accept directly or indirectly, any gratuity, gift, writing. The applicant may appeal the change if it meets all the favor, entertainment, loan, employment, NMFS’ determination following the requirements of this section. A plan or anything of monetary value from any process at § 660.19. addendum must contain: person who conducts fishing or fish (4) Effective dates. The provider (1) The date and the name and processing activities that are regulated permit is valid from the effective date signature of an authorized agent of the by NMFS, or who has interests that may identified on the permit until the permit EM service provider; be substantially affected by the expiration date of December 31 of the (2) Address, telephone number, fax performance or nonperformance of the following year. Provider permit holders number and email address of the person provider’s contractual duties. must renew biennially by following the submitting the addendum; (3) The EM service provider may not renewal process specified in paragraph (3) A complete description of the employ any person to handle hard (f) of this section. proposed EM Service Plan change. drives or EM data from a vessel by (5) Expiration of the provider (d) Change of provider permit which the person was previously permit.—(i) Expiration due to inactivity. ownership and transfer restrictions. If employed in the last two years. After a period of 24 continuous months an EM service provider changes (4) Provisions of contracts or during which no EM services are ownership during the term of an EM agreements for remuneration of EM provided by the provider in the Pacific service provider permit, the new owner services under this section do not coast groundfish fishery, NMFS will must apply for a new provider permit. constitute a conflict of interest. issue an IAD describing the intent to (e) Provider permit sanctions. (i) Insurance. The EM service expire the provider permit or to remove Procedures governing sanctions of provider must maintain sufficient the appropriate endorsement(s) and the permits are found at subpart D of 15 commercial liability insurance to cover timeline to do so. A provider that CFR part 904. bodily injury and property damage (f) Renewing a provider permit. To receives an IAD may appeal under caused by their employees while on a maintain a valid provider permit, § 660.19. The provider permit and contracted vessel and State Worker’s provider permit holders must reapply endorsements will remain valid until a Compensation insurance. The EM final agency decision is made or until biennially prior to the permit expiration service provider shall provide copies of the permit expiration date, whichever is date. NMFS will mail a provider permit these insurance policies to the vessel earlier. application form to existing permit owner, operator, or vessel manager, (ii) Expiration due to failure to renew. holders on or about July 15 of the year when requested. Failure to renew biennially will result that the permit is due to expire. (j) Warranties. None of the provisions in expiration of the provider permit and Providers who want to have their of this section are intended to preclude endorsements on the permit expiration permits effective for January 1 of the any state or federal statutes or date. following calendar year must submit regulations governing warranties. (iii) Invalidation due to lapse in their complete application form to (k) Field and technical support eligibility. NMFS may invalidate an EM NMFS by September 1. If a provider services. The EM service provider must service provider permit if NMFS fails to renew the provider permit, the provide and manage EM systems, determines that the EM service provider provider permit and endorsements will installation, maintenance and technical no longer meets the eligibility criteria expire on the permit expiration date. defined at paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this (g) Fees. NMFS may charge a fee to support, as described below and section. NMFS will first notify the EM cover administrative expenses related to according to a NMFS-accepted EM service provider of the deficiencies in issuance of permits including initial Service Plan, which is required under writing and the EM service provider issuance, renewal, replacement, and § 660.603(b)(1)(vii), and as described in must correct the deficiencies following appeals. the EM Program Manual or other written the instructions provided. If the (h) Limitations on conflict of interest and oral instructions provided by the deficiencies are not resolved upon for providers and employees.—(1) EM EM Program, such that the EM program review of the first trip following the service providers and their employees achieves its purpose as defined at notification, NMFS will notify the EM must not have a direct financial interest, § 660.600(b). service provider in writing that the other than the provision of observer, (1) At the time of installation, the EM provider permit is invalid and that the catch monitor, EM, or other biological service provider must: EM service provider is no longer eligible sampling services, in any federal or state (i) Install an EM system that meets the to provide EM services for vessels for managed fisheries, including but not performance standards under the remainder of that calendar year. The limited to: § 660.604(j); EM service provider may reapply for an (i) Any ownership, mortgage holder, (ii) Ensure that the EM system is set EM service provider permit and or other secured interest in a vessel, first up, wires run, system powered, and endorsement for the following calendar receiver, shorebased or floating tested with the vessel in operation; year. stationary processor facility involved in (iii) Brief the vessel operator on (iv) Obtaining a new permit or the catching, taking, harvesting or system operation, maintenance, and endorsement following an expiration or processing of fish; procedures to follow for technical invalidated permit. A person holding an (ii) Any business involved with support or field service; expired or invalidated permit or selling supplies or services to any (iv) Provide necessary information for endorsement may reapply for a new vessel, first receiver, shorebased or the vessel operator to complete the provider permit or endorsement at any floating stationary processing facility; or VMP, such as images and diagrams of time consistent with paragraph (b) of (iii) Any business involved with camera views and vessel layout, specific this section. purchasing raw or processed products information about system settings, and (c) Changes to a NMFS-accepted EM from any vessel, first receiver, designated discard control points; and, Service Plan. An EM service provider shorebased or floating stationary (v) Complete an EM System may make changes to a NMFS-accepted processing facilities. Certification Form for the vessel owner.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 31164 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

(2) The EM service provider must (5) Notification NMFS within 24 throughout their cycles, including communicate with vessel operators and hours after the EM service provider documenting any access and NMFS to coordinate service needs, becomes aware of the following: modifications. EM data must be resolve specific program issues, and (i) Any information, allegations, or removed from hard drives or other provide feedback on program reports regarding possible harassment of medium before returning them to the operations. EM provider staff; field. (3) The EM service provider must (ii) Any information, allegations, or (4) The EM service provider must provide maintenance and support reports regarding possible EM system communicate with vessel operators and services, including maintaining an EM tampering; NMFS to coordinate data service needs, equipment inventory, such that all (iii) Any information, allegations, or resolve specific program issues, and deployed EM systems perform reports regarding any action prohibited provide feedback on program according to the performance standards under §§ 660.12(f) or 660.602(a)(13); or, operations. The EM service provider at § 660.604(j) and that field service (iv) Any information, allegations or must provide feedback to vessel events are scheduled and carried out reports regarding EM service provider representatives, field services staff, and with minimal delays or disruptions to staff conflicts of interest. NMFS regarding: fishing activities. (6) Notification to NMFS of any (i) Adjustments to system settings; (4) The EM service provider must change of management or contact (ii) Changes to camera positions; provide technical assistance to vessels, information or a change to insurance (iii) Advice to vessel personnel on upon request, in EM system operation, coverage. duty of care responsibilities; (7) A copy of any contract between the diagnosis of the cause of (iv) Advice to vessel personnel on the service provider and entities malfunctions, and assistance in catch handling practices; and, requiring EM services; (v) Any other information that would resolving any malfunctions. Technical (8) Proof of sufficient insurance as support must be available 24-hours per improve the quality and effectiveness of defined in paragraph (i); data collection on the vessel. day, seven days per week, and year- (9) Copies of any information round. (5) On behalf of vessels with which it developed and used by the EM service has a contract (see § 660.604(k)), the EM (5) The EM service provider must provider and distributed to vessels, submit to NMFS reports of requests for service provider must submit to NMFS including, but not limited to, EM summary reports, including discard technical assistance from vessels, informational pamphlets, payment including when the call or visit was estimates, fishing activity information, notifications, and description of EM and meta data (e.g., image quality, made, the nature of the issue, and how service provider duties; and, it was resolved. reviewer name), and incident reports of (10) EM data and associated meta compliance issues according to a NMFS- (l) Technical assistance and litigation data, and other records specified in this information. As a requirement of its accepted EM Service Plan, which is section. required under § 660.603(b)(1)(vii), and permit, the EM service provider must (m) Data services. For vessels with as described in the EM Program Manual provide the following to NMFS or which it has a contract (see or other written and oral instructions authorized officers, upon request. § 660.604(k)), the EM service provider provided by the EM Program, such that (1) Assistance in EM system must provide and manage EM data the EM program achieves its purpose as operation, diagnosing and resolving processing, reporting, and record defined at § 660.600(b). If NMFS technical issues, and recovering retention services, as described below determines that the information does corrupted or lost data. and according to a NMFS-approved EM not meet these standards, NMFS may (2) Responses to inquiries related to Service Plan, which is required under require the EM service provider to data summaries, analyses, reports, and § 660.603(b)(1)(vii), and as described in correct and resubmit the datasets and operational issues with vessel the EM Program Manual or other written reports. representatives. and oral instructions provided by the (3) Technical and expert information, (6) Retention of records. Following an EM Program, and such that the EM if the EM system/data are being EM trip, the EM service provider must Program achieves its purpose as defined admitted as evidence in a court of law. maintain all of a vessel’s EM data and at § 660.600(b). other records specified in this section, All technical aspects of a NMFS- (1) The EM service provider must or used in the preparation of records or approved EM system may be analyzed process vessels’ EM data according to a reports specified in this section or in court for, inter alia, testing prescribed coverage level or sampling corrections to these reports, for a period procedures, error rates, peer review, scheme, as specified by NMFS, and of not less than three years after the date technical processes and general industry determine an estimate of discards for of landing for that trip. EM data and acceptance. To substantiate the EM each trip using standardized estimation other records must be stored such that system data and address issues raised in methods specified by NMFS. NMFS will the integrity and security of the records litigation, an EM service provider must maintain manuals for EM data is maintained for the duration of the provide information, including but not processing protocols on its website. limited to: (2) The EM service provider must retention period. The EM service (i) If the technologies have previously ensure that its data processing staff are provider must produce EM data and been subject to such scrutiny in a court fully trained in: other records immediately upon request of law, a brief summary of the litigation (i) Use of data processing software; by NMFS or an authorized officer. and any court findings on the reliability (ii) Species identification; (n) Data integrity and security. The of the technology. (iii) Fate determination and metadata EM service provider must ensure the (ii) [Reserved] reporting requirements; integrity and security of vessels’ EM (4) All software necessary for (iv) Data processing procedures; data and other records specified in this accessing, viewing, and interpreting the (v) Data tracking; and, section. The EM service provider and its data generated by the EM system, (vi) Reporting and data upload employees: including maintenance releases to procedures. (1) Must not handle or transport hard correct errors in the software or enhance (3) The EM service provider must drives or other medium containing EM the functionality of the software. track hard drives and EM datasets data except to carry out EM services

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 31165

required by this section in accordance (3) Comply with a NMFS-accepted hydraulic lines to enable connection of with a NMFS-accepted EM Service Plan. vessel monitoring plan (see a pressure transducer; (2) Must not write to or modify any § 660.604(e)(3)(iii); (vi) The vessel owner and operator are EM hard drive or other medium that (4) Make declaration reports to OLE willing and able to comply with all contains EM data before it has been prior to leaving port (see § 660.604(m)); applicable requirements of this section copied and catalogued. (5) Provide advance notice to the and to operate under a NMFS-accepted (3) Must not release a vessel’s EM data NMFS WCGOP at least 48 hours prior to VMP. and other records specified in this departing port (see § 660.604(n)); (2) Review of initial application. section (including documents (6) Comply with observer Based on a complete initial application, containing such data and observations requirements, if NMFS notifies the if NMFS determines that the applicant or summaries thereof) except to NMFS vessel owner, operator, or manager that meets the eligibility criteria in and authorized officers as provided in the vessel is required to carry an paragraph (e)(1) of this section, NMFS section § 660.603(m)(6), or as authorized observer (see § 660.604(n)); will notify the applicant in writing that by the owner or operator of the vessel. (7) Ensure retention and handling of the initial application has been accepted all catch as provided under for further consideration. An applicant § 660.604 Vessel and first receiver §§ 660.604(p) and 660.604(r); and who receives such notice may install an responsibilities. (8) Comply with recordkeeping, EM system on his or her vessel and (a) General. This section lays out the reporting, and inspection requirements proceed with submission of a final requirements for catcher vessels to (see §§ 660.604(o), (s) and (t)). application as provided under obtain an exemption to use EM in place (d) First receiver responsibilities. First paragraph (e)(3) of this section. If an of 100-percent observer coverage receivers receiving catch from trips initial application has not been required by the Shorebased IFQ Program taken under EM must follow special accepted, NMFS will provide the (§ 660.140(h)(1)(i)) and MS Co-op disposition and sorting requirements for applicant an explanation of the denial Program (§ 660.150(j)(1)(i)(B)). prohibited and protected species (see in writing. The applicant may appeal Requirements are also described for first § 660.604(u)). NMFS’ determination following the receivers receiving landings from EM (e) Electronic Monitoring process at § 660.25(g). trips. Authorization. To obtain an EM (3) Final application. A final (b) Vessel Owner Responsibilities. To Authorization, a vessel owner must application must be complete and must use EM under this section, vessel submit an initial application to the include: owners must: NMFS West Coast Region Fisheries (i) EM system certification. A (1) Obtain an EM Authorization from Permit Office, then a final application certification form, provided by NMFS, the NMFS West Coast Region Fisheries that includes an EM system certification signed by a representative of a NMFS- Permit Office (see § 660.604(e)); permitted EM service provider that (2) Install an EM system using a and a vessel monitoring plan (VMP). NMFS will only review complete attests that an EM system and associated NMFS-permitted EM service provider equipment that meets the performance that meets performance standards under applications. A vessel owner may submit an application at any time. standards at paragraph (k) of this section § 660.604(j); was installed on the vessel, that the (3) Have a signed EM system Vessel owners that want to have their system was tested while the vessel was certification form (see § 660.604(e)(3)(i)); Authorizations effective for January 1 of (4) Have a NMFS-accepted vessel the following calendar year must submit underway, and that the vessel operator monitoring plan (see their complete application to NMFS by was briefed on the EM system operation § 660.604(e)(3)(iii)); October 1. Vessel owners that want to and maintenance. NMFS will maintain (5) Ensure that the vessel operator have their Authorizations effective for a list of permitted EM service providers attends a mandatory EM orientation May 15 must submit their complete on its website. session provided by the NMFS West application to NMFS by February 15 of (ii) Tentative fishing plan. A Coast Region EM Program (NMFS may the same year. description of the vessel owner’s fishing waive this requirement on a case-by- (1) Initial application. To be plans for the year, including which case basis, such as when the vessel considered for an EM Authorization, the fishery the vessel owner plans to operator has prior EM experience); vessel owner must submit a completed participate in, from what ports, and (6) Maintain logbooks and other application form provided by NMFS, when the vessel owner intends to use records for three years and provide them signed and dated by an authorized EM and observers. This information is to NMFS or authorized officers for representative of the vessel, and meet for purposes of planning observer inspection (see § 660.604(t)). the following eligibility criteria: deployments and is not binding. (7) Obtain EM data processing, (i) The applicant owns the vessel (iii) Vessel monitoring plan. A reporting, and recordkeeping services proposed to be used; complete vessel monitoring plan for the from a NMFS-permitted EM service (ii) The vessel has a valid Pacific vessel that accurately describes how provider (see § 660.604(k)). Coast Groundfish limited entry, trawl- fishing operations on the vessel will be (c) Vessel Operator Responsibilities. endorsed permit registered to it; conducted and how the EM system and To use EM under this section, vessel (iii) If participating in the mothership associated equipment will be configured operators must: sector, the vessel has a valid MS/CV to meet the performance standards at (1) Maintain a valid EM Authorization endorsement; paragraph (k) of this section. NMFS will and NMFS-accepted vessel monitoring (iv) The vessel is participating in the develop EM Program Guidelines plan onboard the vessel at all times that Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, mothership containing best practices and templates the vessel is fishing on an EM trip or sector, or the Shorebased IFQ sector and make them available on NMFS’ when fish harvested during an EM trip using groundfish non-trawl gear; website to assist vessel owners in are onboard the vessel; (v) The vessel is able to accommodate developing VMPs (see § 660.600(b)). (2) Ensure that the EM system is the EM system, including providing NMFS may consider alternative, but installed, operated, and maintained sufficient uninterrupted electrical equivalent, methods proposed by EM consistent with performance standards power, suitable camera mounts, service providers and vessel owners in (see § 660.604(l)); adequate lighting, and fittings for their plans to meet the requirements of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 31166 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

this subpart, if they achieve the purpose application, if NMFS determines that (2) Invalidation due to lapse in of the EM program. An EM service the applicant has met the requirements eligibility. NMFS may invalidate an EM provider may prepare and submit a of this section, NMFS will issue an IAD Authorization if NMFS determines that VMP on behalf of the applicant. The and an EM Authorization. If the the vessel, vessel owner, and/or VMP must include descriptions of the application is denied, the IAD will operator no longer meets the eligibility following (using pictures and diagrams provide an explanation of the denial in criteria specified at paragraph (e)(1) of where appropriate): writing. The applicant may appeal this section. NMFS would first notify (A) General vessel information NMFS’ determination following the the vessel owner of the deficiencies in including the vessel name, hull number, process at § 660.25(g). NMFS will writing and the vessel owner must gear type(s), home port, captain name, evaluate an application based on the EM correct the deficiencies following the and target fishery or sector; Program Guidelines (see § 660.600(b)) instructions provided. If the deficiencies (B) The coordinates of the home port and the following criteria, at a are not resolved upon review of the first box, if a geo-referenced port box will be minimum: trip following the notification, NMFS used to trigger data collection; (i) Review of the vessel owner’s and will notify the vessel owner in writing (C) A diagram of the vessel layout operator’s eligibility based on the that the EM Authorization is invalid and with measurements of the deck and eligibility criteria at paragraph (e)(1); that the vessel is no longer exempt from denoting the location of any designated (ii) Review of the proposed VMP; and, observer coverage at §§ 660.140(h)(1)(i) discard control points; (iii) Review of the proposed self- and 660.150(j)(1)(i)(B) for that (D) The number and location of enforcing agreement, if applicable. authorization period. The holder may cameras and with images of (5) Self-enforcing agreement. In the reapply for an EM Authorization for the corresponding views; future, through a proposed and final following authorization period. (E) The location of lighting, control rulemaking, NMFS may allow for and (iii) Obtaining a new EM center, GPS, sensors, monitor, and other provide requirements related to the use Authorization following an expiration or EM equipment; of voluntary self-enforcing agreements. invalidation. A vessel owner holding an (F) Frame rates, image resolution, This agreement would allow a group of expired or invalidated authorization frequency of data logging, sensor trigger eligible vessels to encourage compliance may reapply for a new EM threshold values, and other EM system with the requirements of this section Authorization at any time consistent specifications; through private, contractual with paragraph (e) of this section. (G) The location and procedures for arrangements. If such arrangements are (i) Renewing an EM Authorization. To any catch handling, including used, participating vessel owners must maintain a valid EM Authorization, designated discard control points within submit the proposed agreement to vessel owners must renew annually camera view, procedures for sorting and NMFS for review and acceptance as part prior to the permit expiration date. measuring discards, the number of crew of the application process as provided NMFS will mail EM Authorization sorting catch, and what steps will be under paragraphs (e)(1) and (3) of this renewal forms to existing EM taken to ensure that all catch remains in section. The existence of a self-enforcing Authorization holders each year on or camera view; agreement among EM vessels does not about: September 1 for non-trawl (H) The measurements of all bins, foreclose the possibility of independent shorebased IFQ vessels and January 1 baskets, compartments, and other tools enforcement action by NMFS OLE or for Pacific whiting IFQ and MS/CV that will be used to calculate estimates authorized officers. vessels. Vessel owners who want to of weight; (f) Changes to a NMFS-accepted VMP. have their Authorizations effective for (I) The detailed steps that will be A vessel owner may make changes to a January 1 of the following calendar year taken to minimize the potential for EM NMFS-accepted VMP by submitting a must submit their complete renewal system malfunctions and the steps that revised plan or plan addendum to form to NMFS by October 15. Vessel will be taken, when malfunctions occur, NMFS in writing. NMFS will review owners who want to have their EM to ensure the adequate monitoring of and accept the change if it meets all the Authorizations effective for May 15 of catch; requirements of this section. A VMP the following calendar year must submit (J) The name, address, phone number, addendum must contain: and email address of a primary point of (1) The date and the name and their complete renewal form to NMFS contact for vessel operations; signature of the vessel owner; by February 15. (K) The name, address, and phone (2) Address, telephone number, fax (j) EM System Performance Standards. number of the vessel’s EM service number and email address of the person The specifications (e.g., image provider, and contact information for a submitting the addendum; resolution, frame rate, user interface) primary point of contact at the EM (3) A complete description of the and configuration of an EM system and service provider; proposed VMP change. associated equipment (e.g., number and (L) The name, address, phone (g) Change in ownership of a vessel. placement of cameras, lighting) used to number, and signature of the applicant, If a vessel changed ownership, the new meet the requirements of this section and the date of the application; and, owner must apply for a new EM must be sufficient to: (M) Any other information required Authorization. (1) Allow easy and complete viewing, by NMFS. (h) Effective dates.—(1) The EM identification, and quantification, of (iv) Any updates to information Authorization is valid from the effective catch items discarded at sea, including submitted in the initial application, date identified on the Authorization during low light conditions; including updates to proposed, self- until the expiration date of December (2) Continuously record vessel enforcing agreements, if applicable (see 31. EM Authorization holders must location (latitude/longitude paragraph (e)(5) of this section). renew annually by following the coordinates), velocity, course, and (4) Review of final application. NMFS renewal process specified in paragraph sensor data (i.e, hydraulic and winch may request additional information or (e) of this section. Failure to renew activity); revisions from the applicant until NMFS annually will result in expiration of the (3) Allow the identification of the is satisfied that the application is EM Authorization and endorsements on time, date, and location of a haul/set or complete. Based on a complete the Authorization expiration date. discard event;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 31167

(4) Record and store image data from instructions from the EM service to carry an observer, the vessel may not all hauls/sets and the duration that fish provider. The vessel operator must be used to fish for groundfish without are onboard the vessel until offloading verify that the EM system has adequate carrying an observer. The vessel begins; memory to record the entire trip and operator must comply with the (5) Continuously record and store raw that the vessel is carrying one or more following requirements on a trip that the sensor data (i.e., GPS and gear sensors) spare hard drives with sufficient vessel owner, operator, or manager has for the entire fishing trip; capacity to record the entire trip. been notified is required to carry an (6) Prevent radio frequency (3) EM system malfunctions. The observer. interference (RFI) with vessel operator of a vessel with a valid EM (1) Notice of departure basic rule. At monitoring systems (VMS) and other Authorization is prohibited from fishing least 24 hours (but not more than 36 equipment; on an EM trip without a fully functional hours) before departing on a fishing trip, (7) Allow the vessel operator to test EM system, unless an alternate a vessel operator that has been notified and monitor the functionality of the EM arrangement has been specified in the by NMFS that his vessel is required to system prior to and during the fishing NMFS-accepted VMP. In the event of an carry an observer, or that is operating in trip to ensure it is fully functional; EM system malfunction, the vessel an active sampling unit, must notify (8) Prevent tampering or, if tampering operator may voluntarily obtain NMFS (or its designated agent) of the does occur, show evidence of observer coverage and revise the vessel’s vessel’s intended time of departure. tampering; and, declaration following the process at Notice will be given in a form to be (9) Provide image and sensor data in § 660.13(d)(4), in which case the vessel specified by NMFS. a format that enables their integration operator is no longer exempt from the (2) Optional notice—weather delays. for analysis. observer requirements at §§ 660.140(h) A vessel operator that anticipates a (k) EM data services. A vessel owner and 660.150(j). delayed departure due to weather or sea with a valid EM Authorization must (m) Declaration reports. The operator conditions may advise NMFS of the obtain EM data processing, reporting, of a vessel with a valid EM anticipated delay when providing the and record retention services from a Authorization must make a declaration basic notice described in paragraph NMFS-permitted EM service provider, report to NMFS OLE prior to leaving (n)(1) of this section. If departure is as described at § 660.603(m). If the port following the process described at delayed beyond 36 hours from the time vessel owner changes EM service § 660.13(d)(4). A declaration report will the original notice is given, the vessel providers, the vessel owner must ensure be valid until another declaration report operator must provide an additional the continuity of EM data retention for revising the existing gear or monitoring notice of departure not less than 4 hours the entire duration of the required declaration is received by NMFS OLE. A prior to departure, in order to enable retention period as specified vessel operator declaring a limited entry NMFS to place an observer. § 660.603(m)(6). NMFS will maintain a midwater trawl, Pacific whiting (3) Optional notice—back-to-back list of permitted EM service providers shorebased IFQ trip or limited entry fishing trips. A vessel operator that on its website. midwater trawl, Pacific whiting intends to make back-to-back fishing (l) EM system operation and mothership sector (catcher vessel or trips (i.e., trips with less than 24 hours maintenance. The EM system must be mothership) trip may only revise the between offloading from one trip and recording imagery and sensor data at all existing monitoring declaration twice beginning another), may provide a times that fish harvested during an EM during the same calendar year. NMFS notice of departure as described in trip are onboard the vessel until may waive this limitation with prior paragraph (n)(1) of this section for both offloading begins. For the purposes of notice if it is determined to be trips, prior to making the first trip. A this section, a fully functional EM unnecessary for purposes of planning vessel operator that has given such system is defined as an EM system and observer deployments. Additional notice is not required to give additional associated equipment that meets the revisions may be made if the EM system notice of the second trip. performance standards listed in has malfunctioned and the vessel (4) Cease fishing report. Within 24 paragraph (j) of this section. operator has chosen to carry an hours of ceasing the taking and retaining (1) Duties of care. The operator of a observer, as allowed under paragraph of groundfish, vessel owners, operators, vessel with a valid EM Authorization (m)(3); or subsequently, the EM system or managers must notify NMFS or its must maintain the EM system in good has been repaired; and upon expiration designated agent that fishing has ceased. working order, including: or invalidation of the vessel’s EM This requirement applies to any vessel (i) Ensuring the EM system is Authorization. that is required to carry an observer, or powered continuously during the (n) Observer requirements. The that is operating in a segment of the fleet fishing trip; operator of a vessel with a valid EM that NMFS has identified as an active (ii) Ensuring the system is functioning Authorization must provide advanced sampling unit. for the entire fishing trip and that notice to NMFS, at least 48 hours prior (5) Waiver. The West Coast Regional camera views are unobstructed and to departing port, of the vessel Administrator may provide written clear in quality, such that the operator’s intent to take a trip under notification to the vessel owner stating performance standards listed in EM, including: vessel name, permit that a determination has been made to paragraph (j) of this section are met; number; contact name and telephone temporarily waive coverage and, number for coordination of observer requirements because of circumstances (iii) Ensuring EM system components deployment; date, time, and port of that are deemed to be beyond the are not tampered with, disabled, departure; and the vessel’s trip plan, vessel’s control. destroyed, operated or maintained including area to be fished and gear type (6) Accommodations and food.—(i) improperly. to be used. NMFS may waive this Accommodations and food for trips less (2) Pre-departure test. Prior to requirement for vessels declared into than 24 hours must be equivalent to departing port, the operator of a vessel the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery or those provided for the crew. with a valid EM Authorization must mothership sector with prior notice. If (ii) Accommodations and food for turn the EM system on and conduct a NMFS notifies the vessel owner, trips of 24 hours or more must be system function test following the operator, or manager of any requirement equivalent to those provided for the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 31168 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

crew and must include berthing space, sampling the catch or observing the (iii) Provide a safe pilot ladder and a space that is intended to be used for transfer. conduct the transfer to ensure the safety sleeping and is provided with installed (12) Records. The vessel operator of observers during transfers. bunks and mattresses. A mattress or must allow observer(s) to inspect and (iv) Provide an experienced crew futon on the floor or a cot is not copy any state or federal logbook member to assist observers in the small acceptable if a regular bunk is provided maintained voluntarily or as required by boat in which any transfer is made. to any crew member, unless other regulation. (16) Housing on vessel in port. During arrangements are approved in advance (13) Assistance. The vessel operator all periods an observer is housed on a by the Regional Administrator or must provide all other reasonable vessel, the vessel operator must ensure designee. assistance to enable observer(s) to carry that at least one crew member is aboard. (7) Safe conditions.—(i) The vessel out their duties, including, but not (o) Inspection. The operator of a operator must maintain safe conditions limited to: vessel with a valid EM Authorization on the vessel for the protection of (i) Measuring decks, codends, and must make the EM system and observers including adherence to all holding bins. associated equipment available for U.S. Coast Guard and other applicable (ii) Providing a designated safe inspection immediately upon request by rules, regulations, statutes, and working area on deck for the observer(s) NMFS or any authorized officer. guidelines pertaining to safe operation to collect, sort and store catch samples. (p) Retention requirements.—(1) of the vessel, including, but not limited (iii) Collecting samples of catch. Pacific whiting IFQ and MS/CV vessels. to rules of the road, vessel stability, (iv) Collecting and carrying baskets of The operator of a vessel on a declared emergency drills, emergency equipment, fish. limited entry midwater trawl, Pacific vessel maintenance, vessel general (v) Allowing the observer(s) to collect whiting shorebased IFQ trip or limited condition and port bar crossings, and biological data and samples. entry midwater trawl, Pacific whiting provisions at §§ 600.725 and 600.746 of (vi) Providing adequate space for mothership sector (catcher vessel or this chapter. An observer may refuse storage of biological samples. mothership) trip, EM trip must retain all boarding or reboarding a vessel and may (vii) Providing time between hauls to fish until landing, with exceptions request a vessel to return to port if sample and record all catch. listed below. (i) Minor operational discards are operated in an unsafe manner or if (viii) Sorting retained and discarded permitted. Minor operational discards unsafe conditions are identified. catch into quota pound groupings. include mutilated fish; fish vented from (ii) The vessel operator must have on (ix) Stowing all catch from a haul an overfull codend, fish spilled from the board a valid Commercial Fishing before the next haul is brought aboard. codend during preparation for transfer Vessel Safety Decal that certifies (14) Sampling station. To allow the to the mothership; and fish removed compliance with regulations found in observer to carry out the required from the deck and fishing gear during 33 CFR chapter I and 46 CFR chapter I, duties, the vessel operator must provide cleaning. Minor operational discards do a certificate of compliance issued an observer sampling station that meets not include discards that result when pursuant to 46 CFR 28.710 or a valid the following requirements so that the more catch is taken than is necessary to certificate of inspection pursuant to 46 observer can carry out required duties. fill the hold or catch from a tow that is U.S.C. 3311. (i) The observer sampling station must not delivered. (8) Observer communications. The be available to the observer at all times. (ii) Large individual marine organisms vessel operator must facilitate observer (ii) The observer sampling station (i.e., all marine mammals, sea turtles, communications by: must be located within 4 m of the and seabirds, and fish species longer (i) Allowing observer(s) to use the location from which the observer than 6 ft (1.8 m) in length) may be vessel’s communication equipment and samples unsorted catch. Unobstructed discarded. personnel, on request, for the entry, passage must be provided between the (iii) Crabs, starfish, coral, sponges, transmission, and receipt of work observer sampling station and the and other invertebrates may be related messages, at no cost to the location where the observer collects discarded. observer(s) or the U.S. or designated sample catch. To the extent possible, the (iv) Trash, mud, rocks, and other agent; and area should be free and clear of hazards inorganic debris may be discarded. (ii) Ensuring that the vessel’s including, but not limited to, moving (iv) A discard that is the result of an communications equipment, used by fishing gear, stored fishing gear, event that is beyond the control of the observers to enter and transmit data, is inclement weather conditions, and open vessel operator or crew, such as a safety fully functional and operational. hatches. issue or mechanical failure, is (9) Vessel position. The vessel (15) Transfers at sea. Observers may permitted. operator must allow observer(s) access be transferred at-sea between a MS (2) Non-trawl shorebased IFQ. A to the vessel’s navigation equipment vessel and a catcher vessel. Transfers at- vessel operator on a declared limited and personnel, on request, to determine sea between catcher vessels is entry groundfish non-trawl, shorebased the vessel’s position. prohibited. For transfers, both vessels IFQ trip must retain all salmon and (10) Access. The vessel operator must must: must discard Dungeness crab caught allow observer(s) free and unobstructed (i) Ensure that transfers of observers at seaward of Washington or Oregon, access to the vessel’s bridge, trawl or sea via small boat under its own power Pacific halibut, green sturgeon, working deck, holding bins, sorting are carried out during daylight hours, eulachon, sea turtles, and marine areas, cargo hold, and any other space under safe conditions, and with the mammals. All other catch may be that may be used to hold, process, agreement of observers involved. discarded following instructions in the weigh, or store fish at any time. (ii) Notify observers at least 3 hours VMP, except as required by the Seabird (11) Prior notification. The vessel before observers are transferred, such Avoidance Program at § 660.21(c)(1). operator must notify observer(s) at least that the observers can finish any (q) Changes to retention requirements. 15 minutes before fish are brought on sampling work, collect personal Retention requirements for non-trawl board, or fish and fish products are belongings, equipment, and scientific shorebased IFQ vessels have been transferred from the vessel, to allow samples. designated as ‘‘routine,’’ which means

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 31169

that they can be changed after a single officers, immediately upon request. The weight, and destination of all prohibited Council meeting following the vessel owner must maintain the federal species; or disposal receipts identifying procedures described at § 660.60(c). discard logbooks and other records the recipient organization and amount (r) Catch handling. The vessel specified in this section, or used in the disposed. Any such records must be operator of a vessel on an EM trip must preparation of records or reports maintained for a period not less than ensure that all catch is handled in a specified in this section or corrections three years after the date of disposal and manner that enables the EM system to to these reports, for a period of not less such records must be provided to NMFS record it and that is consistent with the than three years after the date of landing or authorized officers immediately upon specific catch handling instructions in from an EM trip. The vessel owner must request. the NMFS-accepted VMP. make such records available for (s) Reporting requirements.—(1) inspection by NMFS staff or authorized (2) Protected Species handling and Discard logbook. The operator of a officers, immediately upon request. disposition. All protected species must vessel with a valid EM Authorization (u) First receiver requirements. (1) be abandoned to NMFS or the U.S. Fish must complete, submit, and maintain Prohibited species handling and and Wildlife Service or disposed of onboard the vessel an accurate federal disposition. To ensure compliance with consistent with paragraphs (u)(2)(i) and discard logbook for each EM trip on fishery regulations at 50 CFR part 300, (ii) of this section. No part of any forms supplied by or approved by subparts E and F, and part 600, subpart protected species may be retained for NMFS. If authorized in writing by H; with the Pacific Salmon Fishery personal use by a vessel owner or crew NMFS, a vessel owner or operator may Management Plan; and with the Pacific member, or by a first receiver or submit reports electronically, for Halibut Catch Share Plan; the handling processing crew member. No part of any example by using a VMS or other media. and disposition of all prohibited species protected species may be allowed to A state logbook that contains all the in EM trip landings are the reach commercial markets. required information may be submitted responsibility of the first receiver and (i) Eulachon and green sturgeon. Must in place of a federal discard logbook. If must be consistent with the following be sorted and reported by species on operating an MS/CV vessel, the vessel requirements: electronic fish tickets and state landing operator must provide logbook (i) Any prohibited species landed at receipts and may not be reported in information to the mothership observer first receivers must not be transferred, unspecified categories. Whole body by transmitting the logbook information processed, or mixed with another specimens of green sturgeon must be via radio or email to the mothership at landing until the catch monitor has: retained, frozen, stored separately by the completion of each haul. Recorded the number and weight of (2) Submission of logbooks. Vessel salmon by species; inspected all delivery, and labeled with the vessel operators must submit copies of the prohibited species for tags or marks; name, electronic fish ticket number, and federal discard logbook and state and, collected biological data, date of landing. Arrangements for retained logbook to NMFS or its agent specimens, and genetic samples. transferring the specimens must be within 24-hours of the end of each EM (ii) No part of any prohibited species made by contacting NMFS Southwest trip. may be retained for personal use by a Fisheries Science Center at 831–420– (3) Submission of EM data. Vessel vessel owner or crew member, or by a 3903 within 72 hours after the operators must submit EM data to the first receiver or processing crew completion of the offload. vessel owner’s contracted EM service member. No part of any prohibited (ii) Seabirds, marine mammals, and provider using a method that documents species may be allowed to reach sea turtles. Albatross must reported to time, date, and location of transmission commercial markets. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (541– and receipt. Deadlines for submission (iii) Prohibited species suitable for 867–4558 extension 237 or 503–231– are as follows: human consumption at landing must be 6179 as soon as possible and directions (i) Pacific whiting IFQ vessels. EM handled and stored to preserve the for surrendering must be followed. data from an EM trip must be submitted quality. Priority in disposition must be Marine mammals and sea turtles must within 10 calendar days of the end of given to the donation to surplus food be reported to NMFS as soon as possible that EM trip. collection and distribution system (206–526–6550) and directions for (ii) Mothership catcher vessels. EM operated and established to assist in surrendering or disposal must be data from an EM trip must be submitted bringing donated food to nonprofit followed. Whole body specimens must within 24-hours of the catcher vessel’s charitable organizations and individuals be labeled with the vessel name, return to port. for the purpose of reducing hunger and electronic fish ticket number, and date (iii) Non-trawl shorebased IFQ meeting nutritional needs. of landing. Whole body specimens must vessels. EM data from an EM trip must (iv) The first receiver must report all be kept frozen or on ice until be submitted within 10 calendar days of prohibited species landings on the arrangements for surrendering or the end of that EM trip. electronic fish ticket and is responsible (t) Retention of records. The operator for maintaining records verifying the disposing are completed. Unless of a vessel with a valid EM disposition of prohibited species. directed otherwise, after reporting is Authorization must maintain federal Records on catch disposition may completed, seabirds, marine mammals, discard logbooks onboard the vessel include, but are not limited to: Receipts and sea turtles may be disposed by until the end of the fishing year during from charitable organizations that incinerating, rendering, composting, or which the EM trips were conducted, include the organization’s name and returning the carcasses to sea. and make the report forms available to amount of catch donated; cargo [FR Doc. 2019–13324 Filed 6–27–19; 8:45 am] observers, NMFS staff, or authorized manifests setting forth the origin, BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Jun 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\28JNR2.SGM 28JNR2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2