The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2024-0041; Project Identifier AD-2024-00032-E” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

The FAA has been informed that PW has done some outreach with affected operators regarding the proposed corrective actions for this unsafe condition. As a result, affected operators are already aware of the proposed corrective actions and, in some cases, have already begun planning for replacement of the affected parts. Therefore, the FAA has determined that a 30-day comment period is appropriate given the particular circumstances related to the proposed correction of this unsafe condition.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Carol Nguyen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

On December 24, 2022, an Airbus Model A320neo airplane, powered by IAE LLC Model PW1127GA-JM engines, experienced a failure of the HPC IBR-7 that resulted in an engine shutdown and aborted take-off. Following this event, the manufacturer conducted a records review of production and field-returned parts and re-evaluated their engineering analysis methodology. The new analysis found that the failure of the HPC IBR-7 was caused by a nickel powdered metal anomaly, similar in nature to an anomaly previously observed on March 18, 2020, when an Airbus Model A321-231 airplane, powered by IAE AG Model V2533-A5 engines, experienced an uncontained HPT 1st-stage hub failure that resulted in high-energy debris penetrating the engine cowling. The analysis also concluded that there is an increased risk of failure for a subpopulation of HPT 1st-stage hubs and HPT 2nd-stage hubs that were manufactured from the same production campaign (a batch of nickel powdered metal) as the HPT 1st-stage hub that failed on March 18, 2020; these parts have a higher likelihood of containing the nickel powdered metal anomaly and are susceptible to failure much earlier than previously determined. As a result, the FAA is proposing an accelerated AUSI for certain HPT 1st-stage hubs and HPT 2nd-stage hubs and, depending on the results of the inspections, replacing the HPT 1st-stage hubs or HPT 2nd-stage hubs. This proposed AD would also require accelerated replacement of certain HPT 1st-stage hubs and HPT 2nd-stage hubs. Certain IAE AG Model V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5, V2530-A5, V2531-E5, and V2533-A5 engines are among the products affected by this condition, which, if not addressed, could result in hub failure, release of high-energy debris, damage to the engine, damage to the airplane, and possible loss of the airplane.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed IAE AG Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) V2500-ENG-72-0720, dated November 20, 2023; and PW Special Instruction NO. 189F-23, dated November 20, 2023 which only applies to the IAE AG V2531-E5 Model engine. This service information specifies procedures for performing an AUSI for cracks on affected HPT 1st-stage hubs and HPT 2nd-stage hubs. This service information also specifies the list of affected HPT 1st-stage hubs and HPT 2nd-stage hubs, identified by part number and serial number, installed on certain IAE AG engines.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

This proposed AD would require performing an AUSI of certain HPT 1st-stage hubs and HPT 2nd-stage hubs and, depending on the results of the inspections, replacing the HPT 1st-stage hubs or HPT 2nd-stage hubs. This proposed AD would also require accelerated replacement of certain HPT 1st-stage hubs and HPT 2nd-stage hubs.

The FAA considers this proposed AD to be an interim action. The unsafe condition is still under investigation by the manufacturer and, depending on the results of that investigation, the FAA may consider further rulemaking action.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 116 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that 40 engines would need an AUSI of the HPT 1st-stage hub; 40 engines would need an AUSI of the HPT 2nd-stage hub; 67 engines would need replacement of the HPT 1st-stage hub; and 49 engines would need replacement of the HPT 2nd-stage hub.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter. The Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received.

If you wish to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not wish for it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all of the personal identifying information that you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify with specificity what information you want the agency to redact.

If you wish to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not wish it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify all confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, the agency may choose not to post all or part of that comment.

Personal identifying information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. Confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will not be placed in the public docket file. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph.

OJP's Office for Victims of Crime (“OVC”) administers the VOCA Victim Compensation Grant Program (“Victim Compensation Program”). The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (“VOCA”), Public Law 98-473, sec. 1403, 34 U.S.C. 20102, authorizes the Victim Compensation Program, through which OVC provides an annual grant to State  1 victim compensation programs in amounts determined by statutory formula based on prior year expenditures of those programs, provided that the programs meet the VOCA criteria. State compensation programs make payments to reimburse victims of crime (or, in some cases, third-party providers on behalf of victims) for certain expenses incurred as a result of crime.

The proposed rule proposes to replace the existing Victim Compensation Program Guidelines (“Guidelines”), published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2001, at 66 FR 95, and update and codify program requirements. The proposed rule retains most of the substance of the current Guidelines, with various modest technical and substantive updates, primarily to account for statutory or procedural changes since 2001, and to clarify or streamline existing provisions. Of note, the proposed rule would clarify and streamline the policies and definitions regarding who may be considered a survivor of a victim; medical and dental expenses; property damage expenses; sexual assault forensic exam expenses; the requirement that States promote victim cooperation with the reasonable requests of law enforcement; consideration of a victim's or survivor's immigration status, criminal history, or alleged contributory conduct in claim determinations; and crowdfunded resources. It would make it easier for States to seek reimbursement for costs associated with recovery efforts (recovering payment amounts via restitution and subrogation). It would address extensions of grant performance periods and better describe OVC's discretion in remedying erroneous State certification of payments.

The benefits of this proposed rule outweigh the potential costs. A full analysis of costs and benefits is provided below in the regulatory certifications section.

OVC's Victim Compensation Program provides an annual grant to eligible State-operated crime victim compensation programs, which reimburse victims of crime (or, in some cases, third-party providers on behalf of victims) for certain expenses incurred as a result of crime.

The Victim Compensation Program is funded from the Crime Victims Fund. The Fund receives Federal criminal fines, penalties, and assessments, as well as certain gifts and bequests, but does not receive any general tax revenue. The Crime Victims Fund is administered by OVC, and amounts that may be obligated therefrom are allocated each year according to the VOCA formula at 34 U.S.C. 20101. The amount annually available for obligation through the VOCA formula allocations typically (since Federal fiscal year 2000) has been set by statute, through limits specified in the annual Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations act, at less than the total amount available in the Fund. The VOCA formula specifies that (in most years) the first $20M available in the Fund for that year is to go toward child abuse prevention and treatment programs (via grants made by the Department of Health and Human Services), with a certain amount to be set-aside for OVC grants to address child abuse in Indian Country. After that, such sums as may be necessary are available to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Offices to improve services to victims of Federal crime, and to operate a victim notification system. The remaining balance is allocated as follows: 47.5% for OVC's Victim Compensation Program, 47.5% for OVC's Victim Assistance Program, and 5% for the OVC Director to distribute in competitive-discretionary awards in certain statutorily defined categories. Generally, under the distribution rules for the Victim Compensation Program, if a portion of the 47.5% available for Compensation is not needed for that purpose ( i.e., it is greater than the sum of the statutorily allocated grant amounts for the eligible State victim compensation programs for that year), it is (per the statutory formula) made available to augment the Victim Assistance Program. The Victim Assistance Program distributes funds to States as mandated by VOCA, at 34 U.S.C. 20103(a) and (b).

Under 34 U.S.C. 20102, the Director of OVC is required to make an annual grant to eligible crime victim compensation programs that is equal to 75 percent of the amount awarded by the State program to victims of crime from State funds during the fiscal year preceding the year of deposits in the Fund (two fiscal years prior to the grant year). If the amount in the Fund is insufficient to award each State its percentage of the prior year's compensation payout from State revenues, all States will be awarded the same reduced percentage of their prior year's payout from the available Federal funds. (The allocation percentage was changed, by statute, from 60 to 75 percent in 2021.)

To determine the amount of the grant, each State must annually submit to OVC a certification of the amount expended by the State compensation program in a prior Federal fiscal year. State crime victim compensation programs may use state or VOCA compensation grant funds to pay for eligible expenses allowed by State compensation statute, rule, or other established policy. The VOCA compensation formula matches state-certified payments at the statutorily defined rate after certain deductions, which include payments made with VOCA compensation funding and most property damage and loss payments, among other things. OVC does not require States to submit budgets with their formula award applications, as the allocation and use of funds under this formula program are prescribed by VOCA. OVC does require basic information about State use of the administrative and training allowance.

Each VOCA Compensation grant is available for the entire fiscal year in which the award is made (typically, OVC makes awards toward the end of the Federal fiscal year, in August and September), and the following three fiscal years. 34 U.S.C. 20101(e). Pursuant to the implementation of the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act (“VOCA Fix”), Public Law 117-27 (July 22, 2021), OJP has authority to grant extensions of VOCA awards, including those under the VOCA Compensation Program.

State compensation programs must comply with applicable reporting requirements, are monitored by OVC for compliance with VOCA and other applicable requirements and are subject to audit.

Since the Guidelines were promulgated in 2001, there have been changes to VOCA, section 1403, which governs the VOCA Victim Compensation Program, to other parts of VOCA, and to various government-wide and OJP-specific rules and processes relevant to the program. These changes are discussed below, along with the relevant corresponding proposed changes to the program rules; but some of the more significant changes are highlighted below for context:

On October 26, 2001, a few months after issuance of the May 2001 Guidelines, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the USA PATRIOT Act), Public Law 107-56, title VI, sec. 622(a)-(e)(1), raised the percentage used for calculating a State's VOCA grant from 40 percent of prior year certified payouts to 60 percent starting in Federal fiscal year 2003. (This was further increased by Pub L. 117-27, sec. 2(b)(1)(A) (July 22, 2021), to the current level of 75 percent starting in Federal fiscal year 2021.) The same 2001 law also removed the eligibility requirement that State compensation programs compensate victim of terrorism occurring outside of the United States. (It should be noted that the law did not, and does not, prevent States from compensating victims of such crimes, should they choose to do so.) The October 2001 amendment also changed the means-testing- and collateral-source exceptions applicable to State victim compensation payments: It added an exception that allowed the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund to count State victim compensation payments for purposes of means testing and collateral-source review. It expanded the concept of means testing to include not only income eligibility but also resource or asset eligibility. It also expanded the exclusion to prevent most programs from counting payments from State victim compensation programs as a collateral source until the victim is fully compensated from the losses suffered as a result of the crime. It removed the role of the Director of OVC in determining that assistance or payment provided became necessary in full or part because of the commission of a crime, and instead simply exempted payments of “any amount of crime victim compensation the applicant receives through a crime victim compensation program under this section [presumably meaning a State compensation program that receives a VOCA grant]”. It added the U.S. Virgin Islands to the list of U.S. territories treated as “States” for purposes of program eligibility. It clarified, with regard to the payor-of-last resort provision, that the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund (as other Federal or federally financed programs) was to pay before the State victim compensation programs.

In 2006, Public Law 109-162, sec (a)(3), amended the VOCA provision allowing an administrative cost allowance of up to five percent of the annual VOCA Compensation grant, to allow grant funds also to be used for “training purposes.”

On December 19, 2014, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a major revision and consolidation of government-wide grant rules, for codification as 2 CFR part 200. These rules promulgated as a result provide the primary legal structure for most Federal grant activity, including VOCA Victim Compensation Program grants. The Department of Justice adopted these rules (with very minor exceptions) on September 9, 2016, in its rule at 28 CFR part 2800.

On September 1, 2017, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives reclassified the U.S. Code provisions where VOCA had been codified to a different title of the Code—moving them from 42 U.S.C. 10601, et seq., to 34 U.S.C. 20101, et seq. (42 U.S.C. 10602 in the Guidelines was reclassified to 34 U.S.C. 20102.)

In 2021, the VOCA Fix increased the statutory formula percentage used for calculating a State's annual VOCA grant from 60 percent to 75 percent. It added exceptions (centered around victim wellbeing) to the existing eligibility provision that requires State compensation programs to promote victim cooperation with the reasonable requests of law enforcement. It expressly prohibited OVC from deducting (from a State's compensation payments reported in the Victim Compensation Certification form) recovery costs or collections from restitution or from subrogation for payment under a civil lawsuit. The VOCA Fix also (in 34 U.S.C. 20101(e)) gave authority to the U.S. Attorney General (who has delegated this authority to the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs) to allow extensions of the VOCA-award time limit, which ordinarily makes victim compensation grants available for expenditure only in the Federal fiscal year (FY) of the award plus the next three fiscal years.

In 2022, Public Law 117-103, div. W, title XIII, sec. 1311, 1316(b), March 15, 2022, added a provision (that is to be implemented no later than March 2025) requiring State victim compensation programs to waive the application deadline for certain victims whose delay in filing “was a result of a delay in the testing of, or a delay in the DNA profile matching from, a sexual assault forensic examination kit or biological material collected as evidence related to a sexual offense[.]”

The primary substantive changes that OVC proposes to make to the current Guidelines are highlighted as follows (with full discussion below):

1. OVC proposes to allow States to adopt policies that victim expenses for dental services and devices under a State-defined threshold are presumed to be attributable to a physical injury resulting from a compensable crime. This would allow States to facilitate processing of claims for these expenses in a more efficient and victim-centered manner, at a lower administrative burden to the State.

2. OVC proposes to clarify the definition of “medical expenses” and “mental health counseling and care” to emphasize that a limited definition applies for purposes of costs that a State must cover (to be an eligible program), but that States may apply a broader understanding of such expenses, in the exercise of their discretion. This would clarify that States have flexibility to address victim expenses more comprehensively where reasonable and appropriate; for example, in connection with services accessed in another jurisdiction, areas with limited access to licensed providers, or Native American healing practices.

3. OVC proposes to lower the threshold for States to seek reimbursement for the costs of their personnel who work on recovery efforts ( e.g., recovering restitution, subrogation for civil lawsuit recovery). The Guidelines currently require personnel to dedicate at least 75 percent of their time to such efforts, to be included in the State certification of payments that forms the basis for a subsequent VOCA Compensation grant. OVC proposes to lower this threshold to 50 percent.

4. OVC proposes a new definition of “survivor of a victim” to make patent OVC's longstanding view that States have discretion to consider a broad variety of relationships to the victim in determining who is eligible for compensation.

5. OVC proposes to add language reflecting the statutory change in 2021 that now allows OJP (via delegation from the United States Attorney General) to extend the performance period for VOCA Compensation grants under certain circumstances.

6. OVC proposes various clarifications of previously ambiguous or incorrect descriptions of statutory requirements, and removal of text that unnecessarily paraphrases or repeats the VOCA statute.

7. OVC proposes to clarify State discretion to pay for, and certify, expenses of damaged property reasonably necessary for victim safety and how this interacts with the prohibition on certifying property damage expenses. This proposal would allow State compensation programs to address victim safety needs better, and in a timely manner.

8. OVC proposes to omit in the Compensation rule some language in the current Guidelines (and make a conforming change to the VOCA Victim Assistance Program rule) that creates some confusion regarding which program (Victim Compensation or other programs, such as Victim Assistance) may pay for sexual assault forensic exams. This proposal would allow States to structure their coverage of the costs for these exams more flexibly, to enable them better to meet the requirement in Federal law that such exams be covered without charge to a victim. OVC also proposes to allow States to certify payments by the State compensation program for sexual assault forensic exams regardless of whether those funds derive from general state funding or are specifically appropriated for sexual assault forensic exam expenses. This would allow treatment of sexual assault forensic exam payments to be like that of other victim compensation expenses (for which the state funding source is largely irrelevant) and would encourage States to designate funding for sexual assault forensic exams by including those payments from designated state funding sources in the calculation for the Federal VOCA compensation award.

9. OVC proposes to clarify the VOCA eligibility requirement that States promote victim cooperation with the reasonable requests of law enforcement, to emphasize that the requirement applies—by statute—to States, not victims. Although States have discretion in addressing the requirement, the proposal would clarify that they are not required to impose an evidentiary burden on victims to do so and expressly encourages States to avoid doing so.

10. OVC proposes to make patent that nothing in the rule shall be understood to require or authorize a State to consider a victim's or survivor's Federal immigration status in determining eligibility for crime victim compensation.

11. OVC proposes to add a provision prohibiting States from denying claims based on criminal history. Certain populations may be more likely to have criminal history due to unjustified disparate treatment in the criminal justice system or due to criminal conduct induced through force, fraud, or coercion, such as unlawful acts that traffickers compelled their victims to commit, and this can result in unjustifiably disproportionate denial of claims for those populations.

12. OVC proposes to add a provision generally prohibiting States from considering a victim's alleged contributory conduct in determining compensation claims, except in specific exceptional claims and where a State has a publicly available written policy regarding consideration of this factor. This change is intended to increase objectiveness and consistency in contributory conduct reviews and to address inconsistent attribution of “contributory conduct” to victims, which attribution may later preclude these victims from receiving compensation.

13. OVC proposes to prohibit (with exceptions) States from requiring notarized signatures on claim applications. This is intended to lower the administrative barriers for victims seeking compensation.

14. OVC proposes a provision to clarify that crowdfunded resources are not considered a collateral source and to clarify that the VOCA payor-of-last-resort provision does not apply to private insurance or crowdfunded resources.

15. OVC proposes minor changes to the provisions regarding incorrect State certification of compensation payments, to make patent OVC's discretion in remedying over- and under-payments resulting from erroneous certifications.

2. Section-by-Section Discussion of Changes to Current Guidelines

What follows is a section-by-section discussion of proposed changes to the Guidelines. It is organized below in the section order of the current Guidelines, with new proposed rule sections with no corresponding Guideline provision marked “NEW.”.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) applies to rules that are subject to notice and comment under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). As noted in the discussion, below, however, regarding the applicability of the APA, this proposed rule is exempt from the 553(b) notice and comment requirements. Consequently, the RFA does not apply.

Nevertheless, consistent with the analysis typically required by the RFA (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), OVC has reviewed this proposed regulation and, by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Victim Compensation Program provides grant funding to States to supplement their crime victim compensation programs, thus this proposed rule will have no direct effect on any particular local governments or entities, nor will it have any cost to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector. The program is funded by fines, fees, penalty assessments, and bond forfeitures paid by Federal offenders, as well as gifts from private individuals, that are deposited into the Crime Victims Fund of the U.S. Treasury. Therefore, an analysis of the impact of this proposed rule on such entities is not required under the RFA.

This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”; Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”; and Executive Order 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review”. The Department has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Consistent with the principles of Executive Order 14094, OVC engaged in substantial outreach and knowledge gathering related to this effort. This NPRM was informed by input from a wide variety of interested and affected communities, including formal stakeholder discussion sessions that included State compensation and assistance administrators, tribal organizations, victims of crime, and organizations that represent and serve victims of crime.

This proposed rule would impose no cost on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector. The Crime Victim Compensation Grant Program is funded by fines, fees, penalty assessments, and forfeitures paid by Federal offenders, as well as gifts from private individuals, that are deposited into the Crime Victims Fund of the U.S. Treasury. The cost to the Federal Government is largely administrative and is clearly outweighed by the government's interest in seeing that crime victims are compensated for the expenses associated with their victimization. Annual grant amounts are determined by statutory formula. Consequently, none of the changes in this rule is expected to alter the overall budgetary impact of this program or annual grant amounts materially.

OVC estimates that the proposed changes highlighted in the Executive Summary may marginally increase the amount of victim compensation payments by reducing barriers for victims and allowing States some additional flexibility. OVC does not anticipate that such changes would materially alter the outlays for victim compensation at the State level because the changes primarily would afford States additional flexibility to address marginal situations arising in the context of compensation that they already generally provide ( e.g., flexibility to cover unique but justifiable costs incurred by a victim for mental health needs, prohibiting denials based on criminal history). The benefits of these changes for individual victims, however, would be likely to be significant, as would be the benefit of advancing equity in claim determinations and reducing unnecessary barriers to compensation. OVC anticipates that the proposal to lower the threshold at which States may seek reimbursement for personnel involved in recovery efforts would result in a marginal, but non-material, increase in the amount of recovery costs that States are eligible to recover via the annual grant. In FY 2022, States recovered approximately $5.9 million in recovery costs. If the proposed provision increases eligible State recovery costs by 25 percent, the overall effect on the program outlays would be approximately $1.5 million annually, or less than 1 percent of the annual grant amounts (which totaled $177,813,000 in FY 2022). This de minimis cost increase in the Federal outlays are outweighed by the benefit to victims and State programs of incentivizing States to fund recovery efforts that result in money (including money for expenses not compensated) returning to victims and to the State programs. OVC does not expect that the revision to the provision regarding sexual assault forensic exam payments necessarily would cause changes to State payment regimes immediately and expects that most States would continue to cover sexual assault forensic exam costs from the State victim compensation program. OVC is not able to estimate the costs of State changes that would take advantage of additional flexibility regarding covering such exams from either program, because such changes would in large part depend on future State legislative action. OVC does expect, however, that State-level changes taking advantage of additional flexibility would inure to the end benefit to victims. The proposed prohibition on notarized signature requirements for applications would not impose a cost (nearly all States have eliminated this already without additional costs) but would reduce this cost- and time barrier for victims seeking compensation in the few (approx. 2) States that retain notary requirements. The proposed rule regarding crowdfunded resources may marginally increase State payments where such resources may have previously been counted as a collateral source. The provision, however, is also expected to reduce State administrative burdens regarding inquiring into the nature of crowdsourced resources, which, in many cases, would not be information readily available to State administrators. The provision regarding OVC's discretion to remedy over- and under certifications would not impose any new costs, because it merely would codify OVC's current approach, which considers a range of remedies (typically aimed at maximizing recovery of overpayments while minimizing the burden on State compensation resources).

This proposed rule concerns matters relating to “grants, benefits, or contracts,” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), and is therefore exempt from the requirement of notice and comment and a 30-day delay in the effective date. Nevertheless, in its discretion, OVC has decided to solicit comments on this proposed rule.

The VOCA Compensation Program does not impose any mandates on States; nor does it interfere with States' sovereignty, authorities, or rights. States, rather, participate in the Program voluntarily and, as a condition of receipt of funding, agree to comply with the Program's requirements, which are predicated on the authorizing statute. Thus, this proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed rule would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt any State laws. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order No. 13132, it is determined that this proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in section 3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to specify provisions in clear language. Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) of the Executive order, nothing in this proposed or any previous rule (or in any administrative policy, directive, ruling, notice, guideline, guidance, or writing) directly relating to the Program that is the subject of this proposed rule is intended to create any legal or procedural rights enforceable against the United States.

This proposed rule, when finalized, would not result in the expenditure by State, local and Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The Victim Compensation Program provides funds to States to supplement their victim compensation programs. As a condition of funding, States agree to comply with the Program requirements. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804. This proposed rule would not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

This proposed rule would not propose any new, or changes to existing, “collection[s] of information” as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of Justice Programs proposes to amend Title 28, Part 94, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The revision to 32 CFR part 1665 adds clarity for how to make online inquiries, and how inquiries will be processed, allows for electronic requests, and makes several stylistic and grammatical changes.

The Housekeeping Statute, 5 U.S.C. 301, authorizes agency heads to promulgate regulations governing “the custody, use, and preservation of its records, papers, and property.” The Privacy Act is a Federal statute that establishes a Code of Fair Information Practice that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally identifiable information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by Federal agencies. A system of records is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifier assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act requires that agencies give the public notice of their systems of records by publication in the Federal Register .

The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of information from a system of records absent the written consent of the subject individual unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of 12 statutory exceptions. The Act also provides individuals with a means by which to seek access to and amendment of their records and sets forth various agency record-keeping requirements. Additionally, with people granted the right to review what was documented with their name, they are also able to find out if the “records have been disclosed” and are also given the right to make corrections. The Privacy Act also provides an avenue for appeal from denials of request for access to or amendment of records. This new rule amends part 1665 to ensure processes and procedures for appeals from denials of request for access to or amendments of records is clearly spelled out within the SSS regulations.

This proposed rule will not impose any new costs. These regulations will clarify and streamline appeals from denials of request for access to or amendment of records. This revision will produce efficiency and uniformity to the public's benefit.

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Following the requirements of these EOs, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 nor a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

SSS certifies that this proposed rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, because it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require SSS to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require the expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars, adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule will not mandate any requirements for state, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.

It has been determined that 32 CFR part 1665 does not impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This rulemaking is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 801.

E.O. 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has federalism implications. This proposed rule will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.

In accordance with Compliance with Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2023 (Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Pub. L. 118-5, div. B, title III) and OMB Memorandum (M-23-21) dated September 1, 2023, SSS has determined that this proposed rule is not subject to the Act because it will not increase direct spending beyond specified thresholds.

In E.O. 11623, the President delegated to the Director of Selective Service the authority to prescribe the necessary rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of the Military Selective Service Act. In carrying out the provisions of E.O. 11623, as amended by E.O. 13286, the Director shall request the views of the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Secretary of Homeland Security (when the Coast Guard is serving under the Department of Homeland Security), the Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the Chairman of the National Selective Service Appeal Board with regard to such proposed rule or regulation, and shall allow not less than 10 days for the submission of such views before publication of the proposed rule or regulation. On January 24, 2024, the SSS completed its coordination requirements, and the Director certifies that he has requested the views of the officials required to be consulted pursuant to subsection (a) of E.O. 11623, considered those views, and, as appropriate, incorporated those views in these regulations, and that none of them has timely requested that the matter be referred to the President for decision.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, SSS proposes to amend 32 CFR part 1665 as set forth below:

The revision reads as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

EPA received a SIP submission from ACHD on August 23, 2023 requesting that EPA incorporate into Pennsylvania's SIP, revisions to ACHD Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations in Article XXI. These revisions include amendments to section 2105.50 regarding open burning, and adding new section 2106.06, which focuses on mitigating particulate matter air pollution episodes in the Mon Valley.

EPA's particulate matter national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) address particles with diameters that are generally two and half micrometers or smaller (fine particulate matter or PM 2.5 ) and particles with diameters that are generally 10 micrometers or smaller (coarse particulate matter or PM 10 ). On July 1, 1987, EPA promulgated two primary standards for PM 10 : A 24-hour (daily) standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3 ) and an annual standard of 50 µg/m 3 . EPA also promulgated secondary PM 10 standards that were identical to the primary standards. 1 On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 2 EPA revoked the annual PM 10 standards but retained the 24-hour standards.

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to add new standards for PM 2.5 , establishing primary and secondary annual and 24-hour standards. 3 The annual standard was set at 15.0 µg/m 3 based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations, and the 24-hour standard was set at 65 µg/m 3 based on the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile values of 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area. 4

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the annual average PM 2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 µg/m 3 but lowered the level of the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS to 35 µg/m 3 based on a 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile values of 24-hour concentrations. 5

On December 14, 2012, EPA promulgated the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS, including lowering the annual standard to 12.0 µg/m 3 based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations. EPA maintained the 24-hour standard of 35 µg/m 3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 6 Allegheny County was designated as nonattainment for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 7 Since the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS designation, monitors within Allegheny County have periodically recorded exceedances  8 of the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. According to ACHD, many of these exceedances have occurred during lengthy temperature inversions which trap pollutants closer to the earth's surface. 9

On August 23, 2023, EPA received from PADEP, a SIP submission that pertains to proposed revisions to the Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP. The submission seeks to incorporate into Pennsylvania's SIP a new section (2106.06, Mon Valley Air Pollution Episode) to Allegheny County Article XXI, which focuses on mitigating particulate matter air pollution episodes in the Mon Valley. The August 2023 submission also seeks to incorporate into the Pennsylvania SIP related changes to Article XXI, section 2105.50, Open Burning.

Article XXI, section 2106.06, Mon Valley Air Episodes, is aimed at emission mitigation requirements for industry operating in the portion of the county known as the “Mon Valley” during weather-related pollution episodes. 10 Section 2106.06 applies to the following sources located within the prescribed Mon Valley Pollution Episode Area: (1) all major and synthetic minor sources of PM 2.5 ;  11 (2) all sources that have combined allowable emissions from all emissions units of 6.5 tons or more per year of PM 2.5 ; and (3) all sources that have combined allowable emissions from all emission units of 10 tons per year of PM 10 . 12

Section 2106.06 requires applicable sources to submit a mitigation plan to reduce particulate matter emissions for review and approval by ACHD. 13 Each applicable source's mitigation plan must include a Mon Valley Air Pollution Watch Phase and a Mon Valley Air Pollution Warning Phase, that the source must be prepared for and follow. A Mon Valley Air Pollution Watch shall be issued by ACHD if “the air quality forecast for at least the next 24-hour period atmospheric conditions will exist which indicate that the 24-hour average ambient concentration of PM 2.5 in one or more of the Mon Valley municipalities is forecasted to exceed” the value of the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS of 35 μg/m 3 . 14 Pursuant to section 2106.06(e), each source's mitigation plan must include procedures for when a Mon Valley Air Pollution Watch is issued. These procedures are to ensure that equipment is maintained in good working condition, that equipment is operating in a manner consistent with good engineering practice, and that the source has sufficient staff and resources available to implement the Warning Phase within 24 hours of ACHD's notification to the source of a Watch. Sources must also show that they have procedures in place for record keeping and reporting to ACHD during the Watch period.

ACHD shall issue a Mon Valley Air Pollution Warning if during a rolling 24-hour averaging period, an official monitoring station in an applicable municipality exceeds the Mon Valley PM 2.5 threshold, 35 µg/m 3 , and ACHD has determined that atmospheric conditions will continue for the next 24-hour period. Each source's mitigation plan must also contain a Warning Phase section which includes measures to reduce PM 2.5 and PM 10 , the timeframe for implementing each measure, and an estimate of the PM 2.5 and PM 10 emissions reductions during the Mon Valley Air Pollution Warning period.

Additional subsections within 2106.06 outline the following: (f) a submission schedule for the Mitigation Plans; (g) procedures for review and the effective date of the Mitigation Plans; (h) details regarding ACHD's notification of Mon Valley Air Pollution Episodes; (i) termination procedures for Mon Valley Air Pollution Episodes; and (j) clarification that this section does not affect ACHD's authority to issue an Emergency Order under section 2109.05.

To support the reduction of particulate matter pollution during a Mon Valley Air Pollution Watch or Warning, ACHD is also requesting that EPA incorporate into the SIP, ACHD's amendment to Article XXI, section 2105.50, Open Burning, which was previously approved into the Commonwealth's SIP. The amendment clarifies that wood burning activities should not occur in the Mon Valley Episode Area when a Watch or Warning has been issued, with the exception of conducting such burning for the commercial preparation of food.

After review of the August 2023 SIP submission, EPA has determined that the changes to Article XXI are overall SIP strengthening. With the addition of section 2106.06 and the amendment to section 2105.50, Article XXI builds on the protections found under the Federal requirements for air pollution emergency episodes found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51, subpart H. While the regulations in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H do not address PM 2.5 specifically and do not identify a significant harm level or priority classification levels for PM 2.5 , EPA has recommended that states only need to develop contingency plans for those areas that have monitored and recorded 24-hour PM 2.5 levels greater than 140.4 μg/m 3 . 15 EPA has evaluated PM 2.5 regulatory monitoring data in the Mon Valley since 2012 and have confirmed that no values greater than 140.4 µg/m 3 have been recorded.

By incorporating Allegheny County Article XXI section 2106.06 into the Pennsylvania SIP, ACHD adds an additional measure by which the county can help control particulate matter emissions in the Mon Valley, with a relatively quick turn-around time. The amendment to section 2105.50 further supports this measure. This revision will support ACHD's efforts to reduce air pollution emissions in order to minimize the impact on public health. 16

EPA has determined that the SIP submission requesting EPA to incorporate Allegheny County Article XXI section 2106.06 and the amended Article XXI section 2105.50 into the Pennsylvania SIP is SIP strengthening. The proposed revision will assist ACHD in reducing particulate matter air emissions, thereby assisting in the protection of public health in Allegheny County. EPA is proposing to approve into the SIP the August 23, 2023 ACHD submission, as EPA has determined that the addition of Article XXI section 2106.06 and the amendment to Article XXI section 2105.50 is SIP strengthening. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Allegheny County Article XXI section 2106.06 and Article XXI section 2105.50, as described in section II of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (E.J.) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”

ACHD did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submission; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed rulemaking. Due to the nature of the proposed action being taken here, this proposed rulemaking is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

In addition, this proposed rulemaking, amending Article XXI section 2105.50 and adding Article XXI section 2106.06 to Pennsylvania's SIP, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the Commonwealth, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

NMFS and the Council manage the Kona crab fishery in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (Federal waters) around Hawaii under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago (FEP), as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (50 CFR part 665). The FEP contains a process for the Council and NMFS to specify ACLs, ACTs, and AMs (see 50 CFR 665.4). NMFS must specify ACLs and AMs for each stock and stock complex of each management unit species (MUS) in an FEP, as recommended by the Council, and must consider the best available scientific, commercial, and other information about the fishery. If a fishery exceeds an ACL, the regulations require the Council to take action ( e.g., an AM reducing the ACL for the subsequent fishing year by the amount of the overage). ACTs can be used as an additional management measure to help ensure catch does not exceed the ACL.

This proposed rule would establish for the MHI Kona crab an ACL of 30,802 lb (13,972 kg) and an ACT of 25,491 lb (11,563 kg) (see table 1).

The fishing year begins on January 1 and ends on December 31, and catch from both State and Federal waters are counted towards catch limits. The proposed rule would not change the current AMs, or enact any additional AMs, for the MHI Kona crab fishery (50 CFR 665.253(b)). As an in-season AM, NMFS will close Federal waters to commercial and non-commercial fishing for Kona crab for the remainder of the fishing year if NMFS projects that the fishery will reach the ACT. If a closure occurs, NMFS will publish a document to that effect in the Federal Register at least 7 days in advance of the closure. We will also request the State of Hawaii notify Commercial Marine License holders of any changes in the fishery, including an in-season closure or a post-season correction. The state of Hawaii does not have complementary management measures and will therefore not close if Federal waters close and catch will be continue to be attributed to the overall ACT and ACL. As a post-season AM, NMFS will reduce the ACT and ACL in the subsequent fishing year by the overage amount if the landings exceed the ACL in a fishing year. If catch exceeds the ACT, but is below the ACL, a post-season correction would not be applied.

This proposed rule is consistent with recommendations made by the Council at its 195th meeting in June 2023, and the proposed 2024-2026 catch limits are identical to those implemented in 2020 for fishing years 2020-2023. The ACL is associated with a 38 percent risk of overfishing and the ACT is associated with a 20 percent risk of overfishing. According to the 2019 stock assessment, the Kona crab fishery is neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing. Furthermore, the fishery did not exceed the ACL of 30,802 lb (13,972 kg) during fishing years 2020-2023. From 2020 through 2023, an average of 16 commercial marine license holders made 41 trips and landed an average catch of 3,581 lb (1,624 kg) of MHI Kona crab (12 percent of the ACL; 14 percent of the ACT).

NMFS will consider public comments on this proposed rule and will announce the final rule in the Federal Register . NMFS must receive any comments by the date provided in the DATES section above and will not consider late comments.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.

This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The proposed rule would implement an ACL of 30,802 lb (13,972 kg) and an ACT of 25,491 lb (11,563 kg). The proposed ACL and ACT are the same as those implemented during fishing years 2020-2023. This proposed action would not revise, add, or remove current (AMs) in the regulations. The AMs include both an in-season closure in the Kona crab fishery if catch is projected to reach the ACT and a post-season adjustment if catch exceeds the ACL.

This rule would apply to participants in the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Kona crab. Kona crab catch averaged 3,887 lb (1,763 kg) from 2018-2022, with an estimated ex-vessel value of $38,013, if all catch were sold, based on the 2022 average price of $9.78 per lb ($21.52 per kg). Between 2018 and 2022, the percent sold ranged from 43 to 64 percent. The amount of Kona crab caught each year has generally declined since 2011, when 49 fishermen reported landing 10,979 lb (4,979 kg), although Kona crab catch from 2019 to 2021 generally exceeded catch levels from 2013 to 2018. The 2022 catch was in line with the 2013-2018 catch levels. During the 2021 fishing year, 18 fishermen reported landing 3,945 lb (1,789 kg). In 2022, 19 fishermen reported landing 2,533 lb (1,149 kg).

NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all vessels engaging in the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for Kona crab (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code: 11411) are small entities. That is, they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million. Because all of the participants are small entities, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities.

Even though this proposed action would apply to a substantial number of vessels, this action should not result in significant adverse economic impact to individual vessels. The proposed ACL and ACT are the same as those implemented during fishing years 2020-2023. The proposed ACL is not expected to result in an expansion of the fishery by new fishermen looking to take advantage of the higher quota compared to previous years. Given the offshore fishing grounds for Kona crab, it would take a significant financial investment to become active in the fishery if fisherman did not already own a vessel and the required, specialized gear. The proposed action, if implemented, is not expected to constrain the fishery, given that the proposed ACL and ACT are both more than double the highest catch recorded over the past 12 years (10,979 lb (4,979 kg) in 2011). Furthermore, the fishery would still be subject to the State of Hawaii's regulations. This continued management, in combination with a low number of commercial marine license holders, is not expected to result in a surge of new fishery entrants.

The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and is not expected to have significant impact on small entities, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. The proposed action also will not place a substantial number of small entities, or any segment of small entities, at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities. For the reasons above, NMFS does not expect the proposed action to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As such, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 665 as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone under the FMPs. The Council prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

This proposed rule would implement Amendments 126/114 to the FMPs. The Council submitted Amendments 126/114 for review by the Secretary of Commerce, and a Notice of Availability of these amendments was published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2024, with comments invited through March 22, 2024 (88 FR 3902).

This proposed rule and Amendments 126/114 amend the Council's fisheries research plan prepared under the authority of section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS published regulations implementing the plan on November 21, 2012 (77 FR 70062) and integrated EM into the plan on August 8, 2017 (82 FR 36991). The Secretary implements the fisheries research plan through the North Pacific Observer Program (Observer Program). Its purpose is to establish a research plan for the collection of data necessary for the conservation, management, and scientific understanding of the groundfish and halibut fisheries off Alaska.

Section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to provide a 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule and conduct a public hearing in each state represented on the Council for the purpose of receiving public comment on the proposed regulations. The states represented on the Council are Alaska, Oregon, and Washington. NMFS will conduct a public hearing at a physical location in Alaska and a virtual public hearing will be held for Oregon and Washington (see DATES ).

People wanting to make an oral statement for the record at a public hearing are encouraged to submit a written copy of their statement to NMFS using one of the methods identified under ADDRESSES . If attendance at the public hearing is large, the time allotted for individual oral statements may be limited. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to NMFS. Respondents do not need to submit the same comments on Amendments 126/114 and the proposed rule. All relevant written comments received by the end of the applicable comment period, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendments or this proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in the approval/disapproval decision for Amendments 126/114 and addressed in the response to comments in the final decision. Comments received after the end of the comment period may not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 126/114. To be certain of consideration, comments would need to be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period (see DATES ).

The Observer Program is an integral component in the management of North Pacific fisheries. The Observer Program was created with the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the mid-1970s and has evolved from primarily observing foreign fleets to observing domestic fleets. The Observer Program provides the regulatory framework for NMFS-certified observers (observers) and EM systems to be deployed on board vessels to obtain information necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish and halibut fisheries.

The information collected by observers and EM systems is entered into databases and then is used to manage the fisheries in furtherance of the purposes and national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Observers and EM systems collect fishery-dependent information used to estimate total catch and interactions with protected species. Managers use these data to manage groundfish and prohibited species catch (PSC) within established limits and to document and reduce fishery interactions with protected species. Scientists use fishery-dependent data to assess fish stocks, provide data for fisheries and ecosystem research and fishing fleet behavior, assess marine mammal and seabird interactions with fishing gear, and characterize fishing impacts on habitat.

In 2013, the Council and NMFS restructured the Observer Program to address long-standing concerns about statistical bias of observer-collected data and cost inequity among fishery participants with the funding and deployment structure under the previous Observer Program (77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012). The restructured Observer Program established two observer coverage categories: partial and full. All groundfish and halibut vessels and processors are included in one of these two categories. NMFS requires fishing sectors in the full coverage category to have all operations observed. The full coverage category is specified at 50 CFR 679.51(a)(2) and includes most catcher/processors, all motherships, and those catcher vessels participating in a catch share program with a transferrable PSC limit. Owners of vessels and processors in the full coverage category arrange and pay for required observer coverage from a permitted observer provider. The shoreside processors and stationary floating processors in the full coverage category are currently required to maintain observer coverage.

The partial coverage category is described at § 679.51(a)(1) and includes fishing sectors (vessels and processors) that are not required to have an observer at all times. The partial coverage category includes catcher vessels, shoreside processors, and stationary floating processors when they are not participating in a catch share program with a transferrable PSC limit. Small catcher/processors that meet criteria in § 679.51(a)(3) may request to be in the partial coverage category.

In the partial coverage category, NMFS contracts with an observer provider and EM providers and determines when and where observers and EM systems are deployed, based on a scientific sampling design. Each year, NMFS develops an Annual Deployment Plan (ADP) that describes how NMFS plans to deploy observers and EM systems to vessels and processors in the partial coverage category in the upcoming year. The ADP also specifies the scientific sampling design NMFS uses to generate estimates of total and retained catch and catch composition in the groundfish and halibut fisheries. The ADP process provides flexibility to improve deployment to meet scientifically based estimation needs while accommodating the realities of dynamic fiscal and harvesting environments. NMFS's goal is to achieve a representative sample of fishing events and to do this without exceeding funds collected through the observer fee. This is accomplished by the random selection of trips for deployment of observers, placement of EM systems, and shoreside sampling in the partial coverage category. NMFS adjusts the ADP after conducting a scientific evaluation of data collected under the Observer Program to assess the impact of changes in observer and EM deployment and improvements in data collection methods necessary to conserve and manage the groundfish and halibut fisheries.

To summarize the ADP process, each fall, NMFS develops a draft ADP for the next fishing year that describes how NMFS plans to deploy observers and EM systems to vessels in the partial coverage category. The draft ADP describes the deployment methods NMFS plans to use to collect EM data on discarded and retained catch, including the information used to estimate catch composition and marine mammal and seabird interactions in the groundfish and halibut fisheries. The draft ADP also describes how NMFS would deploy observers to shoreside processors in the partial coverage category. In October, the Council reviews the draft ADP and considers public comment when developing its recommendations about the draft ADP. The Council may recommend adjustments to observer and EM deployment to prioritize data collection based on conservation and management needs. After NMFS conducts a scientific evaluation and considers operational issues of the Council's recommendations, NMFS adjusts the draft ADP as appropriate and finalizes the ADP in December for release prior to the start of the fishing year. NMFS posts the ADP on the NMFS Alaska Region website.

NMFS conducts its scientific evaluation of data collected under the Observer Program in an Annual Report that evaluates how well various aspects of the program are achieving program goals, identifies areas where improvements are needed, and includes preliminary recommendations regarding the upcoming ADP. The Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee review the Annual Report in June. This timing allows NMFS and the Council to consider the results of past performance in developing the ADP for the following year. NMFS posts the Annual Report on the NMFS Alaska Region website.

The Observer Declare and Deploy System (ODDS) is a web application that provides information about observer and EM deployment on catcher vessels in the partial coverage category. ODDS facilitates communication among the operator of a catcher vessel in the partial coverage category, NMFS, NMFS's contracted observer provider, and NMFS-approved EM providers. Operators of catcher vessels in the partial coverage category enter information about upcoming fishing trips into ODDS and receive information about whether a trip has been selected for observer or EM coverage.

The restructured Observer Program established a system of fees that is used to pay for the cost of implementing observer and EM coverage in the partial coverage category. As specified at § 679.55, catcher vessels and processors included in the partial coverage category pay a fee of 1.65 percent of the ex-vessel value of fishery landings to NMFS to fund the deployment of observers in the partial coverage category. Under section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the fees shall not exceed 2 percent of the fishery ex-vessel value.

Since the restructuring of the Observer Program, the Council and NMFS have been actively engaged in developing EM, a system using cameras, video storage devices, and associated sensors to record and monitor fishing activities, as a tool to collect fishery data. The restructured Observer Program expanded the types of vessels required to carry observers to include nontrawl vessels that had not previously been subject to observer requirements. Even before implementing the restructured Observer Program, many nontrawl vessel owners and operators new to the Observer Program opposed carrying an observer. Nontrawl vessel owners and operators explained that there was limited space on their vessels for an additional person and limited space in the vessel's life raft. Some vessel owners, operators, and industry representatives advocated for the use of EM instead of having an observer on board their smaller nontrawl vessels. To address their concerns, the Council and NMFS developed EM as a tool to collect fishery data in the nontrawl fisheries.

In 2014, the Council appointed the EM Workgroup to develop an EM program for nontrawl vessels—that is, those vessels using jig, pot, and longline gear—and integrate EM into the Observer Program. The EM Workgroup provided a forum for stakeholders, including the commercial fishery participants, NMFS, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and EM service providers, to cooperatively and collaboratively design, test, and develop EM systems and to identify key decision points related to operationalizing and integrating EM systems into the Observer Program in a strategic manner.

Starting in 2015, NMFS developed with Council input the Electronic Technologies Implementation Plan for the Alaska Region to guide integration of monitoring technologies, including EM, into North Pacific fisheries management and provide goals and benchmarks to evaluate attainment of those goals (Plan and updates are available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/fisheries-observers/electronic-technologies-implementation-plans ). This plan was completed in 2021.

The EM Workgroup developed a collaborative research program to inform evaluation of multiple EM program design options and consider various EM integration approaches to achieve management needs identified in the Electronic Technologies Implementation Plan. Through the use of an exempted fishing permit (EFP), the research model resulted in the testing of, and subsequent implementation of EM for nontrawl vessels in the partial coverage category pursuant to Amendment 114 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 104 to the GOA FMP (82 FR 36991, August 8, 2017).

In February 2018, after the implementation of EM on nontrawl catcher vessels, the Council directed its EM Workgroup to focus on developing EM as a tool for meeting monitoring objectives on trawl catcher vessels in the BS, AI, and GOA pelagic pollock fisheries, reconstituting the committee as the Trawl EM Committee. In April 2018, the Trawl EM Committee was modified to include industry representatives, fishery participants, and other stakeholders in the catcher vessel pelagic trawl pollock fisheries along with NMFS and EM service providers. The Council adopted three monitoring objectives proposed by the Trawl EM Committee after its May 2018 meeting: (1) improve salmon accounting; (2) reduce monitoring costs; and (3) improve the quality of monitoring data. A fourth objective was added by the Trawl EM Committee at their meeting in August 2018: (4) modify current retention and/or discard requirements as necessary to achieve objectives 1-3. While EM development for pelagic trawl catcher vessels was not identical to that for nontrawl, the Trawl EM Committee relied on the collaborative lessons learned, including creating a workgroup/committee, creating a research plan, pre-implementation testing of EM, and developing regulations.

The development of the trawl EM category has evolved through pilot projects in 2018 and 2019 and under EFP 2019-03 from 2020 through 2024. Each phase of program development benefitted from a collaborative process and open communication between project partners, which includes NMFS, EFP permit holders, EM service providers, video reviewers, and observer providers. Lessons learned through this process were incorporated into the development of the trawl EM category proposed in this action.

In the 2018 and 2019 pilot projects, prior to applying for an EFP, the pollock trawl fishery voluntarily operated video cameras on a subset of catcher vessels to test EM systems, while maintaining observer coverage. The trawl EM category developed further through EFP 2019-03, which involved multiple phases as part of a research plan developed by the Trawl EM Committee.

The Trawl EM Committee guided the research plan and EFP modifications and identified that there was adequate information on the use of EM to collect data for management purposes. The Council and its monitoring committees were kept informed of industry-led pilot projects through regular updates such as in December 2018 as part of the Trawl EM 2019 Cooperative Research Plan and in a March 2019 update to the Cooperative Research Plan. Results from pilot projects comparing discard estimates by EM reviewers and on-board observers were presented to the Trawl EM Committee in August 2019. Results identified that, while further refinement was needed, EM was able to capture discard activity onboard pelagic trawl pollock catcher vessels. NMFS approved EFP 2019-03 in 2020 and renewed modified versions of the EFP for fishing conducted in 2021 through 2024. EFPs in Alaska can be viewed on the NMFS Alaska Region website.

Observers played a key role in the collaborative process, providing real time feedback via inseason messaging and post deployment surveys. The information that observers provided helped the project partners make decisions impacting communication and data quality through the project. Regularly scheduled check-in meetings between NMFS and project partners played an integral role during the EFP and began on January 15, 2020, and occurred every two weeks during the directed pollock seasons and as requested by the project partners. Check-in meetings provided an opportunity for each project partner to give updates on how operations under the EFP were progressing and identify any issues or concerns. NMFS has made a collaborative effort to make this situation work under unique circumstances, including staffing issues, quarantine challenges, and equipment shortages.

Several years of EFP data has shown that the objectives for trawl EM were met by: (1) improved salmon bycatch accounting, specifically in the western GOA pollock fishery that currently relies on estimates with large variances under status quo methods; (2) reduced monitoring costs; (3) improved quality of monitoring data; and (4) improved retention with limited changes in catcher vessel activities. In addition, it was also clear that EM is effective in capturing at-sea discard events to support catch accounting and may capture marine mammal incidents. Finally, EFP data showed some biological sampling can be accomplished at processing plants by observers with effective communication from vessels and processors.

The Council and NMFS developed this proposed action based on input received from the Trawl EM Committee, three years of data gathered through the EFP process, and public input through the Council process. This proposed action would provide an option for participants in the partial and full coverage categories using pelagic trawl gear to directed fish for pollock, as well as tender vessels delivering pollock to shoreside processors or stationary floating processors to choose to be in the trawl EM category.

Other trawl fisheries operate differently, have different monitoring and compliance requirements, and would require a lengthy development process prior to being able to have a functioning EM program. EM programs must be designed for the unique characteristics of each fishery or group of similar fisheries (such as the nontrawl fisheries and the pollock trawl fisheries). The Council and NMFS first prioritized nontrawl EM and then pollock trawl EM. The next priority that is under development is EM for vessels participating in the Rockfish Program, which will require a separate rulemaking if the Council recommends EM for that Program.

In October 2022, the Council recommended Amendment 126 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 114 to the GOA FMP. The FMP amendments and this proposed rule would implement EM for catcher vessels targeting pollock with pelagic trawl gear in the BS, AI, or GOA fisheries (hereinafter “catcher vessels” or “CVs”) and tender vessels delivering pollock to shoreside processors or stationary floating processors in the BS, AI, and GOA.

The Council and NMFS developed EM for the pelagic trawl gear pollock fisheries to explore an alternative way to collect fisheries data given the unique operating requirements in these fisheries. The pollock trawl fisheries have low rates of incidental catch of non-pollock species, leading to the ability to improve the retention of all catch, thus allowing for collection of biological data from unsorted catch at processors. Improved retention of catch means the vessel is operated in such a way that catch is retained to the greatest extent practicable. Under this proposed rule, EM systems would collect at-sea data for NMFS to determine if discards at sea occurred and subsequent video review would verify vessel discard estimates for accuracy. The use of EM on vessels in the trawl EM category would allow for monitoring of compliance with Federal regulations and catch handling requirements. The implementation of EM has the potential to reduce economic and operational costs associated with deploying observers on catcher vessels. Through the use of EM, it may continue to be feasible to obtain fishery-dependent data from catcher vessels, improve data quality, and increase NMFS's and the Council's flexibility to respond to the scientific and management needs of these fisheries. The Council's intent in recommending Amendments 126/114 is to improve salmon accounting for all species, reduce monitoring costs, and improve the quality of monitoring data.

The Council adopted the following purpose and need statement to originate this action in June 2021:

“To carry out their responsibilities for conserving and managing groundfish resources, the Council and NMFS must have high quality, timely, and cost-effective data to support management and scientific information needs. In part, this information is collected through a fishery monitoring program for the groundfish fisheries off Alaska. While a large component of this monitoring program relies on the use of human observers, the Council supports integrating electronic monitoring and reporting technologies into NMFS North Pacific fisheries-dependent data collection program, where applicable, to ensure that scientists, managers, policy makers, and industry are informed with fishery-dependent information that is relevant to policy priorities, of high quality, and available when needed, and obtained in a cost-effective manner. The Council and NMFS have been on the path of integrating technology into the fisheries monitoring systems for many years, with electronic reporting systems in place, and operational EM in some fisheries. An EM program for compliance purposes on pelagic pollock trawl catcher vessels and tenders both delivering to shoreside processors will obtain necessary information for quality accounting for catch including bycatch and salmon PSC in a cost-effective manner, and provide reliable data for compliance monitoring of a no discard requirement for salmon PSC. This trawl EM program has the potential to advance cost efficiency and compliance monitoring, through improved salmon accounting and reduced monitoring costs. Regulatory change is needed to modify the current retention and discard requirements to allow participating CVs to maximize retention of all species caught ( i.e., minimize discards to the greatest extent practicable) for the use of EM as a compliance tool on trawl catcher vessels in both the full and partial coverage categories of the Observer Program and meet monitoring objectives on trawl catcher vessels in the Bering Sea (BS) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) pelagic pollock fisheries.”

In consultation with the Council, NMFS has considerable annual flexibility to provide observer coverage to respond to the scientific and management needs of the fisheries. By integrating EM on catcher vessels targeting pollock with pelagic trawl gear as a tool in the fisheries monitoring suite, the Council seeks to preserve and increase this flexibility. Regulatory change would be needed to specify vessel operator and processor responsibilities for using EM technologies, after which NMFS, in consultation with the Council would be able to deploy observer and EM monitoring tools tailored to the needs of different fishery sectors through the ADP.

Amendments 126/114 would add new language to section 3.9.2 of the BSAI and GOA FMPs to allow the use of EM systems to meet observer coverage requirements for catcher vessels under the Observer Program.

This proposed rule to implement Amendments 126/114 would establish regulations for an EM option for catcher vessels and tender vessels delivering pollock to shoreside processors and stationary floating processors in the BS, AI, and the GOA. While the Council's purpose and need statement did not specify that EM could be used by catcher vessels fishing in the AI, the Council motion at final action clarified that should an AI pollock fishery be open, participating catcher vessels would have the opportunity to participate in trawl EM.

This proposed rule would implement the requirements described below to allow owners or operators of catcher vessels and tender vessels to choose to use an EM system in place of an observer. Participation in trawl EM would be voluntary and a vessel owner or operator could choose on an annual basis to request a vessel's placement in the trawl EM category.

This proposed rule would establish the process and structure for use of an EM video system to monitor whether discards at sea occur. Further, it would establish video review to verify vessel discard estimates submitted by those catcher vessels using pelagic trawl gear and tender vessels that choose to be in the trawl EM category. NMFS's intent is largely to allow trawl EM category vessels to continue their normal operations and allow the cameras to capture data observations that an EM reviewer would then extract onshore. For fishing trips by vessels in the trawl EM category, the data collection previously conducted by at-sea observers would be completed by observers stationed at the processor receiving the catch. This is possible because EM systems would monitor all points of discard on the catcher vessel and tender vessel (if used) from the time the catch is brought onboard the catcher vessel or tender vessel to the point of delivery. This will ensure all catch is monitored by EM systems at sea and allow the collection of statistically robust fishery data at the point of delivery at the processor. Data collected at the processor could include the collection of species composition samples, PSC data, biological samples, and other sampling assigned by NMFS. One of the Council's objectives for this action is to achieve the most efficient use of observer resources. By shifting observer sampling duties from at-sea vessels to shoreside processors and stationary floating processors, each observer would be able to monitor more catch with greater accuracy.

In the event NMFS identifies additional data that cannot be collected at the processor, NMFS retains the authority to deploy at-sea observers on catcher vessels in the trawl EM category. Additionally, some level of at-sea data collection in the pollock fisheries will continue to be necessary to collect certain spatial and biological data. This data is currently being collected on vessels that remain in the observer coverage categories; however, if the number of vessels remaining in the observer coverage categories drops to low levels, additional at-sea observer coverage could be necessary in the full coverage or the partial coverage trawl EM category. NMFS would make these observer coverage decisions through the ADP process.

Currently, catcher vessels in the partial coverage category are required to have an observer at-sea on each selected trip and full coverage vessels carry an observer every trip. When vessels deliver trawl-caught pollock, the at-sea observer follows the fish into the processing plant and completes the enumeration and sampling of salmon during the vessel's delivery. Under this proposed rule, these at-sea observers would no longer be a resource available for sampling these vessels' catch. Instead, shoreside processors or stationary floating processors would be responsible for ensuring that all salmon are placed in a designated storage container until the observers have the opportunity to sample them consistent with proposed regulations at § 679.28(g)(9)(ii).

In addition to observers stationed at shoreside processors and stationary floating processors, Catch Monitoring Control Plans (CMCPs) and vessel monitoring plans (VMPs) would be used to determine and achieve the sampling objectives outlined by NMFS in the ADP. The EM systems onboard vessels would ensure that compliance monitoring objectives are met while providing a chain of custody for PSC. Observers at shoreside processors or stationary floating processors would then collect species composition, PSC, and biological samples as determined by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis Division. The flexibility offered by the ADP allows NMFS and the Council to achieve transparency, accountability, and efficiency from the Observer Program to meet its various objectives. The ADP process ensures that the best available information is used to evaluate deployment, including scientific review and Council input, to annually determine deployment methods.

Due to these changes, a “one size fits all” approach to deploying observer resources would be an inefficient use of observer resources. For example, a processor receiving deliveries 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from catcher vessels in the trawl EM category would require more observer resources than a processor receiving only one or two such deliveries each day. NMFS is proposing that the number of observers required at each processing plant receiving deliveries from vessels approved to operate in the trawl EM category be tailored to each processor based on metrics specified in the ADP and consistent with proposed regulations at § 679.51(b)(2)(i). Observers stationed at processors would collect data as requested by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis Division. NMFS would continue to work with data users, including stock assessors and other scientists, to evaluate the trawl EM category and monitor for data gaps.

All fishing trips for each vessel operating in the trawl EM category would be required to improve retention ( i.e., minimize discards to the greatest extent practicable) and record all catch handling. All EM data would be submitted as required to NMFS for review to ensure the program elements are followed. Failure to meet the program objectives, as outlined in the ADP and VMP, may result in disapproval of further participation in the trawl EM category and potential enforcement action.

This proposed rule would implement requirements applicable to: (1) catcher vessels in the trawl EM category; (2) tender vessels, shoreside processors, and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from catcher vessels in the trawl EM category; (3) observer providers; and (4) EM service providers for vessels in the trawl EM category.

Under this proposed rule, a catcher vessel would remain subject to observer coverage, currently described at § 679.51(a)(1) or § 679.51(a)(2), unless NMFS approves a request for placement of the catcher vessel in the trawl EM category. Tender vessels are not currently subject to observer coverage requirements under subpart E to part 679 and this proposed rule would establish monitoring requirements for tender vessels that receive deliveries from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category. Shoreside processors and stationary floating processors are subject to observer coverage requirements at § 679.51(b)(1) or § 679.51(b)(2). This proposed rule would establish additional observer sampling station and monitoring requirements at § 679.28(g)(7) through (10) for shoreside processors and stationary floating processors. These observer sampling station and monitoring requirements previously existed for shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving American Fisheries Act (AFA) deliveries. Under this proposed rule, those requirements would be expanded to any plant receiving trawl EM deliveries to support shoreside observers and include additional requirements, such as updating spatial requirements to allow for new data collections. Additionally, under this proposed rule, entities intending to provide EM hardware to vessels in the full coverage EM category would be required to apply, and be approved, for an EM hardware service provider permit as specified at § 679.52(d) and (e).

Under this proposed rule, eligible vessel owners or operators of catcher vessels would voluntarily request to participate in the trawl EM category annually through ODDS by November 1 and, if approved, would be subject to coverage requirements as specified by NMFS. Specifically, any owner or operator of a catcher vessel—that is, a catcher vessel with a pollock pelagic trawl endorsement on their Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP)—or a tender vessel receiving deliveries from these catcher vessels, may request to be in the trawl EM category. Shoreside processors or stationary floating processors would indicate annually during their CMCP process whether they intend to receive deliveries, or use tenders to receive deliveries, from vessels in a trawl EM category. This process consists of a shoreside processor or stationary floating processor submitting a CMCP to the NMFS CMCP specialist.

The November 1 deadline for catcher vessels would allow potential participants to review the draft ADP, which would be available in October, prior to deciding whether to request to join the trawl EM category. The draft ADP would contain NMFS's criteria for determining how catcher vessels would be assigned to the partial coverage trawl EM category. The ADP would be finalized in December.

This proposed rule establishes responsibilities for the operator of a catcher vessel or tender vessel in the trawl EM category to install and maintain the EM system. Vessels in the trawl EM category would be required to comply with all provisions of the trawl EM category, including those specified in regulations, the ADP, and in individual VMPs. This proposed rule would add regulations at § 679.51(g) to specify the EM system requirements for vessels using pelagic trawl gear. A catcher vessel would remain in the trawl EM category for all directed fishing for pollock with pelagic trawl gear for the entirety of the fishing year, in order to maintain the sampling design outlined in the ADP. A tender vessel would remain in the trawl EM category at all times when receiving catch from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category during the fishing year. Vessels would not be able to leave the trawl EM category during a fishing year in order to maintain the sampling design used for that year.

This proposed rule would establish two coverage categories within the trawl EM category: (1) full coverage; and (2) partial coverage. Unless otherwise specified in this proposed rule, the trawl EM category encompasses both the full coverage and partial coverage trawl EM categories.

Proposed regulations at § 679.51(g)(1)(i)(A)( 2 ) define the full coverage trawl EM category for catcher vessel operating in the BS or Community Development Quota (CDQ) fisheries. These vessels are currently in the Observer Program's full coverage category. For the fishing year, if a catcher vessel is approved to be in the full coverage trawl EM category, that vessel would be subject to this proposed rule for every fishing trip in which the vessel deploys pelagic trawl gear. This would mean, in addition to other requirements, these vessels must ensure their EM systems are operating and actively recording for the duration of every pelagic trawl gear fishing trip and associated offload. The CDQ pollock fishery is not currently prosecuted by catcher vessels delivering to shoreside processors or stationary floating processors, but if this activity does occur in the future, and the catcher vessels meet the eligibility requirements of the trawl EM category, they would be included in the full coverage category. The owner or operator of a vessel in the full coverage trawl EM category would be responsible for contracting with a permitted EM hardware service provider, as specified at 679.51(g)(1)(ix), to procure, install, and maintain EM equipment on their vessel. To pay for video review services for vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category, this proposed rule would establish a new full coverage EM review fee in proposed regulations at § 679.56.

Proposed regulations at § 679.51(g)(1)(i)(A)( 1 ) define the partial coverage trawl EM category for catcher vessels operating in the GOA or AI. These vessels are currently in the Observer Program's partial coverage category.

Catcher vessels approved to be in the partial coverage trawl EM category must continue to log all trips in ODDS. Access to ODDS is available through the NMFS Alaska Region website. For the fishing year, every fishing trip in which a partial coverage catcher vessel deploys solely pelagic trawl gear is considered a part of the trawl EM category and is subject to this proposed rule (proposed rule at § 679.51(g)). This would mean, these vessels must, in addition to other requirements, ensure their EM system is operating and actively recording for the duration of every fishing trip and associated offload. Vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category would be prohibited from deploying non-pelagic trawl gear while on a fishing trip subject to EM coverage. Catcher vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category would be required to deliver catch only to tender vessels or processors in the trawl EM category having a NMFS-approved VMP or CMCP. Vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category will use NMFS's contracted EM hardware service provider that has been procured through the partial coverage fee program. EM equipment for vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category would be paid for by the observer fees as specified at § 679.55.

The AI pollock fishery is not currently prosecuted by catcher vessels delivering to shoreside processors or stationary floating processors, but if this activity were to occur, and the catcher vessels meet the eligibility requirements of the trawl EM category, they would be included in the partial coverage trawl EM category.

The proposed rule adds EM requirements for tender vessels that are used to transport unprocessed groundfish received from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category to an associated processor. As part of the unprocessed groundfish chain of custody, it is necessary for tender vessels to comply with EM requirements to ensure no sorting of catch occurs between the catcher vessel and the processor. Proposed regulations at § 679.51(g)(1)(i)(B) allow the owner or operator of a tender vessel to request to be placed in the trawl EM category before receiving any delivery from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category. A tender vessel that is approved to be in the trawl EM category must comply with applicable vessel responsibilities specified at § 679.51(g)(3) for every delivery received and offload subject to the trawl EM category, including ensuring their EM system is operating and actively recording for the duration of every trip and associated offload.

Tender vessels are primarily used by small catcher vessels in the Western GOA that fish in locations that make it inefficient for these catcher vessels to deliver their catch directly to a shoreside or stationary floating processor.

For shoreside processors or stationary floating processors to receive deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category, the proposed rule includes additional catch handling requirements. Shoreside processors or stationary floating processors would indicate their intent to receive EM deliveries in the upcoming fishing year during the annual CMCP process. Under proposed regulations at § 679.28(g)(7), (9), and (10) shoreside processors or stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category would be required to follow specified salmon sorting and handling procedures to ensure shoreside observers have full access to salmon bycatch. The proposed rule at § 679.28(g)(9) would allow observers at these processors to collect full salmon and Pacific halibut retention data and necessary biological samples, which are vital in monitoring the health and status of those stocks in Alaska.

Current regulations at § 679.21(f)(15)(ii)(C) require salmon retention and storage for processors in the BS pollock fishery. This proposed rule would move these existing regulations to § 679.28(g)(9)(ii) and (g)(10), and extend those regulations to shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category in the GOA. Each year NMFS publishes an Observer Sampling Manual, which contains the comprehensive sampling procedures and methods to be used by observers to collect fishery-dependent data, but does not establish the sampling rate. The criteria used to determine the sampling rate required at shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category will be determined annually and published in the ADP.

There are currently two types of EM service providers: (1) EM hardware service providers that equip and maintain EM systems aboard vessels, and (2) EM review service providers that receive and review EM data from EM systems. This proposed rule would add a regulation at § 679.2 to define an EM service provider as “any person, including their employees or agents, that NMFS contracts with, or grants an EM hardware service provider permit to under § 679.52(d), to provide EM services, or to review, interpret, or analyze EM data as required under § 679.51.” NMFS may contract with, or grant a permit to, a prospective EM hardware service provider if their data are readily accessible by the current EM service provider NMFS has selected for reviewing EM data.

Alaskan fishing vessels operate in a challenging environment and endure harsh conditions, making it necessary to ensure that an EM hardware service provider is properly equipped to deploy and service EM hardware onboard vessels in the trawl EM category. This proposed rule would add regulations at § 679.52 specifying the procedures for applying to NMFS for and NMFS' issuance of, an EM hardware service provider permit, responsibilities of EM hardware service providers, and issuance of permits to existing EM hardware service providers upon implementation of this proposed rule. Prospective EM hardware service providers will need to apply to NMFS, and be approved, for an EM hardware service provider permit. Once approved and issued by NMFS, the EM hardware service provider permit is valid until the provider becomes inactive, providing no EM services for a period of 12 consecutive months. Performance of the EM hardware service provider will be assessed annually on the ability of the provider to meet program objectives.

An EM data review service provider is a provider that NMFS contracts with, or otherwise has an established business relationship with, to review, interpret, or analyze EM data as required under § 679.51. An EM data review service provider is selected by NMFS to avoid any conflicts of interest caused by vessels in the trawl EM category having a direct financial relationship with the independent EM data review service providers. This model reflects the same system that is currently in place for observers.

The operator of each catcher vessel or tender vessel approved by NMFS to be in the trawl EM category, must make their vessel available to an EM hardware service provider for installation and servicing of all required EM system components according to proposed regulations at § 679.51(g)(1)(ix). The EM hardware service provider would install the EM system and cameras in locations that meet the monitoring objectives annually specified in the ADP. Full coverage vessels would choose their permitted EM hardware service provider, while partial coverage catcher vessels or tender vessels would be assigned a NMFS-permitted EM hardware service provider by NMFS.

If a vessel already has an EM system installed from a non-permitted EM hardware service provider, the catcher vessel or tender vessel operator would work with a NMFS-permitted EM hardware service provider to modify the EM system as necessary to meet the specifications in the trawl EM category. For example, a catcher vessel or tender vessel may have an existing EM system on board because that catcher vessel or tender vessel participates in another federally managed fishery that has an EM program.

After EM equipment has been installed or serviced, the catcher vessel or tender vessel operator would develop a VMP with the EM hardware service provider and submit it to NMFS for approval according to proposed regulations at § 679.51(g)(2). A VMP is a document that includes operator responsibilities for the trawl EM category, including requirements for sending EM data to the EM data review service provider for review, restrictions should EM equipment malfunction, and how feedback from NMFS or the EM data review service provider would be communicated to vessel operators.

The catcher vessel or tender vessel operator agrees to comply with the components of the VMP and would submit a signed VMP to NMFS. NMFS would review the VMP for completeness and may request additional clarification. If the VMP meets the requirements established in the VMP template, NMFS would approve the VMP and place the vessel in a trawl EM category for the fishing year.

A catcher vessel or tender vessel in the trawl EM category would be required to maintain a copy of their current NMFS-approved VMP onboard at all times while that catcher vessel conducts fishing activities, or tender vessel receives EM deliveries, as part of the trawl EM category. If NMFS does not approve the VMP, NMFS will issue an IAD to the vessel owner or operator that will explain the basis for the disapproval. The vessel owner or operator may file an administrative appeal under the administrative appeals procedures set out at 15 CFR part 906.

The catcher vessel or tender vessel operator would be required to make the NMFS-approved VMP available to NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) or other NMFS-authorized officer or personnel upon request (see § 679.51(g)(4)(iv)).

If NMFS determines that a catcher vessel or tender vessel is out of compliance with the VMP, the catcher vessel or tender vessel's application for placement in the trawl EM category may not be approved the following year. For example, repeated discarding of PSC, repeated failure to ensure the entirety of the trip is recorded due to negligence of the crew, or failure to make the changes necessary to achieve monitoring goals may be grounds for NMFS to disapprove a VMP.

Catcher vessel and tender vessel operators would be required to maintain the EM system in working order, including ensuring the EM system is powered and functioning throughout the fishing trip, keeping cameras clean and unobstructed, and ensuring the system is not tampered with, consistent with proposed regulations at § 679.51(g)(3). Catcher vessel or tender vessel operators would also be required to ensure that power is maintained to the EM system at all times when the vessel is underway or the engine is operating on such fishing trips. Additionally, catcher vessel or tender vessel operators would be required to ensure the EM system is fully functional prior to deploying gear during the fishing trip or prior to receiving a delivery, as applicable.

Before fishing gear is retrieved or an offload is received, the catcher vessel or tender vessel operator would need to verify that all components of the EM system are functioning. Instructions for completing this verification would be provided in the vessel's VMP consistent with proposed regulations at § 679.51(g)(2)(vi).

Catcher vessel and tender vessel operators would also be required to follow landing notice procedures specified in the VMP, consistent with proposed regulations at § 679.51(g)(3). The landing notice would be transmitted by the catcher vessel or tender vessel to the intended shoreside processor or stationary floating processor, consistent with the timeline specified in the VMP prior to returning to port. After receiving the landing notice from the vessel, the processor will relay that information to shoreside observers. The landing notice would also provide shoreside observers in the BSAI and GOA the information necessary to meet the objectives specified by NMFS in the ADP.

Catcher vessel or tender vessel operators would be prohibited from tampering with the EM system or harassing their EM service provider, EM reviewers, or any other monitoring personnel who may be working with operators to enact this program. Additional prohibitions would be added to existing EM prohibitions at § 679.7(j) to ensure the EM system functions and the data from these systems is usable for fisheries management. Other operator responsibilities would be identified in the VMP to meet data needs for EM monitoring.

Catcher vessel or tender vessel operators would submit the EM data to the EM data review provider using a method specified in the approved VMP. Operators of vessels in the trawl EM category would submit EM data after a specified number of trips, consistent with the vessel's approved VMP. This frequency would be defined in the VMP and could change based on data needs identified by NMFS, consistent with proposed regulations at § 679.51(g).

The EM system must be fully operational as described in the VMP. The VMP would list EM system malfunctions that would be considered contrary to the data collection objectives. The VMP would also describe the procedures to follow if malfunctions were detected, including contacting the EM service provider and OLE. The proposed regulations at § 679.51(g)(4) describe the responsibilities of the catcher vessel or tender vessel operator in case of an EM system malfunction.

With trawl EM, catcher vessel operators would retain all catch except for where safety and stability of the vessel would be compromised (see proposed regulations at § 679.7(j)(2)). Improved retention of catch is necessary to provide observers stationed at shoreside processor and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category with unsorted catch for collection of biological samples and to minimize potential biases in data collection. Improved retention would greatly reduce at-sea discards and improve catch accounting, resulting in improved estimates of catch and bycatch in the pollock fisheries.

For all fishing trips, catcher vessels would be expected to avoid sorting and discarding catch to the greatest extent practicable. The term “sort,” “sorting,” or “sorted” means removing any “fish” from the unsorted catch. “Discard” means to release or return fish to the sea, whether or not such fish are brought fully on board a fishing vessel (see § 600.10). The term “fish”, when used as a noun, means any finfish, mollusk, crustacean, or parts thereof, and all other forms of marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds (see § 600.10). Unsorted catch would be delivered to a tender vessel, shoreside processor, or a stationary floating processor to ensure observers have access to all catch. The most common instances of discards at-sea are related to spillage events, discards needed for safety or stability, and large organisms that are challenging to accommodate on board a catcher vessel, such as sharks.

Operators of catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) length overall (LOA) in the trawl EM category would now be required to report any at-sea discards in their logbook, and operators would also report this information to NMFS and shoreside processors in eLanding reports (see proposed regulations at § 679.5(a)(1) and (4)). Catcher vessel logbook estimates of discards would be verified in the video review process by an EM review service provider. Additionally, EM reviewers make independent estimates of any discard events and that data would be used to verify catcher vessel compliance to ensure catcher vessels are following improved retention rules under this program.

This proposed rule includes particular exceptions to regulations that require discarding catch at sea in specific circumstances to promote retention of catch for catcher vessels in the trawl EM category. Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category would not be subject to the prohibition against exceeding Maximum Retainable Amounts (MRAs) in the BS, AI, and GOA, the prohibition against vessels having on board, at any particular time, 20 or more crabs of any species, and the prohibition against exceeding the pollock trip limit in the GOA.

This proposed rule exempts vessels in the trawl EM category from the regulations at § 679.20(e) pertaining to MRAs that limit retention of incidentally caught species so that total harvest can be managed up to, but not over, the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) by the end of the year. The MRA regulations at § 679.20(e) result in at-sea discards of fish above the MRA amount for each species. While the prohibition on exceeding the MRAs would be removed for vessels participating in the trawl EM category, NMFS would continue to use MRA calculations to determine whether a vessel is “directed fishing” for a particular species and gauge whether vessel behavior has changed, in conjunction with the Trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreement (TEM IPA) discussed below.

This proposed rule would also add an exception for vessels participating in the trawl EM category from the regulation at § 679.7(a)(14)(i) that prohibits vessels in the BSAI and GOA from having on board, at any particular time, 20 or more crabs of any species with a carapace width of more than 1.5 inches (38 millimeters) at the widest dimension. Catcher vessels would retain all crabs for enumeration by shoreside observers at the processor, as described below in the PSC Retention section of this preamble. This change would improve NMFS's ability to estimate crab bycatch in the pollock fisheries.

Additionally, this proposed rule would also exempt vessels in the trawl EM category from the regulations at § 679.7(b)(2) that limit catcher vessels' harvest of pollock in the GOA (commonly referred to as the pollock trip limit). Currently, catcher vessels are subject to a 300,000 pound onboard retention limit on pollock, requiring vessels to discard any pollock in excess of 300,000 pounds.

To maintain the controls on the pollock fisheries that the MRAs, crab retention limit, and the GOA pollock trip limit provide, this proposed rule includes provisions for a Trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreement (TEM IPA) to limit changes in partial coverage category vessel behavior notwithstanding these proposed regulatory changes. Namely, the TEM IPAs would aim to prevent catcher vessels from targeting species other than pollock, failing to avoid bycatch, and exceeding trip limits or MRAs, when in the trawl EM category. With the TEM IPA, NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed action would change how catcher vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category operate, their harvest limits, or their amount of bycatch.

Under this proposed rule, in order to be qualified to participate in the trawl EM category, partial coverage catcher vessels would be required to become a party to a trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreement (TEM IPA). The TEM IPA was modeled on the Salmon bycatch IPAs (see § 679.21(f)(12)), which have proven to be a successful method for the BS pollock fleet to modify its behavior to meet NMFS management goals.

An IPA is an industry-developed contractual arrangement that is approved by NMFS. For the trawl EM category, NMFS would approve an IPA if the IPA meets the criteria specified in proposed regulations at § 679.57. To ensure IPAs are effective, IPA parties would be required to demonstrate to the Council through annual reports that the IPA is accomplishing the Council's intent that each vessel limit changes in behavior. Under proposed rule regulations at § 679.57, TEM IPAs would be structured to limit changes in vessel behavior as a result of this proposed rule. For instance, the IPAs would aim to encourage catcher vessels to avoid targeting non-pollock species, avoid bycatch, and avoid exceeding trip limits or MRAs, when in the trawl EM category and to meet specific goals to avoid exceeding MRAs and the GOA pollock trip limit.

Currently, all full coverage vessels are AFA vessels that have these measures incorporated into existing cooperative agreements and there is little to no incentive to retain species other than pollock. Additionally, all potential EM trawl full coverage participants are party to a Salmon bycatch IPA, therefore a TEM IPA would not be required for full coverage trawl EM category catcher vessels.

NMFS inseason management staff would track trawl EM category bycatch and pollock harvest and provide updates in the Annual Inseason Report to the Council. In addition, the representative of each approved TEM IPA would submit a written annual report to the Council, which would be available to the public. Upon receipt of the Annual Reports on the TEM IPA, the Council may re-evaluate the goals of the TEM IPA and make adjustments as necessary. Each year NMFS will publish on the NMFS Alaska Region website the approved list of TEM IPAs and NMFS Approval Memos, the list of parties to each IPA, approved modifications to the TEM IPAs, and the list of catcher vessels that, on average, catch more than 300,000 pounds of pollock per fishing trip in the GOA and or harvest bycatch in quantities that would exceed MRAs. For the sake of clarity, each TEM IPA will define how these averages will be calculated over the fishing year.

Currently, vessels are required to retain all salmon for enumeration at the processing plant, but not other PSC species or groundfish species placed on PSC status when the TAC is reached. Under this proposed rule, catcher vessels fishing in the trawl EM category would be required to retain all species, including crab, categorized as PSC so that they can be fully enumerated by shoreside observers at the processing plant as specified at § 679.21(a)(2). This requirement to retain PSC would result in more precise enumeration at the shoreside plant and is unlikely to change the rate at which these catcher vessels harvest these PSC species.

Logbooks are necessary for trawl EM data flow, and the trawl EM category would not work without this component. Logbooks would be required for all participants in the trawl EM category. While location and effort are collected by the EM systems, logbooks collect other data necessary for catch accounting and stock assessments. Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category would be able to use NMFS-approved paper or electronic logbooks and follow the logbook-related regulations at § 679.5(a).

Discard information is reported in the logbook and would be provided to the shoreside processor during offload and recorded in the eLandings report. Under this proposed rule, the video reviewer would verify compliance with reporting at-sea discard information in the logbook for all vessels in the trawl EM category.

Catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that participate in the Western GOA do not currently have a logbook requirement and, indeed, are exempt from logbook requirements under § 679.5(a)(4). Under this proposed rule, these catcher vessels in the trawl EM category would be required to maintain a logbook to participate in the trawl EM category. This proposed rule would also add catcher vessels in the trawl EM category to the list of exceptions to the exemption at § 679.5(a)(4).

Under this proposed rule, catcher vessels and tender vessels in the trawl EM category would only deliver fish to a shoreside processor or stationary floating processor that has a NMFS-approved CMCP in place. Processors would be prohibited from receiving deliveries from a catcher vessel, or tender vessel, in the trawl EM category without a NMFS-approved CMCP.

For pollock, CMCPs are currently required for AFA shoreside processors and stationary floating processors and any shoreside processors or stationary floating processors receiving AI directed pollock deliveries. Currently, not all potential trawl EM processors currently receive AFA pollock deliveries. CMCPs provide a framework for how a shoreside processor or stationary floating processor operates when receiving fish from catcher vessels and tender vessels and how landing information is communicated to necessary personnel. In this proposed rule, CMCPs would be required for all shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category. CMCPs include provisions that ensure observers stationed at processors have the necessary tools, such as enhanced sample station requirements, to collect fishery data and biological information related to catch and PSC. Additionally, CMCPs facilitate communication between the processors and the observers collecting data related to the pollock fishery. NMFS reviews these plans annually and may adjust them inseason to enhance their effectiveness as necessary.

Currently, each shoreside processor and stationary floating processor receiving AFA, CDQ, or AI directed pollock are required to develop and operate under a NMFS-approved CMCP. The procedures were established under the regulation at § 679.28(g). CMCPs were designed to monitor the weighing of pollock, sorting and weighing of bycatch to species, and proper sorting and storage of salmon at the shoreside processors. Under the proposed rule, all shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving pollock from vessels in the trawl EM category would be required to have approved CMCPs in place. This proposed rule would also change wording to clarify that NMFS “may,” not “will,” inspect these processors, as external factors may prevent an in-person inspection of each processor in a given year.

The current CMCP regulations require that processors meet minimum observer sampling station area requirements. Observer sampling stations are crucial for ensuring data quality in fisheries monitoring due to their standardized environments. These standards allow trained observers to accurately record catch details, species identification, and other critical data points by minimizing the challenges posed by the dynamic setting of shoreside processors and stationary floating processors. This proposed rule modifies existing regulations at § 679.28(g) to reorganize CMCP requirements to improve clarity and consistency and to add provisions necessary to facilitate observer data collection for trawl EM category deliveries.

For example, this proposed rule clarifies and improves current requirements for observer sampling stations for processors at § 679.28(g)(7)(ix). This proposed rule includes requirements for the location of the observer station, platform scale, minimum workspace, table size, etc., to more closely align with observer sample station requirements applicable to at-sea catcher/processor vessels. Modifications to the pre-existing requirements create a more consistent working environment for observers stationed at processors while also enhancing data collection.

NMFS would define the criteria in the ADP for determining the necessary number of observers. The criteria for determining the necessary amount of observers for a given processor may include tonnage processed, number of deliveries, or processing hours. These criteria would apply to all processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category. The specific number of observers necessary to meet sampling objectives would be listed in the CMCP, which could be updated throughout the year to ensure that the necessary number of observers are present, as processing effort may change seasonally. For example, a processor may need four observers during “A season” to meet sampling objectives, but during “B season”, the same processor may need additional observers to fully account for chum salmon.

Shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category would procure observer services by arranging and paying for observer services directly from a permitted observer provider consistent with existing regulations at § 679.51(d). This proposed rule would modify regulations governing observer provider permitting and responsibilities at § 679.52 to remove fax as an electronic communication method, update how often specific information must be submitted to NMFS (see Observer Program Fees section), and clarify the requirements for observer providers to monitor observer conduct and address observer misconduct. The latter clarifies requirements for provider action to rectify observer misconduct.

NMFS is authorized under section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to require observer program participants in any North Pacific fishery to pay a fee for observer and EM monitoring provided the fee does not exceed 2 percent of the fishery ex-vessel value. To pay for video review services for vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category, this proposed rule would establish a new full coverage EM review fee in proposed regulations at § 679.56.

This new fee would be used by NMFS to pay for the costs of data review, storage, and transmission of EM data for vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category. The annual cost of EM review, data storage, and transmission would then be divided among full coverage vessels in the trawl EM category. NMFS would use the pollock catch history ( i.e., actual harvest amount) from the previous year to divide the cost equitably among full coverage participants in the trawl EM category that year. Invoices would be sent to vessel owners and payment would be required by May 31. Failure to pay the full coverage trawl EM fee would prevent a catcher vessel or tender vessel from being selected for the trawl EM category in the following year as specified at § 679.51(g)(1)(4).

Consistent with regulations at § 679.55, NMFS would use funds from the existing observer fees to pay for EM hardware and review services for vessels in the partial coverage category. Catcher vessels and tender vessels in the partial coverage category (vessels operating in the GOA and AI pollock fisheries) would continue to pay the existing observer fee as specified at § 679.55. The partial coverage observer category is funded through a system of fees collected from fishery participants (vessels and processors) under authority of section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS would use partial coverage fees to procure shoreside observers, deploy and support EM equipment on selected vessels, and pay for EM video review and data storage.

In addition to the regulations necessary to implement the trawl EM category, NMFS proposes revising the following regulations for clarity and efficiency:

• Remove the expired prohibition at § 679.7(a)(17), specifying that neither catcher vessels nor catcher processors could act as a tender vessel until all groundfish or groundfish product was offloaded and that they could not harvest groundfish while operating as a tender vessel. That prohibition was added as part of an emergency rule (66 FR 7276, January 22, 2001), which expired on July 17, 2001. To date, the regulation has not been removed. This proposed rule would remove the expired prohibition at § 679.7(a)(17) to prevent confusion, especially as § 679.7(a)(11) contains a similar prohibition.

• Regulations implementing EM for nontrawl vessels in the partial coverage category of the Observer Program are modified to remove the phrase “ EM selection pool ” and to add in its place “ Nontrawl EM selection pool ” to clearly identify regulations applicable to the different EM categories. Multiple gear types, excluding trawl, participate in the nontrawl EM selection pool, while only trawl vessels are eligible for the trawl EM category.

• This proposed rule would move regulations specifying salmon sorting and handling practice from § 679.21(f)(15)(ii)(C)(2) through (6) to proposed regulations at § 679.28(g)(9) and (10). This move is necessary to consolidate all CMCP related regulations into a single location. This does not change the salmon sorting and handling requirements currently applicable to processors accepting AFA deliveries and it will allow the public to more easily locate all applicable CMCP regulations.

• Replace all instances of “video data storage device” with “EM data” in § 679.51(f) to broaden the language to allow for future data formats.

• Remove fax numbers in §§ 679.28(g) and 679.51(g) to match current practice that has abandoned fax usage. These numbers were for industry or observers to communicate with, and make requests of, the Observer Program. As technology has advanced, fax has fallen out of use and the proposed language should be more inclusive of new forms of communication.

Pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration of comments received during the public comment period.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). The Council recommended and NMFS proposes these regulations based on those measures that maximize net benefits to the Nation.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule would directly regulate the owners and operators of catcher vessels and tender vessels in the trawl EM category, shoreside processors or stationary floating processors that receive EM deliveries, EM service providers and observer providers.

Observers may also be indirectly impacted. Observers are individuals so they do not meet the Small Business Administration definition of a small entity. Therefore, observers are not considered directly regulated entities.

For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Tender vessels, if owned by a processor, are considered together with the processor. Independently owned tender vessels (NAICS 424460) do not harvest or process fish and have a 100 employee small entity threshold (81 FR 4469, January 26, 2016). Shoreside processors and stationary floating processors fall under “seafood product preparation and packaging” (NAICS 31170) and have a small entity threshold of combined annual employment of fewer than 750 (81 FR 4469, January 26, 2016). Observer providers and EM service providers (NAICS 541990, “other professional, scientific, and technical services”) have a threshold of $19.5 million in total annual revenue (87 FR 69118, November 17, 2022).

Based on the thresholds defined above, and considering known cooperative affiliations, 26 catcher vessels, and 9 of the 12 tender vessels that participated in the pollock fishery during 2020, 2021, or 2022 would be considered small entities. A total of 121 catcher vessels participated in the fishery during 2020 and 2021, or 2022. Of these, 73 were AFA cooperative affiliated vessels considered to be large entities via their AFA affiliations. Three of these vessels participated in the whiting fishery and are cooperative affiliated large entities. Additionally, 2 vessels participated in the whiting and Rockfish Program, and 41 vessels participated in Rockfish Program cooperatives. A total of 26 vessels were not part of a cooperative and are classified as small entities. Based on the 750 employee threshold, 3 of the 11 processors that took deliveries of pollock from catcher vessels from 2020 through 2022 that are directly regulated would be considered small entities. Catcher/processors and motherships are not directly regulated by this action.

Presently, there are two recognized EM service providers and three recognized observer providers operating in the North Pacific pollock fishery. One entity provides both observer and EM service. Thus, there are four unique entities within this category. There is not presently an information collection that documents revenue of these entities, thus, for purposes of the RFA, they are considered directly regulated small entities.

Six CDQ entities receive allocations in the BS pollock fishery. Historically, these allocations have been harvested exclusively by catcher/processors that are not directly regulated by this action. However, the analysis contained in the Regulatory Impact Review acknowledges that these CDQ entities could choose to have their pollock allocations harvested by catcher vessels that would be directly regulated by this action. Some of the catcher vessels that could be used to harvest CDQ allocations are wholly owned by for-profit subsidiaries of these CDQ entities and are not considered to be small entities solely based on their CDQ affiliations. The analysis of revenue discussed above includes such vessels and the small entity count is based on estimated revenue versus the appropriate small entity threshold.

NMFS anticipates that the trawl EM category would realize cost-efficiencies in the monitoring program, particularly for the BS, and that cost efficiencies could be realized in the GOA as well. The Council recognized that this action will shift some impacts, costs, and responsibilities from the harvest sector to the shoreside processors and stationary floating processors, and will expand the use of CMCPs at processors. However, these potential shifts in cost are expected to be de minimis, and, further, the process for requesting to participate in the trawl EM category is voluntary and development of the program was requested and supported by industry. As a voluntary program, entities would participate, and thus be directly regulated, only if there is a net benefit to them in doing so. This proposed rule would not increase the fees that NMFS collects from directly regulated entities in the partial coverage category. This proposed rule will implement a new fee for full coverage category. This new fee would be used by NMFS to pay for the costs of data review, storage, and transmission of EM data for vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category. The Analysis prepared for this action identifies the operational costs of participating in the trawl EM category (see ADDRESSES ). Directly regulated small entities that individually judge the operational costs of participating in the trawl EM category to be burdensome could continue fishing under the existing human observer selection protocols, with no change in the amount of fees that they would be assessed. Therefore, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.

This proposed 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). This proposed rule would revise existing collection-of information requirements for OMB Control Numbers 0648-0213 (Alaska Region Logbook and Activity Family of Forms); 0648-0330 (NMFS Alaska Region Scale and Catch Weighing Requirements); 0648-0515 (Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System); and 0648-0711 (Alaska Cost Recovery and Fee Programs); and revise and extend 0648-0318 (North Pacific Observer Program). Because of a concurrent action for 0648-0213, the revision to that collection of information for this proposed rule will be assigned a temporary control number that will later be merged into 0648-0213. OMB Control Numbers 0648-0812 (Electronic Logbook: Pacific Cod Trawl Cooperative Program Catcher Vessels Less Than 60 Ft. LOA) and 0648-0815 (Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Pot Gear Catcher/Processor Monitoring) are being merged into -0515 and -0318, respectively, and -0812 and -0815 will be discontinued upon issuance of the final rule. The public reporting burden estimates provided below for the collections of information include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

This proposed rule would revise the collection of information under OMB Control Number 0648-0213, associated with paper logbooks. Due to a concurrent action for that collection, the collection-of-information requirements will be assigned a temporary control number that will later be merged into OMB Control Number 0648-0213. This proposed rule would require logbooks to be submitted by all catcher vessels in the trawl EM category. Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category may use either NMFS-approved paper logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0213) or electronic logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0515). Catcher vessels greater than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA already are required to maintain logbooks. Some catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that are not currently required to submit a logbook would need to begin doing so to participate in the trawl EM category; therefore, this proposed rule would increase the number of vessels required to submit a logbook. The temporary control number would cover the revisions necessary to -0213 for the catcher vessels that choose to submit paper logbooks. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 18 minutes for the Catcher Vessel Trawl Daily Fishing Logbook.

NMFS proposes to revise and extend for three years the existing requirements for OMB Control Number 0648-0318, which is associated with the North Pacific Observer Program. Additionally, OMB Control Number 0648-0815 is being merged into -0318 and will be discontinued upon issuance of the final rule. OMB Control Number 0648-0815 was established as a temporary collection (88 FR 77228, November 9, 2023) because -0318 was being revised by a concurrent action and was intended to be merged into -0318 following the completion of that action. OMB Control Number -0318 would be revised to include the following due to this proposed rule.

The owner or operator of a catcher vessel or tender vessel would be required to use ODDS to request placement in the trawl EM category. Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category would be required to log all fishing trips in ODDS. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 5 minutes to submit the request through ODDS and 15 minutes to log a fishing trip in ODDS.

The vessel owner or operator of a catcher vessel or tender vessel in the trawl EM category would be required to submit a VMP to NMFS. The public reporting burden per response for the VMP is estimated to average 48 hours.

Vessel operators in the trawl EM category would be required to submit EM data and associated documentation identified in their vessel's VMP to NMFS. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 1 hour.

A catcher vessel owner or operator would be required to be a member of a TEM IPA to be approved for the trawl EM partial coverage category. The TEM IPA representative would submit the proposed TEM IPA to NMFS. The representative of each approved TEM IPA would be required to submit a written annual report to the Council. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 40 hours for the TEM IPA and 40 hours for the TEM IPA annual report.

Prospective EM hardware service providers would need to apply, and be approved, for an EM hardware service provider permit. The public reporting burden per response for this permit is estimated to average 8 hours.

An administrative appeal may be submitted if NMFS would issue an IAD to deny a request to place a vessel in the trawl EM category, an IAD to disapprove a proposed TEM IPA, or and IAD for expiration of an EM hardware services provider permit. The public reporting burden per response for an administrative appeal is estimated to average 4 hours.

The submission time of the observer deployment/logistics report would be changed to within 24 hours of the observer assignment or daily by 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time, each business day with regard to each observer. Fax would be removed as a submission method for this report, and this proposed rule would allow any other method specified by NMFS. This report would no longer be required to include the location of any observer employed by the observer provider who is not assigned to a vessel, shoreside processor, or stationary floating processor. These changes are not expected to change the average response time for this report. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 7 minutes.

This proposed rule would allow for electronic submission of the reports that are submitted by an observer provider and used by NMFS to monitor and enforce standards of observer conduct and identify problems on deployments that may compromise the observer's health or well-being otherwise. This proposed rule would also require the provider's responses to the violation in the report submitted by an observer provider for an observer who violated the observer provider's policy on conduct and behavior. These changes are not expected to change the average response time for these reports. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 2 hours.

This proposed rule would remove fax as an electronic communication method and allow other methods specified by NMFS for other observer provider responsibilities. The public reporting burden per response to these requirements is estimated to average 60 hours for the observer provider permit application; 8 hours for college transcripts; 1 hour for observer training registration; 7 minutes each for observer briefing registration and projected observer assignments; 5 minutes each for physical examination verification and updates to observer provider information; 12 minutes for certificates of insurance; and 30 minutes each for observer debriefing registration, observer provider contracts, and observer provider invoices.

The information collection for 0648-0330 would be revised because this proposed rule would require all shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving pollock from vessels in the trawl EM category to have NMFS-approved CMCPs in place before receiving deliveries from catcher vessels or tender vessels in the trawl EM category. Some processors that do not currently submit a CMCP would need to begin doing so; therefore, this would increase the number of respondents that submit a CMCP. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 40 hours for the new participants required to submit a CMCP and initially in the first two years after implementation for existing CMCPs, but in the following years the burden would be reduced.

The information collection for 0648-0515 would be revised due to this proposed rule. Additionally, OMB Control Number 0648-0812 is being merged into -0515 and will be discontinued upon issuance of the final rule. OMB Control Number 0648-0812 was established as a temporary collection (88 FR 53704, August 8, 2023) because -0515 was being revised by concurrent actions and was intended to be merged into -0515 following the completion of those actions. This proposed rule would require logbooks to be submitted by all catcher vessels in the trawl EM category. Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category may use either NMFS-approved electronic logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0515) or paper logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0213). Catcher vessels greater than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA already are required to maintain logbooks. Some catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that are not currently required to submit a logbook would need to begin doing so to participate in the trawl EM category; therefore, this proposed rule would increase the number of vessels required to submit a logbook. The revision to this collection of information due to the rule adds the catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that choose to submit electronic logbooks. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 15 minutes for the Catcher Vessel Electronic Logbook.

The information collection for 0648-0711 would be revised because this proposed rule would require the owner of a catcher vessel in the full coverage trawl EM category to submit the new full coverage trawl EM fee. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 1 minute for the fee payment.

Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 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. Submit comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond or, nor shall any person by subject to a 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.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

The addition and revisions read as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

The additions and revisions read as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows: