# 77 FR 23326: Groundfish Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska and Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Observer Program > Federal · Regulations · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-8856 ## Section - **Citation:** 77 FR 23326 - **Heading:** Groundfish Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska and Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Observer Program - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Regulations - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 77 / 77 FR 23326 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 110831549-2180-01] RIN 0648-BB42 Groundfish Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska and Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Observer Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 86 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) and Amendment 76 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), (collectively referred to as the FMPs). If approved, Amendments 86 and 76 would add a funding and deployment system for observer coverage to the existing North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program) and amend existing observer coverage requirements for vessels and processing plants. The new funding and deployment system would allow NMFS to determine when and where to deploy observers according to management and conservation needs, with funds provided through a system of fees based on the ex-vessel value of groundfish and halibut in fisheries covered by the new system. This action is necessary to resolve data quality and cost equity concerns with the Observer Program's existing funding and deployment structure. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the FMPs, and other applicable law. DATES: Written comments must be received no later than 1700 hours, Alaska local time (A.L.T.) June 18, 2012. Per section 313 of the MSA, NMFS will conduct public hearings on the proposed rule in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska during the public comment period. Details on the time, place, and format of the public hearings will be provided in a subsequent Federal Register notice applicable law. DATES: Written comments must be received no later than 1700 hours, Alaska local time (A.L.T.) June 18, 2012. Per section 313 of the MSA, NMFS will conduct public hearings on the proposed rule in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska during the public comment period. Details on the time, place, and format of the public hearings will be provided in a subsequent Federal Register notice. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2011-0210, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “Submit a Comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2011-0210 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line. • Mail: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668. • Fax: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907-586-7557. • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Deliver comments to 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK. Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change nts must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter will be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file (pdf) formats only. Electronic copies of Amendment 86 to the FMP for Groundfish of the BSAI and Amendment 76 to the FMP for Groundfish of the GOA, and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or by fax to 202-395-7285. Inspections for U.S. Coast Guard Safety decals may be scheduled through the U.S. Coast Guard Web site at http://www.fishsafe.info/contactform.htm or by contacting the Seventeenth Coast Guard District safety coordinator at http://www.uscg.mil/d17/, or via phone at (907-463-2810), or (907-463- 2823). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandee Gerke, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the U.S Coast Guard Safety decals may be scheduled through the U.S. Coast Guard Web site at http://www.fishsafe.info/contactform.htm or by contacting the Seventeenth Coast Guard District safety coordinator at http://www.uscg.mil/d17/, or via phone at (907-463-2810), or (907-463- 2823). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandee Gerke, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the BSAI and GOA under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMPs), respectively. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. Management of the Pacific halibut fisheries in and off Alaska is governed by an international agreement, the Convention Between the United States of America and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), which was signed in Ottawa, Canada, on March 2, 1953, and was amended by the Protocol Amending the Convention, signed in Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979. The Convention is implemented in the United States by the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. The Council has submitted Amendments 86 and 76 for review by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and a Notice of Availability of the FMP amendments was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2012 ( 77 FR 50 ), with comments on the FMP amendments invited through May 14, 2012. Comments may address the FMP amendments, the proposed rule, or both, but must be received by 1700 hours, Alaska local time (A.L.T.) on June 18, 2012, to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendments f Availability of the FMP amendments was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2012 ( 77 FR 50 ), with comments on the FMP amendments invited through May 14, 2012. Comments may address the FMP amendments, the proposed rule, or both, but must be received by 1700 hours, Alaska local time (A.L.T.) on June 18, 2012, to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendments. All comments received at that time, whether specifically directed Executive Summary Fishery-dependent data collected by observers onboard vessels and at processing plants provide the cornerstone for management and conservation in North Pacific groundfish fisheries. The North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program) was created with the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) in the mid-1970s.This proposed rule would implement a restructured funding and deployment system for observer coverage in North Pacific groundfish and halibut fisheries and extend observer coverage requirements to a broader range of vessels than are currently included in the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program). This action would address longstanding concerns about statistical bias of observer-collected data and cost inequality among fishery participants with the Observer Program's current funding and deployment structure. Under the current structure, vessel and processing plant operators enter into direct contracts with observer providers to meet coverage requirements at 50 CFR 679.50. Existing coverage requirements, based on vessel length and processing volume, are set at 30 percent or 100 percent, and some vessels and processors are exempt from observer coverage. In October 2010, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) unanimously adopted a motion to restructure the Observer Program's funding and deployment system. This proposed action would divide the Observer Program into two observer coverage categories—partial and full ssing volume, are set at 30 percent or 100 percent, and some vessels and processors are exempt from observer coverage. In October 2010, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) unanimously adopted a motion to restructure the Observer Program's funding and deployment system. This proposed action would divide the Observer Program into two observer coverage categories—partial and full. All groundfish and halibut vessels and processors would be included in one of the categories. The partial observer coverage category would include fishing sectors (vessels and processors) that would not be required to have an observer at all times and the full observer coverage category would include fishing sectors required to have all of their operations observed. This proposed rule would restructure the funding and deployment system for all vessels, shoreside processors, and stationary floating processors in the partial observer coverage category. It would retain the existing funding and deployment system for operations in the full coverage category. Vessels and processors in the partial coverage category would pay to NMFS an observer fee based upon the ex-vessel value of fish landed (ex-vessel value-based fee) for their observer coverage, per the authority granted by section 313 of the MSA. By creating two observer coverage categories with separate funding and deployment systems, the proposed rule would address cost inequity and data quality concerns with the existing Observer Program structure without imposing higher costs on fishing sectors that already pay for full observer coverage. Moreover, the two-category design would ensure that management programs with high observer coverage needs do not deplete the available funding for the partial coverage category fisheries. An observer fee equal to 1.25 percent of the fishery ex-vessel value would be assessed on partial coverage category participants to fund their observer coverage under the authority of section 313 of the MSA ge. Moreover, the two-category design would ensure that management programs with high observer coverage needs do not deplete the available funding for the partial coverage category fisheries. An observer fee equal to 1.25 percent of the fishery ex-vessel value would be assessed on partial coverage category participants to fund their observer coverage under the authority of section 313 of the MSA. The 1.25 percent fee is estimated to generate revenue to fund observers for approximately 30 percent of the partial coverage category's harvest. NMFS and its contractor(s) would deploy observers in partial coverage sectors according to a randomized design to generate statistically representative estimates of total and retained catch and catch composition. This proposed rule includes provisions for NMFS to develop and incorporate electronic video monitoring as a component of the restructured program. The MSA authorizes the use of collected fees for this purpose. Initially, NMFS would deploy electronic monitoring equipment on some vessels to learn more about the costs, benefits, and utility of video monitoring to optimize its use in the overall program. As discussed in this proposed rule, electronic video monitoring would likely not be available to all vessels who request video monitoring. This proposed rule assumes that federal start-up funds will be available to the agency to transition from the current system under which the industry contracts directly with and pays the observer providers for the costs of the observers to the proposed system under which NMFS would contract directly with observer providers to have observers deployed in the partial coverage category sectors. The proposed rule does not include a mechanism to collect start-up funds from industry agency to transition from the current system under which the industry contracts directly with and pays the observer providers for the costs of the observers to the proposed system under which NMFS would contract directly with observer providers to have observers deployed in the partial coverage category sectors. The proposed rule does not include a mechanism to collect start-up funds from industry. Under the proposed rule, each year, NMFS would prepare a report that reviews the progress of the program, describes the financial aspects of the program, and includes a plan for observer coverage rates for the partial coverage category for the upcoming year. The Council would review the annual report, monitor the program's progress, and recommend appropriate adjustments that would be implemented through subsequent rules. Table of Contents I. Background II. Proposed Action A. Observer Coverage and Deployment: Full Coverage Category B. Observer Coverage and Deployment: Partial Coverage Category 1. Funding 2. Observer Deployment a. Entering Vessels Into the Deployment System b. Trip Selection Pool c. Vessel Selection Pool d. Release From Observer Coverage e. Comparison of Vessel and Trip Selection Pools f. Electronic Monitoring g. Vessels Initially Set-Aside From a Selection Pool C. Shoreside Processor and Stationary Floating Processor Observer Coverage D. Observer Coverage in CDQ Fisheries E. Observer Provider and Observer Responsibilities F. U.S. Coast Guard Safety Decal G. Ex-Vessel Value-Based Observer Fee 1. Standard Ex-Vessel Prices 2. Halibut and Sablefish Standard Prices 3. Groundfish Standard Ex-Vessel Prices 4. Confidential Data 5. Landings Subject to an Observer Fee 6. Fee Determination and Collection 7. Payment Compliance 8. Overpayment of Fees H. Federal Processor Permit and Registered Buyer Permits I. Annual Report and Review of the Deployment Plan and Fee Percentage J. Program Review K. Start-Up Funding L. Other Revisions M. Public Comment Topics III. Classification I sh Standard Ex-Vessel Prices 4. Confidential Data 5. Landings Subject to an Observer Fee 6. Fee Determination and Collection 7. Payment Compliance 8. Overpayment of Fees H. Federal Processor Permit and Registered Buyer Permits I. Annual Report and Review of the Deployment Plan and Fee Percentage J. Program Review K. Start-Up Funding L. Other Revisions M. Public Comment Topics III. Classification I. Background The Observer Program provides the regulatory framework for NMFS-certified observers (observers) to obtain information necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish fisheries managed under the FMPs. Regulations implementing the Observer Program at 50 CFR 679.50 require observer coverage aboard catcher vessels, catcher/processors, motherships, and shoreside and stationary floating processors that participate in the groundfish fisheries off Alaska. These regulations also establish vessel, processor, and observer provider responsibilities relating to the Observer Program. Observer requirements for fisheries off Alaska have been in place since the mid-1970s, when the MSA was implemented and NMFS began to The Observer Program has an integral role in the management of North Pacific fisheries. The information collected by observers provides the best available scientific information for managing the fisheries and developing measures to minimize bycatch in furtherance of the purposes and national standards of the MSA. Observers collect biological samples and fishery-dependent information on total catch and interactions with protected species. Managers use data collected by observers to monitor quotas, manage groundfish and prohibited species catch, and document and reduce fishery interactions with protected resources. Scientists use observer-collected data for stock assessments and marine ecosystem research. High quality observer-collected data are a cornerstone of Alaska groundfish fisheries management ctions with protected species. Managers use data collected by observers to monitor quotas, manage groundfish and prohibited species catch, and document and reduce fishery interactions with protected resources. Scientists use observer-collected data for stock assessments and marine ecosystem research. High quality observer-collected data are a cornerstone of Alaska groundfish fisheries management. However, the quality and utility of observer-collected data are deficient due to the current structure of procuring and deploying observers in those fisheries with less than 100 percent observer coverage requirements. Under the current program, coverage requirements vary according to vessel length or the quantity of fish processed, and vessels less than 60 ft. length overall (LOA) and vessels fishing for halibut are exempt from coverage. A vessel equal to or greater than 60 ft. LOA, but less than 125 ft. LOA must carry an observer during at least 30 percent of its fishing days in a calendar quarter (30 percent coverage). Vessel owners and operators in the 30 percent coverage category choose when to carry observers, and fishery managers do not control when and where observers are deployed. Under the current program, owners of smaller vessels pay observer costs that are disproportionately high relative to their gross earnings. To address these concerns, the Council and NMFS have explored alternative program structures as part of four separate actions since the early 1990s. However, the Council identified problems with each of these actions. Only one alternative program structure was adopted (59 FR 46126; May 6, 1994), though, as explained in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES ) it was rescinded prior to full implementation (61 FR 13782; March 28, 1996). While the Council was developing and considering options for an alternate program structure, the Council recommended, and the Secretary approved, several extensions of the Observer Program regulations was adopted (59 FR 46126; May 6, 1994), though, as explained in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES ) it was rescinded prior to full implementation (61 FR 13782; March 28, 1996). While the Council was developing and considering options for an alternate program structure, the Council recommended, and the Secretary approved, several extensions of the Observer Program regulations. A thorough discussion of the history of the Observer Program, including past efforts to restructure and extend the Observer Program, is provided in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES ), and is not repeated here. II. Proposed Action Section 313 of the MSA (16 U.S.C. 1862) authorizes the Council to prepare a fisheries research plan that requires observers to be deployed in North Pacific fisheries and establishes a system of fees to pay the costs of observer coverage. The system of fees must be fair and equitable to all participants in the fisheries and may vary by fishery, management area, or observer coverage level. The fees may be expressed as a fixed amount reflecting actual observer costs or as a percentage of the unprocessed ex-vessel value of the fish and shellfish. Section 313 provides that the fees may be applied to fish harvested under the jurisdiction of the Council, including the Northern Pacific halibut fishery. The fee percentage cannot exceed 2 percent of the ex-vessel value of fish harvested, and proceeds must only be used for costs directly incurred in carrying out the plan. Fee proceeds cannot be used to pay administrative overhead costs, although they may be used to station observers or electronic monitoring systems on vessels and in processing plants, and for inputting observer-collected data. At its October 2010 meeting, the Council adopted a motion to restructure the Observer Program's funding and deployment system. This proposed action would divide the Observer Program into two observer coverage categories—partial and full , although they may be used to station observers or electronic monitoring systems on vessels and in processing plants, and for inputting observer-collected data. At its October 2010 meeting, the Council adopted a motion to restructure the Observer Program's funding and deployment system. This proposed action would divide the Observer Program into two observer coverage categories—partial and full. All groundfish and halibut vessels and processors would be included in one of the categories. The partial observer coverage category would include fishing sectors (vessels and processors) that would not be required to have an observer at all times, and the full observer coverage category would include fishing sectors required to have all their operations observed. The Council's motion and this proposed rule would restructure the funding and deployment system for all fisheries and shoreside processors in the partial observer coverage category and retain the existing funding and deployment system for operations in the full coverage category. Vessels and processors in the partial coverage category would pay an ex-vessel value-based fee to NMFS for their observer coverage. By creating two separate categories of observer coverage with different funding and deployment systems, NMFS and the Council intend to address cost inequity and data quality concerns with the existing Observer Program structure without imposing higher costs on fishing sectors that currently pay for full observer coverage. Moreover, increased monitoring needs of future management programs would not reduce the funds available to provide observer coverage for the fisheries as a whole under the Council's motion. A. Observer Coverage and Deployment: Full Coverage Category Since implementation of the domestic Observer Program in 1990, NMFS has required 100 percent observer coverage for vessels greater than or equal to 125 ft , increased monitoring needs of future management programs would not reduce the funds available to provide observer coverage for the fisheries as a whole under the Council's motion. A. Observer Coverage and Deployment: Full Coverage Category Since implementation of the domestic Observer Program in 1990, NMFS has required 100 percent observer coverage for vessels greater than or equal to 125 ft. LOA and for shoreside processors or stationary floating processors that process at least 1,000 metric tons (mt) of groundfish during a calendar month. NMFS has increased observer coverage requirements since 1990 for vessels and processors in catch share programs with increased monitoring needs such as the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program, the American Fisheries Act (AFA), Amendment 80 to the BSAI FMP, and the GOA Rockfish Program. Under the proposed rule, NMFS would base observer coverage requirements on data needs for specific management programs rather than requirements based on vessel length or processing volume. The current length and volume-based requirements would be removed from regulations, and NMFS would assign vessels and processors to either Full observer coverage means that one or more observers is present at all times, (100 percent observer coverage). NMFS has determined that full observer coverage is needed in programs where catch is allocated to specific entities with quotas and limits of prohibited species catch, which must be discarded at-sea. Economic incentives exist for the industry to under report prohibited species catch discarded at-sea, especially in catch share programs where limits are placed on the amount of catch that may be retained and discarded. Therefore, the proposed rule would require full observer coverage on catcher vessels while they are fishing under a catch share program that has prohibited species catch limits ea. Economic incentives exist for the industry to under report prohibited species catch discarded at-sea, especially in catch share programs where limits are placed on the amount of catch that may be retained and discarded. Therefore, the proposed rule would require full observer coverage on catcher vessels while they are fishing under a catch share program that has prohibited species catch limits. Under the current Observer Program, most catcher/processors and motherships are required to have one or two observers onboard at all times due to their participation in catch share programs. This proposed rule would not reduce the observer coverage currently required under those programs. This proposed rule would also require full observer coverage on all other catcher/processors and motherships to enhance the accuracy of NMFS' catch accounting system. Currently, for catcher/processors with less than 100 percent observer coverage, NMFS uses industry production reports to account for retained catch. NMFS uses discard rates from catcher/processors when there is an observer onboard to estimate at-sea discards for catcher/processors with less than 100 percent observer coverage. Catcher/processor vessels report the processed weight of their catch. On catcher/processors with less than 100 percent observer coverage, NMFS uses a product recovery rate to convert the retained processed weight to a whole-fish (round weight) weight equivalent. The application of product recovery rates for retained catch and at-sea discard rates used for less than 100 percent observed catcher/processor vessels to estimate their vessel's catch and discards introduces error into NMFS' catch accounting as discard rates may vary substantially among vessels ecovery rate to convert the retained processed weight to a whole-fish (round weight) weight equivalent. The application of product recovery rates for retained catch and at-sea discard rates used for less than 100 percent observed catcher/processor vessels to estimate their vessel's catch and discards introduces error into NMFS' catch accounting as discard rates may vary substantially among vessels. This proposed rule therefore would place all catcher/processors and motherships participating in the groundfish or halibut fisheries in the full coverage category to eliminate NMFS' need to use production reports based on product recovery rates to estimate retained catch and at-sea discard rates from other vessels to estimate discard rates for less than 100 percent observed catcher/processors. Table 1—Vessels and Processing Plants Proposed To Be Included in the Full Observer Coverage Category Proposed Full Coverage Category Vessels and Processing Plants Catcher/processors (with limited exceptions noted below). Motherships. Catcher vessels while participating in: AFA or CDQ pollock fisheries. CDQ groundfish fisheries (except: sablefish; and pot or jig gear catcher vessels). Central GOA Rockfish Program fisheries. Inshore processors when receiving or processing Bering Sea pollock. Vessels and processing plants in the full observer coverage category would be required to carry or provide at least one observer on 100 percent of the days they harvest, receive, or process groundfish or halibut. The proposed rule would not modify observer coverage, experience, or workload requirements at 50 CFR 679.50 for AFA directed pollock fishery vessels in the Bering Sea (BS), catcher/processors and motherships in the pollock CDQ fisheries in the BSAI, trawl catcher/processors while groundfish CDQ fishing, pot catcher/processors while CDQ fishing, catcher/processors and motherships in the Aleutian Islands (AI) pollock fishery, Amendment 80 vessels and non-AFA trawl catcher/processors, and Rockfish Program vessels directed pollock fishery vessels in the Bering Sea (BS), catcher/processors and motherships in the pollock CDQ fisheries in the BSAI, trawl catcher/processors while groundfish CDQ fishing, pot catcher/processors while CDQ fishing, catcher/processors and motherships in the Aleutian Islands (AI) pollock fishery, Amendment 80 vessels and non-AFA trawl catcher/processors, and Rockfish Program vessels. Under the current Observer Program, owners and operators of vessels and processing plants contract directly with NMFS-permitted observer providers to meet the observer coverage requirements at 50 CFR 679.50. The fishing industry pays the observer providers directly for the cost of carrying observers. NMFS is not a party to the contracts between the industry and observer providers for the provision of observer services. Under this proposed rule, vessels and processors in the full coverage category would continue to obtain observers through direct contracts with observer providers as under the current Observer Program. Responsibilities for observer providers and observers in the current regulations at 50 CFR 679.50(i) and (j) would remain substantively unchanged for the purposes of the full coverage category, although the numbering of the regulations would be modified. All catcher/processors would be included in the full coverage category, thus, a vessel would need to be classified as either a catcher/processor or a catcher vessel; sometimes vessels are registered as both. NMFS' determination of whether a vessel is a catcher/processor or a catcher vessel for purposes of observer coverage would be based on the operation category designation on the vessel's Federal Fishing Permit (FFP). A vessel designated as a catcher/processor at the beginning of a fishing year 1 would be classified as a catcher/processor for the entire fishing year for the purposes of observer coverage ounds in the most recent full calendar 2 through January 2010, to make a one-time election as to whether their vessel will be in the partial observer coverage category or the full observer coverage category. For vessels less than 60 ft. LOA with catcher/processor and catcher vessel activity in the same year, the election would be effective as long as both operation categories are listed on the FFP. Should an operator amend their FFP to list only one operation type, the one-time election would no longer apply if the permit were subsequently amended again to list both operation types. The one-time election for catcher/processors with an average daily production of less than 5,000 pounds in the most recent year of operation prior to 2010 would apply for the duration the FFP of the qualified vessel is issued to the person making the one-time election. Upon transfer of the vessel to a new person, the one-time election would be void and the catcher/processor designation would be the default designation with a full observer coverage requirement if listed on the FFP. 2 The Council's motion does not specify the period of time prior to 2010 that a vessel may qualify for this one-time election. NMFS proposes 2003 as the lower bound for this time period because Catch Accounting System data are not available before 2003. NMFS would verify a vessel's eligibility for the one-time election with the official Catch Accounting System (CAS), which contains production information back to 2003. Owners of eligible vessels would be required to notify NMFS in writing of their observer coverage category choice at least thirty days prior to embarking on their first fishing trip under the new program so that vessels could be included in the partial coverage category selection pools (described below). If the vessel meets the above criteria and the owner neglects to make a one-time election prior to the vessel's first trip, the catcher/processor designation would be the default designation e category choice at least thirty days prior to embarking on their first fishing trip under the new program so that vessels could be included in the partial coverage category selection pools (described below). If the vessel meets the above criteria and the owner neglects to make a one-time election prior to the vessel's first trip, the catcher/processor designation would be the default designation. While developing the proposed rule, NMFS realized that some vessels used to harvest and freeze a minimal amount of whole fish meet the existing definition of a catcher/processor and so would be included in the proposed full coverage category. To better align observer coverage with the data needs from these vessels, this proposed rule would allow operators of catcher/processors that process no more than 1 mt of round weight equivalent groundfish on any day (to a maximum of 365 mt in a calendar year) to be included in the partial observer coverage category for the following year. This allowance is consistent with the existing catcher vessel definition for license limitation program groundfish. An operator of a catcher/processor that processes up to 1 mt of groundfish per day in the current calendar year would be eligible to follow the procedures for participating in the partial observer coverage category (described below) instead of the full observer coverage category for the following calendar year. NMFS proposes that owners of vessels that process up to 1 mt of groundfish per day could elect to be in the partial coverage category for the following year by registering with the Observer Declaration and Deployment System (Deployment System) that they processed no more than 365 mt of groundfish in the current calendar year. If a vessel processes more than 1 mt round weight equivalent per day in a calendar year, it would not be eligible to participate in the partial observer coverage category in the following year rage category for the following year by registering with the Observer Declaration and Deployment System (Deployment System) that they processed no more than 365 mt of groundfish in the current calendar year. If a vessel processes more than 1 mt round weight equivalent per day in a calendar year, it would not be eligible to participate in the partial observer coverage category in the following year. Vessels that process halibut or more than 1 mt of round weight equivalent groundfish per day would be designated a catcher/processor for purposes of observer coverage category assignment. B. Observer Coverage and Deployment: Partial Coverage Category The partial observer coverage category would be composed of groundfish and halibut catcher vessels and shoreside and stationary floating processors required to carry or provide an observer for less than 100 percent of their operations. Operations that would be in the partial observer coverage category include all catcher vessels except while participating in fisheries requiring full observer coverage (see above) and all shoreside or stationary floating processors except while receiving deliveries of BS pollock. If a catcher vessel or shoreside processor participates in fisheries with full observer coverage requirements and fisheries with partial observer coverage requirements, the operator would be subject to the respective coverage requirements and may be subject to both coverage categories within a year. Table 2—Vessels and Processing Plants Proposed To Be Included in the Partial Observer Coverage Category Proposed partial coverage category vessels and processing plants Catcher vessels designated on an FFP when directed fishing for groundfish in federally managed or parallel fisheries, except those in the full coverage category. Catcher vessels when fishing for halibut individual fishing quota (IFQ) or CDQ. Catcher vessels when fishing for sablefish IFQ or fixed gear sablefish CDQ. Catcher/processors with a maximum daily production of 1 mt, if so elect ing plants Catcher vessels designated on an FFP when directed fishing for groundfish in federally managed or parallel fisheries, except those in the full coverage category. Catcher vessels when fishing for halibut individual fishing quota (IFQ) or CDQ. Catcher vessels when fishing for sablefish IFQ or fixed gear sablefish CDQ. Catcher/processors with a maximum daily production of 1 mt, if so elect. Catcher/processors meeting criteria above for one time election of coverage category, if so elect. Shoreside or stationary floating processors, except those in the full coverage category. The partial observer coverage category is designed to replace the fixed coverage levels currently specified in regulations with coverage designed to fit data needs for conservation and management, and to improve the quality of observer-collected data among fleets where only a portion of the fishing and processing activity is observed. Under the proposed rule, vessels and processing plants in the partial coverage category would be assigned observer coverage through a NMFS deployment system with predetermined random selection probabilities. As described in section 3.2.3 of the analysis (see ADDRESSES ), the use of a randomized design to assign observers to individual trips or vessels addresses NMFS' need to collect unbiased, representative data on catch and bycatch in the groundfish and halibut fisheries. The current program is limited as vessels and plants that are required to have 30 percent observer coverage select when to carry observers, which statistically biases estimates of catch and bycatch. Moreover, NMFS lacks catch and effort information from groundfish vessels less than 60 ft. LOA and halibut vessels of any length ative data on catch and bycatch in the groundfish and halibut fisheries. The current program is limited as vessels and plants that are required to have 30 percent observer coverage select when to carry observers, which statistically biases estimates of catch and bycatch. Moreover, NMFS lacks catch and effort information from groundfish vessels less than 60 ft. LOA and halibut vessels of any length. This proposed rule would remove exemptions from observer coverage for halibut vessels and for groundfish Operations in the partial coverage category would be randomly selected for observer coverage when fishing for halibut or when directed fishing for groundfish in the federally managed or State of Alaska (State) parallel groundfish fisheries. This proposed rule would define the commonly-used “parallel groundfish fishery” term as a fishery that occurs in State waters, is open at the same time as Federal groundfish fisheries in Federal waters, and groundfish catch is deducted from the Federal total allowable catch (TAC). 1. Funding Under the authority of section 313 of the MSA, the proposed rule would require participants in the partial coverage category to pay an ex-vessel value-based fee for observer coverage. The observer fee may be assessed against a subset of fishing vessels and processors, including those not required to carry an observer or electronic monitoring under the fisheries research plan (deployment plan). NMFS would use the ex-vessel value fee proceeds to contract with observer providers to deploy observers in the partial coverage category. Section 313 allows NMFS to use the fees to pay for stationing observers or electronic monitoring systems on board fishing vessels and fish processors. The maximum ex-vessel value fee authorized under section 313 is 2 percent. In its October 2010 motion, the Council selected a fee of 1.25 percent. Under the ex-vessel value fee program, the fee amount would be paid by both vessels and processors in the partial coverage category the fees to pay for stationing observers or electronic monitoring systems on board fishing vessels and fish processors. The maximum ex-vessel value fee authorized under section 313 is 2 percent. In its October 2010 motion, the Council selected a fee of 1.25 percent. Under the ex-vessel value fee program, the fee amount would be paid by both vessels and processors in the partial coverage category. The Council's and NMFS' intent is for owners and operators of catcher vessels delivering to shoreside processors or stationary floating processors to split the fee liability 50/50 with the processor, such that each operation would pay 0.625 percent of the total ex-vessel value of the landing. While the intent is that vessels and processors would be responsible for their portion of the ex-vessel value fee, the owner of a shoreside processor or a stationary floating processor named on a Federal Processing Permit (FFP) would be responsible for collecting the fee, including the vessel's portion of the fee, at the time of landing and remitting the full fee amount to NMFS. However, because NMFS does not regulate business transactions between vessels and processors, the intended fee liability split would not be codified in Federal regulations. The proposed regulations provide that NMFS would hold the processor liable for payment of the entire fee. The proposed fee percentage (1.25 percent) seeks to balance the need for revenue to support the Observer Program while minimizing impacts on the industry sectors included in the restructured program. The Council considered a fee of less than 2 percent of the fishery ex-vessel value on vessels less than 60 ft. LOA to minimize the costs to the smallest operations ble for payment of the entire fee. The proposed fee percentage (1.25 percent) seeks to balance the need for revenue to support the Observer Program while minimizing impacts on the industry sectors included in the restructured program. The Council considered a fee of less than 2 percent of the fishery ex-vessel value on vessels less than 60 ft. LOA to minimize the costs to the smallest operations. However, in order to develop a fee program that would be fair and equitable across all sectors in the restructured program, the Council determined that the same fee percentage should apply to all restructured sectors as they all benefit from resulting observer data that is essential for conservation and management of the fisheries in which they participate. Section 4.3.3 of the analysis (see ADDRESSES ) estimates a 1.25 percent fee would generate about $4.2 million per year, based on the estimated average of ex-vessel revenues from 2005 through 2008, and fund over 9,000 observer days. The amount of revenue needed to support the minimum proposed 30 percent at-sea observer coverage for the partial coverage category is estimated to be $3.8 million, which would fund 8,093 observer days (see ADDRESSES ). The estimate assumes that vessels less than 40 ft. LOA would not be observed, although they would be subject to the ex-vessel value fee and benefit from observer data collected on larger vessels. Vessels less than 40 ft. LOA would have zero probability of being selected for observer coverage in the initial year or years of the program; however, the criteria for no selection could change annually through an annual deployment plan. The Council determined that a 1.25 percent fee would fund the necessary observer days to reach the target coverage, with a buffer equal to roughly 10 percent of the estimated revenue. In addition, a fee of 1.25 percent would better ensure that an individual vessel or processor would not pay over the 2 percent maximum fee authorized in the MSA ould change annually through an annual deployment plan. The Council determined that a 1.25 percent fee would fund the necessary observer days to reach the target coverage, with a buffer equal to roughly 10 percent of the estimated revenue. In addition, a fee of 1.25 percent would better ensure that an individual vessel or processor would not pay over the 2 percent maximum fee authorized in the MSA. Should the Council determine the 1.25 percent fee is insufficient or excessive following its review of the NMFS annual observer report to be prepared as part of this proposed action, the Council could adjust the fee percentage up or down through a subsequent regulatory action. 2. Observer Deployment A primary goal of the restructured program is to attain unbiased fishery catch estimates by allowing NMFS to assign and deploy observers on vessels and plants that are currently unobserved or observed at a rate of 30 percent, using a random selection plan. The restructured Observer Program would require NMFS to efficiently allocate observer effort towards multiple objectives, such as estimating catch, bycatch, and protected species interactions, within the budget generated by ex-vessel value-based fee proceeds. By September 1 of each year, NMFS would complete an observer deployment plan containing projected observer coverage rates in the upcoming calendar year for the various sectors in the partial coverage category. The deployment plan would describe the methods by which vessels, plants, or individual fishing trips would be chosen for observer coverage. Two distinct observer coverage selection pools are proposed for vessels in the partial coverage category—fishing trip selection and vessel selection. NMFS would establish criteria for inclusion in the respective pools (i.e., vessel length and gear-type) to maximize efficiency in generating representative estimates of catch and bycatch given available funds and anticipated fishing effort overage. Two distinct observer coverage selection pools are proposed for vessels in the partial coverage category—fishing trip selection and vessel selection. NMFS would establish criteria for inclusion in the respective pools (i.e., vessel length and gear-type) to maximize efficiency in generating representative estimates of catch and bycatch given available funds and anticipated fishing effort. NMFS would specify the vessel-length and gear-type criteria for each selection pool in the annual deployment plan. a. Entering Vessels Into the Deployment System To properly allocate observer resources, NMFS would need to estimate the level of participation for each selection pool for the upcoming calendar year. The more accurate the projected fleet activity, the higher the likelihood of achieving planned coverage levels. NMFS presented its proposed plan for compiling a list of expected fishery participants to the Council's Observer Advisory Committee in September, 2011 and to the Council in October, 2011. NMFS described a process whereby operators of vessels named on an Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) would be required to enter their vessel information into the Deployment System by December 1 of the year prior to each fishing year in order to generate an accurate list of vessels that would participate in the fisheries in the upcoming year. However, NMFS amended this proposed provision to automate this process and provide latitude to vessel owners and operators, such that they would not be required to meet a December 1 entry deadline that they could be penalized for failing to meet. As part of this proposed action, NMFS would establish the Deployment System as the communication platform among industry participants in the partial coverage category, the Observer Program, and contracted observer providers. The Deployment System would be available by Internet and phone ey would not be required to meet a December 1 entry deadline that they could be penalized for failing to meet. As part of this proposed action, NMFS would establish the Deployment System as the communication platform among industry participants in the partial coverage category, the Observer Program, and contracted observer providers. The Deployment System would be available by Internet and phone. NMFS would provide instructions for accessing the Deployment System in the written notification to vessels that are auto-entered into the selection pools. Access to the Deployment System would also be available through the NMFS Alaska Region Web site (see ADDRESSES ). To generate a list of expected fishery participants for the upcoming calendar year, NMFS would auto-enter in the Deployment System (a) all partial coverage category vessels that are designated on an FFP and; (b) all catcher vessels that are not designated on an FFP but that land sablefish IFQ or halibut IFQ or CDQ in a fishing year. NMFS would notify in writing, operators of vessels that are entered into the Deployment System for the upcoming year to indicate the applicable selection pool for his or her vessel and instructions for communicating with the Observer Program for the upcoming year. An owner or operator would be required to manually enter in the Deployment System any vessel not auto-entered into a selection pool prior to embarking on a trip to directed fish for groundfish or to fish for halibut. An owner of a vessel designated on an FFP that is issued after December 1 of the year prior to the fishing year would be required to enter his or her vessel information into the Deployment System within 30 days of issuance of the FFP. While an FFP is issued to specific a vessel, a permit to harvest IFQ and halibut CDQ is issued to a person and no vessel is named on the permit to fish for halibut. An owner of a vessel designated on an FFP that is issued after December 1 of the year prior to the fishing year would be required to enter his or her vessel information into the Deployment System within 30 days of issuance of the FFP. While an FFP is issued to specific a vessel, a permit to harvest IFQ and halibut CDQ is issued to a person and no vessel is named on the permit. Thus, operators of non-FFP vessels that are not auto-entered into the Deployment System due to a lack of prior year fishing activity would need to enter their vessel information into the Deployment System at least thirty days prior to embarking on a fishing trip for sablefish IFQ or halibut IFQ or CDQ to be entered into a selection pool. In this case, the Deployment System would notify the operator as to the selection pool into which the vessel is entered. NMFS requests public comment on the process proposed for NMFS to auto-enter vessels with fishing activity in a preceding year and the process proposed for vessel owners or operators to manually enter their vessel information due to issuance of a new FFP. Table 3—Deployment System Entry Process for Vessels Designated on an FFP and Vessels Not Designated on an FFP FFP Vessels Non-FFP vessels (sablefish IFQ and halibut IFQ or CDQ) Initial vessel list for upcoming year NMFS generates a list of current FFP vessels NMFS generates a list from current year landings. Additions after December 1 of prior fishing year Owners enter their vessel information into the Deployment System within 30 days of FFP issuance Operators enter their vessel information into the Deployment System at least 30 days prior to first trip. Notification of selection pool (trip or vessel) If in the initial vessel list, then owner or operator notified in writing from NMFS. If added after the initial list, then owner or operator notified via the Deployment System. b formation into the Deployment System within 30 days of FFP issuance Operators enter their vessel information into the Deployment System at least 30 days prior to first trip. Notification of selection pool (trip or vessel) If in the initial vessel list, then owner or operator notified in writing from NMFS. If added after the initial list, then owner or operator notified via the Deployment System. b. Trip Selection Pool NMFS would select individual fishing trips using the Deployment System for observer coverage in the trip selection pool. Initially, trips taken by hook-and-line and pot vessels 57.5 ft. LOA or greater and all trawl vessels in the partial coverage category would comprise the trip selection pool. NMFS would further subdivide the trip selection pool into groups with similar traits (sampling strata) and assign a specific sampling rate to each stratum to minimize the variance, and thus increase certainty, in observer-derived catch estimates. In subsequent years, NMFS would review the suitability of the sampling strata and rates and make necessary adjustments to the strata through the annual deployment plan. Operators of vessels in the trip selection pool would be required to contact the Deployment System by phone or Internet (hail-in) at least 72 hours in advance of embarking on a fishing trip for halibut or directed fishing for groundfish. Upon hailing-in, the vessel operator would be prompted to enter information about the departure location and duration of the upcoming fishing trip. The Deployment System would determine the sampling stratum for each vessel by the vessel's identification number and information provided in the user's Deployment System account (FFP or Alaska Department of Fish and Game [ADF&G] number). A determination as to whether the trip is or is not selected for observer coverage would be generated during the web session or call through a random process that would be described in the annual deployment plan g stratum for each vessel by the vessel's identification number and information provided in the user's Deployment System account (FFP or Alaska Department of Fish and Game [ADF&G] number). A determination as to whether the trip is or is not selected for observer coverage would be generated during the web session or call through a random process that would be described in the annual deployment plan. The vessel operator would be notified of the result (affirmative or negative for observer coverage) by the Deployment System, and the unique call identification number (receipt) would be provided. For selected trips, the Deployment System would provide the vessel operator with instructions on how to coordinate with an observer provider to obtain the required observer coverage as well as notify observer-provider(s) contracted by NMFS of trips subject to observer coverage. The observer provider would work with the vessel operator to coordinate observer logistics in a manner consistent with the current observer deployment system. Operators would be prohibited from embarking on a trip selected for observer coverage without an observer, unless the Observer Program released the selected trip from observer coverage due to extenuating circumstances (e.g., the observer provider is unable to deploy an observer to the vessel within a day of the intended fishing trip departure). A notification period of 72 hours prior to a fishing trip departure is proposed to allow the observer provider sufficient time to deploy an observer to the port of embarkation. NMFS recognizes that a longer notification window is preferable for observer providers to make arrangements to deploy an observer to the port indicated by the vessel operator and a shorter notification window is preferable for vessel operators, whose fishing plans may change over the course of a week d to allow the observer provider sufficient time to deploy an observer to the port of embarkation. NMFS recognizes that a longer notification window is preferable for observer providers to make arrangements to deploy an observer to the port indicated by the vessel operator and a shorter notification window is preferable for vessel operators, whose fishing plans may change over the course of a week. Existing regulations for similar observer deployment systems in Northeast and Western Pacific fisheries at 50 CFR 648.85 and 665.205, respectively, require operators to notify NMFS 72 hours in advance of an NMFS recognizes several factors that could result in the failure of a vessel to commence a trip as planned, such as a mechanical breakdown or weather delay. Vessel operators may also alter fishing plans to avoid having to take an observer on a particular trip if selected for coverage. The delay or cancellation of a selected fishing trip would not result in an automatic release from observer coverage. NMFS would make an observer available to a vessel for up to 48 hours past the departure date and time of the fishing trip that was selected by the Deployment System. After 48 hours, if an operator has not embarked on a selected trip, the trip would be invalidated by the Deployment System and the observer could be deployed to another vessel. If a selected trip is cancelled by the operator or invalidated by the Deployment System, the observer coverage requirement would apply to the vessel's next trip. The vessel operator would be required to register a new trip with the Deployment System and wait for an observer to be available before embarking on the new trip. NMFS proposes the maximum 48-hour delay to provide some room for unexpected delays while avoiding the cost of paying for an observer to wait in port for more than two days before embarking on a trip. Observer coverage would be required for the entire fishing trip if selected in the trip selection pool he Deployment System and wait for an observer to be available before embarking on the new trip. NMFS proposes the maximum 48-hour delay to provide some room for unexpected delays while avoiding the cost of paying for an observer to wait in port for more than two days before embarking on a trip. Observer coverage would be required for the entire fishing trip if selected in the trip selection pool. The “fishing trip” definition at 50 CFR 679.2 specific to vessels in the partial coverage category of the groundfish and halibut Observer Program would be revised to refer to the period of time between when a catcher vessel departs a port to harvest fish until the offload of all fish from that vessel. With the exception of regulatory discards, a fishing trip would be prohibited from commencing with fish aboard. The revised definition is intended to match the information entered into the Deployment System by the operator about the planned fishing trip departure time and to ensure that all fishing events and harvest from an entire trip are observed when selected. The “fishing day” definition at 50 CFR 679.2 would be removed from regulations as observer coverage would no longer be required as a portion of the days fished by an operation in a calendar quarter. NMFS recognizes that some operators would not know their exact departure plans 72 hours in advance of some fast-paced fisheries. To address this uncertainty, vessel operators would be able to register more than one trip at a time with the Deployment System. The opportunity for the operator to register and enter information about multiple trips would inform them if any of their trips in a fast-paced open access fishery, such as the pollock or Pacific cod fisheries in the GOA, are selected for observer coverage. The observer provider would be notified of the registered trips that are selected for coverage so that logistics to deploy an observer could be arranged in advance he operator to register and enter information about multiple trips would inform them if any of their trips in a fast-paced open access fishery, such as the pollock or Pacific cod fisheries in the GOA, are selected for observer coverage. The observer provider would be notified of the registered trips that are selected for coverage so that logistics to deploy an observer could be arranged in advance. Moreover, NMFS and the observer provider contractor(s) would need to put observers on stand-by in the departure ports for deployment into fast-paced fisheries. Doing so would prevent the interruption of a vessel's fishing activity or the need for the Observer Program to release selected fishing trips from observer coverage. c. Vessel Selection Pool The vessel selection pool is proposed as an alternate to the trip selection pool. Vessel selection would reduce the volume of trip notifications received by the Deployment System. Further, vessel selection would increase NMFS' ability to deploy observers on small, fixed gear vessels, which would otherwise be logistically challenging under a trip selection protocol. Initially, vessels greater than or equal to 40 ft. LOA but less than 57.5 ft. LOA using fixed gear to fish groundfish or halibut would comprise the vessel selection pool. Vessel criteria for inclusion in the vessel selection pool would be specified in annual deployment plans. Vessels with an FFP or vessels used to harvest IFQ or CDQ halibut would be included in a selection pool. For the vessel selection pool, NMFS would randomly choose a subset of vessels based on either the FFP number or a combination of ADF&G registration number and planned fishing activity to observe for a predetermined time period. Vessel operators required to manually enter their vessel information into the Deployment System would be notified by the Deployment System as to whether or not their vessel is selected for observer coverage would randomly choose a subset of vessels based on either the FFP number or a combination of ADF&G registration number and planned fishing activity to observe for a predetermined time period. Vessel operators required to manually enter their vessel information into the Deployment System would be notified by the Deployment System as to whether or not their vessel is selected for observer coverage. The Deployment System would provide instructions for the operator of a vessel selected for observer coverage to contact a NMFS-contracted observer provider to discuss logistics for obtaining observer coverage. The proposed rule would require operators to comply with the instructions provided by the Deployment System. For vessels that are auto-entered into the vessel selection pool, NMFS would indicate in the written notification whether or not a vessel is selected for observer coverage and would include instructions for the owner or operator to coordinate with the Observer Program and the contracted observer provider for required observer coverage. For the vessel selection pool, the time period for which a selected vessel would be required to carry an observer would be specified in the annual deployment plan, in the Deployment System, and in the written notification sent out to non-FFP vessel operators. In section 3.7.2.3 of the analysis (see ADDRESSES ), a period of 3 months was proposed as the initial vessel selection duration. Under that scenario, an observer would be required on every fishing trip while the vessel is directed fishing for groundfish or halibut over a 3-month period. Initially, the 3-month period would correspond to a quarter of the calendar year. A vessel selected in the first “block” of 3 months would return to the pool of vessels eligible for random selection and could be selected again in the following blocks t scenario, an observer would be required on every fishing trip while the vessel is directed fishing for groundfish or halibut over a 3-month period. Initially, the 3-month period would correspond to a quarter of the calendar year. A vessel selected in the first “block” of 3 months would return to the pool of vessels eligible for random selection and could be selected again in the following blocks. The potential for re-selection is referred to as “sampling with replacement.” Sampling with replacement ensures that each selected sample is independent of the others so that each vessel has an equal probability of being selected on any given draw. Under the assumption that the vessels registered in the selection system represent similar entities, this randomization would protect against bias so that representative estimates of fishery catch from observer-collected data are generated. Given the large number of vessels expected in the pool, successive selections of the same vessel are unlikely but possible. The majority of vessels in the vessel selection system would be hook-and-line vessels participating in halibut IFQ and CDQ, and sablefish IFQ fisheries. In the future, the vessel selection time period could be adjusted through the annual deployment plan to match logical NMFS anticipates logistical complexities related to deploying observers on vessels less than 57.5 ft. LOA, and coordination between NMFS and vessel operators would be needed to successfully deploy observers with minimal impact to the vessel's normal operations. Vessels less than 57.5 ft. LOA have not previously been subject to observer coverage. Due to NMFS' limited experience with individual, less than 57.5 ft. LOA vessels, since they previously were unobserved vessels, NMFS expects vessel owners and operators to have justified concerns about crew and observer safety and displacement of crew members to carry an observer o the vessel's normal operations. Vessels less than 57.5 ft. LOA have not previously been subject to observer coverage. Due to NMFS' limited experience with individual, less than 57.5 ft. LOA vessels, since they previously were unobserved vessels, NMFS expects vessel owners and operators to have justified concerns about crew and observer safety and displacement of crew members to carry an observer. When possible in the coordination process, at the request of the vessel owner or operator, the observer and a NMFS program coordinator may visit the vessel, meet with the captain and crew, and familiarize themselves with how an observer would sample aboard a particular vessel. At its discretion, NMFS could provide electronic monitoring equipment to the owner or operator for use on the vessel. As a first step in coordination, upon first login to the Deployment System, vessel operators would indicate their assessment as to whether or not an observer could be accommodated aboard their vessel. The operator would be prompted to enter the reason why an observer could not be accommodated (e.g., lack of space for an observer to sample) if so indicated. A program coordinator may visit any vessel selected for observer coverage where the operator indicated that an observer could not be accommodated to verify this assessment. If NMFS determined that the vessel was unsuitable to carry an observer, the Observer Program, in its discretion, could release the vessel from the requirement to be observed for the duration of the selection period. d. Release From Observer Coverage Any determination to release a selected vessel from observer coverage during the selected time period would be made on a case-by-case basis by the Observer Program. There are a variety of reasons for which a selected vessel or fishing trip could be released from observer coverage. For example, inclement weather could prevent an observer from getting into a port where a selected vessel is located Any determination to release a selected vessel from observer coverage during the selected time period would be made on a case-by-case basis by the Observer Program. There are a variety of reasons for which a selected vessel or fishing trip could be released from observer coverage. For example, inclement weather could prevent an observer from getting into a port where a selected vessel is located. In that case, NMFS would work with the observer contractor to evaluate the situation and, if warranted, grant a release from coverage to prevent undue interruption to a vessel's operations. As it is impossible to anticipate every situation, the decision to grant a release or not grant a release will be made on a case-by-case basis. The Observer Program would document the reasons and evidence the decision-maker relied on to make the decision to grant or deny a release and, if a release is granted, the duration for which the vessel is released from coverage. NMFS recognizes that the decision process on observer coverage releases needs to be efficient to limit impacts (such as delays) on the fishing community. Observer Program staff would inform the vessel operator via phone or email of its decision to release, or not, a selected vessel or trip from coverage and note the release in the corresponding trip information in the Deployment System. Information on release occurrences, and the reasons for them, would be included in future reporting on Observer Program operations to the Council. NMFS anticipates that the Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) assigned to this contract will make these release decisions initially. The COTR would work on an “on call” basis to ensure the decisions are made in a timely manner. As experience is gained with the program and the reasons for releases are better understood, NMFS may be able to delegate routine releases to the observer contractor, with appropriate documentation as to the reasons, to ensure program efficiency. e contract will make these release decisions initially. The COTR would work on an “on call” basis to ensure the decisions are made in a timely manner. As experience is gained with the program and the reasons for releases are better understood, NMFS may be able to delegate routine releases to the observer contractor, with appropriate documentation as to the reasons, to ensure program efficiency. e. Comparison of Vessel and Trip Selection Pools Table 4—Primary Distinctions Between the Proposed Vessel and Trip Selection Pools Vessel selection pool Trip selection pool Selected Unit Vessel Fishing Trip. When Selected Prior to each calendar quarter At least 72 hours prior to trip. When Operator Notified Prior to each calendar quarter Prior to each trip. How Operator Notified of Selection Via written notification Via Deployment System. Duration of Coverage For the first year of the program, three months. Subject to change per annual deployment plan. Fishing Trip. Possible Electronic Monitoring Option Upon release from observer coverage requirement. No. Owner's or Operator's Notification Requirements If selected, must provide access and comply with instructions provided by the Deployment System or the written notification, as applicable, to obtain observer coverage. Must notify NMFS at least 72 hours prior to embarking on a groundfish or halibut fishing trip. The following diagram depicts the proposed vessel and trip selection process within the Deployment System, upon completion of the vessel entry process, either through auto-entry or manual-entry described above: BILLING CODE 3510-22-P EP18AP12.000 BILLING CODE 3510-22-C f. Electronic Monitoring NMFS is encouraged by emerging technological developments that enable the use of electronic monitoring when its use is cost effective and can provide NMFS and the Council information needed to meet a management objective n of the vessel entry process, either through auto-entry or manual-entry described above: BILLING CODE 3510-22-P EP18AP12.000 BILLING CODE 3510-22-C f. Electronic Monitoring NMFS is encouraged by emerging technological developments that enable the use of electronic monitoring when its use is cost effective and can provide NMFS and the Council information needed to meet a management objective. NMFS and the Council have been engaged in electronic monitoring development for several years, and they jointly conducted a 2008 workshop and produced a report available at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/conservation-issues/observer-program.html, which is still relevant. Since then, NMFS and the International Pacific Halibut Commission jointly http://project.nprb.org/. NMFS is currently assisting industry efforts funded through a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant to further develop and operationalize electronic monitoring technology for use on small hook-and-line vessels where human observation can be challenging, and, at times, impossible. The Council's Observer Advisory Committee (Committee) assessed electronic monitoring at its March 2011 meeting, considered the potential, and some of the limitations, of the current state of electronic monitoring technology relative to Alaskan fisheries management issues. The Committee noted that there are existing operational electronic monitoring systems using cameras in a surveillance capacity on several catcher/processors in the North Pacific groundfish fisheries off Alaska. In those applications, electronic monitoring is stable and functions as another set of eyes for an observer to see areas that are blocked from their line of sight, and to provide a preserved record of vessel activities when the observer is not present. However, data collected by these surveillance systems are not routinely extracted for fisheries management Pacific groundfish fisheries off Alaska. In those applications, electronic monitoring is stable and functions as another set of eyes for an observer to see areas that are blocked from their line of sight, and to provide a preserved record of vessel activities when the observer is not present. However, data collected by these surveillance systems are not routinely extracted for fisheries management. NMFS seeks to develop capacity, both in and out of house, for video deployment, review, and information extraction at the inception of the restructured program. NMFS presented an initial draft of regulations to implement the restructured Observer Program to the Committee in September 2011 and to the Council at its October 2011 meeting. The initial draft regulations included a provision that would have required vessels selected for coverage in the vessel selection pool to have either an observer or an electronic monitoring system onboard the vessel for the duration of the selection. Upon further review, concerns were raised about the legality of requiring electronic monitoring on vessels since NMFS has not yet developed performance standards or technical specifications for electronic monitoring. Subsequently, this provision was revised such that the only observer requirement for a vessel selected for coverage would be that an observer be onboard for the duration required. Upon release from the requirement to carry an observer (described above), NMFS may provide an electronic monitoring system for use on a vessel if the operator coordinates with NMFS to make his or her vessel available for evaluation and installation of electronic monitoring equipment. However, NMFS would not have the authority to require a vessel to carry electronic monitoring equipment as part of this proposed rule the requirement to carry an observer (described above), NMFS may provide an electronic monitoring system for use on a vessel if the operator coordinates with NMFS to make his or her vessel available for evaluation and installation of electronic monitoring equipment. However, NMFS would not have the authority to require a vessel to carry electronic monitoring equipment as part of this proposed rule. The Council passed a motion at its October 2011 meeting which noted that NMFS will need to prioritize vessels that are suited for electronic monitoring and that initial efforts to use electronic video monitoring as a substitute for an observer would focus on hook-and-line vessels less than 57.5 ft. LOA fishing for halibut and sablefish IFQ. A lag is expected between the collection and review of camera-collected catch composition data; therefore, the Committee and Council recommended halibut and sablefish IFQ vessels greater than or equal to 40 ft. LOA but less than 57.5 ft. LOA for initial eligibility for electronic monitoring as NMFS does not rely on data collected at-sea for inseason management of these fisheries. Electronic video monitoring for catch composition is still under development and the existing technology will likely improve with further refinement. NMFS encourages vendors to continue to develop the capacity to deploy and service electronic monitoring systems for Federal fisheries off Alaska. Dependent on funding, NMFS will look to develop the capacity to deploy electronic monitoring in all cases where it would be the best alternative for information collection. g. Vessels Initially Set Aside From a Selection Pool Under the proposed deployment system, NMFS would determine, on an annual basis, which vessel categories would be subject to the trip selection pool and which would be subject to the vessel selection pool ook to develop the capacity to deploy electronic monitoring in all cases where it would be the best alternative for information collection. g. Vessels Initially Set Aside From a Selection Pool Under the proposed deployment system, NMFS would determine, on an annual basis, which vessel categories would be subject to the trip selection pool and which would be subject to the vessel selection pool. The fraction of each pool that is observed will depend on data needed for management of the fisheries and on the revenue generated for observer coverage through the ex-vessel value-based observer fee. Section 3.2.10 of the analysis describes the sequential development of the observer deployment design, ranging from a pilot design based on a minimal amount of prior information about the fisheries, to full optimization designed to minimize the variance in catch estimates. The process employed by NMFS to allocate observer coverage would become more precise over time as information is collected under the randomized design, permitting estimates of variance within and among vessel categories. Thus, from year to year, the criteria for which partial coverage category vessels are in each pool may be adjusted to increase the sampling efficiency. The coverage rates may also vary among selection pools, and the probability of selection from some vessel categories may be low to none. NMFS analyzed landings information to arrive at a minimum vessel length for inclusion in the vessel selection pool for the initial year of the restructured program. Full details are provided in section 3.2.7 of the analysis (see ADDRESSES ). NMFS grouped historic data on total landed weight by vessel properties that are known before a trip begins (e.g., vessel length and gear type). It was important to group landing data by known vessel properties since observers are deployed prior to a landing and properties such as the target species are determined after the fishing trip re provided in section 3.2.7 of the analysis (see ADDRESSES ). NMFS grouped historic data on total landed weight by vessel properties that are known before a trip begins (e.g., vessel length and gear type). It was important to group landing data by known vessel properties since observers are deployed prior to a landing and properties such as the target species are determined after the fishing trip. NMFS sought to maximize the sampling efficiency and precision in the resulting estimates by defining vessel length and gear type groups to minimize the variation in landed weight within a group and maximize the variation in landed weight between groups. The first grouping property was “gear type” due to large differences in landed weight between trawl and fixed (hook-and-line and pot) gear. The second grouping property was vessel length with a break in landed weights from vessels below and above 57.5 ft. LOA. Since there were no trawl vessels below 57.5 ft. LOA, this effectively separated trawl vessels. However, there were a large number of fixed gear vessels less than 57.5 ft. LOA. Landings made in 2007 and 2008 from vessels up to 57.5 ft. LOA using fixed gear were further analyzed to determine the vessel length where the amount of fish harvested per trip was significantly lower than the amount harvested by larger vessels. Section 3.2.7.2 of the analysis (see ADDRESSES ) concluded that a vessel length of 39 ft. LOA was the break point below which the amount of harvest per trip was different than the amount of harvest per trip for larger vessels. NMFS rounded that length up to 40 ft. LOA as a vessel length below which observers would not be deployed in the initial year(s) of the program. NMFS also would not place observers on catcher vessels using jig gear in the first year of the restructured program due to the low weight of fish harvested annually by this gear type relative to other gear types ount of harvest per trip for larger vessels. NMFS rounded that length up to 40 ft. LOA as a vessel length below which observers would not be deployed in the initial year(s) of the program. NMFS also would not place observers on catcher vessels using jig gear in the first year of the restructured program due to the low weight of fish harvested annually by this gear type relative to other gear types. Consistent with existing observer coverage requirements, the operator of a groundfish catcher vessel delivering an unsorted cod end to a mothership would not be required to notify NMFS Vessels designated on an FFP would be included in observer coverage requirements when directed fishing for groundfish in federally managed or State parallel groundfish fisheries; however, they would not be required to carry an observer or hail-in to the Deployment System when participating in groundfish fisheries that are managed by the State in State waters where harvests are not deducted from the Federal TAC. Finally, with the exception of vessels fishing halibut and sablefish IFQ or halibut CDQ, vessels without an FFP would not be required to comply with Federal observer coverage requirements. C. Shoreside Processor and Stationary Floating Processor Observer Coverage With three exceptions, existing observer coverage requirements for shoreside processors and stationary floating processors are based on the weight of groundfish delivered to the plant each month. A plant that receives at least 1,000 mt of groundfish in a month is required to have an observer present at the facility each day it processes or receives groundfish. A plant that receives between 500 mt and 1,000 mt of groundfish in a month is required to have an observer at the facility at least 30 percent of the days it processes or receives groundfish. Plants that receive less than 500 mt of groundfish in a month are not required to have an observer a month is required to have an observer present at the facility each day it processes or receives groundfish. A plant that receives between 500 mt and 1,000 mt of groundfish in a month is required to have an observer at the facility at least 30 percent of the days it processes or receives groundfish. Plants that receive less than 500 mt of groundfish in a month are not required to have an observer. The duties of observers in plants consist of compliance monitoring (e.g., verifying delivery weights recorded by scales), identifying and counting salmon bycatch in certain fisheries, and collection of biological samples to meet various science and management objectives. Exceptions to the existing weight-based observer requirements for plants include plants receiving CDQ groundfish or species harvested under the GOA Rockfish Program and AFA inshore processors receiving pollock from the BSAI. These plants are required to have an observer present at all times while these deliveries are being received or processed. When receiving BS pollock or GOA Rockfish Program deliveries, each plant is required to have a Catch Monitoring and Control Plan (CMCP) that defines how fish will be sorted and weighed during these deliveries. In these fisheries, the plant observer is responsible for confirming that a plant's activities conform to its stated CMCP. Consistent with the dual coverage categories for vessels, the proposed rule would create two observer coverage categories for shoreside and stationary floating processing plants—full and partial. Classification in the coverage categories would be based on fishery management and monitoring needs and would replace existing requirements based on the weight of fish processed per month. The role of observers in plants in the partial coverage category would remain compliance monitoring, composition sampling as needed and biological information collection ating processing plants—full and partial. Classification in the coverage categories would be based on fishery management and monitoring needs and would replace existing requirements based on the weight of fish processed per month. The role of observers in plants in the partial coverage category would remain compliance monitoring, composition sampling as needed and biological information collection. With the exception of plants when receiving BS pollock (AFA and CDQ), all shoreside and stationary floating plants possessing a Federal Processing Permit (FPP) would be included in the partial coverage category and would pay the ex-vessel value-based fee to NMFS for their observer coverage. NMFS would deploy observers directly and plant operators would no longer contract with observer providers for their coverage. The new funding and deployment system proposed by this rule would allow NMFS to deploy observers in plants in a randomized fashion according to management needs. The increased flexibility in observer deployment relative to the current program expected through the proposed funding and deployment system would eliminate the need for plants to be observed 100 percent of the days they receive or process groundfish. Deliveries of BS pollock harvested by AFA and CDQ vessels are the exception, and full coverage would continue to be required for plants when taking deliveries of BS pollock as observers are needed to conduct a full census of incidentally harvested Chinook salmon. All other deliveries could be adequately monitored for compliance and biological data collection at a rate of less than 100 percent through a randomized sampling design. Based on this rationale, the proposed rule would remove the current requirements for 100 percent observer coverage for shoreside processing plants and stationary floating processor plants receiving groundfish CDQ, GOA Rockfish Program, and AI pollock deliveries dequately monitored for compliance and biological data collection at a rate of less than 100 percent through a randomized sampling design. Based on this rationale, the proposed rule would remove the current requirements for 100 percent observer coverage for shoreside processing plants and stationary floating processor plants receiving groundfish CDQ, GOA Rockfish Program, and AI pollock deliveries. Processing plants would be in the full coverage category when receiving BS pollock and would contract directly for their observer coverage with permitted observer providers under the existing Observer Program funding and deployment system. These same plants would be in the partial coverage category for all other groundfish and halibut deliveries. Observers in the processing plants in the partial coverage category would be assigned to multiple shoreside plants under a randomized design to fulfill NMFS' monitoring needs. Unlike the two-pool selection and hail-in system for vessels, there would not be such a selection system and notification requirement for shoreside plants. Observers would be assigned to ports and randomly assigned by NMFS to offloads as they occur using the existing operation notification requirements at § 679.50 for shoreside processors and stationary floating processors which require managers to notify observers of planned facility operations and expected receipt of groundfish prior to receipt of those fish. NMFS would notify a plant when it is randomly selected for coverage. An observer would be assigned to a plant for the duration of a randomly selected offload. The probability of selection for an observed offload would vary according to the types of deliveries a plant receives. The probability of selection would be higher for plants that receive deliveries from the GOA Rockfish Program due to the need for rapid turnaround and transmission of data ected for coverage. An observer would be assigned to a plant for the duration of a randomly selected offload. The probability of selection for an observed offload would vary according to the types of deliveries a plant receives. The probability of selection would be higher for plants that receive deliveries from the GOA Rockfish Program due to the need for rapid turnaround and transmission of data. Random assignment of observers to plants would maximize the efficiency of the plant observer and increase the likelihood that biological samples are taken throughout the fishing season, thus providing an unbiased estimate of the fleet's catch as required for stock assessments. Actual sample sizes (number of deliveries observed or number of biological samples obtained) and resulting sampling fractions (observed vs. total deliveries) would depend on the amount of revenue generated in prior years from the ex-vessel value-based fee and the number of trips completed in the fishing year. D. Observer Coverage in CDQ Fisheries Observer coverage requirements for vessels participating in the groundfish and halibut CDQ fisheries would be structured to comply with section 305(i)(1)(B)(iv) of the MSA, which requires that the harvest of allocations under the CDQ program for fisheries with IFQs or fishing cooperatives shall If a voluntary cooperative exists in a non-CDQ sector, the same observer coverage requirements that apply to these vessels while they are fishing under a voluntary cooperative would apply while they are participating in CDQ fisheries. A voluntary cooperative currently exists among the catcher/processors using hook-and-line gear to harvest Pacific cod in the BSAI. If the voluntary cooperative receives an exemption from the operational requirements at § 679.32(c)(3)(i) from NMFS pursuant to § 679.32(e), the catcher/processors in the voluntary cooperative, when CDQ fishing, would be required to comply with the same observer coverage requirements that apply to them in the non-CDQ fisheries processors using hook-and-line gear to harvest Pacific cod in the BSAI. If the voluntary cooperative receives an exemption from the operational requirements at § 679.32(c)(3)(i) from NMFS pursuant to § 679.32(e), the catcher/processors in the voluntary cooperative, when CDQ fishing, would be required to comply with the same observer coverage requirements that apply to them in the non-CDQ fisheries. Under this proposed rule, these catcher/processors would be in the full coverage category for both their non-CDQ and CDQ fishing. Additional experience requirements for observers in some of the CDQ fisheries would be maintained, as described in proposed new § 679.51(a)(2)(vi)(A). With one exception, existing level 2 and lead level 2 observer experience requirements at § 679.50 would be required for CDQ vessel observers in the full coverage category. The one exception is that catcher/processors using hook-and-line gear that participate in a voluntary cooperative in a non-CDQ fishery would not be subject to these additional requirements while CDQ fishing, if NMFS approved such an exemption for these vessels under § 679.32(e). The only remaining vessel categories in the CDQ fisheries that were not covered by the CDQ regulation of harvest final rule are catcher vessels participating in CDQ fisheries for groundfish other than sablefish or pollock. NMFS proposes to place catcher vessels using pot or jig gear in the CDQ fisheries in the partial observer coverage category because halibut prohibited species catch by these vessels does not accrue against the halibut prohibited species catch limit. Catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear or trawl gear would be placed in the full coverage category because their prohibited species bycatch accrues against the CDQ group's transferable prohibited species bycatch allocations heries in the partial observer coverage category because halibut prohibited species catch by these vessels does not accrue against the halibut prohibited species catch limit. Catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear or trawl gear would be placed in the full coverage category because their prohibited species bycatch accrues against the CDQ group's transferable prohibited species bycatch allocations. Table 5—Observer Coverage Requirements That Would Apply to Vessels Participating in the Groundfish and Halibut CDQ Fisheries Under This Proposed Rule Fishery or vessel category Trawl gear Catcher vessels using Hook-and-line gear Pot or jig gear Catcher/ processors Motherships Are in the following observer coverage categories: Halibut CDQ n/a partial n/a full n/a. Sablefish CDQ full partial partial full n/a. Pollock CDQ full n/a n/a full full. Other Groundfish CDQ full full partial full full. E. Observer Provider and Observer Responsibilities Current responsibilities for observer providers and observers are detailed in the regulations at 50 CFR 679.50(i) and (j). This proposed rule would retain these requirements and responsibilities for observer providers (under proposed new § 679.52) and observers (under proposed new § 679.53) serving operations in the full coverage category. The current responsibilities would not apply to observer providers and observers serving the partial coverage category. For the partial coverage category, NMFS would contract with observer providers instead of issuing permits to them as under the current Observer Program. NMFS' contracts with providers would include a statement of work with performance measures tions in the full coverage category. The current responsibilities would not apply to observer providers and observers serving the partial coverage category. For the partial coverage category, NMFS would contract with observer providers instead of issuing permits to them as under the current Observer Program. NMFS' contracts with providers would include a statement of work with performance measures. The Federal contracts would stipulate the time frame of the contract, set minimum observer pay and benefit requirements, observer deployment logistics and limitations, limitations on conflict of interest, communications with observers and with NMFS, requirements to provide qualified observers in a timely manner, and other aspects to ensure high quality observer data are available for management. Moreover, observer qualifications, training requirements, and performance expectations would be defined in contracts with observer providers such that the contents of the existing § 679.50(j) (which would be amended to § 679.53) would not apply to observer services provided through direct government contracts. Instead of the level 2 observer and lead level 2 observer endorsements currently stipulated through regulations at § 679.50(j)(1)(v)(D), (the proposed new § 679.53(a)(5)(iv)), qualification requirements for observers serving in the partial observer coverage category would be specified in NMFS' contracts with observer providers. NMFS expects this will increase NMFS' ability to match observer skill with sampling complexity and provide NMFS with increased flexibility to respond to changing fisheries management needs, which is a primary objective of restructuring. NMFS recognizes that an observer provider could simultaneously contract directly with NMFS and the industry and thereby be subject to different requirements under the two different funding and deployment systems. F. U.S. Coast Guard Safety Decal Current regulations at § 600.746 and § 679.50 require all vessels to pass a U.S ies management needs, which is a primary objective of restructuring. NMFS recognizes that an observer provider could simultaneously contract directly with NMFS and the industry and thereby be subject to different requirements under the two different funding and deployment systems. F. U.S. Coast Guard Safety Decal Current regulations at § 600.746 and § 679.50 require all vessels to pass a U.S. Coast Guard Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Examination prior to carrying an observer. This requirement would pertain to all vessels that would be required to carry an observer under this proposed rule. The existing exemption for vessels less than 26 ft. LOA in remote locations would be maintained under this proposed rule; all other vessels without a valid safety decal would continue to be considered inadequate for carrying an observer. Observers are instructed not to board a vessel if the safety decal is absent or expired. An operator's obligation to carry an observer when selected would not be obviated for lack of a valid safety decal, rather, the operator would be prohibited from embarking on a selected trip. Therefore, it behooves any vessel eligible to be selected for observer coverage to undergo a U.S. Coast Guard safety equipment examination prior to being selected to carry an observer to avoid potential fishing delays for lack of a current safety decal. Once issued, the decal is valid for 2 years. Dockside examinations for U.S. Coast Guard safety decals may be arranged by contacting the U.S. Coast Guard (see ADDRESSES ). G. Ex-Vessel Value-Based Observer Fee Observer coverage in the proposed partial coverage category would be funded through revenue generated from an ex-vessel value-based fee. The Council approved a 1.25 percent ex-vessel value-based observer fee to be paid by all groundfish and halibut vessels and processors for landings and fish subject to the observer fee. Examples of these landings and fish are described in a later section er Fee Observer coverage in the proposed partial coverage category would be funded through revenue generated from an ex-vessel value-based fee. The Council approved a 1.25 percent ex-vessel value-based observer fee to be paid by all groundfish and halibut vessels and processors for landings and fish subject to the observer fee. Examples of these landings and fish are described in a later section. Section 2.9.2 of the analysis (see ADDRESSES ) describes which observer deployment costs are authorized and which would be intended to be covered with the ex-vessel value fee proceeds, and which costs NMFS would fund through agency contributions. NMFS would prepare an annual report on the financial aspects of the restructured program and the revenues provided by the 1.25 percent ex-vessel fee. The Council would review the 1.25 percent ex-vessel value fee percentage after completion of the second year of observer deployment in the restructured program. The Council could revise the fee assessment percentage in a subsequent rule at any time, upon evaluation of program revenues and costs, observer coverage levels, fishery management objectives, and future deployment plans. This report would be provided to the Council at the same time NMFS would provide the annual deployment plan. Ex-vessel value refers to the price paid to fishermen for their raw, unprocessed catch. The objective of the ex-vessel value-based fee is to collect 1.25 percent of the ex-vessel value of each groundfish and halibut landing from operations in the partial coverage category. NMFS applied several principles to develop proposed methods to derive the ex-vessel value of groundfish and halibut landings for purposes of the observer fee rice paid to fishermen for their raw, unprocessed catch. The objective of the ex-vessel value-based fee is to collect 1.25 percent of the ex-vessel value of each groundfish and halibut landing from operations in the partial coverage category. NMFS applied several principles to develop proposed methods to derive the ex-vessel value of groundfish and halibut landings for purposes of the observer fee. The ex-vessel value fee should be: broad-based such that all fishery partial coverage category participants pay a share; fair and equitable among participants; easy to collect without undue burden on participants; assessed on any post-season price settlements or retroactive payments in addition to assessments at the time of landing; account for non-monetary exchange of fish or other forms of compensation; and assessed on weight equivalents used to debit quotas (e.g., round weight for groundfish and headed and gutted weight for halibut). Observer fees would not be linked to the actual level of observer coverage for individual vessels and plants as it is under the current program. Instead, each participant in the partial coverage category would pay an equal percentage of the value they derive from the groundfish and halibut fisheries to contribute toward the cost of collecting observer data for conservation and management of the fisheries as a whole. 1. Standard Ex-Vessel Prices NMFS would annually establish standard ex-vessel prices for species subject to the observer fee. These prices would be used in assessing fees and in estimating the total ex-vessel value of the fisheries for the coming year. To avoid new reporting requirements for participants in the partial coverage category, NMFS would use existing reports and ex-vessel value determinations to establish standard prices for groundfish and halibut landings for purposes of the observer fee to the observer fee. These prices would be used in assessing fees and in estimating the total ex-vessel value of the fisheries for the coming year. To avoid new reporting requirements for participants in the partial coverage category, NMFS would use existing reports and ex-vessel value determinations to establish standard prices for groundfish and halibut landings for purposes of the observer fee. Proposed data sources for ex-vessel price information are NMFS' halibut and sablefish IFQ Buyer Report, and the State of Alaska's Commercial Fishery Entry Commission's (CFEC) gross revenue data, which are based on the Commercial Operator Annual Report (COAR) and ADF&G fish tickets. Section 2.9.2 of the analysis (see ADDRESSES ) describes the data sources evaluated by NMFS to develop the proposed fee derivation method. 2. Halibut and Sablefish Standard Prices NMFS collects IFQ cost recovery fees at the start of each year to recover costs incurred by the agency for IFQ program management in the previous year. Regulations at § 679.5(l)(7)(i)(B) require an IFQ Registered Buyer, that also operates as a shoreside processor and receives and purchases IFQ landings of sablefish or halibut, to submit annually to NMFS a complete IFQ Buyer Report by October 15 of the year the Registered Buyer receives IFQ fish. The IFQ Buyer Report includes information on the pounds purchased and values paid (with price adjustments) for each IFQ species by port or port group and month. Information provided through the IFQ Buyer Reports is used to generate standard prices for ex-vessel value-based cost recovery fees collected under the authority of the MSA section 304(d)(2)(A). Regulations at § 679.45(c)(2)(i) require the Regional Administrator to publish IFQ standard prices during the last quarter of each calendar year. The standard prices are calculated in U.S. dollars per IFQ equivalent pound for IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings made during the year ices for ex-vessel value-based cost recovery fees collected under the authority of the MSA section 304(d)(2)(A). Regulations at § 679.45(c)(2)(i) require the Regional Administrator to publish IFQ standard prices during the last quarter of each calendar year. The standard prices are calculated in U.S. dollars per IFQ equivalent pound for IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings made during the year. IFQ equivalent pound(s) is the weight (in pounds) for an IFQ landing, calculated as the round weight for sablefish and headed and gutted net weight for halibut. Under the proposed rule, volume and value data collected on the IFQ Buyer's report would be used to calculate the standard ex-vessel prices to determine the value in the following year for purposes of the observer fee for halibut IFQ and CDQ landings, sablefish IFQ landings, and sablefish landings that accrue against the fixed gear sablefish CDQ allocation by catcher vessels in the partial coverage category. Observer fees would be assessed on all landings in a year to pay for observer coverage in the following year. Catcher vessels harvesting halibut CDQ would be in the partial observer coverage category, and landings of halibut CDQ by these vessels would be subject to the observer fee. However, because halibut CDQ is not yet included in a cost recovery program, no data about the ex-vessel value of halibut CDQ is currently collected by NMFS. Therefore, this proposed rule would require that Registered Buyers submit, on the IFQ Buyer Report, the pounds Catcher vessels harvesting fixed gear sablefish CDQ would be in the partial observer coverage category and landings of fixed gear sablefish CDQ by these vessels would be subject to the observer fee. NMFS proposes to use existing data collected about the pounds purchased and values paid for sablefish IFQ to calculate the standard ex-vessel prices to determine the observer fee liability for fixed gear sablefish CDQ harvesting fixed gear sablefish CDQ would be in the partial observer coverage category and landings of fixed gear sablefish CDQ by these vessels would be subject to the observer fee. NMFS proposes to use existing data collected about the pounds purchased and values paid for sablefish IFQ to calculate the standard ex-vessel prices to determine the observer fee liability for fixed gear sablefish CDQ. NMFS does not propose to require Registered Buyers to submit additional information about sablefish CDQ on the IFQ Buyer Report because, unlike sablefish IFQ, fixed gear sablefish CDQ is not required to be delivered to a Registered Buyer. The standard ex-vessel prices used to determine the observer fee for halibut and fixed gear sablefish would be published in the Federal Register in the annual notice of standard ex-vessel prices that will apply to groundfish and halibut landings subject to the observer fee. Under the IFQ cost recovery program, data from ports are combined to protect confidentiality in cases where price information is provided by less than three processors. The port and port groups used to collect the observer fee under this proposed rule could be different from the ports or port groups used to collect cost recovery fees because the observer fee is an annual price, thus, the number of buyers and harvesters in a port may allow information to be reported where it would be confidential for some or all of the individual months. 3. Groundfish Standard Ex-Vessel Prices NMFS would calculate standard prices for all groundfish, except fixed gear sablefish, by averaging the most recent annual prices from the State of Alaska's CFEC for their gross earnings estimates by the applicable species, port of landing, and gear combinations. Three gear categories would be established: pelagic trawl gear, non-pelagic trawl gear, and all other gear sh Standard Ex-Vessel Prices NMFS would calculate standard prices for all groundfish, except fixed gear sablefish, by averaging the most recent annual prices from the State of Alaska's CFEC for their gross earnings estimates by the applicable species, port of landing, and gear combinations. Three gear categories would be established: pelagic trawl gear, non-pelagic trawl gear, and all other gear. Section 2.9.2 of the analysis (see ADDRESSES ) describes the methods employed by the CFEC to estimate ex-vessel prices based initially on landings data from ADF&G fish tickets and ultimately refined with information from the COAR. The COAR contains statewide buying and production information and is generally considered the best routinely collected information to determine the ex-vessel value of groundfish harvested from waters off Alaska. The COAR is completed by the first buyers of fish harvested from State and Federal waters off the coast of Alaska. Post-season price adjustments and bonuses paid to harvesters are required to be reported in the COAR. The report is due to the ADF&G by April 1 of the year after the fishing occurred. The standard, average price would be weighted by the amount of pounds at each price for each species, port, and gear combination. CFEC ex-vessel prices are available in the fall of the year following the year the fishing occurred. Thus, in any given year, it is not possible to base ex-vessel fee liabilities on standard prices that are less than two years old. For example, the most recent standard prices available for the determination of liabilities in 2013 will be those from 2011. Notwithstanding this limitation, the COAR data were determined to comprise the best available information to establish the ex-vessel value of the groundfish fisheries off Alaska. The proposed approach to establish the ex-vessel value for the purpose of the observer fee would apply price information from earlier years to current year harvest volumes. Fish prices and harvest volumes vary annually Notwithstanding this limitation, the COAR data were determined to comprise the best available information to establish the ex-vessel value of the groundfish fisheries off Alaska. The proposed approach to establish the ex-vessel value for the purpose of the observer fee would apply price information from earlier years to current year harvest volumes. Fish prices and harvest volumes vary annually. Thus, a value estimate based on price information from earlier years would not equate to the true ex-vessel value for a particular year. As noted, a 2-year lag would occur between the date fish are landed and when standard prices for those landings are applied. Section 2.9.2.2.4 of the analysis (see ADDRESSES ) shows potential impacts of the time lag on the ex-vessel value estimated with prior-year and current-year information from 2001 through 2009. The time lagged ex-vessel value estimate was lower than the actual ex-vessel value over most of the years considered. Thus, while it would be possible for the ex-vessel value fee to exceed 1.25 percent of the actual ex-vessel value in a particular year, over two to three years, the 1.25 percent fee percentage would likely not be exceeded. The effect of averaging the standard price estimates over multiple years was evaluated in section 2.9.2.2.4 of the analysis (see ADDRESSES ) as a way to stabilize interannual variability in fish prices and thus, ex-vessel value fees and resulting revenue for observer coverage. Increasing the period of time over which prices are averaged decreases the effect of a price that is substantially different from other years on the average price. Using fewer years for the average price allows the price to respond more quickly to increases or decreases in ex-vessel price. Three, five, and seven-year averages were considered in section 2.9.2.2.4 of the analysis (see ADDRESSES ) e. Increasing the period of time over which prices are averaged decreases the effect of a price that is substantially different from other years on the average price. Using fewer years for the average price allows the price to respond more quickly to increases or decreases in ex-vessel price. Three, five, and seven-year averages were considered in section 2.9.2.2.4 of the analysis (see ADDRESSES ). The Council balanced the need to use recent and relevant data against the need to reduce the possible undue influence of unusual annual values, and selected the 3-year average as part of its preferred alternative. Thus, standard groundfish (except fixed gear sablefish) ex-vessel prices for observer fees would be the 3-year average of the price estimated for each species, gear, and port combination. 4. Confidential Data Standard prices that would apply to groundfish and halibut landings in the upcoming year would be published in the Federal Register each December. NMFS would adhere to applicable guidance for protecting confidentiality of data submitted to or collected by NMFS, and for shared ADF&G/CFEC and NOAA data, as prescribed by a Reciprocal Data Access Agreement (1999) which meet or exceed the stringent confidential data handling and disclosure. Therefore, pursuant to guidance restricting disclosure of confidential data, but allowing disclosure of aggregated data, NMFS would not publish any price information that would permit the identification of an individual or business. For example, at least four persons would need to make landings of a species with a particular gear type at each port in order for NMFS to publish those price data at the level of individual ports. Price data that would be confidential due to the 4-person minimum would be aggregated by subarea in the BSAI (BS subarea and AI subarea) and by regulatory area in the GOA (Eastern GOA, Central GOA, and Western GOA) , at least four persons would need to make landings of a species with a particular gear type at each port in order for NMFS to publish those price data at the level of individual ports. Price data that would be confidential due to the 4-person minimum would be aggregated by subarea in the BSAI (BS subarea and AI subarea) and by regulatory area in the GOA (Eastern GOA, Central GOA, and Western GOA). If confidentiality requirements are still not met by aggregating prices across ports at the subarea or regulatory area level, they would be aggregated at the level of GOA and BSAI or statewide. 5. Landings Subject to an Observer Fee Vessels and processors subject to the proposed action commonly participate in fisheries managed under State or Federal jurisdiction. Most federally managed fisheries occur in the EEZ and Groundfish which accrue against a Federal TAC are those listed in Table 2a to part 679. The current list of groundfish species in Table 2a to part 679 is shown in Table 6 below. These are the groundfish species that would be subject to the observer fee. Table 2a to part 679 is amended periodically to reflect species added or removed from management under the FMPs. In the future, the observer fee would apply to the list of groundfish species in Table 2a to part 679 at the time of landing, which may differ from the list in Table 6 below. Table 6—Groundfish That Currently Accrue Against Federal TACs and Would Be Subject to the Observer Fee Assessment Species and Species Code Atka mackerel (193) Pacific cod (110) Pollock (270) Octopus (870) Squid (875) Flatfish, any other flatfish species without separate codes (120) Alaska plaice (133) Arrowtooth flounder (121) Bering flounder (116) Kamchatka flounder (117) Starry flounder (129) Greenland turbot (134) Sablefish, blackcod (710) Sculpins (160) SHARKS Pacific sleeper shark (692) Salmon shark (690) Spiny dogfish (691) Other sharks (689) SKATES Whiteblotched skate (705) Aleutian skate (704) Alaska skate (703) Big skate (702) Longnose skate (701) Other skate (120) Alaska plaice (133) Arrowtooth flounder (121) Bering flounder (116) Kamchatka flounder (117) Starry flounder (129) Greenland turbot (134) Sablefish, blackcod (710) Sculpins (160) SHARKS Pacific sleeper shark (692) Salmon shark (690) Spiny dogfish (691) Other sharks (689) SKATES Whiteblotched skate (705) Aleutian skate (704) Alaska skate (703) Big skate (702) Longnose skate (701) Other skates, any other skate species without separate codes (700) SOLE Butter sole (126) Dover sole (124) English sole (128) Flathead sole (122) Petrale sole (131) Rex sole (125) Rock sole (123) Sand sole (132) Yellowfin sole (127) ROCKFISH Aurora (185) Black—BSAI only (142) Blackgill (177) Blue—BSAI only (167) Bocaccio (137) Canary (146) Chilipepper (178) China (149) Copper (138) Darkblotched (159) Dusky (172) Greenstriped (135) Harlequin (176) Northern (136) Pacific ocean perch (141) Pygmy (179) Quillback (147) Redbanded (153) Redstripe (158) Rosethorn (150) Rougheye (151) Sharpchin (166) Shortbelly (181) Shortraker (152) Silvergray (157) Splitnose (182) Stripetail (183) Thornyhead, all Sebastolobus species, (143) Tiger (148) Vermilion (184) Widow (156) Yelloweye (145) Yellowmouth (175) Yellowtail (155) The objective of the observer fee assessment is to levy a fee on all landings accruing against the Federal TAC made by vessels that are subject to Federal regulations and not included in the full coverage category. Therefore, a fee would only be assessed on landings from vessels designated on an FFP or from vessels landing IFQ or CDQ halibut or IFQ sablefish. Within the subset of vessels subject to the observer fee, only landings accruing against the Federal TAC would be included in the fee assessment. Table 7 provides additional information about which landings would and would not be subject to the observer fee efore, a fee would only be assessed on landings from vessels designated on an FFP or from vessels landing IFQ or CDQ halibut or IFQ sablefish. Within the subset of vessels subject to the observer fee, only landings accruing against the Federal TAC would be included in the fee assessment. Table 7 provides additional information about which landings would and would not be subject to the observer fee. If a vessel is designated on an FFP, the only groundfish landings that would not be subject to the ex-vessel value-based fee are landings of Pacific cod, pollock, and sablefish accruing against the State GHL, or landings of groundfish species that do not accrue against a Federal TAC (those not listed in Table 2a to part 679, such as lingcod or dark rockfish, or groundfish retained as bait and not sold). Groundfish accruing against a Federal TAC and landed in conjunction with GHL Pacific cod, pollock, or sablefish would be included in the observer fee assessment if delivered by a vessel named on an FFP and excluded from the observer fee assessment if the vessel does not possess an FFP. If a vessel is being used to conduct fishing that does not require that vessel be named on an FFP, then none of the groundfish, other than sablefish IFQ, landed by that vessel would be subject to the observer fee assessment, even if those groundfish are listed in Table 2a to part 679 and accrue against a Federal TAC. Landings of IFQ or CDQ halibut or IFQ sablefish by vessels in the partial observer coverage category would be subject to the observer fee even if those vessels were conducting fishing that did not require an FFP her than sablefish IFQ, landed by that vessel would be subject to the observer fee assessment, even if those groundfish are listed in Table 2a to part 679 and accrue against a Federal TAC. Landings of IFQ or CDQ halibut or IFQ sablefish by vessels in the partial observer coverage category would be subject to the observer fee even if those vessels were conducting fishing that did not require an FFP. Table 7—Landings That Would Be Subject to the Observer Fee Assessment for Vessels With and Without an FFP If fish in the landing is from the following fishery or species Is fish from the landing subject to the observer fee? If the vessel is not designated on an FFP or required to be designated on an FFP If the vessel is designated on an FFP or required to be designated on an FFP (1) Groundfish listed in Table 2a to part 679 (FMP groundfish) that is harvested in the EEZ and subtracted from a total allowable catch limit specified under § 679.20(a) Includes: • FMP groundfish landed while fishing for halibut IFQ, halibut CDQ, sablefish IFQ, or salmon (troll) in the EEZ not applicable, an FFP is required to harvest these groundfish in the EEZ Yes. • Groundfish CDQ. • Demersal shelf rockfish in the Southeast Outside District of the GOA. • Black rockfish and blue ro [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] ## Nearby sections - [77 FR 234 Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2011-33695.md) - [77 FR 462 Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Identification of Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways Under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2011-31577.md) - [77 FR 770 Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace; Southport, NC, and Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Oak Island, NC](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-56.md) - [77 FR 1130 Revisions to Test Methods and Testing Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2011-31234.md) - [77 FR 1429 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Springfield, CO](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-244.md) - [77 FR 1654 Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-367.md) - [77 FR 2028 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Extension of Comment Period](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-617.md) - [77 FR 2481 United States Standards for Condition of Food Containers](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-833.md) - [77 FR 2493 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Spa Creek and Annapolis Harbor, Annapolis, MD](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-784.md) - [77 FR 2662 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-857.md) - [77 FR 2674 Airworthiness Directives; Glasflugel Gliders](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-928.md) - [77 FR 2676 Competitive Postal Products](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-851.md) - [77 FR 2928 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-1131.md) - [77 FR 3159 Electronic Export Application and Certification Charge; Flexibility in the Requirements for Export Inspection Marks, Devices, and Certificates; Egg Products Export Certification](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-1158.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-8856. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.