[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7414-7442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00881]



[[Page 7413]]

Vol. 85

Friday,

No. 26

February 7, 2020

Part II





Department of Commerce





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





 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





50 CFR Part 648





 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; 
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Industry-Funded 
Monitoring; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 2020 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 7414]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 200115-0017]
RIN 0648-BG91


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Industry-
Funded Monitoring

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action implements the New England Fishery Management 
Council's Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment. This amendment 
allows the New England Council flexibility to increase monitoring in 
certain fishery management plans to assess the amount and type of catch 
and reduce uncertainty around catch estimates. This amendment 
establishes a process to standardize future industry-funded monitoring 
programs in New England fishery management plans and establishes 
industry-funded monitoring in the Atlantic herring fishery. This action 
helps ensure consistency in industry-funded monitoring programs across 
fisheries and increases monitoring in the Atlantic herring fishery.

DATES: Effective March 9, 2020, except for Sec. Sec.  648.11(m) and 
648.14(r) which are effective April 1, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment, 
including the Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, 
and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared 
in support of this action are available from Thomas A. Nies, Executive 
Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 
2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The supporting documents are also accessible 
via the internet at: http://www.nefmc.org.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
rule may be submitted to the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office 
and by email to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy 
Analyst, phone: (978) 282-9272 or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The New England Fishery Management Council developed an amendment 
to allow industry-funded monitoring in its fishery management plans 
(FMPs), except those managed jointly with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council, and establish industry-funded monitoring in the 
Atlantic herring fishery. The amendment standardizes the development 
and administration of future industry-funded monitoring programs in New 
England Council FMPs and increases monitoring in the herring fishery to 
help provide increased accuracy in catch estimates.
    The New England Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment 
provides a mechanism to allow the Council flexibility to increase 
monitoring in its FMPs to assess the amount and type of catch and 
reduce uncertainty around catch estimates. Industry-funded monitoring 
would be in addition to monitoring requirements associated with the 
Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM), the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This 
amendment remedies NMFS disapprovals of previous Council proposals for 
industry-funded monitoring that either required NMFS to spend money 
that was not yet appropriated or split monitoring costs between the 
fishing industry and NMFS in ways that were inconsistent with Federal 
law.
    To remedy the disapproved measures, the amendment uses a monitoring 
coverage target, as opposed to a mandatory coverage level, to allow 
NMFS to approve new monitoring programs without committing to support 
coverage levels above appropriated funding or before funding is 
determined to be available. Using a coverage target instead of 
mandatory coverage level means the realized coverage in a given year 
would be determined by the amount of Federal funding available to cover 
NMFS cost responsibilities in a given year. Industry-funded monitoring 
coverage targets are specified in individual FMPs and realized coverage 
for a fishery in a given year would be anywhere from no additional 
coverage above SBRM up to the specified coverage target. Additionally, 
the amendment defines cost responsibilities for industry-funded 
monitoring programs between the fishing industry and NMFS in a manner 
that is consistent with legal requirements. Monitoring cost 
responsibilities may be divided between the industry and the 
government, provided government cost responsibilities are paid by the 
government and the government's costs are differentiated from the 
industry's cost responsibilities. This amendment specifies that 
industry-funded monitoring costs are delineated between NMFS 
administrative costs and industry sampling costs.
    The Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment was adopted by the Council 
on April 20, 2017. The Council refined its recommendations for 
industry-funded monitoring in the herring fishery on April 19, 2018. We 
published a notice of availability (NOA) for the amendment in the 
Federal Register on September 19, 2018 (83 FR47326), with a comment 
period ending November 19, 2018. We published a proposed rule for the 
amendment in the Federal Register on November 7, 2018 (83 FR 55665), 
with a comment period ending December 24, 2018. After considering 
public comment, we approved the Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment, 
on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, on December 18, 2018. We 
informed the Council of the amendment's approval in a letter dated 
December 18, 2018. This final rule implements the Industry-Funded 
Monitoring Amendment as approved.

Approved Omnibus Measures

    This amendment standardizes the development and administration of 
future industry-funded monitoring programs in New England Council FMPs, 
including the Atlantic Herring FMP, the Atlantic Salmon FMP, the 
Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP, the Deep-Sea Red Crab FMP, the Northeast 
Multispecies FMP, and the Northeast Skate FMP. In the future, if the 
Council develops an industry-funded monitoring programs, the Council 
would develop those programs consistent with the specifications and 
requirements for industry-funded programs established in this 
amendment. The existing industry-funded monitoring programs in the 
Northeast Multispecies and Atlantic Sea Scallop FMPs would not be 
affected by this amendment. While cost responsibilities and monitoring 
service provider requirements established in this amendment are 
consistent with the existing programs, the industry-funded monitoring 
programs in the Multispecies and Scallop FMPS would not be included in 
the proposed process to prioritize industry-funded monitoring programs 
for available Federal funding.

[[Page 7415]]

The Council may incorporate these existing industry-funded monitoring 
programs into the prioritization process in a future action. 
Additionally, future industry-funded monitoring programs in the 
Multispecies and Scallop FMPs would either expand the existing programs 
or develop new programs consistent with the omnibus measures.
    This amendment provides for industry-funded monitoring coverage 
targets in Council FMPs, noting that annual funding available to cover 
NMFS cost responsibilities would likely vary and dictate realized 
coverage levels. The realized coverage in a given year would be 
determined by the amount of Federal funding available to cover NMFS 
cost responsibilities in a given year.
    The standards for future industry-funded monitoring programs in New 
England fisheries apply to several types of monitoring, including 
observing, at-sea monitoring, electronic monitoring, portside sampling, 
and dockside monitoring. This rule establishes the following principles 
to guide the Council's consideration when developing future industry-
funded monitoring programs:
     A clear need or reason for the data collection;
     Objective design criteria;
     Cost of data collection should not diminish net benefits 
to the nation nor threaten continued existence of the fishery;
     Seek less data intensive methods to collect data necessary 
to assure conservation and sustainability when assessing and managing 
fisheries with minimal profit margins;
     Prioritize the use of modern technology to the extent 
practicable; and
     Incentives for reliable self-reporting.
    All of this amendment's omnibus measures are administrative, 
specifying a process to develop and administer future industry-funded 
monitoring and monitoring set-aside programs and do not directly affect 
fishing effort or amounts of fish harvested. However, the omnibus 
measures may have indirect effects on Council FMPs. Standardizing the 
process for developing and administering future industry-funded 
monitoring programs may help reduce the administrative burden 
associated with implementing new programs and may lead to greater 
consistency in the information collected through industry-funded 
monitoring programs. Improved catch information resulting from greater 
consistency in how information is collected may lead to better 
management of biological resources. The prioritization process is 
expected to help ensure that available Federal funding is used to 
support industry-funded monitoring programs consistent with Council 
monitoring priorities. While industry-funded monitoring programs are 
expected to have an economic impact on the fishing industry, standard 
cost responsibilities may help the industry better understand and plan 
for their industry-funded monitoring cost responsibilities. Standard 
cost responsibilities may also aid the industry in negotiating coverage 
costs with service providers, which may ultimately reduce the dollar 
amount associated with industry cost responsibilities. Monitoring set-
aside programs may also help minimize the economic burden on the 
fishing industry associated with paying for monitoring coverage.

1. Standard Process To Implement and Revise Industry-Funded Monitoring 
Programs

    This amendment specifies that future industry-funded monitoring 
programs are implemented through an amendment to the relevant FMP. 
Because industry-funded monitoring programs have the potential to 
economically impact the fishing industry, the Council determined that 
implementing new industry-funded monitoring programs through an 
amendment would help ensure additional public notice and comment during 
the development of new programs. The details of any new industry-funded 
monitoring program implemented via amendment may include, but are not 
limited to:
     Level and type of coverage target;
     Rationale for level and type of coverage;
     Minimum level of coverage necessary to meet coverage 
goals;
     Consideration of waivers if coverage targets cannot be 
met;
     Process for vessel notification and selection;
     Cost collection and administration;
     Standards for monitoring service providers; and
     Any other measures necessary to implement the industry-
funded monitoring program.
    This amendment also specifies that future industry-funded 
monitoring programs, implemented through an amendment, may be revised 
through framework adjustments to the relevant FMP. Additional National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis would be required for any 
action implementing and/or modifying industry-funded monitoring 
programs, regardless if the vehicle is an amendment or framework 
adjustment.

2. Standard Cost Responsibilities

    Cost responsibilities for industry-funded monitoring must be 
divided by cost category, rather than a dollar amount or percentage of 
total cost, between the fishing industry and NMFS. NMFS is obligated to 
pay any cost for which the benefit of the expenditure accrues to the 
government. This means that NMFS would be responsible for 
administrative costs to support industry-funded programs, but not the 
costs associated with sampling activities. Costs associated with 
sampling activities would be paid by the fishing industry. NMFS may 
help offset industry cost responsibilities if Federal funding is 
available, but NMFS cannot be obligated to pay sampling costs in 
industry-funded sampling programs. Cost responsibilities dictated by 
legal requirements cannot be modified through this amendment. Instead, 
this amendment codifies NMFS cost responsibilities for industry-funded 
monitoring in New England FMPs to ensure consistency and compliance 
with legal requirements.
    NMFS is responsible for paying costs associated with setting 
standards for, monitoring the performance of, and administering 
industry-funded monitoring programs. These program elements would 
include:
     The labor and facilities costs associated with training 
and debriefing of monitors;
     NMFS-issued gear (e.g., electronic reporting aids used by 
human monitors to record trip information);
     Certification of monitoring providers and individual 
observers or monitors;
     Performance monitoring to maintain certificates;
     Developing and executing vessel selection;
     Data processing (including electronic monitoring video 
audit, but excluding service provider electronic video review); and
     Costs associated with liaison activities between service 
providers, NMFS, Coast Guard, Council, sector managers, and other 
partners.
    NMFS costs to administer industry-funded monitoring for all 
monitoring types would be paid with Federal funds. The industry is 
responsible for funding all other monitoring program costs, including 
but not limited to:
     Costs to the service provider for deployments and sampling 
(e.g., travel and salary for observer deployments and debriefing);
     Equipment, as specified by NMFS, to the extent not 
provided by NMFS (e.g., electronic monitoring system);

[[Page 7416]]

     Costs to the service provider for observer or monitor time 
and travel to a scheduled deployment that doesn't sail and was not 
canceled by the vessel prior to the sail time;
     Costs to the service provider for installation and 
maintenance of electronic monitoring systems;
     Provider overhead and project management costs (e.g., 
provider office space, administrative and management staff, recruitment 
costs, salary and per diem for trainees); and
     Other costs of the service provider to meet performance 
standards laid out by an FMP.
    The cost responsibilities described above are consistent with the 
existing scallop and multispecies industry-funded monitoring programs, 
although cost responsibilities are not explicitly defined in those 
FMPs. This amendment codifies NMFS cost responsibilities for industry-
funded monitoring for all New England FMPs, but it does not alter other 
current requirements for existing industry-funded monitoring programs.

3. Standard Requirements for Monitoring Service Providers and 
Observers/Monitors

    The SBRM Omnibus Amendment (80 FR 37182; June 30, 2015) adopted 
general industry-funded observer service provider and observer 
requirements (at 50 CFR 648.11(h) and (i), respectively) should a 
Council develop and implement a requirement or option for an industry-
funded observer program to support SBRM in any New England or Mid-
Atlantic Council FMP. However, the SBRM Amendment did not address 
requirements for other types of industry-funded monitoring programs or 
coverage in addition to SBRM.
    This amendment modifies and expands existing observer and service 
provider requirements and allows those requirements to apply to 
coverage supplemental to SBRM, ESA, and MMPA coverage. Specifically, 
this rule modifies and expands existing observer service provider 
requirements at Sec.  648.11(h) to apply to service providers for 
observers, at-sea monitors, portside samplers, and dockside monitors. 
Similarly, this rule modifies and expands existing observer 
requirements at Sec.  648.11(i) to apply to observers, at-sea monitors, 
portside samplers, and dockside monitors, described collectively as 
observers/monitors. These observer/monitor requirements serve as the 
default requirements for any future industry-funded monitoring programs 
in New England FMPs. The Council may add new requirements or revise 
existing requirements for FMP-specific industry-funded monitoring 
programs as part of the amendment developing those programs or the 
framework adjustment revising those programs.

4. Prioritization Process

    This amendment establishes a Council-led process to prioritize 
industry-funded monitoring programs for available Federal funding 
across New England FMPs. This prioritization process allows the Council 
to align industry-funded monitoring programs with its monitoring 
priorities by recommending priorities for available NMFS funding to pay 
NMFS cost responsibilities associated with industry-funded monitoring. 
Revising the prioritization process would be done in a framework 
adjustment. The existing scallop and multispecies industry-funded 
monitoring programs will not be included in the prioritization process, 
unless the Council takes action in the future to include those programs 
in the prioritization process or develops new industry-funded 
monitoring programs within those FMPs consistent with this amendment.
    Available Federal funding refers to any funds in excess of those 
allocated to meet SBRM or other existing monitoring requirements that 
may be used to cover NMFS costs associated with supporting industry-
funded monitoring programs. Funding for SBRM, ESA, and MMPA observer 
coverage is not be affected by this prioritization process. Any 
industry-funded monitoring programs will be prioritized separately from 
and, in addition to, any SBRM coverage or other statutory coverage 
requirements. The realized industry-funded monitoring coverage in a 
given year will be determined by the amount of Federal funding 
available to cover NMFS cost responsibilities in a given year.
    When there is no Federal funding available to cover NMFS cost 
responsibilities above SBRM coverage in a given year, then no industry-
funded monitoring programs would operate that year. If available 
funding in a given year is sufficient to support all industry-funded 
monitoring programs, the prioritization process would fully 
operationalize the industry-funded monitoring coverage targets 
specified in each FMP. If there is some available funding, but not 
enough to support all industry-funded monitoring programs, the Council 
will determine how to prioritize industry-funded monitoring coverage 
targets for available funding across FMPs.
    As part of the Council-led prioritization process, this amendment 
establishes an equal weighting approach to prioritize industry-funded 
monitoring programs for available funding. An example of an equal 
weighting approach would be funding all industry-funded monitoring 
programs at 70 percent, if only 70 percent of the Federal funding 
needed to administer all the programs was available. Additionally, this 
rule specifies that the Council will adjust the equal weighting 
approach on an as-needed basis. This means that the equal weighting 
approach will be adjusted whenever a new industry-funded monitoring 
program consistent with this amendment is approved or whenever an 
existing industry-funded monitoring program consistent with this 
amendment is adjusted or terminated. The Council will revise the 
weighting approach for the Council-led prioritization process in a 
framework adjustment or by considering a new weighting approach at a 
public meeting, where public comment is accepted, and asking NMFS to 
publish a notice or rulemaking modifying the weighting approach, 
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
    The SBRM coverage year begins in April and extends through March. 
SBRM coverage levels in a given year are determined by the variability 
of discard rates from the previous year and the availability of SBRM 
funding. During the spring, NMFS determines SBRM coverage for the 
upcoming year. Once NMFS finalizes SBRM coverage levels for the 
upcoming year, NMFS will then evaluate what Federal funding is 
available to cover its costs for meeting the industry-funded monitoring 
coverage targets for the upcoming year. NMFS will provide the Council, 
at the earliest practicable opportunity: (1) The estimated industry-
funded monitoring coverage levels, incorporating the prioritization 
process and weighting approach, and based on available funding, for 
each FMP-specific monitoring program; and (2) the rationale for the 
industry-funded monitoring coverage levels, including the reason for 
any deviation from the Council's recommendations. NMFS will inform the 
Council of the estimated industry-funded coverage levels during a 
Council meeting. At that time, the Council may recommend revisions and 
additional considerations by the Regional Administrator and Science and 
Research Director. If NMFS costs associated with industry-funded 
coverage targets are fully funded in a given year, NMFS will also 
determine, in consultation with the Council, the allocation, if any, of 
any remaining available funding to offset industry costs. The earlier 
in the year that

[[Page 7417]]

industry-funded monitoring coverage targets are set for the following 
year, the more time the affected fishing industry would have to plan 
for industry-funded monitoring the following year. FMP-specific 
industry-funded monitoring programs would determine if industry-funded 
coverage targets were administered consistent with the FMP's fishing 
year or the SBRM year.

5. Monitoring Set-Aside Programs

    This amendment standardizes the process to develop future 
monitoring set-aside programs and allows monitoring set-aside programs 
to be developed in a framework adjustment to the relevant FMP. A 
monitoring set-aside program would use a portion of the annual catch 
limit (ACL) from a fishery to help offset industry cost 
responsibilities associated with industry-funded monitoring coverage 
targets. There are many possible ways to structure a monitoring set-
aside program, and the details of each program would be developed on an 
FMP-by-FMP basis. Monitoring set-aside programs are an option to help 
ease industry cost responsibilities associated with industry-funded 
monitoring, but they likely would only help offset a portion of the 
industry's cost responsibilities.
    The details of monitoring set-aside programs may include, but are 
not limited to:
     The basis for the monitoring set-aside;
     The amount of the set-aside (e.g., percentage of ACL, 
days-at-sea (DAS));
     How the set-aside is allocated to vessels required to pay 
for monitoring (e.g., increased possession limit, differential DAS 
counting, additional trips against a percent of the ACL);
     The process for vessel notification;
     How funds are collected and administered to cover the 
industry's costs of monitoring coverage; and
     Any other measures necessary to develop and implement a 
monitoring set-aside.

Approved Atlantic Herring Measures

    This amendment establishes an industry-funded monitoring program in 
the Atlantic herring fishery that is expected to provide increased 
accuracy in catch estimates. Increased monitoring in the herring 
fishery will address the following goals: (1) Accurate estimates of 
catch (retained and discarded); (2) accurate catch estimates for 
incidental species with catch caps (haddock and river herring/shad); 
and (3) affordable monitoring for the herring fishery.
    This amendment establishes a 50-percent industry-funded monitoring 
coverage target on vessels issued an All Areas (Category A) or Areas 2/
3 (Category B) Limited Access Herring Permits fishing on a declared 
herring trip. The Council considered other coverage targets, including 
100 percent, 75 percent, and 25 percent, but determined that the 50-
percent coverage target best balanced the benefits and costs of 
additional monitoring. When tracking catch against catch caps in the 
herring fishery, analyses in the EA supporting this amendment suggest 
that a 50-percent coverage target would reduce the uncertainty around 
catch estimates, and likely result in a coefficient of variation (CV) 
less than 30 percent for the majority of catch caps. Additionally, the 
industry's cost responsibilities associated with a 50-percent coverage 
target are substantially less than those associated with higher 
coverage targets. Vessels participating in the herring fishery also 
participate in the Atlantic mackerel fishery. Currently, the mackerel 
fishery does not have an industry-funded monitoring program. If the 
Mid-Atlantic Council develops industry-funded monitoring in the 
mackerel fishery and the coverage targets do not match for the herring 
and mackerel fisheries, then the higher coverage target would apply on 
all trips declared into the fishery with the higher coverage target.
    Herring coverage targets would be calculated for the SBRM year, 
April through March, by combining SBRM and industry-funding monitoring 
coverage. NMFS will determine how to calculate the coverage target, in 
consultation with Council staff. For example, if there is an estimated 
10-percent SBRM coverage in a given year (based on allocated sea days 
and anticipated effort), then 40-percent industry-funded monitoring 
coverage will be needed to achieve the 50-percent coverage target. 
Because the coverage target is calculated by combining SBRM and 
industry-funded monitoring coverage, a vessel will not have SBRM 
coverage and industry-funded coverage on the same trip. Any vessel 
selected for SBRM coverage on a particular trip will not have the 
option of industry-funded monitoring on that trip. Per the 
prioritization process in the proposed omnibus measures, the realized 
coverage level in a given year will be determined by the amount of 
funding available to cover NMFS cost responsibilities in a given year. 
The realized coverage for the herring fishery in a given year will fall 
somewhere between no additional coverage in addition to SBRM and the 
specified coverage target. Combined coverage targets are intended to 
help reduce the cost of industry-funded coverage, but the level of SBRM 
coverage in the herring fishery varies by gear type and has the 
potential to vary year to year. The variability of SBRM coverage has 
the potential to make it difficult for the herring industry to plan for 
industry-funded monitoring year to year.
    In addition to the standard monitoring and service provider 
requirements in the omnibus measures, this amendment specifies that 
requirements for industry-funded observers and at-sea monitors in the 
herring fishery include a high volume fishery (HVF) certification. 
Currently, NMFS's Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) 
observers must possess a HVF certification in order to observe the 
herring fishery. NMFS developed the HVF certification to more 
effectively train observers in high volume catch sampling and 
documentation. NEFOP determined that data quality on herring trips was 
sub-optimal when collected by observers without specialized training, 
potentially resulting in data loss. In addition, the high variety of 
deck configurations, fish handling practices, and fast-paced operations 
proved more demanding for observers. Having additional training to 
identify these practices improved decision-making while at sea, which, 
ultimately, improved data accuracy and maximized data collection.
    Additionally, this amendment requires the Council to examine the 
results of any increased coverage in the herring fishery two years 
after implementation of this amendment, and consider if adjustments to 
the coverage targets are warranted. Depending on the results and 
desired actions, subsequent action to adjust the coverage targets could 
be accomplished via a framework adjustment or an amendment to the 
Herring FMP, as appropriate. Measures implemented in this amendment 
would remain in place unless revised by the Council.

1. Industry-Funded At-Sea Monitoring Coverage on Vessels Issued 
Category A or B Herring Permits

    This rule specifies that vessels issued Category A or B herring 
permits will carry an industry-funded at-sea monitor on declared 
herring trips that are selected for coverage by NMFS, unless NMFS 
issues the vessel a waiver for coverage on that trip. Vessels will be 
selected for coverage by NMFS to meet the 50-percent coverage target. 
Prior to any trip declared into the herring fishery, representatives 
for vessels with Category A or B permits are required to notify NMFS 
for monitoring coverage. If an SBRM observer is not selected to

[[Page 7418]]

cover that trip, NMFS will notify the vessel representative whether an 
at-sea monitor must be procured through a monitoring service provider. 
Because the 50-percent coverage target is calculated by combining SBRM 
and industry-funded monitoring coverage, a vessel will not carry an 
SBRM observer on the same trip that carries an at-sea monitor. If NMFS 
informs the vessel representative that they need at-sea monitoring 
coverage, they will be required to obtain and pay for an at-sea monitor 
to carry on that trip. The vessel would be prohibited from fishing for, 
taking, possessing, or landing any herring without carrying an at-sea 
monitor on that trip. If NMFS informs the vessel representative that 
the vessel is not selected for at-sea monitoring coverage, NMFS will 
issue the vessel an at-sea monitoring coverage waiver for that trip.
    This rule establishes three additional reasons for issuing vessels 
waivers for industry-funded monitoring requirements on a trip-by-trip 
basis. First, if an at-sea monitor is not available to cover a specific 
herring trip (either due to logistics or a lack of available Federal 
funding to cover NMFS cost responsibilities), NMFS will issue the 
vessel an at-sea monitoring coverage waiver for that trip. Second, if a 
vessel using midwater trawl gear intends to operate as a wing vessel on 
a trip, meaning that it would pair trawl with another midwater trawl 
vessel but would not pump or carry any fish onboard, then that vessel 
may request a waiver for industry-funded monitoring requirements on 
that trip. Vessels would notify NMFS in advance of the wing vessel 
trip, and NMFS would issue a waiver for industry-funded monitoring 
requirements for that trip. Wing vessels would be prohibited from 
carrying fish onboard during these trips. If a wing vessel did carry 
fish, the vessel would be out of compliance with industry-funded 
monitoring requirements on that trip. Third, if a vessel intended to 
land less than 50 mt of herring on a trip, then the vessel may request 
a waiver for industry-funded monitoring requirements on that trip. 
Vessels will notify NMFS in advance of the trip on which they intend to 
land less than 50 mt of herring, and NMFS will issue a waiver for 
industry-funded monitoring requirements for that trip. Vessels would be 
prohibited from landing 50 mt or more of herring on these trips. If the 
vessel landed 50 mt or more of herring, the vessel would be out of 
compliance with industry-funded monitoring requirements on that trip.
    At-sea monitors will collect the following information on herring 
trips:
     Fishing gear information (i.e., size of nets, mesh sizes, 
and gear configurations);
     Tow-specific information (i.e., depth, water temperature, 
wave height, and location and time when fishing begins and ends);
     Species, weight, and disposition of all retained and 
discarded catch on observed hauls;
     Species, weight, and disposition of all retained catch on 
unobserved hauls;
     Actual catch weights whenever possible, or alternatively, 
weight estimates derived by sub-sampling;
     Length data, along with whole specimens and photos to 
verify species identification, on retained and discarded catch;
     Information on and biological samples from interactions 
with protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and sea 
birds; and
     Vessel trip costs (i.e., operational costs for trips 
including food, fuel, oil, and ice).
    The primary biological data that at-sea monitors will collect are 
length data on retained and discarded catch. However, to verify species 
identification, at-sea monitors may also collect whole specimens or 
photos. In the future, the Council may recommend that at-sea monitors 
collect additional biological information upon request. Revising what 
information an at-sea monitor collects could be done in a framework 
adjustment. Alternatively, the Council may recommend that at-sea 
monitors collect additional biological information by considering the 
issue at a public meeting, where public comment is accepted, and asking 
NMFS to publish a notice or rulemaking modifying the duties for at-sea 
monitors, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.
    In contrast to observers, at-sea monitors would not collect whole 
specimens, photos, or biological samples (other than length data) from 
catch, unless it was for purposes of species identification, or 
sighting data on protected species. The Council recommended a limited 
data collection compared to observers to allow for possible cost 
savings for either the industry or NMFS associated with a limited data 
collection.
    Currently, vessels issued Category A or B herring permits are 
required to comply with all slippage restrictions, slippage reporting 
requirements, and slippage consequence measures when carrying an 
observer for SBRM coverage (Sec.  648.11(m)(4)). Because the purpose of 
slippage restrictions is to help ensure catch is made available for 
sampling, this rule ensures that existing slippage requirements also 
apply when vessels are carrying an industry-funded at-sea monitor. 
Specifically, when vessels issued Category A or B herring permits are 
carrying either an SBRM observer or industry-funded at-sea monitor, 
vessels are required to bring catch aboard the vessel and make it 
available for sampling prior to discarding. If vessels slipped catch 
for any reason, they would be required to report that slippage event on 
the daily vessel monitoring catch report and complete a slipped catch 
affidavit. If vessels slip catch due to excess catch of spiny dogfish, 
mechanical failure, or safety, then vessels are required to move 15 
nautical miles (27.78 km) following that slippage event and remain 15 
nautical miles (27.78 km) away from that slippage event before making 
another haul and for the duration of that fishing trip. If vessels slip 
catch for any other reason, they are required to terminate that fishing 
trip and immediately return to port.
    Industry-funded monitoring would have direct economic impacts on 
vessels issued Category A and B permits participating in the herring 
fishery. The EA estimates the industry's cost responsibility associated 
with carrying an at-sea monitor at $710 per day. The EA uses returns-
to-owner (RTO) to estimate the potential reduction in annual RTO 
associated with paying for monitoring coverage. RTO was calculated by 
subtracting annual operating costs from annual gross revenue and was 
used instead of net revenues to more accurately reflect fishing income. 
While the actual cost of industry-funded monitoring on a particular 
vessel would vary with effort level and the amount of SBRM coverage, 
analyses in the EA suggest that the cost of the proposed at-sea 
monitoring coverage may reduce the annual RTO for vessels with Category 
A or B herring permits up to approximately 20 percent. Waiving at-sea 
monitoring coverage requirements for wing vessel trips or trips that 
land less than 50 mt of herring would help reduce the cost of at-sea 
monitoring coverage on those trips, but those waivers are not an option 
for vessels that choose to land more than 50 mt of herring on a trip.

2. Industry-Funded Observer Coverage on Midwater Trawl Vessels Fishing 
in Groundfish Closed Areas

    Midwater trawl vessels fishing in the Groundfish Closed Areas are 
required to carry an observer under the requirements at Sec.  
648.202(b). When Amendment 5 to the Herring FMP (79 FR 8786; February 
13, 2014) established that requirement, the Groundfish Closed Areas 
included Closed Area I, Closed

[[Page 7419]]

Area II, Nantucket Lightship Closed Area, Cashes Ledge Closure Area, 
and the Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area. Currently, the only 
mechanism for midwater trawl vessels to carry an observer is if an 
observer is assigned through the SBRM. As described previously, SBRM 
coverage for midwater trawl vessels has recently been variable 
(approximately 4 to 40 percent from 2012 through 2018). This rule 
maintains the requirement to carry an observer for midwater trawl 
vessels fishing in a Groundfish Closed Area, but allows midwater trawl 
vessels to purchase observer coverage in order to access Groundfish 
Closed Areas.
    Prior to any trip declared into a Groundfish Closed Area, 
representatives for midwater trawl vessels are required to provide 
notice to NMFS for monitoring coverage. If neither an SBRM observer nor 
industry-funded monitoring is selected to cover that trip, NMFS will 
notify the vessel representative that an observer may be procured 
through a monitoring service provider. The vessel is prohibited from 
fishing in the Groundfish Closed Areas without carrying an observer. 
Observers will collect the following information on midwater trawl 
trips:
     Fishing gear information (i.e., size of nets, mesh sizes, 
and gear configurations);
     Tow-specific information (i.e., depth, water temperature, 
wave height, and location and time when fishing begins and ends);
     Species, weight, and disposition of all retained and 
discarded catch on observed hauls;
     Species, weight, and disposition of all retained catch on 
unobserved hauls;
     Actual catch weights whenever possible, or alternatively, 
weight estimates derived by sub-sampling;
     Whole specimens, photos, length information, and 
biological samples (i.e., scales, otoliths, and/or vertebrae);
     Information on interactions with protected species, such 
as sea turtles, marine mammals, and sea birds; and
     Vessel trip costs (i.e., operational costs for trip 
including food, fuel, oil, and ice).
    The measure allowing midwater trawl vessels to purchase observer 
coverage to access Groundfish Closed Areas also has economic impacts on 
vessels participating in the herring fishery. The EA estimates the 
industry's cost responsibility associated with carrying an observer at 
$818 per day. While the actual cost of industry-funded monitoring on a 
particular vessel would vary with effort level and the amount of SBRM 
coverage, analyses in the EA suggest that the cost of observer coverage 
may reduce the annual RTO for midwater trawl vessels up to 5 percent. 
That 5 percent reduction in RTO would be in addition to any reduction 
in RTO due to other types of industry-funded monitoring coverage. 
Coverage waivers for Groundfish Closed Area trips are not an option to 
reduce the cost of observer coverage because coverage waivers do not 
apply on midwater trawl vessels fishing in the Groundfish Closed Areas.
    If the Groundfish Closed Areas are modified, eliminated, or added 
in the future, existing observer coverage requirements for midwater 
trawl vessels apply to the modified areas, except for areas that are 
eliminated as Groundfish Closed Areas. Anticipating changes to the 
Groundfish Closed Areas in the Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 
2 (Habitat Amendment) (83 FR 15240; April 9, 2018), the Industry-Funded 
Monitoring Amendment Development Team/Fishery Management Action Team 
(PDT/FMAT) recommended the Council clarify its intent regarding the 
requirement that midwater trawl vessels fishing in Groundfish Closed 
Areas must carry an observer. In a March 17, 2017, memorandum, the PDT/
FMAT noted that the Habitat Amendment proposed changes to Groundfish 
Closed Areas, such as eliminating areas, boundary changes, and 
seasonality. That same memorandum proposed the Council clarify that 
this amendment maintains the 100-percent observer coverage requirement 
on midwater trawl vessels fishing in Groundfish Closed Areas, as 
modified by the Habitat Amendment. The Council accepted the FM PDT/
FMAT's proposed clarification when it took final action on this 
amendment in April 2017.
    In January 2018, NMFS partially approved the Habitat Amendment, 
including changes to Closed Area I, Nantucket Lightship Closed Area, 
and the Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area. Consistent with Council 
intent regarding observer coverage, the final rule for the Habitat 
Amendment maintained the 100-percent observer requirement for midwater 
trawl vessels fishing in Closed Area I North (February 1-April 15), 
Closed Area II, Cashes Ledge Closure Area, and the Western Gulf of 
Maine Closure Area. Because the Habitat Amendment removed the Nantucket 
Lightship Closed Area and the southern portion of Closed Area 1 from 
the list of Groundfish Closed Areas, the 100-percent observer coverage 
requirement no longer applies to midwater trawl vessels fishing in the 
area previously known as the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area and the 
southern portion of what was formerly Closed Area 1. A recent Court 
Order (Conservation Law Found. v. Ross, No. CV 18-1087 (JEB), 2019 WL 
5549814 (D.D.C. Oct. 28, 2019) enjoined NMFS from allowing gillnet 
fishing in the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area and Closed Area I. This 
decision does not apply to fishing gears other than gillnet gear, and 
the rule implementing this order (84 FR 68799; December 17, 2019) is 
specific to gillnet gear and does not prohibit midwater trawl vessels 
from fishing in these areas.
    Recognizing that it recommended multiple industry-funded monitoring 
types, including at-sea monitoring coverage and observer coverage in 
Groundfish Closed Areas, for the herring fishery, the Council also 
recommended prioritizing coverage aboard Category A and B vessels 
because those vessels harvest the majority of the herring. Consistent 
with that recommendation, if available Federal funding is insufficient 
to cover NMFS cost responsibilities associated with administering 
multiple monitoring programs for the herring fishery, this rule 
prioritizes industry-funded monitoring coverage on Category A and B 
vessels before observer coverage on midwater trawl vessels fishing in 
Groundfish Closed Areas.

Atlantic Herring Exempted Fishing Permit

    On April 19, 2018, the Council considered whether electronic 
monitoring in conjunction with portside sampling, would be an adequate 
substitute for at-sea monitoring coverage aboard midwater trawl 
vessels. Because midwater trawl vessels discard only a small percentage 
of catch at sea, electronic monitoring and portside sampling have the 
potential to be a cost effective way to address monitoring goals for 
the herring fishery. The purpose of electronic monitoring would be to 
confirm catch retention and verify compliance with slippage 
restrictions, while the purpose of portside sampling would be to 
collect species composition data along with age and length information. 
After reviewing the midwater trawl electronic monitoring study, the 
Council approved electronic monitoring and portside sampling as a 
monitoring option for midwater trawl vessels, but did not recommend 
requiring electronic monitoring and portside sampling as part of this 
action. Instead, the Council recommended NMFS use an exempted fishing 
permit (EFP) to further evaluate how to best permanently administer an 
electronic monitoring and portside sampling program.

[[Page 7420]]

    The EFP would exempt midwater vessels from the requirement for 
industry-funded at-sea monitoring coverage and allow midwater trawl 
vessels to use electronic monitoring and portside sampling coverage to 
comply with the Council-recommended 50-percent coverage target. The 
recent midwater trawl electronic monitoring study provides a good 
foundation for an electronic monitoring program. However, using an EFP 
would provide NMFS with further information about how to most 
effectively and efficiently administer the electronic monitoring and 
portside sampling program, while allowing NMFS the flexibility to 
respond quickly to emerging issues, helping to make the monitoring 
program more robust. An EFP would also enable NMFS to evaluate other 
monitoring issues in the herring fishery that are of interest to the 
Council and herring industry, such as evaluating the utility of 
electronic monitoring and portside sampling when midwater trawl vessels 
fish in Groundfish Closed Areas or for other gear types (e.g., purse 
seine or bottom trawl) used in the herring fishery.
    The supporting documentation for the EFP was developed concurrently 
with rulemakings for this amendment and midwater trawl vessels issued 
EFPs are allowed to use electronic monitoring and portside sampling 
coverage to comply with the Council-recommended 50-percent coverage 
target. The Council recommended reconsidering herring industry-funded 
monitoring requirements two years after implementation. The Council 
would consider establishing electronic monitoring and portside sampling 
program requirements into regulation via a framework adjustment at that 
time.

Status of Industry-Funded Monitoring in 2020

    Throughout the development of this amendment, we cautioned the 
Council that any additional coverage would be contingent upon us having 
sufficient funding to administer industry-funded monitoring. For 2020, 
we have sufficient Federal funding to pay NMFS cost responsibilities 
associated with fully implementing industry-funded monitoring in the 
herring fishery. We estimate industry-funded monitoring cost 
responsibilities for the herring fishery to total approximately 
$100,000 in 2020. Therefore, beginning April 1, 2020, vessels issued 
Category A or B herring permits will be required to pay for at-sea 
monitoring coverage on trips we select for industry-funded monitoring 
coverage. Alternatively, herring vessels will have the option of 
requesting an EFP to use electronic monitoring and portside sampling 
instead of at-sea monitoring coverage to satisfy industry-funded 
monitoring requirements in 2020. We cannot yet determine if we will 
have funding to administer industry-funded monitoring in the herring 
fishery in 2021. We will evaluate available Federal funding relative to 
the cost of administering industry-funded monitoring in the herring 
fishery during the upcoming year.

Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act

    In light of recent catch reductions in the herring fishery, we 
evaluated whether the EA supporting the Industry-Funded Monitoring 
Amendment remained valid to support this amendment. In making a 
determination on the need for additional analysis under NEPA, we 
considered and were guided by the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) NEPA regulations and applicable case law. The CEQ's regulations 
state that ``[a]gencies shall prepare supplements to either draft or 
final environmental impact statements if: (i) the agency makes 
substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to 
environmental concerns; or (ii) there are significant new circumstances 
or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the 
proposed action or its impacts'' (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
Sec.  1502.09(c)). In addition, we considered the CEQ's significance 
criteria at 40 CFR 1508.27 to determine if any new circumstances or 
information are significant, which could require a new EA.
    The EA describes the economic impacts of herring measures on 
fishery-related businesses and human communities as negative and 
explained they result from paying for monitoring coverage. The economic 
impact of industry-funded monitoring coverage on the herring fishery is 
difficult to estimate because it varies with sampling costs, fishing 
effort, SBRM coverage, price of herring, and participation in other 
fisheries. The EA estimates industry's cost for at-sea monitoring 
coverage at $710 per day and observer coverage at $818 per day, but 
cautioned those estimates would largely depend on negotiated costs 
between vessels and monitoring service providers. Less than half of the 
50 vessels issued Category A or B herring permits are active in the 
herring fishery.
    The impact of management measures on fishing-related businesses and 
communities is typically based on an analysis of revenue. But in an 
effort to better understand income from fishing trips, a survey of 
herring and mackerel vessels collected more detailed cost information 
for 2014, including payments to crew, repairs, maintenance, upgrades, 
and permitting costs. This additional information was used to calculate 
the vessel RTO for 2014 by subtracting fixed and operational costs from 
gross revenue, thereby providing a general framework for understanding 
the interaction between revenue and monitoring requirement costs.
    Analysis in the EA estimates that at-sea monitoring coverage 
associated with the 50-percent coverage target has the potential to 
reduce annual RTO for vessels with Category A or B herring permits up 
to 20 percent and up to an additional 5 percent for midwater trawl 
access to Groundfish Closed Areas. Electronic monitoring and portside 
sampling may be a more cost effective way for herring vessels to 
satisfy industry-funded monitoring requirements. At the conclusion of 
our electronic monitoring project aboard midwater trawl vessels, we 
estimated industry's cost for electronic monitoring and portside 
sampling at $515 per day. Analysis in the EA estimates a reduction in 
annual RTO of up to 10 percent for electronic monitoring and portside 
sampling coverage.
    At the Council's request, we reduced the herring ACL for 2018 
(49,900 mt) on August 22, 2018, and reduced the herring ACL for 2019 
(15,065 mt) on February 8, 2019, from the ACL that was in place during 
2014 (104,088 mt).
    To assess how a reduction in herring ACL may affect revenue, we 
compared herring revenue generated by Category A and B herring vessels 
from 2014 to 2018 (see Table 1). Even though the 2018 ACL was reduced 
by 52 percent (54,188 mt) from the 2014 ACL, the impact on 2018 revenue 
was not proportional to the reduction in ACL and differed by gear type.

[[Page 7421]]



                      Table 1--Change in Category A and B Herring Revenue From 2014 to 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2014 herring    2018 herring   Change in herring
                          Gear type                                revenue         revenue          revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midwater Trawl...............................................     $13,439,000      $7,886,000        -$5,553,000
Purse Seine..................................................      11,000,000      13,088,000         +2,088,000
Bottom Trawl.................................................       1,508,000       1,017,000           -491,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NMFS.

    The change in herring revenue between 2014 may have been affected 
by several factors, such as the availability of herring relative to the 
demand and vessel participation in other fisheries. The price of 
herring increased almost 70 percent between 2014 and 2018 from 
approximately $310 per mt to $525 per mt. While the price of herring is 
not likely to increase every year, we expect that a herring price 
increase would mitigate the negative economic impact of lowering the 
ACL. Total revenue from all fisheries for small-mesh bottom trawl 
vessels increased by approximately $25,000,000 between 2014 and 2018 
suggesting vessels are expanding their participation in other 
fisheries. We expect that increases in total revenue from other 
fisheries would also mitigate the negative economic impacts of 
reductions to the herring ACL and associated revenue.
    At its September 2019 meeting, the Council recommended further 
reducing the herring ACL for 2020 and 2021 (11,621 mt). These catch 
levels are consistent with Council's new harvest policy for herring 
developed in Amendment 8 to the Herring FMP and recommendations from 
the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee. If the 2020 herring 
stock assessment determines recruitment and biomass are higher than 
expected, the Council may request an increase to the 2021 ACL.
    While the economic impact of industry-funded monitoring coverage on 
the herring fishery is affected by revenue, the level of fishing effort 
and SBRM coverage would also affect the economic impact of industry-
funded monitoring. Analyses in the EA estimate the coverage days to 
achieve the 50-percent coverage target in the herring fishery in 2014. 
In an effort to estimate the maximum number of coverage days, that 
particular analysis did not account for SBRM coverage or coverage 
waivers for trips landing less than 50 mt of herring. To assess how 
changes in the herring fishery may affect industry-funded monitoring 
coverage, we re-estimated the coverage days to achieve the 50-percent 
coverage target for 2020. Our updated analysis adjusts for recent 
vessel activity, low herring ACL, recent SBRM coverage, and coverage 
waivers for trips landing less than 50 mt of herring. The change in 
estimated average coverage days to achieve the 50-percent coverage 
target from 2014 to 2020 is shown in Table 2.

Table 2--Estimated Reduction in Industry-Funded Monitoring Coverage Days To Achieve a 50-Percent Coverage Target
                                                From 2014 to 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Gear type                            2014                        2020             Change in days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midwater Trawl..........................  Up to 728 days (14          Up to 54 days (9-11                   -674
                                           vessels).                   vessels).
Purse Seine.............................  Up to 196 days (7 vessels)  Up to 67 days (5 vessels).            -129
Bottom Trawl............................  Up to 108 days (9 vessels)  Up to 29 days (2 vessels).             -79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NMFS.

    The reduction in expected industry-funded monitoring coverage days 
and vessels participating in the herring fishery from 2014 to 2020 is 
largely driven by changes in fishing behavior, likely linked to the 
availability of herring (distribution and seasonality) and a low 
herring ACL in 2020. Because the RTO analysis was, in part, based on 
economic data collected with a special cost survey that could not be 
repeated in a timely way for this action, it is not possible to update 
that analysis for 2020. However, fewer sea days required to achieve the 
50-percent coverage target will result in lower industry costs in 2020 
than what the EA estimated for 2014. Fewer coverage days and fewer 
active vessels in 2020 (and likely 2021) is expected to mitigate the 
negative economic impacts of reductions to the herring ACL and 
associated revenue.
    We also expect midwater trawl fishing effort in Groundfish Closed 
Areas to be lower in 2020 than was estimated for 2014. Without 
considering SBRM coverage, the EA estimates midwater trawl vessels may 
purchase observer coverage for up to approximately 250 coverage days to 
access Groundfish Closed Areas in 2014. After adjusting for recent 
vessel activity and a low herring ACL and assuming recent SBRM 
coverage, we estimate that midwater trawl vessels may purchase coverage 
for up to 30 coverage days to access Groundfish Closed Areas in 2020 
(and likely 2021). Even though purchasing observer coverage to access 
Groundfish Closed Areas is optional, few coverage days and fewer active 
vessels in 2020 is expected to mitigate the negative economic impacts 
of reductions to the herring ACL and associated revenue.
    As recommended by the Council, we intend to offer an EFP in 2020 
and 2021 to allow vessels to use electronic monitoring and portside 
sampling in lieu of at-sea monitoring coverage to achieve the 50-
percent coverage target. Depending on vessel interest and sampling 
logistics, that same EFP may also allow midwater trawl vessels to 
access Groundfish Closed Areas or evaluate electronic monitoring for 
other gear types (e.g., purse seine or bottom trawl) used in the 
herring fishery. Analyses in the EA and updated estimates at the 
conclusion of our electronic monitoring project aboard midwater trawl 
vessels, suggest that electronic monitoring and portside sampling is 
likely less expensive and more cost effective than either at-sea 
monitoring or observer coverage. Excluding the initial cost associated 
with purchasing and installing

[[Page 7422]]

electronic monitoring equipment, video review and storage are likely 
the most substantial ongoing industry costs associated with using 
electronic monitoring. A portion of our Federal funding to administer 
industry-funded monitoring in the herring fishery is designated to help 
offset industry's video review and storage costs. Federal funding 
helping offset industry's electronic monitoring sampling costs is 
expected to minimize the economic impact of industry-funded monitoring 
coverage on the herring fishery. Participating in the EFP is expected 
to mitigate the negative economic impacts of reductions to the herring 
ACL and associated revenue.
    High herring prices and low coverage days to achieve the 50-percent 
coverage target are likely short-term influences on the economic impact 
of industry-funded monitoring coverage on the herring fishery 
associated with a low herring ACL. If herring recruitment and biomass 
return to average levels, the long-term economic impact of industry-
funded monitoring coverage on the herring fishery is likely consistent 
with estimated impacts analyzed and described in the EA.
    Additionally, the EA analyzes a range of coverage targets for at-
sea monitoring and electronic monitoring and portside sampling aboard 
Category A and B vessels, including 100 percent, 75 percent, 50 
percent, and 25 percent. The EA estimates the reduction in annual RTO 
associated with these coverage target alternatives ranged from 42 
percent to less than 1 percent. Despite reductions in expected revenue 
for 2020 and 2021, we expect the reduction of annual RTO associated 
with implementing a 50-percent coverage target for at-sea monitoring 
aboard Category A and B vessels to be within this analyzed range.
    After considering the action, new information, and new 
circumstances, we determined that the action and its impacts fall 
within the scope of the existing EA. It is not necessary to develop a 
new NEPA analysis because (1) the action is identical to the proposed 
action analyzed in the EA and (2) no new information or circumstances 
relevant to environmental concerns or impacts of the action are 
significantly different from when the EA's finding of no significant 
impact was signed on December 17, 2018. Thus, the FONSI for existing EA 
for the New England Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment 
remains valid to support implementing this amendment.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    This rule includes minor changes from the proposed rule to clarify 
requirements. First, it revises the definition for slippage in the 
Atlantic herring fishery to make it consistent with the definition for 
slips and slipping catch in the Atlantic herring fishery and clarifies 
that slippage applies when a NMFS-certified observer or monitor is 
aboard the vessel.
    Second, this rule aligns the herring coverage target with the SBRM 
year (April-March) instead of the fishing year (January-December) and 
adjusts the date by which the herring industry selects a monitoring 
type for the following year (October instead of July). This change 
ensures the coverage target will be more predictable for the entire 
year rather than changing with the SBRM year. NMFS will determine how 
to calculate the coverage target in consultation with Council staff.
    Third, this rule removes ``on a declared herring trip'' from the 
criteria described at Sec.  648.11(m)(2)(i) and revises the list of 
required information at Sec.  648.11(m)(2)(i) to clarify when and how 
the owner, operator, or manager of a herring vessel must notify NMFS of 
a herring trip. The existing notification requirement describes that 
vessels issued certain herring permits or acting as herring carriers 
must notify NMFS of trips on which a vessel may harvest, possess, or 
land herring. Because pre-trip notifications are required at least 48 
hours in advance of a trip and trip declarations are required just 
prior to a vessel leaving port on a trip, the existing criteria absent 
the reference to ``on a declared herring trip'' is a more logical 
descriptor of when a vessel is required to notify NMFS of a herring 
trip. The list of required information is revised to support NMFS 
selecting vessels for industry-funded monitoring coverage.
    Fourth, this rule corrects references to Sec.  648.11 to reflect 
provisions implemented in this rule.

Comments and Responses

    We received 20 comment letters on the NOA and proposed rule: 5 from 
participants in the herring fishery (Seafreeze, Lund's Fisheries, 
Providian, O'Hara Corporation); 3 from fishing industry organizations 
(CHOIR Coalition, New England Purse Seiner's Alliance (NEPSA), and Cape 
Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance (CCCFA); 3 from environmental 
advocacy groups (Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) and Cause of Action 
Institute (COA)); and 9 from members of the public.
    Comment 1: COA and Seafreeze commented that the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) does not 
authorize an industry-funded monitoring program as envisioned by the 
Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment. They cautioned that the amendment 
intends to standardize the development of industry-funded monitoring 
programs, yet it fails to identify any specific provision in the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act granting it such authority. COA also commented 
that the Council does not have explicit statutory authorization to 
require the industry to fund discretionary supplemental at-sea 
monitoring programs. COA and Seafreeze explained that the Magnuson-
Stevens Act only explicitly authorizes industry-funded monitoring for 
foreign fishing, limited access privilege programs (LAPPs), and the 
North Pacific fisheries research plan. They cautioned that because the 
Magnuson-Steven Act caps industry fees related to LAPPs at 3 percent of 
ex-vessel revenue, the agency does not have the ability to require the 
fishing industry to pay data collection and monitoring costs without 
limit.
    Response: We disagree. The Magnuson-Stevens Act expressly 
authorizes onboard human monitors to be carried on fishing vessels 
``for the purpose of collecting data necessary for the conservation and 
management of the fishery.'' 16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(8). The requirement to 
carry observers, along with many other requirements under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, includes compliance costs on industry participants. For 
example, NMFS regulations require fishing vessels to install vessel 
monitoring systems for monitoring vessel positions and fishing, report 
catch electronically, fish with certain gear types or mesh sizes, or 
ensure a vessel is safe before an observer may be carried on a vessel. 
Vessels pay costs to third-parties for services or goods in order to 
comply with these regulatory requirements that are authorized by the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. There are also opportunity costs imposed by 
restrictions on vessel sizes, fish sizes, fishing areas, or fishing 
seasons. These industry costs are not ``fees.'' A fee is a form of 
``funding'' where the industry is assessed a payment by the agency, 
authorized by statute, to be deposited in the U.S. Treasury and 
disbursed for administrative costs otherwise borne by the agency. This 
amendment does not address administrative costs that are charged in 
LAPPs and are subject to the 3 percent cap.
    The need for monitoring and the data it provides is discussed in 
the amendment. Section 1.1 of the amendment explains that the Council 
is

[[Page 7423]]

establishing the framework for industry-funded monitoring programs 
because of its interest in increasing monitoring and/or other types of 
data collection in some FMPs to assess the amount and type of catch, to 
more accurately monitor annual catch limits, and/or provide other 
information for management. The Council's goals for industry-funded 
monitoring in the herring fishery are described in Section 2.2 of the 
amendment and include: (1) Accurate estimates of catch (retained and 
discarded); (2) accurate catch estimates for incidental species for 
which catch caps apply; and (3) affordable monitoring for the herring 
fishery. The Council's rationale for increased monitoring through 
industry-funded monitoring programs is consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act provision ``for the purpose of collecting data appropriate 
for the conservation and management of the fishery.''
    Comment 2: COA and Seafreeze claim that the amendment is 
inconsistent with Federal appropriations laws and the U.S. 
Constitution. They commented that Congress decides how to finance any 
program it establishes, stating that a Federal agency cannot spend 
money on a program without authorization from Congress and cannot add 
to its appropriations from sources outside the government without 
permission from Congress. COA and Seafreeze caution that the type of 
industry-funded program set forth in the amendment imposes a ``tax'' on 
regulated parties. COA raised additional concerns that the industry 
funded program may violate the Anti-Deficiency Act and Miscellaneous 
Receipts Statute. Further, COA stated the amendment violates the Fourth 
Amendment to, and the Commerce Clause in, the U.S. Constitution. Last, 
Seafreeze expressed concern that the amendment violates the Fifth 
Amendment to the Constitution because data collected using industry 
funds could be used in enforcement actions.
    Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act expressly authorizes measures, 
including monitoring, ``for the purpose of collecting data necessary 
for the conservation and management of the fishery.'' It also 
acknowledges such measures may result in costs to the fishing industry 
as evident by its requirement to, where practicable, minimize costs and 
adverse economic impacts on communities. The inherent cost of a 
requirement, like industry-funding monitoring, is not the same as a 
``tax.'' A hallmark of a tax is that the government receives some 
revenue. The government receives no revenue from industry-funded 
monitoring. Similar to arrangements between vessels and vessel 
monitoring system service providers, the payment for industry cost 
responsibilities associated with industry-funded monitoring would be 
made by the vessel to the monitoring service provider. Because the 
agency would not receive any payment from the vessel related to 
industry-funded monitoring, this amendment is consistent with the Anti-
Deficiency Act and Miscellaneous Receipts Statue. Industry-funded 
monitoring in the herring fishery does not does not violate the 
Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to 
regulate commerce, because NMFS is regulating existing economic 
activity, which is permissible under the Commerce Clause. Industry-
funded monitoring does not violate the Fourth Amendment protection 
against unreasonable searches and seizures because it is neither a 
search nor unreasonable if it was considered to be a search. At-sea 
monitors are not authorized officers conducting vessel searches for 
purposes of ensuring compliance with fisheries requirements. Further, 
the fishing industry is pervasively regulated, and monitoring is 
reasonable as authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to receive 
critical fisheries data. Last, the amendment does not violate the Fifth 
Amendment to the Constitution because the monitoring requirement does 
not compel evidence that is testimonial in nature. An at-sea monitor 
simply records the results of the vessel's actions. An individual's 
participation in the fishery is voluntary, and an individual may choose 
to land less than the 50 mt of herring per trip threshold for requiring 
industry-funded monitoring. Further, monitoring is a regulatory 
reporting requirement, to which the Fifth Amendment privilege does not 
apply. Last, the information provided is not for purposes of 
discovering criminal violations. The herring fishery is a regulated 
industry under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provides for civil 
penalties for fisheries catch violations, not criminal sanctions. Any 
potentially incriminating evidence would be merely a byproduct of the 
requirement for industry-funded monitoring.
    Comment 3: Seafreeze commented that because the amendment was 
initiated jointly by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils, it was 
led to believe that identical omnibus measures would need to be 
selected by both Councils. Seafreeze expressed concern that the 
potential of only one Council adopting the amendment was not considered 
during the development of the amendment and, therefore, recommended the 
omnibus measures be disapproved.
    Response: When the New England Council took final action on the 
Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment in April 2017, it considered 
whether to make its recommendations contingent upon a similar action by 
the Mid-Atlantic Council, but decided against it. Instead, the Council 
overwhelmingly approved the omnibus measures for its FMPs, with the 
exception of FMPs managed jointly with the Mid-Atlantic Council (i.e., 
Monkfish and Spiny Dogfish FMPs) and the herring measures in the 
amendment and recommended the amendment be submitted to the agency for 
review and approval. The Mid-Atlantic Council considered industry-
funded monitoring for its FMPs at its April 2017 and October 2018 
meetings, but decided not to pursue it. Mid-Atlantic fishermen had an 
opportunity to participate and submit their concerns to the Mid-
Atlantic Council during those meetings. Mid-Atlantic representatives to 
the New England Council also had an opportunity to present the Mid-
Atlantic Council's concerns to the New England Council during the 
amendment's development. Further, while the omnibus measures, 
especially the prioritization process, were designed to be appropriate 
for both Councils, they were never intended to obligate a Council to 
establish provisions for industry-funded monitoring. Therefore, as 
explained in the proposed rule (83 FR 55665; November 7, 2018), the 
joint amendment initiated by both Councils to allow for industry-funded 
monitoring became the New England Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus 
Amendment and, as such, omnibus measures only apply to New England 
Council FMPs. The omnibus measures do not impose any substantive burden 
on any Mid-Atlantic fishery. Rather, the amendment sets up the 
framework under which future potential monitoring programs for New 
England fisheries would be established. If the Mid-Atlantic Council 
reconsiders industry-funded monitoring it a future action, it may 
consider whether to adopt similar omnibus measures at that time.
    Comment 4: COA commented that our publication of Federal Register 
notices for the Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment caused confusion. 
It questioned why we published an NOA in September 2018 seeking public 
comment on the approval or disapproval of the amendment followed

[[Page 7424]]

by a proposed rule with implementing regulations in November 2018 prior 
to finalizing our decision on the amendment. COA suggested that by 
publishing the notices for the approval/disapproval of the amendment 
and implementing regulations concurrently, that we had already made a 
decision on the amendment and would view public comments with 
prejudice. Additionally, the O'Hara Corporation was concerned that we 
approved the amendment in December 2018, prior to the closing of the 
public comment period on the proposed rule. O'Hara Corporation was 
disappointed in our process for notice and comment and wondered how 
public comments received after the amendment approval were considered.
    Response: It is our practice to publish an NOA and proposed rule 
concurrently. The NOA for the Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment was 
published on September 19, 2018, with a comment period ending November 
19, 2018. The proposed rule for the amendment was published on November 
7, 2018, with a comment period ending December 24, 2018. The comment 
periods for the NOA and proposed rule overlapped for 13 days. Both the 
NOA and proposed rule explained that any public comments we received on 
the amendment or the proposed rule during the NOA comment period would 
be considered in our decision to approve/disapprove the amendment.
    We received seven comment letters during the NOA comment period. 
Those commenters expressed diverse views on the Industry-Funded 
Monitoring Amendment and recommended we approve, disapprove, and re-
consider the amendment. We carefully reviewed and considered all of 
those comments prior to approving the amendment on December 18, 2018. 
NMFS must approve/disapprove an amendment within 30 days of the end of 
the comment period on the amendment. The decision date for the 
Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment was December 19, 2018. Therefore, 
it would not have been possible to consider all public comments 
received through December 24, 2018, in the decision to approve/
disapprove the Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment.
    The proposed rule explained that we would consider any public 
comment received after the NOA comment period but during the proposed 
rule comment period in our decision to implement proposed measures. We 
reviewed and considered all additional comments received during the 
proposed rule comment period prior to publishing this final rule. 
Commenters did not provide any new or additional information during the 
public comment period on the proposed rule that would have prevented us 
from approving the Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment.
    Comment 5: Seafreeze disagreed with the conclusions in the EA 
regarding impacts of the omnibus measures on fishery-related business 
and human communities. Specifically, it questioned assertions that 
omnibus measures would have no direct impacts, that costs are too 
speculative to analyze, and that standardized industry-funded 
monitoring requirements would have a positive impact. Seafreeze also 
commented that the impact of any future industry-funded monitoring 
program on fishery-related business and communities would be negative.
    Response: The EA explains that omnibus measures are tools for the 
Council to use when developing future industry-funded monitoring 
programs. The omnibus measures have no direct biological impacts 
because they do not directly affect the level of fishing, fishing 
operations, amount of fish harvested, or area fished. Additionally, the 
omnibus measures do not have any direct economic impacts on fishery-
related business or human communities because they do not require the 
development of industry-funded monitoring programs nor do they directly 
impose any costs. Categorizing and characterizing industry cost 
responsibilities in this action could provide the industry with 
information to better understand and plan for their industry-funded 
monitoring cost responsibilities as well negotiate better contracts 
with industry-funded monitoring service providers, which may ultimately 
reduce the dollar amount associated with industry cost 
responsibilities. Improved catch information that results from the 
opportunity to align funding with the most critical industry-funded 
monitoring programs may lead to better management of biological 
resources, which may eventually lead to higher harvest levels.
    In the future, if the Council developed an industry-funded 
monitoring program for a particular FMP, the EA acknowledges there 
would be direct negative economic impacts to fishing vessels provided 
vessels were required to pay for increased monitoring. Future industry-
funded monitoring programs would be developed to achieve specific 
goals. Without knowing the goals or the details of the measures to 
achieve those goals, attempting to quantify in this amendment the 
impact or the specific benefits of a future industry-funded monitoring 
program is too speculative. The economic impacts to fishing vessels and 
benefits resulting from a future industry-funded monitoring program 
would be evaluated in the amendment to establish that industry-funded 
monitoring program and cannot considered in this amendment.
    Comment 6: COA commented that the introduction of industry-funded 
monitoring across the Greater Atlantic Region would impose a tremendous 
economic burden on the fishing industry that could lead to the 
elimination of small-scale fishing. As an example, COA referenced a 
2016 letter by the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association in which 
the Association states the $800 per day cost of monitoring would force 
more than half of its fleet out of business.
    Response: Generalizing economic impacts associated with industry-
funded monitoring programs is often inaccurate. Members of the Long 
Island Commercial Fishing Association participate in a variety of 
fisheries, including vessels using small-mesh bottom trawl gear in the 
herring fishery. The $800 cost per covered day is the estimated cost 
for observer coverage in the herring fishery. The Industry-Funded 
Monitoring Amendment does not require observer coverage on small-mesh 
bottom trawl vessels in the herring fishery, instead it establishes a 
50-percent coverage for at-sea monitoring coverage on declared herring 
trips at an estimated cost of $710 per day of coverage. Additionally, 
the Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment does not require industry-
funded monitoring coverage on trips intending to land less than 50 mt 
of herring. For those trips, the vessel owner/operator would request a 
waiver for industry-funded monitoring coverage and would not be 
responsible for industry-funded monitoring costs on that trip. The 
amendment estimated that waiving coverage on trips that land less than 
50 mt of herring would result in industry-funded monitoring coverage on 
only 19 percent of trips by small-mesh bottom trawl vessels. More 
recently, when we only considered small-mesh bottom trawl vessels with 
Category A or B permits that had been active in the herring fishery in 
the last two years, we found that industry-funded monitoring 
requirements would likely only apply to only two small-mesh bottom 
trawl vessels. For these reasons, we disagree that the implementation 
of industry-funded monitoring in the herring fishery would lead to the 
elimination of small-scale fishing in the Greater Atlantic Region.

[[Page 7425]]

    Comment 7: Seafreeze expressed concern that vessels participating 
in New England and Mid-Atlantic fisheries on the same trip may be 
subject to industry-funded monitoring requirements, even though the 
Mid-Atlantic Council did not adopt the this amendment. COA commented 
the EA fails to address the possibility of overlapping requirements for 
industry-funded monitoring in multiple fisheries.
    Response: Similar to other measures in FMPs (e.g., possession 
limits, gear restrictions, or reporting requirements), vessels are 
subject to the most restrictive requirements when participating in 
multiple fisheries on a single trip. With the understanding that 
vessels participate in multiple fisheries, the EA explicitly considers 
revenue and operational costs associated with participation in the 
herring, Atlantic mackerel, and squid fisheries. Because herring and 
mackerel are often harvested together on the same trip, the amendment 
specifies that the higher coverage target applies on trips declared 
into both fisheries. If the Council considers industry-funded 
monitoring in other fisheries in the future, the impacts of those 
programs relative to existing industry-funded monitoring programs will 
be considered at that time.
    Comment 8: Several commenters expressed opinions on the relative 
costs and benefits of industry-funded monitoring. CLF, CCCFA, and CHOIR 
generally support the industry-funded monitoring requirements for the 
herring fishery, but are concerned that anything less than 100-percent 
coverage, especially when combined with coverage waivers, may undermine 
the effectiveness of additional monitoring. In contrast, Lund's 
cautioned that the 50-percent coverage target for the herring fishery 
is higher than necessary and wastes scarce agency and industry 
resources by monitoring a fishery with a low bycatch rate. COA 
commented that the amendment is inconsistent with National Standards 7 
and 8 because it fails to explain why increased monitoring is 
necessary, in light of the financial burden it will place on the 
fishing industry, or how the amendment would minimize adverse economic 
impacts and provide for the sustained participation of communities.
    Response: This amendment establishes industry-funded monitoring in 
the herring fishery to help increase the accuracy of catch estimates, 
especially for species with incidental catch caps (i.e., haddock and 
river herring/shad). Our decision to approve this amendment included 
weighing the benefits of the measures relative to the costs, especially 
the industry's cost associated with additional monitoring. We concluded 
that the Council's measures minimize costs to the extent practicable 
and take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing 
communities to provide for their sustained participation in the fishery 
and minimize the adverse economic impacts of these measures on those 
communities.
    The 50-percent coverage target for vessels with Category A or B 
herring permits has the potential to reduce uncertainty around catch 
estimates in the herring fishery, thereby improving catch estimation 
for stock assessments and management. SBRM coverage on vessels 
participating in the herring fishery is variable. Recent coverage has 
ranged from 2 percent to 40 percent during 2012 to 2018. Analysis in 
the EA suggests a 50-percent coverage target would reduce the 
uncertainty around estimates of catch tracked against catch caps, 
likely resulting in a CV of less than 30 percent for the majority of 
catch caps. If increased monitoring reduces the uncertainty in the 
catch of haddock and river herring and shad tracked against catch caps, 
herring vessels may be more constrained by catch caps, thereby 
increasing accountability, or they may be less constrained by catch 
caps and better able to fully harvest herring sub-ACLs. Recent CVs 
associated with catch caps constraining the herring fishery have been 
as high as 86 percent. Improving our ability to track catch against 
catch limits is expected to support the herring fishery achieve optimum 
yield, minimize bycatch and incidental catch to the extent practicable, 
and support the sustained participation of fishing communities. 
Coverage waivers would only be issued under specific circumstances, 
when monitors are unavailable or trips have minimal to no catch, and 
are not expected to reduce the benefits of additional monitoring. This 
amendment does not require additional monitoring aboard herring vessels 
in Groundfish Closed Areas. Rather it maintains an existing requirement 
for 100-percent observer coverage on herring midwater trawl vessels 
fishing inside of Groundfish Closed Areas, but provides flexibility for 
vessels by allowing the purchase of observer coverage to access 
Groundfish Closed Areas.
    While the economic impact of industry-funding monitoring on 
participants in the herring fishery may be substantial, we considered 
the nature and extent of these costs relative to the benefits of 
additional monitoring, such as reducing uncertainty around catch 
estimates to improve management, and measures to mitigate costs.
    Recognizing the potential economic impact of industry-funded 
monitoring on the herring industry, the Council recommended several 
measures to minimize the impact of paying for additional coverage. 
Setting the coverage target at 50 percent, instead of 75 or 100 
percent, balances the benefit of additional monitoring with the costs 
associated with additional monitoring. Allowing SBRM coverage to 
contribute toward the 50-percent coverage target for at-sea monitoring 
is expected to reduce costs for the industry. Waiving industry-funded 
monitoring requirements on certain trips, including trips that land 
less than 50 mt of herring and pair trawl trips carrying no fish, would 
minimize the cost of additional monitoring. Trips that land less than 
50 mt are common for small-mesh bottom trawl, single midwater trawl, 
and purse seine vessels. As such, the 50-mt exemption has the potential 
to result in a less than 5 percent reduction in annual RTO associated 
with at-sea monitoring coverage for those vessels. Electronic 
monitoring and portside sampling may be a more cost effective way for 
midwater trawl vessels to meet the 50-percent coverage target 
requirement than at-sea monitoring coverage. Analysis in the EA 
estimates that electronic monitoring and portside sampling coverage has 
the potential to reduce annual RTO up to 10 percent instead of the 20 
percent reduction associated with at-sea monitoring coverage.
    The amendment also includes measures to ensure the Council 
considers the cost of additional monitoring relative to its 
effectiveness and provides the flexibility to adjust measures if 
industry-funded monitoring requirements for the herring fishery become 
too onerous. Herring measures require the Council to review the 
industry-funded monitoring requirements two years after implementation. 
Omnibus measures allow the Council to modify the weighting approach to 
recommend to us how to prioritize Federal funding across industry-
funded monitoring programs. If the Council wants to recommend that we 
not prioritize Federal funding to administer industry-funded monitoring 
in herring fishery, essentially recommending no additional monitoring 
for the herring fishery, it would consider the new weighting approach 
at a public meeting and request us to publish a rulemaking modifying 
the weighting approach. Additionally, if we find that coverage waivers 
undermine the benefits of

[[Page 7426]]

additional monitoring, the Council could restrict waivers when it 
reviews the industry-funded monitoring requirements two years after 
implementation.
    Comment 9: Seafreeze and COA commented that industry-funding 
monitoring in the herring fishery disproportionately affects Seafreeze 
vessels and any other vessels that make multi-day trips processing 
catch at sea in violation of National Standard 6's requirement to take 
into account and allow for variations among fisheries, fishery 
resources, and catch. Seafreeze explained that despite a relatively low 
daily production capacity (57 mt), its vessels would not qualify for a 
coverage waiver, like other small-mesh bottom trawl vessels, because 
its vessels make longer than average trips processing and freezing 
catch from multiple fisheries. Seafreeze also commented that, according 
to the EA, the 50-percent coverage target would cost it $80,000 per 
year ($40,000 per vessel) on trips that do not land herring.
    Response: We disagree. In an effort to minimize the economic impact 
of industry-funded monitoring, the Council explicitly considered 
measures to address Seafreeze's concern about disproportional impacts 
on its vessels, including considering alternatives for coverage waivers 
for trips when landings would be less than 20-percent herring or less 
than 50 mt of herring per day. Ultimately, the Council determined that 
the potential for a relatively high herring catches per trip aboard 
those vessels warranted additional monitoring and chose the 50 mt per 
trip threshold. The EA estimates the effort and monitoring costs 
associated with declared herring trips that ultimately did not land 
herring. In 2014, there were 111 sea days for small-mesh bottom trawl 
vessels that had no herring landings. The cost of at-sea monitoring 
coverage on 50 percent of those trips was estimated at just under 
$40,000. That $40,000 is the total cost for monitoring all small-mesh 
bottom trawl vessels for the year. Therefore, it is highly unlikely 
that Seafreeze would be paying $80,000 per year for at-sea monitoring 
on trips that did not land herring. As described previously, the 
Council has the flexibility to recommend we not prioritize Federal 
funding for industry-funded monitoring in the herring fishery and/or 
adjust measures if industry-funded monitoring requirements for the 
herring fishery become too onerous or do not allow for variations 
among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.
    Comment 10: Several commenters (CLF, CCCFA, Lund's) support the 
option to allow midwater trawl vessels to purchase observers to access 
Groundfish Closed Areas. However, CLF and CCCFA object to midwater 
trawl vessels having any additional access to Groundfish Closed Areas, 
including access to areas maintained as Groundfish Closed Areas in the 
recent Omnibus Habitat Amendment.
    Response: We acknowledge the commenters support for the measure 
allowing midwater trawl vessels to purchase an observer to access 
Groundfish Closed Areas. This amendment does not relax any restrictions 
for Groundfish Closed Areas implemented in the recent Omnibus Habitat 
Amendment.
    Comment 11: Several commenters were concerned with recent catch 
limit reductions in the herring fishery and how that affects the 
economic impact of industry-funded monitoring. The specifics of their 
comments are as follows:
     COA, Providian, and Seafreeze noted that economic impacts 
for the herring fishery were analyzed based on revenue and operating 
costs from 2014 and do not reflect the recent reductions in ACLs;
     Providian acknowledges that lower ACLs means fewer fishing 
trips and recommends continued SBRM coverage in the herring fishery;
     Lund's recommends SBRM coverage, in conjunction with the 
existing state-administered portside sampling program, as the best 
investment to understand catch in herring fishery; and
     Lund's, Providian, and O'Hara request the amendment be 
delayed, at least until after 2021, in hopes that future increases in 
herring harvest and revenue would be able to support industry-funded 
monitoring.
    Response: As discussed in the preamble, we acknowledge that herring 
effort, catch, and resulting revenue will likely be lower in 2020 and 
2021 than in prior years, such that the cost of industry-funded 
monitoring relative to herring catch and revenue may be high in the 
short-term. However, the magnitude of that impact on individual vessels 
and businesses is likely variable and would be mitigated by several 
factors, which are discussed in the preamble section addressing our 
NEPA considerations.
    Comment 12: Four members of the public supported this amendment and 
believe increased monitoring is necessary for sustainable FMPs. For two 
of those individuals, their support is conditional on the economic 
impact of the amendment, specifically that the amendment does not 
overburden an already struggling New England fishing industry.
    Response: We appreciate the commenters' support for this amendment 
and note the amendment includes several measures to minimize the 
economic impact on the herring industry of paying for additional 
coverage.
    Comment 13: Several commenters provided input on the EFP to further 
evaluate how to best permanently administer an electronic monitoring 
and portside sampling program. The specifics of their comments are as 
follows:
     NEPSA, CLF, CCCFA, and CHOIR supported us using an EFP to 
initially administer electronic monitoring and portside sampling in the 
herring fishery and urged us to quickly transition to electronic 
monitoring in the herring fishery because electronic monitoring 
provides a more cost effective and accurate means to monitor the 
herring fishery than human monitors;
     CHOIR and NEPSA urged us to allow purse seine vessels to 
participate in the EFP and explained that lessons learned from the 
midwater trawl electronic monitoring study would apply to purse seine 
vessels as both gear types capture fish in nets and bring those nets 
alongside the vessels to pump fish aboard;
     NEPSA asserted that electronic monitoring is easier for 
vessel operators than at-sea monitoring coverage because it does not 
involve the logistics of carrying a human monitor and noted that 
allowing purse seine vessels to participate in the EFP would increase 
the number of participants and help decrease the per-vessel cost of 
using electronic monitoring;
     Lund's commented that it supports us using an EFP to 
further evaluate an electronic monitoring and portside sampling 
program, but at this time prefers human monitors to electronic 
monitoring;
     CLF and CHOIR advocated that net sensors be incorporated 
into the EFP to help quantify the amount of slipped catch and CHOIR 
hoped that electronic monitoring can be developed to identify the 
contents and estimate the amount of slipped catch; and
     CLF requested the EFP include documenting all discards, 
verifying compliance with slippage requirements and consequence 
measures, 100-percent video review, documenting interactions with 
protected species, and complementary coverage by SBRM observers.
    Response: We acknowledge commenters' support for the EFP and will 
consider these recommendations as

[[Page 7427]]

the terms and conditions of the EFP are finalized.
    Comment 14: One member of the public supported developing future 
industry-funded monitoring programs via amendment to allow for public 
input and standardizing industry-funded monitoring programs to help 
ensure fairness across fisheries.
    Response: We acknowledge the commenter's support for omnibus 
measures in the amendment.
    Comment 15: One individual commented that additional monitoring, 
especially industry-funded monitoring for herring, is unnecessary 
because herring are numerous and not at risk of extinction. The 
individual is not convinced the Council considered its own criteria for 
the development of an industry-funded monitoring program, such as a 
clear need for the data collection, cost of collection, less data 
intensive methods, prioritizing modern technology, and incentive for 
reliable self-reporting. Instead, the commenter recommended tracking 
catch by using fishing industry reporting to NMFS of the weight of fish 
sold.
    Response: We disagree. The Council identified and supported the 
need for additional monitoring as reducing uncertainty around catch 
estimates in the herring fishery, thereby improving catch estimation 
for stock assessments and management, as noted in the response to 
Comment 8. The Council considered less data intensive methods, 
prioritizing modern technology, and incentives for self-reporting by 
allowing vessels to use either at-sea monitoring or electronic 
monitoring and portside sampling coverage to satisfy industry-funded 
monitoring requirements. In contrast to observers, at-sea monitors 
would not collect whole specimens, photos, or biological samples (other 
than length data) from catch, unless it was for purposes of species 
identification, or sighting data on protected species. The Council 
recommended a limited data collection for at-sea monitors compared to 
observers to allow for possible cost savings for either the industry or 
NMFS associated with a limited data collection. Because midwater trawl 
vessels discard only a small percentage of catch at sea, electronic 
monitoring and portside sampling have the potential to be a cost 
effective way to address monitoring goals for the herring fishery. 
Analysis in the EA estimates that electronic monitoring and portside 
sampling coverage has the potential to reduce annual RTO up to 10 
percent instead of the 20 percent reduction associated with at-sea 
monitoring coverage.
    We currently track catch in the herring fishery using the weight of 
fish purchased by dealers, but those data are not robust enough to 
track catch against catch caps and would not help reduce the 
uncertainty associated with catch tracked against catch caps.
    Comment 16: Three members of the public provided comments on forest 
management, keeping marine mammals in captivity, and NEPA requirements 
for terrestrial businesses.
    Response: Because those comments are outside the scope of this 
amendment, we are not providing responses to those comments in this 
final rule.

Classification

    The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS determined that 
this amendment is necessary for the conservation and management of New 
England Council FMPs and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and other applicable law.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
    This final rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this 
action is not significant under E.O. 12866.
    NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) in 
support of this action. The FRFA incorporates the initial RFA, a 
summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in 
response to the initial RFA, NMFS responses to those comments, and a 
summary of the analyses completed in support of this action. A 
description of why this action was considered, the objectives of, and 
the legal basis for this rule is contained in in the preamble to the 
proposed and this final rule, and is not repeated here. All of the 
documents that constitute the FRFA and a copy of the EA/RIR/IRFA are 
available upon request (see ADDRESSES) or via the internet at: http://www.nefmc.org.
    The omnibus measures are administrative, specifying a process to 
develop and administer future industry-funded monitoring and monitoring 
set-aside programs, and do not directly affect fishing effort or amount 
of fish harvested. Because the omnibus measures have no direct economic 
impacts, they will not be discussed in this section. The herring 
measures affect levels of monitoring, rather than harvest 
specifications, but they are expected to have economic impacts on 
fishery-related businesses and human communities due to the costs 
associated with the industry-funded monitoring measures for the herring 
fishery.

A Statement of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response 
to the IRFA, a Statement of the Agency's Assessment of Such Issues, and 
a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Final Rule as a Result of Such 
Comments

    We received 18 comment letters on the NOA and proposed rule. Those 
comments, and our responses, are contained in the Comments and 
Responses section of this final rule and are not repeated here. 
Comments 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 discussed the economic impacts of 
the measures, but did not directly comment on the IRFA. All changes 
from the proposed rule, as well as the rationale for those changes, are 
described in the Changes from the Proposed Rule section of this final 
rule and are not repeated here.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the 
Rule Would Apply

    Effective July 1, 2016, NMFS established a small business size 
standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses 
primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry for RFA compliance 
purposes only (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). The directly regulated 
entities are businesses that own at least one limited access Atlantic 
herring vessel. As of 2016, there are 66 businesses that own at least 
one limited access herring vessel. Four businesses are large entities 
(gross receipts greater than $11 million). The remaining 62 businesses 
are small entities. Gross receipts and gross receipts from herring 
fishing for the small entities are characterized in Table 3.

[[Page 7428]]



   Table 3--Gross Revenues and Revenues From Herring for the Directly
                        Regulated Small Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Gross receipts     Gross receipts
                                     from all fishing     from herring
                                        by herring         fishing by
                                     permitted small   herring permitted
                                         entities        small entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean..............................         $1,847,392           $422,210
Median............................          1,076,172                  0
25th Percentile...................            656,965                  0
75th Percentile...................          2,684,753             95,218
Permitted Small Entities..........                 62                 62
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NMFS.

    Many of the businesses that hold limited access herring permits are 
not actively fishing for herring. Of those businesses actively fishing 
for herring, there are 32 directly regulated entities with herring 
landings. Two businesses are large entities (gross receipts over $11 
million). The remaining 30 businesses are small entities. Table 4 
characterizes gross receipts and gross receipts from the herring 
fishery for the active small entities.

    Table 4--Gross Revenues and Revenues From Herring for the Active
                    Directly Regulated Small Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Gross receipts     Gross receipts
                                     from all fishing     from active
                                    by active herring  herring permitted
                                      permitted small   fishing by small
                                         entities           entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean..............................         $2,070,541           $872,567
Median............................          1,030,411             95,558
25th Percentile...................            554,628              6,570
75th Percentile...................          2,955,883          1,696,758
Active Small Entities.............                 30                 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NMFS.

    For the 30 small entities, herring represents an average of 36 
percent of gross receipts. For 12 of the small entities, herring 
represents the single largest source of gross receipts. For eight of 
the small entities, longfin squid is the largest source of gross 
receipts and Atlantic sea scallops is the largest source of gross 
receipts for five of the small entities. The largest source of gross 
receipts for the remaining five small entities are mixed across 
different fisheries. Eight of the 30 small entities derived zero 
revenues from herring.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements 
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The new requirements, 
which are described in detail in the preamble, have been submitted to 
OMB for approval as a revised collection under control number 0648-
0674. The action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any 
other Federal rules.
    The Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment would replace the current 
phone-based observer pre-trip notification system with a new web-based 
pre-trip notification system. There would be no additional reporting 
burden associated with this measure because the new notification system 
would increase convenience and will require approximately the same time 
burden (5 minutes).
    This amendment would implement a 50-percent industry-funded 
monitoring coverage target on vessels issued Category A or B herring 
permits. The herring industry would be required to pay for industry 
cost responsibilities associated with at-sea monitoring. There are an 
estimated 42 vessels with Category A or B permits in the herring 
fishery. After considering SBRM coverage, we estimate that each vessel 
would incur monitoring costs for an additional 19 days at sea per year, 
at an estimated maximum cost of $710 per sea day. The annual cost 
estimate for carrying an at-sea monitor for Category A and B vessels 
would be $566,580, with an average cost per vessel of $13,490.
    In addition to the 50-percent industry-funded monitoring coverage 
target, midwater trawl vessels would have the option to purchase 
observer coverage to allow them to fish in Groundfish Closed Areas. 
This option would be available to the estimated 12 vessels that fish 
with midwater trawl gear. Because this option would be available on all 
trips not otherwise selected for SBRM or industry-funded coverage, it 
is estimated that each vessel may use this option for up to 21 days per 
year, at an estimated maximum cost of $818 per sea day. Therefore, the 
annual cost associated with industry-funded observer coverage for 
midwater trawl vessels fishing in Groundfish Closed Areas is estimated 
to be $206,136, with an average annual cost per vessel of $17,178.
    To access Groundfish Closed Areas, owners/operators of the 12 
affected midwater trawl vessels would request an observer by calling 
one of the approved monitoring service providers. The average midwater 
trawl vessel is estimated to take 7 of these trips per year, and each 
call would take an estimated 5 minutes at a rate of $0.10 per minute. 
Thus, the total annual burden estimate to the industry for calls to 
obtain industry-funded observer coverage would be 7 hours and $42 (Per 
vessel: 1 hr and $3.50). For each of the 7 estimated trips that the 
vessel calls in to request an industry-funded observer to access 
Groundfish Closed Areas, the vessel has the option to cancel that trip. 
The call to cancel the trip would take an estimated 1 minute at a rate 
of $0.10 per minute. The total annual burden

[[Page 7429]]

estimated to the industry for cancelling these trips would be 1 hour 
and $8 (Per vessel: 1 hr and $1).
    We expect that some monitoring service providers would apply for 
approval under the service provider requirements at Sec.  648.11(h), 
specifically that four out of six providers may apply for approval, and 
would be subject to these requirements. These providers would submit 
reports and information required of service providers as part of their 
application for approval. Service providers must comply with the 
following requirements, submitted via email, phone, web-portal, fax, or 
postal service: Submit applications for approval as a monitoring 
service provider; formally request industry-funded at-sea monitor 
training by the NEFOP; submit industry-funded at-sea monitor deployment 
and availability reports; submit biological samples, safety refusal 
reports, and other reports; give notification of industry-funded at-sea 
monitor availability within 24 hours of the vessel owner's notification 
of a prospective trip; provide vessels with notification of industry-
funded observer availability in advance of each trip; and maintain an 
updated contact list of all industry-funded at-sea monitors/observers 
that includes the monitor's/observer's identification number, name, 
mailing and email address, phone numbers, homeports or fisheries/trip 
types assigned, and whether or not the monitor/observer is ``in 
service'' (i.e., available to provide coverage services). Monitoring 
service providers would have to provide raw at-sea monitoring data to 
NMFS and make at-sea monitors available to NMFS for debriefing upon 
request. The regulations would also require monitoring service 
providers to submit any outreach materials, such as informational 
pamphlets, payment notification, and descriptions of monitor duties, as 
well as all contracts between the service provider and entities 
requiring monitoring services for review to NMFS. Monitoring service 
providers also have the option to respond to application denials, and 
submit a rebuttal in response to a pending removal from the list of 
approved monitoring service providers. NMFS expects that all of these 
reporting requirements combined are expected to take 1,192 hours of 
response time per year for a total annual cost of $12,483 for all 
affected monitoring service providers ($3,121 per provider). The 
following table provides the detailed time and cost information for 
each response item.

                                                          Table 5--Burden Estimate for Measures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Total number    Response time
        Monitoring service provider requirements             Number of       of annual     per response    Total annual      Cost per      Total annual
                                                            respondents      responses       (minutes)    burden (hours)     response          cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor deployment report...............................               4             444              10              74           $0.00              $0
Monitor availability report.............................               4             216              20              72            0.00               0
Safety refusals.........................................               4              40              30              20            0.00               0
Raw monitor data........................................               4             444               5              37           23.75          10,545
Monitor debriefing......................................               4             124             120             248           12.00           1,488
Other reports...........................................               4              68              30              34            0.00               0
Biological samples......................................               4             516              60             516            0.50             258
New application to be a service provider................               4               4             600              40            0.55               2
Applicant response to denial............................               1               1             600              10            0.55               1
Request for monitor training............................               4              12              30               6            1.80              22
Rebuttal of pending removal from list of approved                      1               1             480               8            0.55               1
 service providers......................................
Request to service provider to procure a monitor........              90             360              10              60            0.00               0
Notification of unavailability of monitors..............              90             360               5              30            0.00               0
Call to service provider to procure an observer for                   21              84              10              14            1.00              84
 Groundfish Closed Areas by phone.......................
Notification of unavailability of observers for                       21              84               5               7            0.50              42
 Groundfish Closed Areas................................
Monitor contact list updates............................               4              48               5               4            0.00               0
Monitor availability updates............................               4              48               5               4            0.00               0
Service provider material submissions...................               4               8              30               4            2.50              20
Service provider contracts..............................               4               8              30               4            2.50              20
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............           1,192  ..............          12,483
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public comment is sought regarding the following: Whether this 
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of agency functions, including whether the information 
shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways 
to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on 
these or any other aspects of the collection of information to the 
Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES) and email to 
[email protected] or fax to 202-395-7285.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    This action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other 
Federal rules.

Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the 
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the 
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes

    Recognizing the potential economic impact of industry-funded 
monitoring

[[Page 7430]]

on the herring industry, this amendment contains several measures to 
minimize the impact of paying for additional coverage. Setting the 
coverage target at 50 percent, instead of 75 or 100 percent, balances 
the benefit of additional monitoring with the costs associated with 
additional monitoring. Allowing SBRM coverage to contribute toward the 
50-percent coverage target for at-sea monitoring is expected to reduce 
costs for the industry. Waiving industry-funded monitoring requirements 
on certain trips, including trips that land less than 50 mt of herring 
and pair trawl trips carrying no fish, would minimize the cost of 
additional monitoring. Trips that land less than 50 mt are common for 
small-mesh bottom trawl, single midwater trawl vessel, and purse seine 
vessels. As such, the 50-mt exemption has the potential to result in a 
less than 5 percent reduction in annual RTO associated with at-sea 
monitoring coverage for those vessels. Electronic monitoring and 
portside sampling may be a more cost effective way for midwater trawl 
vessels to meet the 50-percent coverage target requirement than at-sea 
monitoring coverage. Analysis in the EA estimates that electronic 
monitoring and portside sampling coverage has the potential to reduce 
annual RTO up to 10 percent instead of the 20 percent reduction 
associated with at-sea monitoring coverage. Herring measures require 
the Council to review the industry-funded monitoring requirements two 
years after implementation. Omnibus measures allow the Council to 
modify the weighting approach to recommend to us how to prioritize 
Federal funding across industry-funded monitoring programs. If the 
Council wants to recommend that we not prioritize Federal funding to 
administer industry-funded monitoring in the herring fishery, 
essentially recommending no additional monitoring for the herring 
fishery, it would consider the new weighting approach at a public 
meeting and request us to publish a rulemaking modifying the weighting 
approach. These measures ensure the Council considers the cost of 
additional monitoring relative to its effectiveness and provides the 
flexibility to adjust measures if industry-funded monitoring 
requirements for the herring fishery become too onerous. Section 212 of 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states 
that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is 
required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides 
to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall 
designate such publications as ``small entity compliance guides.'' The 
agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to 
comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking 
process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as small entity 
compliance guide was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available 
from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), and the 
compliance guide (i.e., fishery bulletin) will be sent to all holders 
of permits for the herring fishery. The guide and this final rule will 
be posted on the GARFO website.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: January 15, 2020.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended 
as follows:

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

0
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. In Sec.  648.2, revise the definitions for ``Electronic 
monitoring,'' ``Observer/sea sampler,'' ``Slippage in the Atlantic 
herring fishery,'' and ``Slip(s) or slipping catch in the Atlantic 
herring fishery'' to read as follows:


Sec.  648.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Electronic monitoring means a network of equipment that uses a 
software operating system connected to one or more technology 
components, including, but not limited to, cameras and recording 
devices to collect data on catch and vessel operations. With respect to 
the NE multispecies fishery, electronic monitoring means any equipment 
that is used to monitor area fished and the amount and identity of 
species kept and discarded in lieu of at-sea monitors as part of an 
approved Sector at-sea monitoring program.
* * * * *
    Observer or monitor means any person certified by NMFS to collect 
operational fishing data, biological data, or economic data through 
direct observation and interaction with operators of commercial fishing 
vessels as part of NMFS' Northeast Fisheries Observer Program. 
Observers or monitors include NMFS-certified fisheries observers, at-
sea monitors, portside samplers, and dockside monitors.
* * * * *
    Slippage in the Atlantic herring fishery means discarded catch from 
a vessel issued an Atlantic herring permit that is carrying a NMFS-
certified observer or monitor prior to the catch being brought on board 
or prior to the catch being made available for sampling and inspection 
by a NMFS-certified observer or monitor after the catch is on board. 
Slippage also means any catch that is discarded during a trip prior to 
it being sampled portside by a portside sampler on a trip selected for 
portside sampling coverage by NMFS. Slippage includes releasing catch 
from a codend or seine prior to the completion of pumping the catch 
aboard and the release of catch from a codend or seine while the codend 
or seine is in the water. Fish that cannot be pumped and remain in the 
codend or seine at the end of pumping operations are not considered 
slippage. Discards that occur after the catch is brought on board and 
made available for sampling and inspection by a NMFS-certified observer 
or monitor are also not considered slippage.
    Slip(s) or slipping catch in the Atlantic herring fishery means 
discarded catch from a vessel issued an Atlantic herring permit that is 
carrying a NMFS-certified observer or monitor prior to the catch being 
brought on board or prior to the catch being made available for 
sampling and inspection by a NMFS-certified observer or monitor after 
the catch is on board. Slip(s) or slipping catch also means any catch 
that is discarded during a trip prior to it being sampled portside by a 
portside sampler on a trip selected for portside sampling coverage by 
NMFS. Slip(s) or slipping catch includes releasing fish from a codend 
or seine prior to the completion of pumping the fish on board and the 
release of fish from a codend or seine while the codend or seine is in 
the water. Slippage or slipped catch refers to fish that are slipped. 
Slippage or slipped catch does not include operational discards, 
discards that occur after the catch is brought on board and made 
available for sampling and inspection by a NMFS-certified observer or 
monitor, or fish that inadvertently fall out of or off fishing gear as 
gear is being brought on board the vessel.
* * * * *

0
 3. In Sec.  648.7, revise paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read as follows:

[[Page 7431]]

Sec.  648.7  Record keeping and reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Atlantic herring owners or operators issued an All Areas open 
access permit. The owner or operator of a vessel issued an All Areas 
open access permit to fish for herring must report catch (retained and 
discarded) of herring via an IVR system for each week herring was 
caught, unless exempted by the Regional Administrator. IVR reports are 
not required for weeks when no herring was caught. The report shall 
include at least the following information, and any other information 
required by the Regional Administrator: Vessel identification; week in 
which herring are caught; management areas fished; and pounds retained 
and pounds discarded of herring caught in each management area. The IVR 
reporting week begins on Sunday at 0001 hour (hr) (12:01 a.m.) local 
time and ends Saturday at 2400 hr (12 midnight). Weekly Atlantic 
herring catch reports must be submitted via the IVR system by midnight 
each Tuesday, eastern time, for the previous week. Reports are required 
even if herring caught during the week has not yet been landed. This 
report does not exempt the owner or operator from other applicable 
reporting requirements of this section.
* * * * *

0
4. Revise Sec.  648.11 to read as follows:


Sec.  648.11  Monitoring coverage.

    (a) Coverage. The Regional Administrator may request any vessel 
holding a permit for Atlantic sea scallops, NE multispecies, monkfish, 
skates, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, scup, black sea bass, 
bluefish, spiny dogfish, Atlantic herring, tilefish, Atlantic surfclam, 
ocean quahog, or Atlantic deep-sea red crab; or a moratorium permit for 
summer flounder; to carry a NMFS-certified fisheries observer. A vessel 
holding a permit for Atlantic sea scallops is subject to the additional 
requirements specified in paragraph (k) of this section. A vessel 
holding an All Areas or Areas \2/3\ Limited Access Herring Permit is 
subject to the additional requirements specified in paragraph (m) of 
this section. Also, any vessel or vessel owner/operator that fishes 
for, catches or lands hagfish, or intends to fish for, catch, or land 
hagfish in or from the exclusive economic zone must carry a NMFS-
certified fisheries observer when requested by the Regional 
Administrator in accordance with the requirements of this section.
    (b) Facilitating coverage. If requested by the Regional 
Administrator or their designees, including NMFS-certified observers, 
monitors, and NMFS staff, to be sampled by an observer or monitor, it 
is the responsibility of the vessel owner or vessel operator to arrange 
for and facilitate observer or monitor placement. Owners or operators 
of vessels selected for observer or monitor coverage must notify the 
appropriate monitoring service provider before commencing any fishing 
trip that may result in the harvest of resources of the respective 
fishery. Notification procedures will be specified in selection letters 
to vessel owners or permit holder letters.
    (c) Safety waivers. The Regional Administrator may waive the 
requirement to be sampled by an observer or monitor if the facilities 
on a vessel for housing the observer or monitor, or for carrying out 
observer or monitor functions, are so inadequate or unsafe that the 
health or safety of the observer or monitor, or the safe operation of 
the vessel, would be jeopardized.
    (d) Vessel requirements associated with coverage. An owner or 
operator of a vessel on which a NMFS-certified observer or monitor is 
embarked must:
    (1) Provide accommodations and food that are equivalent to those 
provided to the crew.
    (2) Allow the observer or monitor access to and use of the vessel's 
communications equipment and personnel upon request for the 
transmission and receipt of messages related to the observer's or 
monitor's duties.
    (3) Provide true vessel locations, by latitude and longitude or 
loran coordinates, as requested by the observer or monitor, and allow 
the observer or monitor access to and use of the vessel's navigation 
equipment and personnel upon request to determine the vessel's 
position.
    (4) Notify the observer or monitor in a timely fashion of when 
fishing operations are to begin and end.
    (5) Allow for the embarking and debarking of the observer or 
monitor, as specified by the Regional Administrator, ensuring that 
transfers of observers or monitors at sea are accomplished in a safe 
manner, via small boat or raft, during daylight hours as weather and 
sea conditions allow, and with the agreement of the observers or 
monitors involved.
    (6) Allow the observer or monitor free and unobstructed access to 
the vessel's bridge, working decks, holding bins, weight scales, holds, 
and any other space used to hold, process, weigh, or store fish.
    (7) Allow the observer or monitor to inspect and copy any the 
vessel's log, communications log, and records associated with the catch 
and distribution of fish for that trip.
    (e) Vessel requirements associated with protected species. The 
owner or operator of a vessel issued a summer flounder moratorium 
permit, a scup moratorium permit, a black sea bass moratorium permit, a 
bluefish permit, a spiny dogfish permit, an Atlantic herring permit, an 
Atlantic deep-sea red crab permit, a skate permit, or a tilefish 
permit, if requested by the observer or monitor, also must:
    (1) Notify the observer or monitor of any sea turtles, marine 
mammals, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, bluefish, spiny 
dogfish, Atlantic herring, Atlantic deep-sea red crab, tilefish, skates 
(including discards) or other specimens taken by the vessel.
    (2) Provide the observer or monitor with sea turtles, marine 
mammals, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, bluefish, spiny 
dogfish, Atlantic herring, Atlantic deep-sea red crab, skates, 
tilefish, or other specimens taken by the vessel.
    (f) Coverage funded from outside sources. NMFS may accept observer 
or monitor coverage funded by outside sources if:
    (1) All coverage conducted by such observers or monitors is 
determined by NMFS to be in compliance with NMFS' observer or monitor 
guidelines and procedures.
    (2) The owner or operator of the vessel complies with all other 
provisions of this part.
    (3) The observer or monitor is approved by the Regional 
Administrator.
    (g) Industry-funded monitoring programs. Fishery management plans 
(FMPs) managed by the New England Fishery Management Council (New 
England Council), including Atlantic Herring, Atlantic Salmon, Atlantic 
Sea Scallops, Deep-Sea Red Crab, Northeast Multispecies, and Northeast 
Skate Complex, may include industry-funded monitoring programs (IFM) to 
supplement existing monitoring required by the Standard Bycatch 
Reporting Methodology (SBRM), Endangered Species Act, and the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act. IFM programs may use observers, monitors, 
including at-sea monitors and portside samplers, and electronic 
monitoring to meet specified IFM coverage targets. The ability to meet 
IFM coverage targets may be constrained by the availability of

[[Page 7432]]

Federal funding to pay NMFS cost responsibilities associated with IFM.
    (1) Guiding principles for new IFM programs. The Council's 
development of an IFM program must consider or include the following:
    (i) A clear need or reason for the data collection;
    (ii) Objective design criteria;
    (iii) Cost of data collection should not diminish net benefits to 
the nation nor threaten continued existence of the fishery;
    (iv) Seek less data intensive methods to collect data necessary to 
assure conservation and sustainability when assessing and managing 
fisheries with minimal profit margins;
    (v) Prioritize the use of modern technology to the extent 
practicable; and
    (vi) Incentives for reliable self-reporting.
    (2) Process to implement and revise new IFM programs. New IFM 
programs shall be developed via an amendment to a specific FMP. IFM 
programs implemented in an FMP may be revised via a framework 
adjustment. The details of an IFM program may include, but are not 
limited to:
    (i) Level and type of coverage target;
    (ii) Rationale for level and type of coverage;
    (iii) Minimum level of coverage necessary to meet coverage goals;
    (iv) Consideration of waivers if coverage targets cannot be met;
    (v) Process for vessel notification and selection;
    (vi) Cost collection and administration;
    (vii) Standards for monitoring service providers; and
    (viii) Any other measures necessary to implement the industry-
funded monitoring program.
    (3) NMFS cost responsibilities. IFM programs have two types of 
costs, NMFS and industry costs. Cost responsibilities are delineated by 
the type of cost. NMFS cost responsibilities include the following:
    (i) The labor and facilities associated with training and 
debriefing of monitors;
    (ii) NMFS-issued gear (e.g., electronic reporting aids used by 
human monitors to record trip information);
    (iii) Certification of monitoring service providers and individual 
observers or monitors; performance monitoring to maintain certificates;
    (iv) Developing and executing vessel selection;
    (v) Data processing (including electronic monitoring video audit, 
but excluding service provider electronic video review); and
    (vi) Costs associated with liaison activities between service 
providers, and NMFS, Coast Guard, New England Council, sector managers, 
and other partners.
    (vii) The industry is responsible for all other costs associated 
with IFM programs.
    (4) Prioritization process to cover NMFS IFM cost responsibilities. 
(i) Available Federal funding refers to any funds in excess of those 
allocated to meet SBRM requirements or the existing IFM programs in the 
Atlantic Sea Scallop and Northeast Multispecies FMPs that may be used 
to cover NMFS cost responsibilities associated with IFM coverage 
targets. If there is no available Federal funding in a given year to 
cover NMFS IFM cost responsibilities, then there shall be no IFM 
coverage during that year. If there is some available Federal funding 
in a given year, but not enough to cover all of NMFS cost 
responsibilities associated with IFM coverage targets, then the New 
England Council will prioritize available Federal funding across IFM 
programs during that year. Existing IFM programs for Atlantic sea 
scallops and Northeast multispecies fisheries shall not be included in 
this prioritization process.
    (ii) Programs with IFM coverage targets shall be prioritized using 
an equal weighting approach, such that any available Federal funding 
shall be divided equally among programs.
    (iii) After NMFS determines the amount of available Federal funding 
for the next fishing year, NMFS shall provide the New England Council 
with the estimated IFM coverage levels for the next fishing year. The 
estimated IFM coverage levels would be based on the equal weighting 
approach and would include the rationale for any deviations from the 
equal weighting approach. The New England Council may recommend 
revisions and additional considerations to the Regional Administrator 
and Science and Research Director.
    (A) If available Federal funding exceeds that needed to pay all of 
NMFS cost responsibilities for administering IFM programs, the New 
England Council may request NMFS to use available funding to help 
offset industry cost responsibilities through reimbursement.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (iv) Revisions to the prioritization process may be made via a 
framework adjustment to all New England FMPs.
    (v) Revisions to the weighting approach for the New England 
Council-led prioritization process may be made via a framework 
adjustment to all New England FMPs or by the New England Council 
considering a new weighting approach at a public meeting, where public 
comment is accepted, and requesting NMFS to publish a notice or 
rulemaking revising the weighting approach. NMFS shall implement 
revisions to the weighting approach in a manner consistent with the 
Administrative Procedure Act.
    (5) IFM program monitoring service provider requirements. IFM 
monitoring service provider requirements shall be consistent with 
requirements in paragraph (h) of this section and observer or monitor 
requirements shall be consistent with requirements in paragraph (i) of 
this section.
    (6) Monitoring set-aside. The New England Council may develop a 
monitoring set-aside program for individual FMPs that would devote a 
portion of the annual catch limit for a fishery to help offset the 
industry cost responsibilities for monitoring coverage, including 
observers, at-sea monitors, portside samplers, and electronic 
monitoring.
    (i) The details of a monitoring set-aside program may include, but 
are not limited to:
    (A) The basis for the monitoring set-aside;
    (B) The amount of the set-aside (e.g., quota, days at sea);
    (C) How the set-aside is allocated to vessels required to pay for 
monitoring (e.g., an increased trip limit, differential days at sea 
counting, additional trips, an allocation of the quota);
    (D) The process for vessel notification;
    (E) How funds are collected and administered to cover the 
industry's costs of monitoring; and
    (F) Any other measures necessary to develop and implement a 
monitoring set-aside.
    (ii) The New England Council may develop new monitoring set-asides 
and revise those monitoring set-asides via a framework adjustment to 
the relevant FMP.
    (h) Monitoring service provider approval and responsibilities--(1) 
General. An entity seeking to provide monitoring services, including 
services for IFM Programs described in paragraph (g) of this section, 
must apply for and obtain approval from NMFS following submission of a 
complete application. Monitoring services include providing NMFS-
certified observers, monitors (at-sea monitors and portside samplers), 
and/or electronic monitoring. A list of approved monitoring service 
providers shall be distributed to vessel owners and shall be posted on 
the NMFS Fisheries Sampling Branch (FSB) website at: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/femad/fsb/.
    (2) [Reserved]

[[Page 7433]]

    (3) Contents of application. An application to become an approved 
monitoring service provider shall contain the following:
    (i) Identification of the management, organizational structure, and 
ownership structure of the applicant's business, including 
identification by name and general function of all controlling 
management interests in the company, including but not limited to 
owners, board members, officers, authorized agents, and staff. If the 
applicant is a corporation, the articles of incorporation must be 
provided. If the applicant is a partnership, the partnership agreement 
must be provided.
    (ii) The permanent mailing address, phone and fax numbers where the 
owner(s) can be contacted for official correspondence, and the current 
physical location, business mailing address, business telephone and fax 
numbers, and business email address for each office.
    (iii) A statement, signed under penalty of perjury, from each owner 
or owners, board members, and officers, if a corporation, that they are 
free from a conflict of interest as described under paragraph (h)(6) of 
this section.
    (iv) A statement, signed under penalty of perjury, from each owner 
or owners, board members, and officers, if a corporation, describing 
any criminal conviction(s), Federal contract(s) they have had and the 
performance rating they received on the contracts, and previous 
decertification action(s) while working as an observer or monitor or 
monitoring service provider.
    (v) A description of any prior experience the applicant may have in 
placing individuals in remote field and/or marine work environments. 
This includes, but is not limited to, recruiting, hiring, deployment, 
and personnel administration.
    (vi) A description of the applicant's ability to carry out the 
responsibilities and duties of a monitoring service provider as set out 
under paragraph (h)(5) of this section, and the arrangements to be 
used.
    (vii) Evidence of holding adequate insurance to cover injury, 
liability, and accidental death for observers or monitors, whether 
contracted or employed by the service provider, during their period of 
employment (including during training). Workers' Compensation and 
Maritime Employer's Liability insurance must be provided to cover the 
observer or monitor, vessel owner, and observer provider. The minimum 
coverage required is $5 million. Monitoring service providers shall 
provide copies of the insurance policies to observers or monitors to 
display to the vessel owner, operator, or vessel manager, when 
requested.
    (viii) Proof that its observers or monitors, whether contracted or 
employed by the service provider, are compensated with salaries that 
meet or exceed the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) guidelines for 
observers. Observers shall be compensated as Fair Labor Standards Act 
(FLSA) non-exempt employees. Monitoring service providers shall provide 
any other benefits and personnel services in accordance with the terms 
of each observer's or monitor's contract or employment status.
    (ix) The names of its fully equipped, NMFS/FSB certified, observers 
or monitors on staff or a list of its training candidates (with 
resumes) and a request for an appropriate NMFS/FSB Training class. All 
training classes have a minimum class size of eight individuals, which 
may be split among multiple vendors requesting training. Requests for 
training classes with fewer than eight individuals will be delayed 
until further requests make up the full training class size.
    (x) An Emergency Action Plan (EAP) describing its response to an 
``at sea'' emergency with an observer or monitor, including, but not 
limited to, personal injury, death, harassment, or intimidation. An EAP 
that details a monitoring service provider's responses to emergencies 
involving observers, monitors, or monitoring service provider 
personnel. The EAP shall include communications protocol and 
appropriate contact information in an emergency.
    (4) Application evaluation. (i) NMFS shall review and evaluate each 
application submitted under paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Issuance 
of approval as a monitoring service provider shall be based on 
completeness of the application, and a determination by NMFS of the 
applicant's ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of a 
monitoring service provider, as demonstrated in the application 
information. A decision to approve or deny an application shall be made 
by NMFS within 15 business days of receipt of the application by NMFS.
    (ii) If NMFS approves the application, the monitoring service 
provider's name will be added to the list of approved monitoring 
service providers found on the NMFS/FSB website specified in paragraph 
(h)(1) of this section, and in any outreach information to the 
industry. Approved monitoring service providers shall be notified in 
writing and provided with any information pertinent to its 
participation in the observer or monitor programs.
    (iii) An application shall be denied if NMFS determines that the 
information provided in the application is not complete or the 
evaluation criteria are not met. NMFS shall notify the applicant in 
writing of any deficiencies in the application or information submitted 
in support of the application. An applicant who receives a denial of 
his or her application may present additional information to rectify 
the deficiencies specified in the written denial, provided such 
information is submitted to NMFS within 30 days of the applicant's 
receipt of the denial notification from NMFS. In the absence of 
additional information, and after 30 days from an applicant's receipt 
of a denial, a monitoring service provider is required to resubmit an 
application containing all of the information required under the 
application process specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this section to be 
re-considered for being added to the list of approved monitoring 
service providers.
    (5) Responsibilities of monitoring service providers--(i) Certified 
observers or monitors. A monitoring service provider must provide 
observers or monitors certified by NMFS/FSB pursuant to paragraph (i) 
of this section for deployment in a fishery when contacted and 
contracted by the owner, operator, or vessel manager of a fishing 
vessel, unless the monitoring service provider refuses to deploy an 
observer or monitor on a requesting vessel for any of the reasons 
specified at paragraph (h)(5)(viii) of this section.
    (ii) Support for observers or monitors. A monitoring service 
provider must provide to each of its observers or monitors:
    (A) All necessary transportation, lodging costs and support for 
arrangements and logistics of travel for observers and monitors to and 
from the initial location of deployment, to all subsequent vessel 
assignments, to any debriefing locations, and for appearances in Court 
for monitoring-related trials as necessary;
    (B) Lodging, per diem, and any other services necessary for 
observers or monitors assigned to a fishing vessel or to attend an 
appropriate NMFS/FSB training class;
    (C) The required observer or monitor equipment, in accordance with 
equipment requirements listed on the NMFS/FSB website specified in 
paragraph (h)(1) of this section, prior to any deployment and/or prior 
to NMFS observer or monitor certification training; and
    (D) Individually assigned communication equipment, in working 
order, such as a mobile phone, for all

[[Page 7434]]

necessary communication. A monitoring service provider may 
alternatively compensate observers or monitors for the use of the 
observer's or monitor's personal mobile phone, or other device, for 
communications made in support of, or necessary for, the observer's or 
monitor's duties.
    (iii) Observer and monitor deployment logistics. Each approved 
monitoring service provider must assign an available certified observer 
or monitor to a vessel upon request. Each approved monitoring service 
provider must be accessible 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, to 
enable an owner, operator, or manager of a vessel to secure monitoring 
coverage when requested. The telephone or other notification system 
must be monitored a minimum of four times daily to ensure rapid 
response to industry requests. Monitoring service providers approved 
under this paragraph (h) are required to report observer or monitor 
deployments to NMFS for the purpose of determining whether the 
predetermined coverage levels are being achieved in the appropriate 
fishery.
    (iv) Observer deployment limitations. (A) A candidate observer's 
first several deployments and the resulting data shall be immediately 
edited and approved after each trip by NMFS/FSB prior to any further 
deployments by that observer. If data quality is considered acceptable, 
the observer would be certified. For further information, see https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/training/.
    (B) For the purpose of coverage to meet SBRM requirements, unless 
alternative arrangements are approved by NMFS, a monitoring service 
provider must not deploy any NMFS-certified observer on the same vessel 
for more than two consecutive multi-day trips, and not more than twice 
in any given month for multi-day deployments.
    (C) For the purpose of coverage to meet IFM requirements, a 
monitoring service provider may deploy any NMFS-certified observer or 
monitor on the same vessel for more than two consecutive multi-day 
trips and more than twice in any given month for multi-day deployments.
    (v) Communications with observers and monitors. A monitoring 
service provider must have an employee responsible for observer or 
monitor activities on call 24 hours a day to handle emergencies 
involving observers or monitors or problems concerning observer or 
monitor logistics, whenever observers or monitors are at sea, stationed 
portside, in transit, or in port awaiting vessel assignment.
    (vi) Observer and monitor training requirements. A request for a 
NMFS/FSB Observer or Monitor Training class must be submitted to NMFS/
FSB 45 calendar days in advance of the requested training. The 
following information must be submitted to NMFS/FSB at least 15 
business days prior to the beginning of the proposed training: A list 
of observer or monitor candidates; candidate resumes, cover letters and 
academic transcripts; and a statement signed by the candidate, under 
penalty of perjury, that discloses the candidate's criminal 
convictions, if any. A medical report certified by a physician for each 
candidate is required 7 business days prior to the first day of 
training. CPR/First Aid certificates and a final list of training 
candidates with candidate contact information (email, phone, number, 
mailing address and emergency contact information) are due 7 business 
days prior to the first day of training. NMFS may reject a candidate 
for training if the candidate does not meet the minimum qualification 
requirements as outlined by NMFS/FSB minimum eligibility standards for 
observers or monitors as described on the NMFS/FSB website.
    (vii) Reports and Requirements--(A) Deployment reports. The 
monitoring service provider must report to NMFS/FSB when, where, to 
whom, and to what vessel an observer or monitor has been deployed, as 
soon as practicable, and according to requirements outlined on the 
NMFS/FSB website. The deployment report must be available and 
accessible to NMFS electronically 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The 
monitoring service provider must ensure that the observer or monitor 
reports to NMFS the required electronic data, as described in the NMFS/
FSB training. Electronic data submission protocols will be outlined in 
training and may include accessing government websites via personal 
computers/devices or submitting data through government issued 
electronics. The monitoring service provider shall provide the raw 
(unedited) data collected by the observer or monitor to NMFS at the 
specified time per program. For further information, see https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/ scallop/.
    (B) Safety refusals. The monitoring service provider must report to 
NMFS any trip or landing that has been refused due to safety issues 
(e.g., failure to hold a valid USCG Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety 
Examination Decal or to meet the safety requirements of the observer's 
or monitor's safety checklist) within 12 hours of the refusal.
    (C) Biological samples. The monitoring service provider must ensure 
that biological samples, including whole marine mammals, sea turtles, 
sea birds, and fin clips or other DNA samples, are stored/handled 
properly and transported to NMFS within 5 days of landing. If transport 
to NMFS/FSB Observer Training Facility is not immediately available 
then whole animals requiring freezing shall be received by the nearest 
NMFS freezer facility within 24 hours of vessel landing.
    (D) Debriefing. The monitoring service provider must ensure that 
the observer or monitor remains available to NMFS, either in-person or 
via phone, at NMFS' discretion, including NMFS Office for Law 
Enforcement, for debriefing for at least 2 weeks following any 
monitored trip. If requested by NMFS, an observer or monitor that is at 
sea during the 2-week period must contact NMFS upon his or her return. 
Monitoring service providers must pay for travel and land hours for any 
requested debriefings.
    (E) Availability report. The monitoring service provider must 
report to NMFS any occurrence of inability to respond to an industry 
request for observer or monitor coverage due to the lack of available 
observers or monitors as soon as practicable if the provider is unable 
to respond to an industry request for monitoring coverage. Availability 
report must be available and accessible to NMFS electronically 24 hours 
a day, 7 days a week.
    (F) Incident reports. The monitoring service provider must report 
possible observer or monitor harassment, discrimination, concerns about 
vessel safety or marine casualty, or observer or monitor illness or 
injury; and any information, allegations, or reports regarding observer 
or monitor conflict of interest or breach of the standards of behavior, 
to NMFS/FSB within 12 hours of the event or within 12 hours of learning 
of the event.
    (G) Status report. The monitoring service provider must provide 
NMFS/FSB with an updated list of contact information for all observers 
or monitors that includes the identification number, name, mailing 
address, email address, phone numbers, homeports or fisheries/trip 
types assigned, and must include whether or not the observer or monitor 
is ``in service,'' indicating when the observer or monitor has 
requested leave and/or is not currently working for an industry-funded 
program. Any Federally contracted NMFS-certified observer not actively 
deployed on a vessel for 30 days will be placed on Leave of Absence 
(LOA) status (or as specified by NMFS/FSB according to

[[Page 7435]]

most recent Information Technology Security Guidelines at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/memos/. Those Federally contracted NMFS-
certified observers on LOA for 90 days or more will need to conduct an 
exit interview with NMFS/FSB and return any NMFS/FSB issued gear and 
Common Access Card (CAC), unless alternative arrangements are approved 
by NMFS/FSB. NMFS/FSB requires 2-week advance notification when a 
Federally contracted NMFS-certified observer is leaving the program so 
that an exit interview may be arranged and gear returned.
    (H) Vessel contract. The monitoring service provider must submit to 
NMFS/FSB, if requested, a copy of each type of signed and valid 
contract (including all attachments, appendices, addendums, and 
exhibits incorporated into the contract) between the monitoring service 
provider and those entities requiring monitoring services.
    (I) Observer and monitor contract. The monitoring service provider 
must submit to NMFS/FSB, if requested, a copy of each type of signed 
and valid contract (including all attachments, appendices, addendums, 
and exhibits incorporated into the contract) between the monitoring 
service provider and specific observers or monitors.
    (J) Additional information. The monitoring service provider must 
submit to NMFS/FSB, if requested, copies of any information developed 
and/or used by the monitoring service provider and distributed to 
vessels, observers, or monitors, such as informational pamphlets, 
payment notification, daily rate of monitoring services, description of 
observer or monitor duties, etc.
    (viii) Refusal to deploy an observer or monitor. (A) A monitoring 
service provider may refuse to deploy an observer or monitor on a 
requesting fishing vessel if the monitoring service provider does not 
have an available observer or monitor within the required time and must 
report all refusals to NMFS/FSB.
    (B) A monitoring service provider may refuse to deploy an observer 
or monitor on a requesting fishing vessel if the monitoring service 
provider has determined that the requesting vessel is inadequate or 
unsafe pursuant to the reasons described at Sec.  600.746.
    (C) The monitoring service provider may refuse to deploy an 
observer or monitor on a fishing vessel that is otherwise eligible to 
carry an observer or monitor for any other reason, including failure to 
pay for previous monitoring deployments, provided the monitoring 
service provider has received prior written confirmation from NMFS 
authorizing such refusal.
    (6) Limitations on conflict of interest. A monitoring service 
provider:
    (i) Must not have a direct or indirect interest in a fishery 
managed under Federal regulations, including, but not limited to, a 
fishing vessel, fish dealer, and/or fishery advocacy group (other than 
providing monitoring services);
    (ii) Must assign observers or monitors without regard to any 
preference by representatives of vessels other than when an observer or 
monitor will be deployed for the trip that was selected for coverage; 
and
    (iii) Must not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any 
gratuity, gift, favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary 
value from anyone who conducts fishing or fishing related activities 
that are regulated by NMFS, or who has interests that may be 
substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the 
official duties of monitoring service providers.
    (7) Removal of monitoring service provider from the list of 
approved service providers. A monitoring service provider that fails to 
meet the requirements, conditions, and responsibilities specified in 
paragraphs (h)(5) and (6) of this section shall be notified by NMFS, in 
writing, that it is subject to removal from the list of approved 
monitoring service providers. Such notification shall specify the 
reasons for the pending removal. A monitoring service provider that has 
received notification that it is subject to removal from the list of 
approved monitoring service providers may submit written information to 
rebut the reasons for removal from the list. Such rebuttal must be 
submitted within 30 days of notification received by the monitoring 
service provider that the monitoring service provider is subject to 
removal and must be accompanied by written evidence rebutting the basis 
for removal. NMFS shall review information rebutting the pending 
removal and shall notify the monitoring service provider within 15 days 
of receipt of the rebuttal whether or not the removal is warranted. If 
no response to a pending removal is received by NMFS, the monitoring 
service provider shall be automatically removed from the list of 
approved monitoring service providers. The decision to remove the 
monitoring service provider from the list, either after reviewing a 
rebuttal, or if no rebuttal is submitted, shall be the final decision 
of NMFS and the Department of Commerce. Removal from the list of 
approved monitoring service providers does not necessarily prevent such 
monitoring service provider from obtaining an approval in the future if 
a new application is submitted that demonstrates that the reasons for 
removal are remedied. Certified observers and monitors under contract 
with observer monitoring service provider that has been removed from 
the list of approved service providers must complete their assigned 
duties for any fishing trips on which the observers or monitors are 
deployed at the time the monitoring service provider is removed from 
the list of approved monitoring service providers. A monitoring service 
provider removed from the list of approved monitoring service providers 
is responsible for providing NMFS with the information required in 
paragraph (h)(5)(vii) of this section following completion of the trip. 
NMFS may consider, but is not limited to, the following in determining 
if a monitoring service provider may remain on the list of approved 
monitoring service providers:
    (i) Failure to meet the requirements, conditions, and 
responsibilities of monitoring service providers specified in 
paragraphs (h)(5) and (6) of this section;
    (ii) Evidence of conflict of interest as defined under paragraph 
(h)(6) of this section;
    (iii) Evidence of criminal convictions related to:
    (A) Embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or 
destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen 
property; or
    (B) The commission of any other crimes of dishonesty, as defined by 
state law or Federal law, that would seriously and directly affect the 
fitness of an applicant in providing monitoring services under this 
section; and
    (iv) Unsatisfactory performance ratings on any Federal contracts 
held by the applicant; and
    (v) Evidence of any history of decertification as either an 
observer, monitor, or monitoring service provider.
    (i) Observer or monitor certification--(1) Requirements. To be 
certified, employees or sub-contractors operating as observers or 
monitors for monitoring service providers approved under paragraph (h) 
of this section. In addition, observers must meet NMFS National Minimum 
Eligibility Standards for observers specified at the National Observer 
Program website: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/pds/categories/scienceandtechnology.html. For further information, see https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/observer-home/.
    (2) Observer or monitor training. In order to be deployed on any 
fishing vessel, a candidate observer or monitor

[[Page 7436]]

must have passed an appropriate NMFS/FSB Observer Training course and 
must adhere to all NMFS/FSB program standards and policies (refer to 
website for program standards, https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/training/
). If a candidate fails training, the candidate and monitoring service 
provider shall be notified immediately by NMFS/FSB. Observer training 
may include an observer training trip, as part of the observer's 
training, aboard a fishing vessel with a trainer. Refer to the NMFS/FSB 
website for the required number of program specific observer and 
monitor training certification trips for full certification following 
training, https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/training/.
    (3) Observer requirements. All observers must:
    (i) Have a valid NMFS/FSB fisheries observer certification pursuant 
to paragraph (i)(1) of this section;
    (ii) Be physically and mentally capable of carrying out the 
responsibilities of an observer on board fishing vessels, pursuant to 
standards established by NMFS. Such standards are available from NMFS/
FSB website specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section and shall be 
provided to each approved monitoring service provider;
    (iii) Have successfully completed all NMFS-required training and 
briefings for observers before deployment, pursuant to paragraph (i)(2) 
of this section;
    (iv) Hold a current Red Cross (or equivalence) CPR/First Aid 
certification;
    (v) Accurately record their sampling data, write complete reports, 
and report accurately any observations relevant to conservation of 
marine resources or their environment; and
    (vi) Report unsafe sampling conditions, pursuant to paragraph 
(m)(6) of this section.
    (4) Monitor requirements. All monitors must:
    (i) Hold a high school diploma or legal equivalent;
    (ii) Have a valid NMFS/FSB certification pursuant to paragraph 
(i)(1) of this section;
    (iii) Be physically and mentally capable of carrying out the 
responsibilities of a monitor on board fishing vessels, pursuant to 
standards established by NMFS. Such standards are available from NMFS/
FSB website specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section and shall be 
provided to each approved monitoring service provider;
    (iv) Have successfully completed all NMFS-required training and 
briefings for monitors before deployment, pursuant to paragraph (i)(2) 
of this section;
    (v) Hold a current Red Cross (or equivalence) CPR/First Aid 
certification if the monitor is to be employed as an at-sea monitor;
    (vi) Accurately record their sampling data, write complete reports, 
and report accurately any observations relevant to conservation of 
marine resources or their environment; and
    (vii) Report unsafe sampling conditions, pursuant to paragraph 
(m)(6) of this section.
    (5) Probation and decertification. NMFS may review observer and 
monitor certifications and issue observer and monitor certification 
probation and/or decertification as described in NMFS policy found on 
the NMFS/FSB website specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
    (6) Issuance of decertification. Upon determination that 
decertification is warranted under paragraph (i)(5) of this section, 
NMFS shall issue a written decision to decertify the observer or 
monitor to the observer or monitor and approved monitoring service 
providers via certified mail at the observer's or monitor's most 
current address provided to NMFS. The decision shall identify whether a 
certification is revoked and shall identify the specific reasons for 
the action taken. Decertification is effective immediately as of the 
date of issuance, unless the decertification official notes a 
compelling reason for maintaining certification for a specified period 
and under specified conditions. Decertification is the final decision 
of NMFS and the Department of Commerce and may not be appealed.
    (j) Coverage. In the event that a vessel is requested by the 
Regional Administrator to carry a NMFS-certified fisheries observer 
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section and is also selected to carry 
an at-sea monitor as part of an approved sector at-sea monitoring 
program specified in Sec.  648.87(b)(1)(v) for the same trip, only the 
NMFS-certified fisheries observer is required to go on that particular 
trip.
    (k) Atlantic sea scallop observer program--(1) General. Unless 
otherwise specified, owners, operators, and/or managers of vessels 
issued a Federal scallop permit under Sec.  648.4(a)(2), and specified 
in paragraph (a) of this section, must comply with this section and are 
jointly and severally responsible for their vessel's compliance with 
this section. To facilitate the deployment of at-sea observers, all sea 
scallop vessels issued limited access and LAGC IFQ permits are required 
to comply with the additional notification requirements specified in 
paragraph (k)(2) of this section. When NMFS notifies the vessel owner, 
operator, and/or manager of any requirement to carry an observer on a 
specified trip in either an Access Area or Open Area as specified in 
paragraph (k)(3) of this section, the vessel may not fish for, take, 
retain, possess, or land any scallops without carrying an observer. 
Vessels may only embark on a scallop trip in open areas or Access Areas 
without an observer if the vessel owner, operator, and/or manager has 
been notified that the vessel has received a waiver of the observer 
requirement for that trip pursuant to paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4)(ii) 
of this section.
    (2) Vessel notification procedures--(i) Limited access vessels. 
Limited access vessel owners, operators, or managers shall notify NMFS/
FSB by telephone not more than 10 days prior to the beginning of any 
scallop trip of the time, port of departure, open area or specific Sea 
Scallop Access Area to be fished, and whether fishing as a scallop 
dredge, scallop trawl, or general category vessel.
    (ii) LAGC IFQ vessels. LAGC IFQ vessel owners, operators, or 
managers must notify the NMFS/FSB by telephone by 0001 hr of the 
Thursday preceding the week (Sunday through Saturday) that they intend 
to start any open area or access area scallop trip and must include the 
port of departure, open area or specific Sea Scallop Access Area to be 
fished, and whether fishing as a scallop dredge, scallop trawl vessel. 
If selected, up to two trips that start during the specified week 
(Sunday through Saturday) can be selected to be covered by an observer. 
NMFS/FSB must be notified by the owner, operator, or vessel manager of 
any trip plan changes at least 48 hr prior to vessel departure.
    (3) Selection of scallop trips for observer coverage. Based on 
predetermined coverage levels for various permit categories and areas 
of the scallop fishery that are provided by NMFS in writing to all 
observer service providers approved pursuant to paragraph (h) of this 
section, NMFS shall notify the vessel owner, operator, or vessel 
manager whether the vessel must carry an observer, or if a waiver has 
been granted, for the specified scallop trip, within 24 hr of the 
vessel owner's, operator's, or vessel manager's notification of the 
prospective scallop trip, as specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this 
section. Any request to carry an observer may be waived by NMFS. All 
waivers for observer coverage shall be issued to the vessel by VMS so 
as to have on-board verification of the waiver. A vessel may not fish 
in an area with an observer waiver confirmation number that does not 
match the scallop

[[Page 7437]]

trip plan that was called in to NMFS. Confirmation numbers for trip 
notification calls are only valid for 48 hr from the intended sail 
date.
    (4) Procurement of observer services by scallop vessels. (i) An 
owner of a scallop vessel required to carry an observer under paragraph 
(k)(3) of this section must arrange for carrying an observer certified 
through the observer training class operated by the NMFS/FSB from an 
observer service provider approved by NMFS under paragraph (h) of this 
section. The owner, operator, or vessel manager of a vessel selected to 
carry an observer must contact the observer service provider and must 
provide at least 48-hr notice in advance of the fishing trip for the 
provider to arrange for observer deployment for the specified trip. The 
observer service provider will notify the vessel owner, operator, or 
manager within 18 hr whether they have an available observer. A list of 
approved observer service providers shall be posted on the NMFS/FSB 
website at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/femad/fsb/. The observer service 
provider may take up to 48 hr to arrange for observer deployment for 
the specified scallop trip.
    (ii) An owner, operator, or vessel manager of a vessel that cannot 
procure a certified observer within 48 hr of the advance notification 
to the provider due to the unavailability of an observer may request a 
waiver from NMFS/FSB from the requirement for observer coverage for 
that trip, but only if the owner, operator, or vessel manager has 
contacted all of the available observer service providers to secure 
observer coverage and no observer is available. NMFS/FSB shall issue 
such a waiver within 24 hr, if the conditions of this paragraph 
(g)(4)(ii) are met. A vessel may not begin the trip without being 
issued a waiver.
    (5) Cost of coverage. Owners of scallop vessels shall be 
responsible for paying the cost of the observer for all scallop trips 
on which an observer is carried onboard the vessel, regardless of 
whether the vessel lands or sells sea scallops on that trip, and 
regardless of the availability of set-aside for an increased possession 
limit or reduced DAS accrual rate. The owners of vessels that carry an 
observer may be compensated with a reduced DAS accrual rate for open 
area scallop trips or additional scallop catch per day in Sea Scallop 
Access Areas or additional catch per open area or access area trip for 
LAGC IFQ trips in order to help defray the cost of the observer, under 
the program specified in Sec. Sec.  648.53 and 648.60.
    (i) Observer service providers shall establish the daily rate for 
observer coverage on a scallop vessel on an Access Area trip or open 
area DAS or IFQ scallop trip consistent with paragraphs (k)(5)(i)(A) 
and (B), respectively, of this section.
    (A) Access Area trips. (1) For purposes of determining the daily 
rate for an observed scallop trip on a limited access vessel in a Sea 
Scallop Access Area when that specific Access Area's observer set-aside 
specified in Sec.  648.60(d)(1) has not been fully utilized, a service 
provider may charge a vessel owner for no more than the time an 
observer boards a vessel until the vessel disembarks (dock to dock), 
where ``day'' is defined as a 24-hr period, or any portion of a 24-hr 
period, regardless of the calendar day. For example, if a vessel with 
an observer departs on July 1 at 10 p.m. and lands on July 3 at 1 a.m., 
the time at sea equals 27 hr, which would equate to 2 full ``days.''
    (2) For purposes of determining the daily rate in a specific Sea 
Scallop Access Area for an observed scallop trip on a limited access 
vessel taken after NMFS has announced the industry-funded observer set-
aside in that specific Access Area has been fully utilized, a service 
provider may charge a vessel owner for no more than the time an 
observer boards a vessel until the vessel disembarks (dock to dock), 
where ``day'' is defined as a 24-hr period, and portions of the other 
days would be pro-rated at an hourly charge (taking the daily rate 
divided by 24). For example, if a vessel with an observer departs on 
July 1 at 10 p.m. and lands on July 3 at 1 a.m., the time spent at sea 
equals 27 hr, which would equate to 1 day and 3 hr.
    (3) For purposes of determining the daily rate in a specific Sea 
Scallop Access Area for observed scallop trips on an LAGC vessel, 
regardless of the status of the industry-funded observer set-aside, a 
service provider may charge a vessel owner for no more than the time an 
observer boards a vessel until the vessel disembarks (dock to dock), 
where ``day'' is defined as a 24-hr period, and portions of the other 
days would be pro-rated at an hourly charge (taking the daily rate 
divided by 24). For example, if a vessel with an observer departs on 
July 1 at 10 p.m. and lands on July 3 at 1 a.m., the time spent at sea 
equals 27 hr, which would equate to 1 day and 3 hr.
    (B) Open area scallop trips. For purposes of determining the daily 
rate for an observed scallop trip for DAS or LAGC IFQ open area trips, 
regardless of the status of the industry-funded observer set-aside, a 
service provider shall charge dock to dock where ``day'' is defined as 
a 24-hr period, and portions of the other days would be pro-rated at an 
hourly charge (taking the daily rate divided by 24). For example, if a 
vessel with an observer departs on the July 1st at 10 p.m. and lands on 
July 3rd at 1 a.m., the time at sea equals 27 hr, so the provider would 
charge 1 day and 3 hr.
    (ii) NMFS shall determine any reduced DAS accrual rate and the 
amount of additional pounds of scallops per day fished in a Sea Scallop 
Access Area or on an open area LAGC IFQ trips for the applicable 
fishing year based on the economic conditions of the scallop fishery, 
as determined by best available information. Vessel owners and observer 
service providers shall be notified through the Small Entity Compliance 
Guide of any DAS accrual rate changes and any changes in additional 
pounds of scallops determined by the Regional Administrator to be 
necessary. NMFS shall notify vessel owners and observer providers of 
any adjustments.
    (iii) Owners of scallop vessels shall pay observer service 
providers for observer services within 45 days of the end of a fishing 
trip on which an observer deployed.
    (6) Coverage and cost requirements. When the available DAS or TAC 
set-aside for observer coverage is exhausted, vessels shall still be 
required to carry an observer as specified in this section, and shall 
be responsible for paying for the cost of the observer, but shall not 
be authorized to harvest additional pounds or fish at a reduced DAS 
accrual rate.
    (l) NE multispecies observer coverage--(1) Pre-trip notification. 
Unless otherwise specified in this paragraph (l), or notified by the 
Regional Administrator, the owner, operator, or manager of a vessel 
(i.e., vessel manager or sector manager) issued a limited access NE 
multispecies permit that is fishing under a NE multispecies DAS or on a 
sector trip, as defined in this part, must provide advanced notice to 
NMFS of the vessel name, permit number, and sector to which the vessel 
belongs, if applicable; contact name and telephone number for 
coordination of observer deployment; date, time, and port of departure; 
and the vessel's trip plan, including area to be fished, whether a 
monkfish DAS will be used, and gear type to be used at least 48 hr 
prior to departing port on any trip declared into the NE multispecies 
fishery pursuant to Sec.  648.10 or Sec.  648.85, as instructed by the 
Regional Administrator, for the purposes of selecting vessels for 
observer deployment. For trips lasting

[[Page 7438]]

48 hr or less in duration from the time the vessel leaves port to begin 
a fishing trip until the time the vessel returns to port upon the 
completion of the fishing trip, the vessel owner, operator, or manager 
may make a weekly notification rather than trip-by-trip calls. For 
weekly notifications, a vessel must notify NMFS by 0001 hr of the 
Friday preceding the week (Sunday through Saturday) that it intends to 
complete at least one NE multispecies DAS or sector trip during the 
following week and provide the date, time, port of departure, area to 
be fished, whether a monkfish DAS will be used, and gear type to be 
used for each trip during that week. Trip notification calls must be 
made no more than 10 days in advance of each fishing trip. The vessel 
owner, operator, or manager must notify NMFS of any trip plan changes 
at least 24 hr prior to vessel departure from port. A vessel may not 
begin the trip without being issued an observer notification or a 
waiver by NMFS.
    (2) Vessel selection for observer coverage. NMFS shall notify the 
vessel owner, operator, or manager whether the vessel must carry an 
observer, or if a waiver has been granted, for the specified trip 
within 24 hr of the vessel owner's, operator's or manager's 
notification of the prospective trip, as specified in paragraph (l)(1) 
of this section. All trip notifications shall be issued a unique 
confirmation number. A vessel may not fish on a NE multispecies DAS or 
sector trip with an observer waiver confirmation number that does not 
match the trip plan that was called in to NMFS. Confirmation numbers 
for trip notification calls are valid for 48 hr from the intended sail 
date. If a trip is interrupted and returns to port due to bad weather 
or other circumstance beyond the operator's control, and goes back out 
within 48 hr, the same confirmation number and observer status remains. 
If the layover time is greater than 48 hr, a new trip notification must 
be made by the operator, owner, or manager of the vessel.
    (3) NE multispecies monitoring program goals and objectives. 
Monitoring programs established for the NE multispecies are to be 
designed and evaluated consistent with the following goals and 
objectives:
    (i) Improve documentation of catch:
    (A) Determine total catch and effort, for each sector and common 
pool, of target or regulated species; and
    (B) Achieve coverage level sufficient to minimize effects of 
potential monitoring bias to the extent possible while maintaining as 
much flexibility as possible to enhance fleet viability.
    (ii) Reduce the cost of monitoring:
    (A) Streamline data management and eliminate redundancy;
    (B) Explore options for cost-sharing and deferment of cost to 
industry; and
    (C) Recognize opportunity costs of insufficient monitoring.
    (iii) Incentivize reducing discards:
    (A) Determine discard rate by smallest possible strata while 
maintaining cost-effectiveness; and
    (B) Collect information by gear type to accurately calculate 
discard rates.
    (iv) Provide additional data streams for stock assessments:
    (A) Reduce management and/or biological uncertainty; and
    (B) Perform biological sampling if it may be used to enhance 
accuracy of mortality or recruitment calculations.
    (v) Enhance safety of monitoring program.
    (vi) Perform periodic review of monitoring program for 
effectiveness.
    (m) Atlantic herring monitoring coverage--(1) Monitoring 
requirements. (i) In addition to the requirement for any vessel holding 
an Atlantic herring permit to carry a NMFS-certified observer described 
in paragraph (a) of this section, vessels issued an All Areas or Areas 
2/3 Limited Access Herring Permit are subject to industry-funded 
monitoring (IFM) requirements on declared Atlantic herring trips, 
unless the vessel is carrying a NMFS-certified observer to fulfill 
Standard Bycatch Reporting Methodology requirements. An owner of a 
midwater trawl vessel, required to carry a NMFS-certified observer when 
fishing in Northeast Multispecies Closed Areas at Sec.  648.202(b), may 
purchase an IFM high volume fisheries (HVF) observer to access Closed 
Areas on a trip-by-trip basis. General requirements for IFM programs in 
New England Council FMPs are specified in paragraph (g) of this 
section. Possible IFM monitoring for the Atlantic herring fishery 
includes NMFS-certified observers, at-sea monitors, and electronic 
monitoring and portside samplers, as defined in Sec.  648.2.
    (A) IFM HVF observers shall collect the following information:
    (1) Fishing gear information (e.g., size of nets, mesh sizes, and 
gear configurations);
    (2) Tow-specific information (e.g., depth, water temperature, wave 
height, and location and time when fishing begins and ends);
    (3) Species, weight, and disposition of all retained and discarded 
catch (fish, sharks, crustaceans, invertebrates, and debris) on 
observed hauls;
    (4) Species, weight, and disposition of all retained catch on 
unobserved hauls;
    (5) Actual catch weights whenever possible, or alternatively, 
weight estimates derived by sub-sampling;
    (6) Whole specimens, photos, length information, and biological 
samples (e.g., scales, otoliths, and/or vertebrae from fish, 
invertebrates, and incidental takes);
    (7) Information on interactions with protected species, such as sea 
turtles, marine mammals, and sea birds; and
    (8) Vessel trip costs (i.e., operational costs for trip including 
food, fuel, oil, and ice).
    (B) IFM HVF at-sea monitors shall collect the following 
information:
    (1) Fishing gear information (e.g., size of nets, mesh sizes, and 
gear configurations);
    (2) Tow-specific information (e.g., depth, water temperature, wave 
height, and location and time when fishing begins and ends);
    (3) Species, weight, and disposition of all retained and discarded 
catch (fish, sharks, crustaceans, invertebrates, and debris) on 
observed hauls;
    (4) Species, weight, and disposition of all retained catch on 
unobserved hauls;
    (5) Actual catch weights whenever possible, or alternatively, 
weight estimates derived by sub-sampling;
    (6) Length data, along with whole specimens and photos to verify 
species identification, on retained and discarded catch;
    (7) Information on and biological samples from interactions with 
protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and sea birds; 
and
    (8) Vessel trip costs (i.e., operational costs for trip including 
food, fuel, oil, and ice).
    (9) The New England Council may recommend that at-sea monitors 
collect additional biological information upon request. Revisions to 
the duties of an at-sea monitor, such that additional biological 
information would be collected, may be done via a framework adjustment. 
At-sea monitor duties may also be revised to collect additional 
biological information by considering the issue at a public meeting, 
where public comment is accepted, and requesting NMFS to publish a 
notice or rulemaking revising the duties for at-sea monitors. NMFS 
shall implement revisions to at-sea monitor duties in accordance with 
the APA.
    (C) IFM Portside samplers shall collect the following information:
    (1) Species, weight, and disposition of all retained catch (fish, 
sharks, crustaceans, invertebrates, and debris) on sampled trips;
    (2) Actual catch weights whenever possible, or alternatively, 
weight estimates derived by sub-sampling; and

[[Page 7439]]

    (3) Whole specimens, photos, length information, and biological 
samples (i.e., scales, otoliths, and/or vertebrae from fish, 
invertebrates, and incidental takes).
    (ii) Vessels issued an All Areas or Areas 2/3 Limited Access 
Herring Permit are subject to IFM at-sea monitoring coverage. If the 
New England Council determines that electronic monitoring, used in 
conjunction with portside sampling, is an adequate substitute for at-
sea monitoring on vessels fishing with midwater trawl gear, and it is 
approved by the Regional Administrator as specified in (m)(1)(iii), 
then owners of vessels issued an All Areas or Areas 2/3 Limited Access 
Herring Permit may choose either IFM at-sea monitoring coverage or IFM 
electronic monitoring and IFM portside sampling coverage, pursuant with 
requirements in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section. Once owners of 
vessels issued an All Areas or Areas 2/3 Limited Access Herring Permit 
may choose an IFM monitoring type, vessel owners must select one IFM 
monitoring type per fishing year and notify NMFS of their selected IFM 
monitoring type via selection form six months in advance (October 31) 
of the beginning of the SBRM year. NMFS will provide vessels owners 
with selection forms no later than September 1 in advance of the 
beginning of the SBRM year.
    (A) In a future framework adjustment, the New England Council may 
consider if electronic monitoring and portside sampling coverage is an 
adequate substitute for at-sea monitoring coverage for Atlantic herring 
vessels that fish with purse seine and/or bottom trawl gear.
    (B) IFM coverage targets for the Atlantic herring fishery are 
calculated by NMFS, in consultation with New England Council staff.
    (C) If IFM coverage targets do not match for the Atlantic herring 
and Atlantic mackerel fisheries, then the higher IFM coverage target 
would apply on trips declared into both fisheries.
    (D) Vessels intending to land less than 50 mt of Atlantic herring 
are exempt from IFM requirements, provided that the vessel requests and 
is issued a waiver prior to departing on that trip, consistent with 
paragraphs (m)(2)(iii)(B) and (m)(3) of this section. Vessels issued a 
waiver must land less than 50 mt of Atlantic herring on that trip.
    (E) A wing vessel (i.e., midwater trawl vessel pair trawling with 
another midwater trawl vessel) is exempt from IFM requirements on a 
trip, provided the wing vessel does not possess or land any fish on 
that trip and requests and is issued a waiver prior to departing on 
that trip, consistent with paragraphs (m)(2)(iii)(C) and (m)(3) of this 
section.
    (F) Two years after implementation of IFM in the Atlantic herring 
fishery, the New England Council will examine the results of any 
increased coverage in the Atlantic herring fishery and consider if 
adjustments to the IFM coverage targets are warranted.
    (iii) Electronic monitoring and portside sampling coverage may be 
used in place of at-sea monitoring coverage in the Atlantic herring 
fishery, if the electronic monitoring technology is deemed sufficient 
by the New England Council. The Regional Administrator, in consultation 
with the New England Council, may approve the use of electronic 
monitoring and portside sampling for the Atlantic herring fishery in a 
manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, with final 
measures published in the Federal Register. A vessel electing to use 
electronic monitoring and portside sampling in lieu of at-sea 
monitoring must develop a vessel monitoring plan to implement an 
electronic monitoring and portside sampling program that NMFS 
determines is sufficient for monitoring catch, discards and slippage 
events. The electronic monitoring and portside sampling program shall 
be reviewed and approved by NMFS as part of a vessel's monitoring plan 
on a yearly basis in a manner consistent with the Administrative 
Procedure Act.
    (iv) Owners, operators, or managers of vessels issued an All Areas 
Limited Access Herring Permit or Areas 2/3 Limited Access Herring 
Permit are responsible for their vessel's compliance with IFM 
requirements. When NMFS notifies a vessel owner, operator, or manager 
of the requirement to have monitoring coverage on a specific declared 
Atlantic herring trip, that vessel may not fish for, take, retain, 
possess, or land any Atlantic herring without the required monitoring 
coverage. Vessels may only embark on a declared Atlantic herring trip 
without the required monitoring coverage if the vessel owner, operator, 
and/or manager has been notified that the vessel has received a waiver 
for the required monitoring coverage for that trip, pursuant to 
paragraphs (m(2)(iii)(B) and (C) and (m)(3) of this section.
    (v) To provide the required IFM coverage aboard declared Atlantic 
herring trips, NMFS-certified observers and monitors must hold a high 
volume fisheries certification from NMFS/FSB. See details of high 
volume certification at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/training/.
    (2) Pre-trip notification. (i) At least 48 hr prior to the 
beginning of any trip on which a vessel may harvest, possess, or land 
Atlantic herring, the owner, operator, or manager of a vessel issued a 
Limited Access Herring Permit, or a vessel issued an Areas 2/3 Open 
Access Herring Permit, or a vessel issued an All Areas Open Access 
Herring Permit fishing with midwater trawl gear in Management Areas 1A, 
1B, and/or 3, as defined in Sec.  648.200(f)(1) and (3), or a vessel 
acting as a herring carrier must notify NMFS/FSB of the trip.
    (ii) The notification to NMFS/FSB must include the following 
information: Vessel name or permit number; email and telephone number 
for contact; the date, time, and port of departure; trip length; and 
gear type.
    (iii) For vessels issued an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit 
or Areas 2/3 Limited Access Herring Permit, the trip notification must 
also include the following requests, if appropriate:
    (A) For IFM NMFS-certified observer coverage aboard vessels fishing 
with midwater trawl gear to access the Northeast Multispecies Closed 
Areas, consistent with requirements at Sec.  648.202(b), at any point 
during the trip;
    (B) For a waiver of IFM requirements on a trip that shall land less 
than 50 mt of Atlantic herring; and
    (C) For a waiver of IFM requirements on trip by a wing vessel as 
described in paragraph (m)(ii)(E) of this section.
    (iv) Trip notification must be provided no more than 10 days in 
advance of each fishing trip. The vessel owner, operator, or manager 
must notify NMFS/FSB of any trip plan changes at least 12 hr prior to 
vessel departure from port.
    (3) Selection of trips for monitoring coverage. NMFS shall notify 
the owner, operator, and/or manager of a vessel with an Atlantic 
herring permit whether a declared Atlantic herring trip requires 
coverage by a NMFS-funded observer or whether a trip requires IFM 
coverage. NMFS shall also notify the owner, operator, and/or manager of 
vessel if a waiver has been granted, either for the NMFS-funded 
observer or for IFM coverage, as specified in paragraph (m)(2) of this 
section. All waivers for monitoring coverage shall be issued to the 
vessel by VMS so that there is an on-board verification of the waiver. 
A waiver is invalid if the fishing behavior on that trip is 
inconsistent with the terms of the waiver.
    (4) Procurement of monitoring services by Atlantic herring vessels. 
(i) An owner of an Atlantic herring vessel required to have monitoring 
under paragraph (m)(3) of this section must

[[Page 7440]]

arrange for monitoring by an individual certified through training 
classes operated by the NMFS/FSB and from a monitoring service provider 
approved by NMFS under paragraph (h) of this section. The owner, 
operator, or vessel manager of a vessel selected for monitoring must 
contact a monitoring service provider prior to the beginning of the 
trip and the monitoring service provider will notify the vessel owner, 
operator, or manager whether monitoring is available. A list of 
approved monitoring service providers shall be posted on the NMFS/FSB 
website at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/femad/fsb/.
    (ii) An owner, operator, or vessel manager of a vessel that cannot 
procure monitoring due to the unavailability of monitoring may request 
a waiver from NMFS/FSB from the requirement for monitoring on that 
trip, but only if the owner, operator, or vessel manager has contacted 
all of the available monitoring service providers to secure monitoring 
and no monitoring is available. NMFS/FSB shall issue a waiver, if the 
conditions of this paragraph (m)(4)(ii) are met. A vessel without 
monitoring coverage may not begin a declared Atlantic herring trip 
without having been issued a waiver.
    (iii) Vessel owners shall pay service providers for monitoring 
services within 45 days of the end of a fishing trip that was 
monitored.
    (5) Vessels working cooperatively. When vessels issued limited 
access herring permits are working cooperatively in the Atlantic 
herring fishery, including pair trawling, purse seining, and 
transferring herring at-sea, each vessel must provide to observers or 
monitors, when requested, the estimated weight of each species brought 
on board and the estimated weight of each species released on each tow.
    (6) Sampling requirements for NMFS-certified observer and monitors. 
In addition to the requirements at Sec.  648.11(d)(1) through (7), an 
owner or operator of a vessel issued a limited access herring permit on 
which a NMFS-certified observer or monitor is embarked must provide 
observers or monitors:
    (i) A safe sampling station adjacent to the fish deck, including: A 
safety harness, if footing is compromised and grating systems are high 
above the deck; a safe method to obtain samples; and a storage space 
for baskets and sampling gear.
    (ii) Reasonable assistance to enable observers or monitors to carry 
out their duties, including but not limited to assistance with: 
Obtaining and sorting samples; measuring decks, codends, and holding 
bins; collecting bycatch when requested by the observers or monitors; 
and collecting and carrying baskets of fish when requested by the 
observers or monitors.
    (iii) Advance notice when pumping will be starting; when sampling 
of the catch may begin; and when pumping is coming to an end.
    (iv) Visual access to the net, the codend of the net, and the purse 
seine bunt and any of its contents after pumping has ended and before 
the pump is removed from the net. On trawl vessels, the codend 
including any remaining contents must be brought on board, unless 
bringing the codend on board is not possible. If bringing the codend on 
board is not possible, the vessel operator must ensure that the 
observer or monitor can see the codend and its contents as clearly as 
possible before releasing its contents.
    (7) Measures to address slippage. (i) No vessel issued a limited 
access herring permit may slip catch, as defined at Sec.  648.2, except 
in the following circumstances:
    (A) The vessel operator has determined, and the preponderance of 
available evidence indicates that, there is a compelling safety reason; 
or
    (B) A mechanical failure, including gear damage, precludes bringing 
some or all of the catch on board the vessel for inspection; or
    (C) The vessel operator determines that pumping becomes impossible 
as a result of spiny dogfish clogging the pump intake. The vessel 
operator shall take reasonable measures, such as strapping and 
splitting the net, to remove all fish which can be pumped from the net 
prior to release.
    (ii) Vessels may make test tows without pumping catch on board if 
the net is re-set without releasing its contents provided that all 
catch from test tows is available to the observer to sample when the 
next tow is brought on board for sampling.
    (iii) If a vessel issued any limited access herring permit slips 
catch, the vessel operator must report the slippage event on the 
Atlantic herring daily VMS catch report and indicate the reason for 
slipping catch. Additionally, the vessel operator must complete and 
sign a Released Catch Affidavit detailing: The vessel name and permit 
number; the VTR serial number; where, when, and the reason for slipping 
catch; the estimated weight of each species brought on board or slipped 
on that tow. A completed affidavit must be submitted to NMFS within 48 
hr of the end of the trip.
    (iv) If a vessel issued an All Areas or Areas 2/3 Limited Access 
Herring permit slips catch for any of the reasons described in 
paragraph (m)(7)(i) of this section when an observer or monitor is 
aboard, the vessel operator must move at least 15 nm (27.78 km) from 
the location of the slippage event before deploying any gear again, and 
must stay at least 15 nm (27.78 km) away from the slippage event 
location for the remainder of the fishing trip.
    (v) If a vessel issued an All Areas or Areas 2/3 Limited Access 
Herring permit slips catch for any reason on a trip selected by NMFS 
for portside sampling, pursuant to paragraph (m)(3) of this section, 
the vessel operator must move at least 15 nm (27.78 km) from the 
location of the slippage event before deploying any gear again, and 
must stay at least 15 nm (27.78 km) away from the slippage event 
location for the remainder of the fishing trip.
    (vi) If catch is slipped by a vessel issued an All Areas or Areas 
2/3 Limited Access Herring permit for any reason not described in 
paragraph (m)(7)(i) of this section when an observer or monitor is 
aboard, the vessel operator must immediately terminate the trip and 
return to port. No fishing activity may occur during the return to 
port.
    (n) Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish observer coverage--(1) 
Pre-trip notification. (i) A vessel issued a limited access Atlantic 
mackerel permit, as specified at Sec.  648.4(a)(5)(iii), must, for the 
purposes of observer deployment, have a representative provide notice 
to NMFS of the vessel name, vessel permit number, contact name for 
coordination of observer deployment, telephone number or email address 
for contact; and the date, time, port of departure, gear type, and 
approximate trip duration, at least 48 hr, but no more than 10 days, 
prior to beginning any fishing trip, unless it complies with the 
possession restrictions in paragraph (n)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (ii) A vessel that has a representative provide notification to 
NMFS as described in paragraph (n)(1)(i) of this section may only 
embark on a mackerel trip without an observer if a vessel 
representative has been notified by NMFS that the vessel has received a 
waiver of the observer requirement for that trip. NMFS shall notify a 
vessel representative whether the vessel must carry an observer, or if 
a waiver has been granted, for the specific mackerel trip, within 24 hr 
of the vessel representative's notification of the prospective mackerel 
trip, as specified in paragraph (n)(1)(i) of this section. Any request 
to carry an observer may be waived by NMFS. A vessel that fishes

[[Page 7441]]

with an observer waiver confirmation number that does not match the 
mackerel trip plan that was called in to NMFS is prohibited from 
fishing for, possessing, harvesting, or landing mackerel except as 
specified in paragraph (n)(1)(iii) of this section. Confirmation 
numbers for trip notification calls are only valid for 48 hr from the 
intended sail date.
    (iii) A vessel issued a limited access mackerel permit, as 
specified in Sec.  648.4(a)(5)(iii), that does not have a 
representative provide the trip notification required in paragraph 
(n)(1)(i) of this section is prohibited from fishing for, possessing, 
harvesting, or landing more than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of mackerel per 
trip at any time, and may only land mackerel once on any calendar day, 
which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending 
at 2400 hours.
    (iv) If a vessel issued a limited access Atlantic mackerel permit, 
as specified in Sec.  648.4(a)(5)(iii), intends to possess, harvest, or 
land more than 20,000 lb (9.07 mt) of mackerel per trip or per calendar 
day, and has a representative notify NMFS of an upcoming trip, is 
selected by NMFS to carry an observer, and then cancels that trip, the 
representative is required to provide notice to NMFS of the vessel 
name, vessel permit number, contact name for coordination of observer 
deployment, and telephone number or email address for contact, and the 
intended date, time, and port of departure for the cancelled trip prior 
to the planned departure time. In addition, if a trip selected for 
observer coverage is cancelled, then that vessel is required to carry 
an observer, provided an observer is available, on its next trip.
    (2) Sampling requirements for limited access Atlantic mackerel and 
longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit holders. In addition to the 
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this section, an owner 
or operator of a vessel issued a limited access Atlantic mackerel or 
longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit on which a NMFS-certified 
observer is embarked must provide observers:
    (i) A safe sampling station adjacent to the fish deck, including: A 
safety harness, if footing is compromised and grating systems are high 
above the deck; a safe method to obtain samples; and a storage space 
for baskets and sampling gear.
    (ii) Reasonable assistance to enable observers to carry out their 
duties, including but not limited to assistance with: Obtaining and 
sorting samples; measuring decks, codends, and holding bins; collecting 
bycatch when requested by the observers; and collecting and carrying 
baskets of fish when requested by the observers.
    (iii) Advance notice when pumping will be starting; when sampling 
of the catch may begin; and when pumping is coming to an end.
    (3) Measures to address slippage. (i) No vessel issued a limited 
access Atlantic mackerel permit or a longfin squid/butterfish 
moratorium permit may slip catch, as defined at Sec.  648.2, except in 
the following circumstances:
    (A) The vessel operator has determined, and the preponderance of 
available evidence indicates that, there is a compelling safety reason; 
or
    (B) A mechanical failure, including gear damage, precludes bringing 
some or all of the catch on board the vessel for sampling and 
inspection; or
    (C) The vessel operator determines that pumping becomes impossible 
as a result of spiny dogfish clogging the pump intake. The vessel 
operator shall take reasonable measures, such as strapping and 
splitting the net, to remove all fish that can be pumped from the net 
prior to release.
    (ii) If a vessel issued any limited access Atlantic mackerel permit 
slips catch, the vessel operator must report the slippage event on the 
Atlantic mackerel and longfin squid daily VMS catch report and indicate 
the reason for slipping catch. Additionally, vessels issued a limited 
Atlantic mackerel permit or a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium 
permit, the vessel operator must complete and sign a Released Catch 
Affidavit detailing: The vessel name and permit number; the VTR serial 
number; where, when, and the reason for slipping catch; the estimated 
weight of each species brought on board or slipped on that tow. A 
completed affidavit must be submitted to NMFS within 48 hr of the end 
of the trip.
    (iii) If a vessel issued a limited access Atlantic mackerel permit 
slips catch for any of the reasons described in paragraph (n)(3)(i) of 
this section, the vessel operator must move at least 15 nm (27.8 km) 
from the location of the slippage event before deploying any gear 
again, and must stay at least 15 nm (27.8 km) from the slippage event 
location for the remainder of the fishing trip.
    (iv) If catch is slipped by a vessel issued a limited access 
Atlantic mackerel permit for any reason not described in paragraph 
(n)(3)(i) of this section, the vessel operator must immediately 
terminate the trip and return to port. No fishing activity may occur 
during the return to port.

0
5. In Sec.  648.14, revise paragraphs (e), (r)(1)(vi)(A), (r)(2)(v), 
and (r)(2)(viii) through (xii) and add paragraphs (r)(2)(xiii) and 
(xiv) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.14  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (e) Observer program. It is unlawful for any person to do any of 
the following:
    (1) Assault, resist, oppose, impede, harass, intimidate, or 
interfere with or bar by command, impediment, threat, or coercion any 
NMFS-certified observer or monitor conducting his or her duties; any 
authorized officer conducting any search, inspection, investigation, or 
seizure in connection with enforcement of this part; any official 
designee of the Regional Administrator conducting his or her duties, 
including those duties authorized in Sec.  648.7(g).
    (2) Refuse monitoring coverage by a NMFS-certified observer or 
monitor if selected for monitoring coverage by the Regional 
Administrator or the Regional Administrator's designee.
    (3) Fail to provide information, notification, accommodations, 
access, or reasonable assistance to either a NMFS-certified observer or 
monitor conducting his or her duties as specified in Sec.  648.11.
    (4) Submit false or inaccurate data, statements, or reports.
* * * * *
    (r) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (A) For the purposes of observer deployment, fail to notify NMFS at 
least 48 hr prior to departing on a declared herring trip with a vessel 
issued an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Area 2 and 
3 Limited Access Herring Permit and fishing with midwater trawl or 
purse seine gear, or on a trip with a vessel issued a Limited Access 
Incidental Catch Herring Permit and/or an Open Access Herring Permit 
that is fishing with midwater trawl gear in Management Areas 1A, 1B, 
and/or 3, as defined in Sec.  648.200(f)(1) and (3), pursuant to the 
requirements in Sec.  648.80(d) and (e).
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) Fish with midwater trawl gear in any Northeast Multispecies 
Closed Area, as defined in Sec.  648.81(a)(3) through (5) and (c)(3) 
and (4), without a NMFS-certified observer on board, if the vessel has 
been issued an Atlantic herring permit.
* * * * *
    (viii) Slip catch, as defined at Sec.  648.2, unless for one of the 
reasons specified at Sec.  648.11(m)(7)(i).
    (ix) For vessels with All Areas or Areas 2/3 Limited Access Herring

[[Page 7442]]

Permits, fail to move 15 nm (27.78 km), as required by Sec. Sec.  
648.11(m)(7)(iv) and (v) and 648.202(b)(4)(iv).
    (x) For vessels with All Areas or Areas 2/3 Limited Access Herring 
Permits, fail to immediately return to port, as required by Sec. Sec.  
648.11(m)(7)(vi) and 648.202(b)(4)(iv).
    (xi) Fail to complete, sign, and submit a Released Catch Affidavit 
as required by Sec. Sec.  648.11(m)(7)(iii) and 648.202(b)(4)(ii).
    (xii) Fail to report or fail to accurately report a slippage event 
on the Atlantic herring daily VMS catch report, as required by 
Sec. Sec.  648.11(m)(7)(iii) and 648.202(b)(4)(iii).
    (xiii) For vessels with All Areas or Areas 2/3 Limited Access 
Herring Permits, fail to comply with industry-funded monitoring 
requirements at Sec.  648.11(m).
    (xiv) For a vessel with All Areas or Areas 2/3 Limited Access 
Herring Permit, fail to comply with its NMFS-approved vessel monitoring 
plan requirements, as described at Sec.  648.11(m).
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  648.80, revise paragraphs (d)(5) and (e)(5) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  648.80  NE Multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on 
gear and methods of fishing.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) To fish for herring under this exemption, a vessel issued an 
All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited 
Access Herring Permit fishing on a declared herring trip, or a vessel 
issued a Limited Access Incidental Catch Herring Permit and/or an Open 
Access Herring Permit fishing with midwater trawl gear in Management 
Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3, as defined in Sec.  648.200(f)(1) and (3), must 
provide notice of the following information to NMFS at least 48 hr 
prior to beginning any trip into these areas for the purposes of 
observer deployment: Vessel name; contact name for coordination of 
observer deployment; telephone number for contact; the date, time, and 
port of departure; and
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) To fish for herring under this exemption, vessels that have an 
All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited 
Access Herring Permit must provide notice to NMFS of the vessel name; 
contact name for coordination of observer deployment; telephone number 
for contact; and the date, time, and port of departure, at least 48 hr 
prior to beginning any trip into these areas for the purposes of 
observer deployment; and
* * * * *

0
7. In Sec.  648.86, revise paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  648.86  NE Multispecies possession restrictions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) Haddock incidental catch cap. When the Regional Administrator 
has determined that the incidental catch allowance for a given haddock 
stock, as specified in Sec.  648.90(a)(4)(iii)(D),has been caught, no 
vessel issued an Atlantic herring permit and fishing with midwater 
trawl gear in the applicable stock area, i.e., the Herring GOM Haddock 
Accountability Measure (AM) Area or Herring GB Haddock AM Area, as 
defined in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A)(2) and (3) of this section, may 
fish for, possess, or land herring in excess of 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) per 
trip in or from that area, unless all herring possessed and landed by 
the vessel were caught outside the applicable AM Area and the vessel's 
gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in Sec.  
648.2 while transiting the AM Area. Upon this determination, the 
haddock possession limit is reduced to 0 lb (0 kg) for a vessel issued 
a Federal Atlantic herring permit and fishing with midwater trawl gear 
or for a vessel issued an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/
or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit fishing on a declared 
herring trip, regardless of area fished or gear used, in the applicable 
AM area, unless the vessel also possesses a NE multispecies permit and 
is operating on a declared (consistent with Sec.  648.10(g)) NE 
multispecies trip. In making this determination, the Regional 
Administrator shall use haddock catches observed by NMFS-certified 
observers or monitors by herring vessel trips using midwater trawl gear 
in Management Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3, as defined in Sec.  648.200(f)(1) 
and (3), expanded to an estimate of total haddock catch for all such 
trips in a given haddock stock area.
* * * * *


Sec.  Sec.  648.10, 648.14, 648.51, 648.59, 648.80, 648.86, and 
648.202  [Amended]

0
8. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, 
remove the text indicated in the middle column from wherever it appears 
in the section, and add the text indicated in the right column:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Section                            Remove                                Add
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
648.10(f)(4)(i) introductory text......  NMFS-approved.............  NMFS-certified.
648.14(i)(1)(ix)(B)....................  NMFS-approved.............  NMFS-certified.
648.14(i)(1)(ix)(C)....................  648.11(g).................  648.11(k).
648.14(k)(2)(iii)......................  648.11(k).................  648.11(l).
648.14(k)(2)(iv).......................  648.11(k).................  648.11(l).
648.51(c)(4)...........................  648.11(g).................  648.11(k).
648.51(e)(3)(iii)......................  648.11(g).................  648.11(k).
648.59(b)(2)...........................  648.11(g).................  648.11(k).
648.80(d)(3)...........................  NMFS-approved sea sampler/  NMFS-certified observer.
                                          observer.
648.80(e)(2)(ii).......................  NMFS-approved sea sampler/  NMFS-certified observer.
                                          observer.
648.86(a)(3)(ii)(A)(1).................  NMFS-approved.............  NMFS-certified.
648.202(b)(4)(iv)......................  648.11(m)(4)(iv) and (v)..  648.11(m)(7)(iv) and (vi).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-00881 Filed 2-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P