[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 715-720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-177]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 011219306-2283-02; I.D. 110501A]
RIN 0648-AM44


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Revisions to 
Observer Coverage Requirements for Vessels and Shoreside Processors in 
the North Pacific Groundfish Fisheries

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to amend regulations governing the 
North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program). This 
action is necessary to refine observer coverage requirements and 
improve support for observers. This action is intended to ensure 
continued collection of high quality observer data to support the 
management objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish 
Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area and the Fishery 
Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMPs) and to 
promote the goals and objectives contained in those FMPs.

DATES: Effective on February 5, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (RIR/FRFA) prepared for this regulatory action and 
the 1996 Environmental Assessment (EA) RIR/FRFA prepared for the 
Interim North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program and the RIR/FRFAs for 
the subsequent extensions of the Interim North Pacific Groundfish 
Observer Program may also be obtained from the Alaska Region, NMFS, 
P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Durall.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Salveson, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries 
of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Management Area (BSAI) in the Exclusive Economic Zone under the FMPs. 
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the 
FMPs pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). 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.
    The Council adopted and NMFS implemented the Interim Groundfish 
Observer Program (Interim Program) in 1996, which superseded the North 
Pacific Fisheries Research Plan (Research Plan). The requirements of 
the 1996 Interim Program were extended through 1997 (61 FR 56425, 
November 1, 1996), again through 1998 (62 FR 67755, December 30, 1997), 
again through 2000 (63 FR 69024, December 15, 1998), and extended 
through 2002 under a final rule published December 21, 2000 (65 FR 
80381). The program was extended again through 2007 by way of a final 
rule published on December 6, 2002 (67 FR 72595). The Interim Program 
provides the framework for the collection of data by observers to 
obtain information necessary for the conservation and management of the 
groundfish fisheries managed under the FMPs. Further, it authorizes 
mandatory observer coverage requirements for vessels and shoreside 
processors and establishes vessel,

[[Page 716]]

processor, and contractor responsibilities relating to the Observer 
Program. NMFS intends the Interim Program to be effective until a long-
term program is developed and implemented that addresses several 
current concerns. These concerns include data integrity, observer 
compensation, working conditions for observers, and equitable 
distribution of observer costs.
    NMFS is working with the Council and the Council's Observer 
Advisory Committee (OAC) to address the above concerns and others 
through development of new options for an alternative infrastructure 
for the Observer Program.
    A description of the regulatory provisions of the Interim 
Groundfish Observer Program was provided in the proposed and final 
rules implementing this program (61 FR 40380, August 2, 1996; 61 FR 
56425, November 1, 1996, respectively) as well as the proposed and 
final rules extending this program through 1998 and again through 2000 
(62 FR 49198, September 19, 1997; 62 FR 67755, December 30, 1997; 63 FR 
47462, September 8, 1998; and 63 FR 69024, December 15, 1998, 
respectively).
    A proposed rule to amend regulations governing observer coverage 
requirements for vessels and shoreside processors in the North Pacific 
Groundfish Fisheries was published in the Federal Register on April 2, 
2002 (67 FR 15517), for a 30-day public review and comment period that 
ended on May 1, 2002. NMFS received 2 letters of comment on the 
proposed rule which are summarized and responded to in Response to 
Comments, below.
    This final rule addresses concerns about (1) shoreside and 
stationary floating processor observer coverage; (2) shoreside 
processor observer logistics; (3) observer coverage requirements for 
vessels fishing for groundfish with pot gear; and (4) confidentiality 
of observer personal information.
    Shoreside or stationary floating processor observer coverage. New 
regulations will maintain the current monthly observer coverage periods 
at shoreside or stationary floating processors based on monthly 
landings projections. However, during a month when a directed fishery 
for pollock or Pacific cod closes, a shoreside or stationary floating 
processor with 100-percent coverage requirements that received pollock 
or Pacific cod from the fishery that closed in that given month would 
have the option to reduce observer coverage to 30-percent coverage 
requirements for the remainder of that month under certain conditions. 
These conditions are: (1) the shoreside or stationary floating 
processor must maintain observer coverage for 30 percent of all days 
that groundfish are received or processed for the remainder of that 
month; and (2) groundfish landings received by the shoreside or 
stationary floating processor may not exceed 250 mt/calendar week for 
the remainder of that month. If a shoreside or stationary floating 
processor is expected to receive greater than 250 mt/wk during any 
calendar week of that month, the shoreside or stationary floating 
processor would be required to return to 100-percent observer coverage 
for the days fish are received or processed during that week until all 
groundfish received during that week is processed.
    The reduced observer coverage period for a given shoreside or 
stationary floating processor would be authorized beginning on the 
fourth calendar day following the day that a pollock or cod fishery 
closes, allowing for observation of the delivery and processing of fish 
received prior to the closure, and would end on the last day of that 
month. Observer coverage for the month following would be based on 
monthly landings projections and thresholds as specified under current 
regulations at Sec.  679.50, but also may be reduced for that month 
under the conditions of this action.
    The Community Development Quota (CDQ) and American Fisheries Act 
(AFA) programs' observer coverage requirements found at Sec.  
679.50(d)(4) and (5), respectively, currently supersede general 
observer coverage requirements for shoreside or stationary floating 
processors, and will continue to take precedence over this allowance 
for reduced coverage.
    Shoreside or stationary floating processor observer logistics. This 
final rule amends the observer regulations to require the observer 
provider company to provide the following logistical support to 
observers deployed at shoreside or stationary floating processors: 
Adequate housing meeting certain standards; reliable communication 
equipment such as an individually assigned phone or pager for 
notification of upcoming deliveries or other necessary communication; 
and, if the observer's accommodations are greater than 1 mile away from 
the processing facility, reliable motorized transportation to the 
shoreside processor that ensures timely arrival to allow the observer 
to complete assigned duties.
    Groundfish pot fishery observer coverage requirements. This final 
rule also amends regulations governing coverage requirements for the 
groundfish pot gear fishery to require a vessel equal to or longer than 
60 ft (18.3 m) length overall (LOA), fishing with pot gear that 
participates more than 3 days in a directed fishery for groundfish in a 
calendar quarter, to carry an observer during at least 30 percent of 
the total number of pot retrievals for that calendar quarter. Such 
vessels would also need to continue to carry an observer for at least 
one entire fishing trip using pot gear in a calendar quarter, for each 
of the groundfish fishery categories in which the vessel participates 
during that calendar quarter. Groundfish will still be required to be 
retained each day the observer is on board and gear is retrieved, in 
order for the gear retrieved on that day to count toward observer 
coverage requirements.
    Confidentiality of observer personal information. Observer 
providers are required to ensure that all records on individual 
observer performance received from NMFS under the routine use provision 
of the Privacy Act remain confidential and are not further released to 
anyone outside the employ of the observer provider company to whom the 
observer was contracted except with written permission of the observer.

Response to Comments

    Two letters on the April 2, 2002, proposed rule (67 FR 15517) were 
received that contained a total of 15 unique comments. Comments are 
summarized and responded to here.
    Comment 1: Observer coverage should be flexible before a fishery 
opens as well as when it closes. Many of the directed fisheries in the 
Gulf of Alaska start mid-month. The way the regulations are written, a 
shoreside processor is required to have an observer 100 percent of the 
time during that month even though the fishery which will trigger the 
coverage will not occur until many days into the month. The regulation 
change regarding the step down in coverage needs to be a two-way door, 
prior to a fishery season opening date and after a fishery closure 
date.
    Response: NMFS considered both options in the analysis prepared for 
the proposed rule and continues to support the revised coverage 
regulations as proposed. The analysis showed that if shoreside 
processors were given the leeway to reduce coverage based on some 
landings criteria both before and after fishery closures, observer 
coverage for shoreside plants would essentially shift to a system of 
weekly observer coverage based on weekly landings projections. The 
analysis concluded that such a change would result in an observer 
coverage system for shoreside

[[Page 717]]

processors that would be extremely burdensome, both financially and 
logistically, to shoreside processors, observer providers, and 
observers. The primary causes of this burden would be the logistical 
complexities and costs involved in deploying observers to and from 
shoreside processors on a weekly basis. NMFS would be supportive of a 
reexamination of these issues in the future, if the Council develops an 
alternative observer delivery model that would provide for weekly 
coverage standards in a cost effective and practical manner.
    Comment 2: Virtually all IFQ sablefish received by Kodiak shoreside 
processors are eastern headed and gutted fish. The present shorebased 
observer regulations require 100 percent observer coverage for 
sablefish landings for some months. Why do observers need to observe 
these landings if there are no biological data to collect from headed/
gutted fish? IFQ sablefish should be exempted from shorebased coverage 
requirements.
    Response: Observer data are used in preparing annual stock 
assessments for sablefish. In particular, both catch rate and length 
data are used. Not all IFQ sablefish are delivered headed and gutted, 
some are delivered whole in refrigerated seawater. Observers obtain 
length data and otoliths from those fish. Observers also collect 
information from other groundfish that are delivered with IFQ 
sablefish.
    Comment 3: According to the analysis prepared for this proposed 
rule, a shoreside processor that has chosen to reduce observer coverage 
to 30 percent does not have the ability to increase coverage back to 
the 100-percent level for the pollock and Pacific cod reopener. This 
provision needs to be highlighted in the regulations. NMFS also needs 
to make a concerted effort to communicate with industry regarding any 
reopening before the 4 day window expires after a fishery closes, when 
a plant is allowed to reduce coverage from 100 percent to 30 percent 
for the remainder of the month.
    Response: The proposed rule correctly stated that a shoreside 
processor that has reduced observer coverage from 100 percent to 30 
percent in a given month under the terms of this rule, and subsequently 
expects to receive or process greater than 250 mt per week upon the 
reopening of a Pacific cod or pollock fishery in that same month, must 
return to 100-percent coverage for each subsequent week of that month 
in which 250 mt or greater is expected to be received or processed. The 
commentor is correct in asserting that the analysis prepared for this 
rule did not include the provision for returning to 100-percent 
coverage upon the reopening of a Pacific cod or pollock fishery. The 
analysis has since been revised to reflect this provision in the rule, 
and no change from the proposed rule is made to the final rule.
    NMFS strives for timely communication with industry regarding the 
reopening of a closed fishery. Once harvest amounts relative to 
available total allowable catch are determined, NMFS provides the 
public notice of any fishery reopening in a manner that is intended to 
minimize operational costs to industry. In 2002, the reopenings of the 
GOA pollock fishery occurred only in the Central Regulatory Area 
(statistical area 630) and were announced within a 3-4 day time period 
after the fishery closed. NMFS intends to continue to provide this 
level of effective response to the extent practicable.
    Comment 4: According to the analysis prepared for the proposed 
rule, the ability to reduce observer coverage to 30 percent (from 100 
percent during a given month) related to fisheries closures other than 
for Pacific cod or pollock was not considered because of concerns 
regarding loss of data for a variety of species that are landed in 
small quantities. However, the Kodiak shoreside processors are the only 
shorebased processors in Alaska that currently offer markets for the 
directed rockfish and flatfish harvests. Therefore, this exclusion 
directly impacts this subset of processors. The idea that more observer 
data will be collected if the plant maintains 100-percent observer 
coverage beyond the end of the season is flawed. Once a fishery closes, 
no more catch will be delivered for those species and, therefore, there 
is no additional opportunity to collect data. Also, for both flatfish 
and rockfish, allocations are split between the catcher/processor and 
the shorebased processor sector, so additional data are available from 
the catcher/processors. Allowing the regulations to extend to the other 
directed fisheries besides pollock and Pacific cod would help reduce 
shorebased observer cost without impacting observer data.
    Response: NMFS analyzed the impacts of the reduction of shoreside 
processor observer coverage requirements on observer data and 
associated costs based on requests from industry and the resulting 
Council motion. The industry request and Council motion were limited to 
reducing shoreside observer coverage from 100 percent to 30 percent 
based on pollock and Pacific cod directed fishery closures. Therefore, 
consideration of observer coverage reduction at shoreside processors 
relative to closures for other directed fisheries is beyond the scope 
of the analysis prepared for this action. While there may be some 
advantage in extending this type of coverage reduction mechanism to 
other directed fishery closures, NMFS intends to implement this change 
as described in the proposed rule. NMFS, in consultation with the 
Council, may consider extending this provision to other fisheries after 
review of the implementation of this provision in the pollock and 
Pacific cod fisheries.
    Comment 5: NMFS has indicated that in some circumstances it is 
acceptable for an observer to lodge on a vessel after the observer has 
been released from duty on a vessel, but not prior to the requested 
date of deployment of the observer to a vessel. However, no guidelines 
exist as to what those acceptable circumstances might be. NMFS has 
provided verbal guidance that it would be acceptable for an observer to 
lodge on a vessel if the observer was released from duty at 3 a.m.; but 
apparently it would not be acceptable to lodge on the vessel if the 
vessel wants to depart at 3 a.m. Not allowing contractors to have the 
flexibility to lodge observers on vessels that they are or will be 
assigned to, and not allowing vessels to have the option to minimize 
lodging costs will significantly increase costs to vessels who 
frequently volunteer to lodge their observers earlier or later than 
needed for their coverage.
    Response: The final rule has been clarified to provide clearer 
guidance on when observers may be housed on vessels they will be, or 
currently are, assigned to. The intent of this regulation is to avoid 
the lodging of an observer aboard a vessel on which he or she is not 
working or currently assigned. An observer released from duty aboard a 
vessel could lodge aboard the vessel for no more than 24 hours provided 
the skipper or at least one crew member is aboard while the observer is 
lodged there, and provided this lodging is logistically practical for 
the observer and the vessel personnel. If the observer wants to get off 
the vessel as soon as it docks or if the vessel skipper requests the 
observer leave upon docking, arrangements must be made by the observer 
provider for the observer to move to land-based accommodations. 
Likewise, an observer assigned to a vessel would be allowed to lodge on 
that vessel up to 24 hours prior to departure, provided the skipper or 
at least one crew member is aboard, and as long as this is logistically 
practical for the observer and the vessel personnel.

[[Page 718]]

    Comment 6: Can shoreside processors provide their own internal 
pager system as a means for communication with the observer assigned to 
that processor?
    Response: The observer provider company is ultimately responsible 
for ensuring that observers are issued individual communications 
devices and maintaining them in working order as specified in the rule. 
If it is logistically more convenient to meet these requirements 
through an arrangement with the shoreside processor, the observer 
provider company may do so.
    Comment 7: If the present communication system between shoreside 
processors and their observers is working, is a pager or cell phone 
necessary?
    Response: Yes. While the present communications systems between 
processors and observers may be successful for some processors, the 
current approach is not working for others. In light of these failures, 
NMFS believes that regulation on how these important communications 
must occur is necessary to some degree. Communications are largely 
reliant on the dependability of the individuals involved, as well as 
the communications equipment available. In cases where individuals 
involved are highly dependable, any system has a better chance of 
working. NMFS cannot control the level of human dependability in all 
cases, but the agency can require a certain standard for communications 
equipment that must be available to individual observers. In 
promulgating such regulations, NMFS must apply these requirements to 
all shoreside processors without bias.
    Comment 8: What accommodations will be made for those shoreside 
processors where cell and or pager services are not available?
    Response: Where cell phone or pager service is not available at the 
location of the shoreside processor, walkie-talkies may be an 
acceptable substitute. However, due to inherent range restrictions and 
unreliability of these devices, they would be approved only on a case 
by case basis. Where cell phone or pager service is not available and 
walkie talkies are not approved, another method of communication 
between the processor and the observer would need to be proposed by the 
observer provider company to the Observer Program for approval.
    Comment 9: Who is responsible for lack of compliance when an 
observer drops his or her cell/pager in the harbor while going out to a 
vessel and it takes a lot of money and a week to get a new one to the 
observer? What obligation does the plant have to notify the observer 
during that down time?
    Response: The observer provider company is responsible for ensuring 
observers have individual communications devices in working order. If a 
device ceases to be in working order, the provider must provide a back 
up device in a timely manner such that the observer is able to 
communicate with the processor regarding the next delivery following 
the loss or failure of the communications device. In light of that, 
having one or two working back-up devices on site at all times to avoid 
``down time'' makes logistical sense. The regulations do not include an 
exception for ``down time''.
    Comment 10: Who is liable if the observer takes the pager out of 
cell/pager range?
    Response: The observer provider company is responsible for 
providing the equipment in working order. As is currently the case, the 
observer is expected to remain in reasonable communication with the 
processor. That includes remaining in range of such communication 
devices as the individual circumstances of the shoreside processor 
operations and location dictate.
    Comment 11: It is unclear whether the criteria for lodging an 
observer assigned to a shoreside plant ``within a mile of a shoreside 
processor'' is determined by road distance or ``as the crow flies''.
    Response: This requirement relies on the distance along the road or 
path traveled by the observer between his or her lodging and the 
shoreside processor to which he or she is assigned.
    Comment 12: In some ports where observers lodge away from the plant 
premises, taxi service is not available 24 hours/day. Under these 
conditions, what will happen when a taxi is not available and the 
observer has to rely on transportation from the plant given that NMFS 
has implied in the analysis that plant transportation is unreliable? 
Plants which have to lodge their observers more than a mile away will 
see a significant increase in transportation costs for their observers. 
Is there any time a taxi would not be considered acceptable motorized 
transportation?
    Response: Reliable, alternate arrangements that meet the 
requirements of the rule must be made when a taxi is not available. A 
taxi would not be considered acceptable transportation if it cannot 
transport an observer to the shoreside processor in a timely manner to 
allow the observer to perform his or her official duties. These duties 
include being present at the processor at appropriate times during the 
delivery and/or processing of the fish from delivery that requires 
sampling. Once in a while, a taxi may not be able to deliver an 
observer to the assigned shoreside processor in a timely manner to 
perform assigned duties due to unexpected mechanical break down of a 
taxi or other unforeseen circumstances. However, if such events become 
chronic and transportation by taxi becomes unreliable and untimely, 
alternate transportation arrangements that conform to the regulatory 
requirements must be made.
    Comment 13: Do observers still have the option of walking or taking 
a bike to their assigned plant if they prefer to do so?
    Response: Yes. Observers may choose to walk or ride a bicycle 
between their shoreside lodging and the shoreside processor to which 
they are assigned, as long as transportation, as described in 
regulations, is always available.
    Comment 14: If this new regulation goes into effect, vessels using 
pot gear would be forced to wait until near the end of the season or 
quarter to obtain their 30-percent coverage for the number of pot lifts 
they performed. Consequently, the demand for observer coverage may 
exceed the availability of observers. Vessels may not be able to comply 
with required coverage as contractors would be less likely to be able 
to cover all of the pot boats during the end of the season crunch. 
Additionally, under those circumstances, vessels will see cost 
increases because they won't be able to share observer airfare, 
transportation and subsistence costs with other vessels.
    Response: NMFS believes that proper planning by pot gear vessels 
and observer providers can ensure observer availability in most cases. 
However, NMFS does acknowledge that last minute changes in management 
decisions related to fishery openings and closures can present 
challenges for compliance with observer coverage requirements. NMFS 
strives to take coverage needs into consideration when determining 
midseason fishery openings.
    This regulation, which bases observer coverage levels on the actual 
amount of gear fished, rather than days fished, is intended to ensure 
observer data that are more representative of actual fishing effort. 
The majority of vessels, for which days fished does reflect average 
fishing effort over the course of a quarter or season, should see no 
substantive change in the way they estimate observer coverage needs. 
Likewise, no more problem should exist with observer availability at 
the end of the quarter or season than what is currently

[[Page 719]]

experienced. Additionally, observer coverage needs should be somewhat 
predictable over time, allowing vessels to meet coverage needs prior to 
the end of the season or quarter.
    Comment 15: We believe that this proposed regulation would not 
solve the identified issue of pot gear vessels going out just beyond 
the harbor and pulling one pot to obtain observer coverage for that 
day. Vessels would now be able to set just a few pots and pull them as 
many times as possible in one day to obtain a large portion of their 
coverage.
    Response: NMFS does not anticipate this type of behavior, 
particularly because it would not be cost effective. If and when this 
behavior occurs, NMFS will respond accordingly.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    To provide clarity in the application of certain provisions of this 
action, regulatory text in Sec.  679.50(d)(3) and (i)(2) is changed 
from the proposed rule. Nearly all Observer Program regulations that 
apply to shoreside processors also apply to stationary floating 
processors. The proposed rule identified only shoreside processors in 
the revised language for these paragraphs. Thus, the final rule is 
changed from the proposed rule to apply to both shoreside processors 
and stationary floating processors.
    The final rule also is changed to reflect revised regulatory text 
that became effective January 1, 2003, under a separate final rule that 
extended the Observer Program through December 31, 2007 (67 FR 72595, 
December 6, 2002). These changes include redesignating proposed changes 
to paragraphs (i)(2)(v) and (i)(2)(xiii) as final changes to paragraphs 
(i)(2)(vi) and (i)(2)(xii), respectively. The portion of redesignated 
paragraph (i)(2)(xii) that addressed an expectation of observer 
providers to monitor observer performance is deleted because this 
provision was superceded in the December 6, 2002, final rule. Last, 
redesignated paragraph (i)(2)(vi) is revised to incorporate the 
regulatory guidance referenced to in the response to comment 5.

Classification

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    The amendment of the existing regulations implementing the Interim 
Observer Program is consistent with the intent and purpose of the 
Interim Observer Program. These actions follow previous actions to 
refine observer coverage requirements and improve support for 
observers. Previous actions addressing these matters were analyzed in 
the EA/RIR/FRFA for the Interim Observer Program dated August 27, 1996, 
the RIR/FRFA for the extension of the Interim Observer Program through 
1998 dated October 28, 1997, and the RIR/FRFA for the extension of the 
Interim Observer Program through 2000, dated June 4, 1998. Copies of 
these analyses are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    NMFS prepared a FRFA which describes the impact this final rule 
would have on small entities. A copy of the FRFA is available from the 
Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES). In addition to the discussion 
below, the FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) and its findings, and the finding from the EA/RIR/FRFA 
for the Observer Program and its extension. No comments on the IRFA 
were received during the public comment period on the proposed rule. 
Thus, no new data were incorporated into the analysis during the 
comment period that would result in findings that differ from those 
previously described. A description of the impacts of this action on 
small entities was summarized in the proposed rule (67 FR 15520, April 
2, 2002) and is not repeated here.
    This action includes measures that will minimize the significant 
economic impacts of observer coverage requirements on at least some 
small entities. Vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA are not required 
to carry an observer while fishing for groundfish. Vessels 60 ft (18.3 
m) and greater, but less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, have lower levels of 
observer coverage than those 125 ft (38.1 m) and above. Since the 
inception of the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program in 1989, 
NMFS has strived to mitigate the economic impacts of the observer 
program on small entities. In doing so, NMFS has not significantly 
adversely affected the implementation of the conservation and 
management responsibilities imposed by the FMPs and the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 30, 2002.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended 
as follows:

PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

    1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.

    2. In Sec.  679.50, paragraphs (d)(3) through (6) are redesignated 
as (d)(4) through (7); paragraph (c)(1)(vii), newly redesignated 
paragraph (d)(4) and paragraphs (i)(2)(vi) and (i)(2)(xii) are revised; 
and new paragraph (d)(3) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  679.50  Groundfish Observer Program applicable through December 
31, 2007.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vii) Vessels using pot gear. (A) A catcher/processor or catcher 
vessel equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA fishing with pot 
gear that participates for more than 3 fishing days in a directed 
fishery for groundfish in a calendar quarter must carry an observer:
    (1) For at least 30 percent of the total number of pot retrievals 
for that calendar quarter, and
    (2) For at least one entire fishing trip using pot gear in a 
calendar quarter, for each of the groundfish fishery categories defined 
under paragraph (c)(2) of this section in which the vessel 
participates.
    (B) Groundfish are required to be retained each day that pot gear 
is retrieved in order for gear retrieved that day to count toward 
observer coverage requirements for all catcher vessels and catcher/
processors using pot gear and required to carry observers.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Is subject to observer requirements specified in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section that receives pollock or Pacific cod, may reduce 
observer coverage in the event that a directed fishery for such species 
closes, subject to the following conditions:
    (i) The shoreside or stationary floating processor must maintain 
observer coverage for 30 percent of all days that groundfish are 
received or processed, beginning on the fourth calendar day following 
the day that the directed fishery for pollock or Pacific cod was closed 
and ending on the last day of the month, except as allowed in this 
paragraph (d)(3)(iv) of this section.
    (ii) Observer coverage for the month following the month with 
reduced observer coverage will be based on monthly landings projections 
and thresholds as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this 
section, but may also be reduced for that subsequent

[[Page 720]]

month as specified in this paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    (iii) Total groundfish landings received by a shoreside or 
stationary floating processor under reduced observer coverage as 
authorized under this paragraph (d)(3) may not exceed 250 mt per 
calendar week.
    (iv) If greater than 250 mt in round weight equivalent of 
groundfish are projected to be received in a given calender week by a 
shoreside or stationary floating processor during a month with reduced 
observer coverage, as authorized under this paragraph (d)(3), the 
shoreside or stationary floating processor must return to observer 
coverage requirements as specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section 
until all fish received during that week is processed. The shoreside or 
stationary floating processor may then return to reduced observer 
coverage as authorized under this paragraph (d)(3) for the remainder of 
the calendar month.
    (4) Offloads pollock at more than one location on the same dock and 
has distinct and separate equipment at each location to process those 
pollock and that receives pollock harvested by catcher vessels in the 
catcher vessel operational area.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vi) Observer deployment logistics. (A) An observer provider must 
provide to each of its observers under contract:
    (1) All necessary transportation, including arrangements and 
logistics, of observers to the initial location of deployment, to all 
subsequent vessel and shoreside or stationary floating processor 
assignments during that deployment, and to the debriefing location when 
a deployment ends for any reason; and
    (2)Lodging, per diem, and any other necessary services to observers 
aboard fishing vessels or at the site of shoreside or stationary 
floating processing facilities.
    (B) Except as provided in paragraphs (i)(2)(vi)(C) and 
(i)(2)(vi)(D) of this section, each observer deployed to a shoreside 
processing facility, and each observer between vessel or shoreside 
assignments while still under contract with a certified observer 
provider company, shall be provided with accommodations at a licensed 
hotel, motel, bed and breakfast, or with private land-based 
accommodations for the duration of each shoreside assignment or period 
between vessel or shoreside assignments. Such accommodations must 
include an individually assigned bed for each observer for the duration 
of that observer's shoreside assignment or period between vessel or 
shoreside assignments, such that no other person is assigned to that 
bed during the same period of the observer's shoreside assignment or 
period between vessel or shoreside assignments. Additionally, no more 
than four beds may be in any individual room housing observers at 
accommodations meeting the requirements of this section.
    (C) Observers may be housed on vessels they will be, or currently 
are, assigned to for a period not to exceed 24 hours:
    (1)Prior to their vessel's initial departure from port;
    (2)Following the completion of an offload where the observer has 
duties and is scheduled to disembark; or
    (3)Following the completion of an offload where the observer has 
duties and is scheduled to disembark.
    (D) During all periods an observer is housed on a vessel, the 
observer provider must ensure that the vessel skipper or at least one 
crew member is aboard and that such housing is logistically practical 
for the observer and the vessel personal. Alternative housing 
accommodations must be arranged if the conditions in this paragraph (D) 
are not met or if the observer wants to get off the vessel as soon as 
it docks or if the vessel operator requests the observer to leave upon 
docking.
    (E) Each observer deployed to shoreside processing facilities shall 
be provided with individually assigned communication equipment in 
working order, such as a cell phone or pager for notification of 
upcoming deliveries or other necessary communication. Each observer 
assigned to a shoreside processing facility located more than 1 mile 
from the observer's local accommodations shall be provided with 
motorized transportation that will ensure the observer's arrival at the 
processing facility in a timely manner such that the observer can 
complete his or her assigned duties. Unless alternative arrangements 
are approved by the Observer Program Office:
* * * * *
    (xii) Maintain confidentiality of information. An observer provider 
must ensure that all records on individual observer performance 
received from NMFS under the routine use provision of the Privacy Act 
remain confidential and are not further released to anyone outside the 
employ of the observer provider company to whom the observer was 
contracted except with written permission of the observer.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-177 Filed 1-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S