![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Revisions to Observer Coverage Requirements for Vessels and Shoreside Processors in the North Pacific Groundfish Fisheries
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: January 7, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 4)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 715-720]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07ja03-4]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 011219306-2283-02; I.D. 110501A]
RIN 0648-AM44
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Revisions to
Observer Coverage Requirements for Vessels and Shoreside Processors in
the North Pacific Groundfish Fisheries
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to amend regulations governing the
North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program). This
action is necessary to refine observer coverage requirements and
improve support for observers. This action is intended to ensure
continued collection of high quality observer data to support the
management objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish
Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area and the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMPs) and to
promote the goals and objectives contained in those FMPs.
DATES: Effective on February 5, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (RIR/FRFA) prepared for this regulatory action and
the 1996 Environmental Assessment (EA) RIR/FRFA prepared for the
Interim North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program and the RIR/FRFAs for
the subsequent extensions of the Interim North Pacific Groundfish
Observer Program may also be obtained from the Alaska Region, NMFS,
P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Durall.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Salveson, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries
of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area (BSAI) in the Exclusive Economic Zone under the FMPs.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the
FMPs pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations implementing the
FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to
U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.
The Council adopted and NMFS implemented the Interim Groundfish
Observer Program (Interim Program) in 1996, which superseded the North
Pacific Fisheries Research Plan (Research Plan). The requirements of
the 1996 Interim Program were extended through 1997 (61 FR 56425,
November 1, 1996), again through 1998 (62 FR 67755, December 30, 1997),
again through 2000 (63 FR 69024, December 15, 1998), and extended
through 2002 under a final rule published December 21, 2000 (65 FR
80381). The program was extended again through 2007 by way of a final
rule published on December 6, 2002 (67 FR 72595). The Interim Program
provides the framework for the collection of data by observers to
obtain information necessary for the conservation and management of the
groundfish fisheries managed under the FMPs. Further, it authorizes
mandatory observer coverage requirements for vessels and shoreside
processors and establishes vessel,
[[Page 716]]
processor, and contractor responsibilities relating to the Observer
Program. NMFS intends the Interim Program to be effective until a long-
term program is developed and implemented that addresses several
current concerns. These concerns include data integrity, observer
compensation, working conditions for observers, and equitable
distribution of observer costs.
NMFS is working with the Council and the Council's Observer
Advisory Committee (OAC) to address the above concerns and others
through development of new options for an alternative infrastructure
for the Observer Program.
A description of the regulatory provisions of the Interim
Groundfish Observer Program was provided in the proposed and final
rules implementing this program (61 FR 40380, August 2, 1996; 61 FR
56425, November 1, 1996, respectively) as well as the proposed and
final rules extending this program through 1998 and again through 2000
(62 FR 49198, September 19, 1997; 62 FR 67755, December 30, 1997; 63 FR
47462, September 8, 1998; and 63 FR 69024, December 15, 1998,
respectively).
A proposed rule to amend regulations governing observer coverage
requirements for vessels and shoreside processors in the North Pacific
Groundfish Fisheries was published in the Federal Register on April 2,
2002 (67 FR 15517), for a 30-day public review and comment period that
ended on May 1, 2002. NMFS received 2 letters of comment on the
proposed rule which are summarized and responded to in Response to
Comments, below.
This final rule addresses concerns about (1) shoreside and
stationary floating processor observer coverage; (2) shoreside
processor observer logistics; (3) observer coverage requirements for
vessels fishing for groundfish with pot gear; and (4) confidentiality
of observer personal information.
Shoreside or stationary floating processor observer coverage. New
regulations will maintain the current monthly observer coverage periods
at shoreside or stationary floating processors based on monthly
landings projections. However, during a month when a directed fishery
for pollock or Pacific cod closes, a shoreside or stationary floating
processor with 100-percent coverage requirements that received pollock
or Pacific cod from the fishery that closed in that given month would
have the option to reduce observer coverage to 30-percent coverage
requirements for the remainder of that month under certain conditions.
These conditions are: (1) the shoreside or stationary floating
processor must maintain observer coverage for 30 percent of all days
that groundfish are received or processed for the remainder of that
month; and (2) groundfish landings received by the shoreside or
stationary floating processor may not exceed 250 mt/calendar week for
the remainder of that month. If a shoreside or stationary floating
processor is expected to receive greater than 250 mt/wk during any
calendar week of that month, the shoreside or stationary floating
processor would be required to return to 100-percent observer coverage
for the days fish are received or processed during that week until all
groundfish received during that week is processed.
The reduced observer coverage period for a given shoreside or
stationary floating processor would be authorized beginning on the
fourth calendar day following the day that a pollock or cod fishery
closes, allowing for observation of the delivery and processing of fish
received prior to the closure, and would end on the last day of that
month. Observer coverage for the month following would be based on
monthly landings projections and thresholds as specified under current
regulations at Sec. 679.50, but also may be reduced for that month
under the conditions of this action.
The Community Development Quota (CDQ) and American Fisheries Act
(AFA) programs' observer coverage requirements found at Sec.
679.50(d)(4) and (5), respectively, currently supersede general
observer coverage requirements for shoreside or stationary floating
processors, and will continue to take precedence over this allowance
for reduced coverage.
Shoreside or stationary floating processor observer logistics. This
final rule amends the observer regulations to require the observer
provider company to provide the following logistical support to
observers deployed at shoreside or stationary floating processors:
Adequate housing meeting certain standards; reliable communication
equipment such as an individually assigned phone or pager for
notification of upcoming deliveries or other necessary communication;
and, if the observer's accommodations are greater than 1 mile away from
the processing facility, reliable motorized transportation to the
shoreside processor that ensures timely arrival to allow the observer
to complete assigned duties.
Groundfish pot fishery observer coverage requirements. This final
rule also amends regulations governing coverage requirements for the
groundfish pot gear fishery to require a vessel equal to or longer than
60 ft (18.3 m) length overall (LOA), fishing with pot gear that
participates more than 3 days in a directed fishery for groundfish in a
calendar quarter, to carry an observer during at least 30 percent of
the total number of pot retrievals for that calendar quarter. Such
vessels would also need to continue to carry an observer for at least
one entire fishing trip using pot gear in a calendar quarter, for each
of the groundfish fishery categories in which the vessel participates
during that calendar quarter. Groundfish will still be required to be
retained each day the observer is on board and gear is retrieved, in
order for the gear retrieved on that day to count toward observer
coverage requirements.
Confidentiality of observer personal information. Observer
providers are required to ensure that all records on individual
observer performance received from NMFS under the routine use provision
of the Privacy Act remain confidential and are not further released to
anyone outside the employ of the observer provider company to whom the
observer was contracted except with written permission of the observer.
Response to Comments
Two letters on the April 2, 2002, proposed rule (67 FR 15517) were
received that contained a total of 15 unique comments. Comments are
summarized and responded to here.
Comment 1: Observer coverage should be flexible before a fishery
opens as well as when it closes. Many of the directed fisheries in the
Gulf of Alaska start mid-month. The way the regulations are written, a
shoreside processor is required to have an observer 100 percent of the
time during that month even though the fishery which will trigger the
coverage will not occur until many days into the month. The regulation
change regarding the step down in coverage needs to be a two-way door,
prior to a fishery season opening date and after a fishery closure
date.
Response: NMFS considered both options in the analysis prepared for
the proposed rule and continues to support the revised coverage
regulations as proposed. The analysis showed that if shoreside
processors were given the leeway to reduce coverage based on some
landings criteria both before and after fishery closures, observer
coverage for shoreside plants would essentially shift to a system of
weekly observer coverage based on weekly landings projections. The
analysis concluded that such a change would result in an observer
coverage system for shoreside
[[Page 717]]
processors that would be extremely burdensome, both financially and
logistically, to shoreside processors, observer providers, and
observers. The primary causes of this burden would be the logistical
complexities and costs involved in deploying observers to and from
shoreside processors on a weekly basis. NMFS would be supportive of a
reexamination of these issues in the future, if the Council develops an
alternative observer delivery model that would provide for weekly
coverage standards in a cost effective and practical manner.
Comment 2: Virtually all IFQ sablefish received by Kodiak shoreside
processors are eastern headed and gutted fish. The present shorebased
observer regulations require 100 percent observer coverage for
sablefish landings for some months. Why do observers need to observe
these landings if there are no biological data to collect from headed/
gutted fish? IFQ sablefish should be exempted from shorebased coverage
requirements.
Response: Observer data are used in preparing annual stock
assessments for sablefish. In particular, both catch rate and length
data are used. Not all IFQ sablefish are delivered headed and gutted,
some are delivered whole in refrigerated seawater. Observers obtain
length data and otoliths from those fish. Observers also collect
information from other groundfish that are delivered with IFQ
sablefish.
Comment 3: According to the analysis prepared for this proposed
rule, a shoreside processor that has chosen to reduce observer coverage
to 30 percent does not have the ability to increase coverage back to
the 100-percent level for the pollock and Pacific cod reopener. This
provision needs to be highlighted in the regulations. NMFS also needs
to make a concerted effort to communicate with industry regarding any
reopening before the 4 day window expires after a fishery closes, when
a plant is allowed to reduce coverage from 100 percent to 30 percent
for the remainder of the month.
Response: The proposed rule correctly stated that a shoreside
processor that has reduced observer coverage from 100 percent to 30
percent in a given month under the terms of this rule, and subsequently
expects to receive or process greater than 250 mt per week upon the
reopening of a Pacific cod or pollock fishery in that same month, must
return to 100-percent coverage for each subsequent week of that month
in which 250 mt or greater is expected to be received or processed. The
commentor is correct in asserting that the analysis prepared for this
rule did not include the provision for returning to 100-percent
coverage upon the reopening of a Pacific cod or pollock fishery. The
analysis has since been revised to reflect this provision in the rule,
and no change from the proposed rule is made to the final rule.
NMFS strives for timely communication with industry regarding the
reopening of a closed fishery. Once harvest amounts relative to
available total allowable catch are determined, NMFS provides the
public notice of any fishery reopening in a manner that is intended to
minimize operational costs to industry. In 2002, the reopenings of the
GOA pollock fishery occurred only in the Central Regulatory Area
(statistical area 630) and were announced within a 3-4 day time period
after the fishery closed. NMFS intends to continue to provide this
level of effective response to the extent practicable.
Comment 4: According to the analysis prepared for the proposed
rule, the ability to reduce observer coverage to 30 percent (from 100
percent during a given month) related to fisheries closures other than
for Pacific cod or pollock was not considered because of concerns
regarding loss of data for a variety of species that are landed in
small quantities. However, the Kodiak shoreside processors are the only
shorebased processors in Alaska that currently offer markets for the
directed rockfish and flatfish harvests. Therefore, this exclusion
directly impacts this subset of processors. The idea that more observer
data will be collected if the plant maintains 100-percent observer
coverage beyond the end of the season is flawed. Once a fishery closes,
no more catch will be delivered for those species and, therefore, there
is no additional opportunity to collect data. Also, for both flatfish
and rockfish, allocations are split between the catcher/processor and
the shorebased processor sector, so additional data are available from
the catcher/processors. Allowing the regulations to extend to the other
directed fisheries besides pollock and Pacific cod would help reduce
shorebased observer cost without impacting observer data.
Response: NMFS analyzed the impacts of the reduction of shoreside
processor observer coverage requirements on observer data and
associated costs based on requests from industry and the resulting
Council motion. The industry request and Council motion were limited to
reducing shoreside observer coverage from 100 percent to 30 percent
based on pollock and Pacific cod directed fishery closures. Therefore,
consideration of observer coverage reduction at shoreside processors
relative to closures for other directed fisheries is beyond the scope
of the analysis prepared for this action. While there may be some
advantage in extending this type of coverage reduction mechanism to
other directed fishery closures, NMFS intends to implement this change
as described in the proposed rule. NMFS, in consultation with the
Council, may consider extending this provision to other fisheries after
review of the implementation of this provision in the pollock and
Pacific cod fisheries.
Comment 5: NMFS has indicated that in some circumstances it is
acceptable for an observer to lodge on a vessel after the observer has
been released from duty on a vessel, but not prior to the requested
date of deployment of the observer to a vessel. However, no guidelines
exist as to what those acceptable circumstances might be. NMFS has
provided verbal guidance that it would be acceptable for an observer to
lodge on a vessel if the observer was released from duty at 3 a.m.; but
apparently it would not be acceptable to lodge on the vessel if the
vessel wants to depart at 3 a.m. Not allowing contractors to have the
flexibility to lodge observers on vessels that they are or will be
assigned to, and not allowing vessels to have the option to minimize
lodging costs will significantly increase costs to vessels who
frequently volunteer to lodge their observers earlier or later than
needed for their coverage.
Response: The final rule has been clarified to provide clearer
guidance on when observers may be housed on vessels they will be, or
currently are, assigned to. The intent of this regulation is to avoid
the lodging of an observer aboard a vessel on which he or she is not
working or currently assigned. An observer released from duty aboard a
vessel could lodge aboard the vessel for no more than 24 hours provided
the skipper or at least one crew member is aboard while the observer is
lodged there, and provided this lodging is logistically practical for
the observer and the vessel personnel. If the observer wants to get off
the vessel as soon as it docks or if the vessel skipper requests the
observer leave upon docking, arrangements must be made by the observer
provider for the observer to move to land-based accommodations.
Likewise, an observer assigned to a vessel would be allowed to lodge on
that vessel up to 24 hours prior to departure, provided the skipper or
at least one crew member is aboard, and as long as this is logistically
practical for the observer and the vessel personnel.
[[Page 718]]
Comment 6: Can shoreside processors provide their own internal
pager system as a means for communication with the observer assigned to
that processor?
Response: The observer provider company is ultimately responsible
for ensuring that observers are issued individual communications
devices and maintaining them in working order as specified in the rule.
If it is logistically more convenient to meet these requirements
through an arrangement with the shoreside processor, the observer
provider company may do so.
Comment 7: If the present communication system between shoreside
processors and their observers is working, is a pager or cell phone
necessary?
Response: Yes. While the present communications systems between
processors and observers may be successful for some processors, the
current approach is not working for others. In light of these failures,
NMFS believes that regulation on how these important communications
must occur is necessary to some degree. Communications are largely
reliant on the dependability of the individuals involved, as well as
the communications equipment available. In cases where individuals
involved are highly dependable, any system has a better chance of
working. NMFS cannot control the level of human dependability in all
cases, but the agency can require a certain standard for communications
equipment that must be available to individual observers. In
promulgating such regulations, NMFS must apply these requirements to
all shoreside processors without bias.
Comment 8: What accommodations will be made for those shoreside
processors where cell and or pager services are not available?
Response: Where cell phone or pager service is not available at the
location of the shoreside processor, walkie-talkies may be an
acceptable substitute. However, due to inherent range restrictions and
unreliability of these devices, they would be approved only on a case
by case basis. Where cell phone or pager service is not available and
walkie talkies are not approved, another method of communication
between the processor and the observer would need to be proposed by the
observer provider company to the Observer Program for approval.
Comment 9: Who is responsible for lack of compliance when an
observer drops his or her cell/pager in the harbor while going out to a
vessel and it takes a lot of money and a week to get a new one to the
observer? What obligation does the plant have to notify the observer
during that down time?
Response: The observer provider company is responsible for ensuring
observers have individual communications devices in working order. If a
device ceases to be in working order, the provider must provide a back
up device in a timely manner such that the observer is able to
communicate with the processor regarding the next delivery following
the loss or failure of the communications device. In light of that,
having one or two working back-up devices on site at all times to avoid
``down time'' makes logistical sense. The regulations do not include an
exception for ``down time''.
Comment 10: Who is liable if the observer takes the pager out of
cell/pager range?
Response: The observer provider company is responsible for
providing the equipment in working order. As is currently the case, the
observer is expected to remain in reasonable communication with the
processor. That includes remaining in range of such communication
devices as the individual circumstances of the shoreside processor
operations and location dictate.
Comment 11: It is unclear whether the criteria for lodging an
observer assigned to a shoreside plant ``within a mile of a shoreside
processor'' is determined by road distance or ``as the crow flies''.
Response: This requirement relies on the distance along the road or
path traveled by the observer between his or her lodging and the
shoreside processor to which he or she is assigned.
Comment 12: In some ports where observers lodge away from the plant
premises, taxi service is not available 24 hours/day. Under these
conditions, what will happen when a taxi is not available and the
observer has to rely on transportation from the plant given that NMFS
has implied in the analysis that plant transportation is unreliable?
Plants which have to lodge their observers more than a mile away will
see a significant increase in transportation costs for their observers.
Is there any time a taxi would not be considered acceptable motorized
transportation?
Response: Reliable, alternate arrangements that meet the
requirements of the rule must be made when a taxi is not available. A
taxi would not be considered acceptable transportation if it cannot
transport an observer to the shoreside processor in a timely manner to
allow the observer to perform his or her official duties. These duties
include being present at the processor at appropriate times during the
delivery and/or processing of the fish from delivery that requires
sampling. Once in a while, a taxi may not be able to deliver an
observer to the assigned shoreside processor in a timely manner to
perform assigned duties due to unexpected mechanical break down of a
taxi or other unforeseen circumstances. However, if such events become
chronic and transportation by taxi becomes unreliable and untimely,
alternate transportation arrangements that conform to the regulatory
requirements must be made.
Comment 13: Do observers still have the option of walking or taking
a bike to their assigned plant if they prefer to do so?
Response: Yes. Observers may choose to walk or ride a bicycle
between their shoreside lodging and the shoreside processor to which
they are assigned, as long as transportation, as described in
regulations, is always available.
Comment 14: If this new regulation goes into effect, vessels using
pot gear would be forced to wait until near the end of the season or
quarter to obtain their 30-percent coverage for the number of pot lifts
they performed. Consequently, the demand for observer coverage may
exceed the availability of observers. Vessels may not be able to comply
with required coverage as contractors would be less likely to be able
to cover all of the pot boats during the end of the season crunch.
Additionally, under those circumstances, vessels will see cost
increases because they won't be able to share observer airfare,
transportation and subsistence costs with other vessels.
Response: NMFS believes that proper planning by pot gear vessels
and observer providers can ensure observer availability in most cases.
However, NMFS does acknowledge that last minute changes in management
decisions related to fishery openings and closures can present
challenges for compliance with observer coverage requirements. NMFS
strives to take coverage needs into consideration when determining
midseason fishery openings.
This regulation, which bases observer coverage levels on the actual
amount of gear fished, rather than days fished, is intended to ensure
observer data that are more representative of actual fishing effort.
The majority of vessels, for which days fished does reflect average
fishing effort over the course of a quarter or season, should see no
substantive change in the way they estimate observer coverage needs.
Likewise, no more problem should exist with observer availability at
the end of the quarter or season than what is currently
[[Page 719]]
experienced. Additionally, observer coverage needs should be somewhat
predictable over time, allowing vessels to meet coverage needs prior to
the end of the season or quarter.
Comment 15: We believe that this proposed regulation would not
solve the identified issue of pot gear vessels going out just beyond
the harbor and pulling one pot to obtain observer coverage for that
day. Vessels would now be able to set just a few pots and pull them as
many times as possible in one day to obtain a large portion of their
coverage.
Response: NMFS does not anticipate this type of behavior,
particularly because it would not be cost effective. If and when this
behavior occurs, NMFS will respond accordingly.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
To provide clarity in the application of certain provisions of this
action, regulatory text in Sec. 679.50(d)(3) and (i)(2) is changed
from the proposed rule. Nearly all Observer Program regulations that
apply to shoreside processors also apply to stationary floating
processors. The proposed rule identified only shoreside processors in
the revised language for these paragraphs. Thus, the final rule is
changed from the proposed rule to apply to both shoreside processors
and stationary floating processors.
The final rule also is changed to reflect revised regulatory text
that became effective January 1, 2003, under a separate final rule that
extended the Observer Program through December 31, 2007 (67 FR 72595,
December 6, 2002). These changes include redesignating proposed changes
to paragraphs (i)(2)(v) and (i)(2)(xiii) as final changes to paragraphs
(i)(2)(vi) and (i)(2)(xii), respectively. The portion of redesignated
paragraph (i)(2)(xii) that addressed an expectation of observer
providers to monitor observer performance is deleted because this
provision was superceded in the December 6, 2002, final rule. Last,
redesignated paragraph (i)(2)(vi) is revised to incorporate the
regulatory guidance referenced to in the response to comment 5.
Classification
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The amendment of the existing regulations implementing the Interim
Observer Program is consistent with the intent and purpose of the
Interim Observer Program. These actions follow previous actions to
refine observer coverage requirements and improve support for
observers. Previous actions addressing these matters were analyzed in
the EA/RIR/FRFA for the Interim Observer Program dated August 27, 1996,
the RIR/FRFA for the extension of the Interim Observer Program through
1998 dated October 28, 1997, and the RIR/FRFA for the extension of the
Interim Observer Program through 2000, dated June 4, 1998. Copies of
these analyses are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
NMFS prepared a FRFA which describes the impact this final rule
would have on small entities. A copy of the FRFA is available from the
Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES). In addition to the discussion
below, the FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) and its findings, and the finding from the EA/RIR/FRFA
for the Observer Program and its extension. No comments on the IRFA
were received during the public comment period on the proposed rule.
Thus, no new data were incorporated into the analysis during the
comment period that would result in findings that differ from those
previously described. A description of the impacts of this action on
small entities was summarized in the proposed rule (67 FR 15520, April
2, 2002) and is not repeated here.
This action includes measures that will minimize the significant
economic impacts of observer coverage requirements on at least some
small entities. Vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA are not required
to carry an observer while fishing for groundfish. Vessels 60 ft (18.3
m) and greater, but less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, have lower levels of
observer coverage than those 125 ft (38.1 m) and above. Since the
inception of the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program in 1989,
NMFS has strived to mitigate the economic impacts of the observer
program on small entities. In doing so, NMFS has not significantly
adversely affected the implementation of the conservation and
management responsibilities imposed by the FMPs and the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 30, 2002.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended
as follows:
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.
2. In Sec. 679.50, paragraphs (d)(3) through (6) are redesignated
as (d)(4) through (7); paragraph (c)(1)(vii), newly redesignated
paragraph (d)(4) and paragraphs (i)(2)(vi) and (i)(2)(xii) are revised;
and new paragraph (d)(3) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 679.50 Groundfish Observer Program applicable through December
31, 2007.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) Vessels using pot gear. (A) A catcher/processor or catcher
vessel equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA fishing with pot
gear that participates for more than 3 fishing days in a directed
fishery for groundfish in a calendar quarter must carry an observer:
(1) For at least 30 percent of the total number of pot retrievals
for that calendar quarter, and
(2) For at least one entire fishing trip using pot gear in a
calendar quarter, for each of the groundfish fishery categories defined
under paragraph (c)(2) of this section in which the vessel
participates.
(B) Groundfish are required to be retained each day that pot gear
is retrieved in order for gear retrieved that day to count toward
observer coverage requirements for all catcher vessels and catcher/
processors using pot gear and required to carry observers.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) Is subject to observer requirements specified in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section that receives pollock or Pacific cod, may reduce
observer coverage in the event that a directed fishery for such species
closes, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The shoreside or stationary floating processor must maintain
observer coverage for 30 percent of all days that groundfish are
received or processed, beginning on the fourth calendar day following
the day that the directed fishery for pollock or Pacific cod was closed
and ending on the last day of the month, except as allowed in this
paragraph (d)(3)(iv) of this section.
(ii) Observer coverage for the month following the month with
reduced observer coverage will be based on monthly landings projections
and thresholds as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this
section, but may also be reduced for that subsequent
[[Page 720]]
month as specified in this paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(iii) Total groundfish landings received by a shoreside or
stationary floating processor under reduced observer coverage as
authorized under this paragraph (d)(3) may not exceed 250 mt per
calendar week.
(iv) If greater than 250 mt in round weight equivalent of
groundfish are projected to be received in a given calender week by a
shoreside or stationary floating processor during a month with reduced
observer coverage, as authorized under this paragraph (d)(3), the
shoreside or stationary floating processor must return to observer
coverage requirements as specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section
until all fish received during that week is processed. The shoreside or
stationary floating processor may then return to reduced observer
coverage as authorized under this paragraph (d)(3) for the remainder of
the calendar month.
(4) Offloads pollock at more than one location on the same dock and
has distinct and separate equipment at each location to process those
pollock and that receives pollock harvested by catcher vessels in the
catcher vessel operational area.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) Observer deployment logistics. (A) An observer provider must
provide to each of its observers under contract:
(1) All necessary transportation, including arrangements and
logistics, of observers to the initial location of deployment, to all
subsequent vessel and shoreside or stationary floating processor
assignments during that deployment, and to the debriefing location when
a deployment ends for any reason; and
(2)Lodging, per diem, and any other necessary services to observers
aboard fishing vessels or at the site of shoreside or stationary
floating processing facilities.
(B) Except as provided in paragraphs (i)(2)(vi)(C) and
(i)(2)(vi)(D) of this section, each observer deployed to a shoreside
processing facility, and each observer between vessel or shoreside
assignments while still under contract with a certified observer
provider company, shall be provided with accommodations at a licensed
hotel, motel, bed and breakfast, or with private land-based
accommodations for the duration of each shoreside assignment or period
between vessel or shoreside assignments. Such accommodations must
include an individually assigned bed for each observer for the duration
of that observer's shoreside assignment or period between vessel or
shoreside assignments, such that no other person is assigned to that
bed during the same period of the observer's shoreside assignment or
period between vessel or shoreside assignments. Additionally, no more
than four beds may be in any individual room housing observers at
accommodations meeting the requirements of this section.
(C) Observers may be housed on vessels they will be, or currently
are, assigned to for a period not to exceed 24 hours:
(1)Prior to their vessel's initial departure from port;
(2)Following the completion of an offload where the observer has
duties and is scheduled to disembark; or
(3)Following the completion of an offload where the observer has
duties and is scheduled to disembark.
(D) During all periods an observer is housed on a vessel, the
observer provider must ensure that the vessel skipper or at least one
crew member is aboard and that such housing is logistically practical
for the observer and the vessel personal. Alternative housing
accommodations must be arranged if the conditions in this paragraph (D)
are not met or if the observer wants to get off the vessel as soon as
it docks or if the vessel operator requests the observer to leave upon
docking.
(E) Each observer deployed to shoreside processing facilities shall
be provided with individually assigned communication equipment in
working order, such as a cell phone or pager for notification of
upcoming deliveries or other necessary communication. Each observer
assigned to a shoreside processing facility located more than 1 mile
from the observer's local accommodations shall be provided with
motorized transportation that will ensure the observer's arrival at the
processing facility in a timely manner such that the observer can
complete his or her assigned duties. Unless alternative arrangements
are approved by the Observer Program Office:
* * * * *
(xii) Maintain confidentiality of information. An observer provider
must ensure that all records on individual observer performance
received from NMFS under the routine use provision of the Privacy Act
remain confidential and are not further released to anyone outside the
employ of the observer provider company to whom the observer was
contracted except with written permission of the observer.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-177 Filed 1-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S