National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes new and revised definitions for certain regulatory terms, and procedural and technical changes to the regulations addressing scientific research activities, exempted fishing, and exempted educational activities under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This action is necessary to provide better administration of these activities and to revise the regulations consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA). NMFS intends to clarify the regulations, ensure necessary information to complete required analyses is requested and made available, and provide for expedited review of permit applications where possible.
Comments must be received by March 20, 2008.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648–AR78, by any one of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal
• Fax: 301–713–1193, Attn: Jason Blackburn
• Mail: Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Attn: EFP Comments
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to
NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Send comments on collection-of-information requirements to the same address and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503 (Attn: NOAA Desk Officer), or email to
Copies of the categorical exclusion (CE) prepared for this action are available from NMFS at the above address or by calling the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, at 301–713–2341.
Jason Blackburn at 301–713–2341, or by e-mail at
On May 28, 1996, NMFS established procedures pertaining to scientific research, exempted fishing, and exempted educational activities (61 FR 26435). These procedures were established to provide minimum standards for dealing with scientific research, exempted fishing and exempted educational activities under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These standards clarified the requirements for those managing and enforcing the fishery regulations, and for the public. These regulations were subsequently codified in 50 CFR part 600 (61 FR 32538, June 24, 1996). Shortly thereafter, the Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, which included important provisions dealing with essential fish habitat (EFH), rebuilding of overfished fisheries, and the requirement to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. These new requirements resulted in an increased interest in fisheries research.
On January 12, 2007, the MSRA was enacted. Section 204 of the MSRA added a new Cooperative Research and Management Program section (Section 318) to the MSA. Section 318(d) of the revised MSA requires that the Secretary, through NMFS, “promulgate regulations that create an expedited, uniform, and regionally-based process to promote issuance, where practicable, of experimental fishing permits.”
A major reason for the expansion in fisheries research has been the need to minimize bycatch and the mortality of bycatch as required under National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Much of this effort has been concentrated on studies investigating fish behavior and the development and testing of new gear technology and fishing techniques to minimize bycatch and promote the efficient harvest of target species.
Over the years, many questions have arisen regarding the differences between a scientific research activity and fishing and how NMFS interprets each type of activity under the implementing regulations. The existing regulations
NMFS is proposing substantive and administrative changes to the current regulations, including revising and adding definitions; clarifying the differences among scientific research, exempted fishing, and exempted educational activities; clarifying the difference between conservation engineering and gear testing; clarifying the need for and extent of data required to be collected in conjunction with exempted fishing and exempted educational activities; clarifying the application process for obtaining an EFP; exempting research projects funded by quota set-asides from the requirement to publish separate notices; and defining whether and to what extent the NMFS Observer Program requires EFPs. These topics are discussed in more detail below.
In § 600.10 Definitions, three definitions would be added and several others revised. As part of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, Congress authorized the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to use private sector vessels, equipment, and services to conduct fisheries resource surveys. The Secretary is authorized to structure competitive solicitations to compensate a contractor for a fishery resources survey (i.e., “compensation fishing”) by allowing the contractor to retain for sale fish harvested during the survey. If, however, the contractor is not expected to harvest during the survey the quantity or quality of fish that would allow for adequate compensation for the survey, the Secretary is authorized to structure the solicitation so as to provide that compensation by allowing the contractor to harvest on a subsequent voyage, and retain for sale, a portion of the allowable catch of the fishery as specified in a contract or EFP. Foreign vessels would not be allowed to engage in compensation fishing outside the scope of the applicable scientific research plan, or outside the time frame in which the actual scientific research activity is being conducted.
This proposed rule would define “compensation fishing” and authorize, as appropriate, this activity as a reason for issuing an EFP. Compensation fishing as described under section 402(e)(2)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act would be authorized through an EFP. It is proposed that in cases where exemptions are not needed, compensation fishing could be conducted without an EFP. An example of this is the Mid-Atlantic Research Set-aside (RSA) program, where research projects are funded through compensation fishing. In the RSA program, vessels are either issued a Letter of Acknowledgment (LOA) or an EFP. Vessels receive an LOA if they will be conducting research. Vessels receive an EFP if they will be compensation fishing and need an exemption from the regulations. For example, an EFP would be needed for a participating vessel to harvest and land their quota during a fishery closure. The compensation fishing provisions within the NMFS general regulations dealing with scientific research and exempted fishing (§ 600.745), would apply unless fishery-specific compensation fishing regulations are in place, such as those in the West Coast Groundfish regulations (§ 660.350).
A new definition would also be added for “conservation engineering.” Section 404(c)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act describes conservation engineering as an area of research that includes the study of fish behavior and the development and testing of new gear technology and fishing techniques to minimize bycatch, promote efficient harvest of target species, and minimize adverse effects on EFH. Because a significant number of fishery stocks are either overfished or experiencing overfishing, NMFS is concerned that bycatch of these species will make it more difficult to control mortality. Conservation engineering has become an important field of research and has led to cooperative research ventures involving NMFS, researchers, and fishermen.
For the same reasons that conservation engineering has become important, NMFS is concerned about its potential impacts on fishery resources. Conservation engineering activities often take commercial quantities of fish. In the past, these projects have been considered fishing and not scientific research because the Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of scientific research, as interpreted at § 600.10, excludes “the testing of fishing gear.” NMFS believes the mortality associated with conservation engineering work needs to be properly accounted for. In addition, NMFS wants to ensure that conservation engineering activities do not adversely affect fisheries resources. To best protect fisheries resources while allowing conservation engineering activities, NMFS proposes to define conservation engineering based on section 404(c)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in a manner that best protects fisheries resources while allowing conservation engineering activities. NMFS also proposes to define “gear testing” to differentiate it from conservation engineering. Gear testing would be defined as an at-sea activity with its sole purpose being the testing of the functionality of fishing gear. When a vessel is performing gear testing, it may not retain fish, and it must meet the specific requirements of any regulation that pertains to fishing and/or gear testing in the applicable fishery. For example, the Alaska management measures require that trawl gear testing must be performed within specified trawl gear test areas.
Some conservation engineering activities would not qualify as a scientific research activity, and would more appropriately require an EFP. To be classified as scientific research:
• At-sea research must meet the criteria for scientific research activity laid out in the regulations, and occur aboard a scientific research vessel;
• A research activity must address a testable hypothesis;
• A research activity must follow a scientific plan that includes sufficient observations and appropriate experimental design to test the hypothesis;
• A research activity must address a fishery management problem or issue;
• All fish captured for research must be necessary to meet the objectives of the experimental design, i.e. the sample size needed to prove or disprove the hypothesis. (This does not include fish captured for compensation fishing).
For example, in the development of a bycatch reduction device, research could be conducted to assess the behavior of target and bycatch species to detect exploitable differences, to determine whether prototype gear modifications achieve the desired stimuli and escape opportunities, to test whether fish respond to those stimuli as expected, or to examine whether a prototype device achieves the expected species separation. If these activities are conducted on a scientific research vessel then an LOA would be sufficient, whereas if these activities are conducted on a vessel not meeting the definition of
Several technical revisions are proposed to be made to the Definitions section. In the definitions for “exempted educational activity” and “exempted or experimental fishing,” the words “part 635 or” would be removed as redundant, since part 635 is a part of chapter VI of title 50. In the definitions for “region,” “Regional Administrator,” and “Science and Research Director,” the word “five” would be changed to “six” to reflect the creation of the new NMFS Pacific Islands Region and NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center. In the definition of “scientific research activity,” in the second sentence, the words “or to test a hypothesis” would be revised to read “and to test a hypothesis,” making this definition consistent with the new definition of conservation engineering. In the third sentence, the word “issues” would be revised to read “topics” to better describe the object of the research, and the words “or other collateral fishing effects” would be added following the word “bycatch” to encompass the range of potential impacts of fishing on the environment. In the fourth sentence, the words “unless it meets the definition of conservation engineering” would be added following “or the testing of fishing gear” to clarify that conservation engineering may be permissible. In addition, an example is provided to clarify what is meant by “the testing of fishing gear.”
In § 600.512(a), for foreign fishing, and § 600.745(a), for domestic fishing, the procedures for acknowledging scientific research activity would be revised by adding “aboard scientific research vessels” to clarify that these sections apply only to scientific research activities aboard scientific research vessels in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
To clarify who the designee could be for the Regional Administrator or Director, §§ 600.512(a) and 600.745(a) would be revised so that the Regional Administrator having responsibility for the fishery or the Director of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries (for Atlantic highly migratory species) would be primarily responsible for the issuance of LOAs, but that this responsibility may be delegated to an appropriate NMFS Science and Research Director, or the Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries.
The current regulations note that the LOA “is separate and distinct from any permit required under any other applicable law.” For laws administered by NMFS, this reference applies to incidental take permits under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) or section 10 permits or consultations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There may be additional permits required (e.g., from the Corps of Engineers) that are not under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Since the MMPA and ESA are administered by NMFS by the same officials who issue LOAs, it is appropriate for NMFS to consider the effect of the research under the provisions of these laws when the request for the LOA is being reviewed. Therefore, §§ 600.512(a) and 600.745(a) would be modified to indicate that the MMPA and ESA are two laws that may require an additional permit or consultation. NMFS would undertake an initial review of a request for an LOA to determine if any additional permit or consultation is needed. If, after an initial review, the Regional Administrator or Director believes that such a permit or consultation is required and none has been completed, the Regional Administrator or Director would not issue an LOA until required permits are issued and consultations completed. A research vessel that conducts operations without these authorizations may potentially be found in violation of the applicable law.
In addition to the foregoing changes, §§ 600.512(a) and 600.745(a) are proposed to have additional clarifying language added regarding revisions to the scientific research plan and to the rebuttable presumption that a vessel is a scientific research vessel conducting scientific research.
In § 600.745(b)(1), as previously discussed, compensation fishing is proposed to be added as a reason for an EFP. Similarly, although conservation engineering potentially could be described under several other reasons for requesting an EFP, it is proposed to be added as a specific reason for an EFP because of its increasing use in determining ways of avoiding bycatch and the extent of conservation engineering activities.
It has not always been clear to authorized officers or the exempted fishing permittee which regulations they have been exempted from. To provide a clear record of what regulatory exemptions apply to a particular EFP, § 600.745(b)(1) is also proposed to be revised to clearly indicate that a vessel with an EFP is only exempt from those regulations specified in the EFP.
In § 600.745(b)(2)(v), NMFS proposes that an applicant for an EFP provide any anticipated impacts of the proposed activity on the environment, including impacts on fisheries, marine mammals, threatened or endangered species, and EFH, as part of an EFP application. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NMFS must make a determination regarding the environmental impact of any permitted activity. This NEPA determination is usually in the form of a CE (i.e., a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment and which have been found to have no such effect and for which neither an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) is required), which includes reference to any relevant previous NEPA analysis. Under some circumstances, an activity might require an EA or what may be even more rare, an EIS. Similarly, under § 600.920, NMFS must make a determination of the impact on EFH of any permitted activity and, therefore, needs to be provided with any available information on the activity that has a potential effect on EFH. NMFS recognizes that applicants have routinely provided this type of information as part of their application. This proposed change would document the current practice and clarify the reasons for collecting the information.
A series of changes are proposed in the application process to speed public notification and allow for timely review of an application.
The current regulations state, ”... notification of receipt of the application will be published in the
MSA section 318(f) specifically exempts research projects funded by quota set-asides from any new procedures established under section 318. There are existing procedures in place for processing EFP applications associated with these projects, which are necessary for NMFS to properly evaluate and analyze each project's compliance with NEPA, ESA, and MMPA requirements. NMFS believes the current procedures are beneficial to our process and help streamline the review and issuance of EFPs for quota set-aside programs. Therefore, these procedures will be retained. To further expedite the review of EFP applications for such projects, research projects funded through quota set-asides, such as those that participate in the Mid-Atlantic RSA program, will be exempted from the requirement to publish a separate
NMFS proposes that § 600.745(b)(3)(i)(C) be revised to include impacts on fisheries and EFH.
In § 600.745(b)(3)(ii), current language states, “The Council(s) or the Administrator or the Regional Administrator shall notify the applicant in advance of any meeting at which the application will be considered, and offer the applicant the opportunity to appear in support of the application.” The language is proposed to be revised to clarify that the applicant has a right to be present and make comments only at public meetings.
In § 600.745(b)(3)(iii), new language is proposed to be inserted that would clarify that NMFS would issue EFPs only after all required analyses and consultations (e.g., NEPA, EFH, ESA and MMPA) have been completed. This is in effect what currently occurs. In § 600.745(b)(3)(iii)(B), confusing language is proposed to be removed and in § 600.745(b)(3)(iii)(C) the language is clarified to indicate that while purely economic allocations could be grounds for a denial, compensation fishing should not be a reason to deny an EFP.
NMFS is proposing language to clarify what terms and conditions should be included in an EFP. As previously discussed, a new paragraph (C) would be added to § 600.745(b)(3)(v) to require that the EFP cite the specific regulations exempted. The subsequent paragraphs would be renumbered accordingly, and the renumbered paragraph (F) would be revised to indicate that observers and electronic monitoring devices may be required. Renumbered paragraph (G) would be revised to specify acceptable records for data reporting and to indicate that incidental catch and bycatch must be reported in all EFPs.
A new paragraph (4) would be added to § 600.745(b) to require that EFP holders must date and sign the permit, and return a copy of the original to the NMFS Regional Administrator or Director, to acknowledge the terms and conditions of the permit. The permit is not valid until signed by the holder. The subsequent paragraphs would be renumbered accordingly.
In § 600.745(b)(5), language relating to revocation, suspension or modification of permits would be removed, as these activities are described in § 600.745(b)(9).
In § 600.745(c)(1), clarifying language is proposed to indicate that NMFS is requesting the research information, and to clarify that the request is made for research exempted from the Magnuson-Stevens Act (research activity conducted from a scientific research vessel).
Section 600.745(c)(2) would be revised to specify that persons operating under EFPs must report their catch at the end of the EFP activity, or at specified intervals during the course of the exempted fishing activity, as determined by the Regional Administrator or Director. This supports the previous discussion and proposed changes concerning the importance of documenting all catch and bycatch related to EFPs.
Exempted educational activities are a subset of EFPs issued exclusively for educational purposes, i.e., the instruction of an individual or group, and allowing the capture of enough fish to demonstrate the lesson. Section 600.725(n) specifies that the trade, barter, or sale of any fish taken under an exempted educational activity is prohibited. This language is proposed to be repeated in § 600.745(d)(1) for clarity and ease of reference.
Consistent with the discussion regarding EFP applications in § 600.745(b)(2)(v), it is proposed that an applicant for an exempted educational activity provide any anticipated impacts of the proposed activity on the environment; including the fishery, marine mammals, threatened or endangered species, and EFH; as part of an exempted educational activity application.
Section 600.745(d)(3)(ii) would be revised to indicate that terms and conditions are mandatory for exempted educational activities in order to regulate and track catches, consistent with the proposed requirements of § 600.745(b)(3)(v).
As with EFPs, several clarifications are proposed to specify what may be included in the terms and conditions for exempted educational activities. In § 600.745(d)(3)(ii), a new paragraph (B) would be added to require that the exempted educational activity authorization cite the specific regulations exempted. The subsequent paragraphs would be renumbered accordingly, and renumbered paragraph (E) would be revised to specify acceptable records for data reporting.
In § 600.745(d)(3)(iii) and § 600.745(d)(7), NMFS proposes adding language that would require the exempted educational activity authorization specify the person(s) who will be in charge and present for the exempted educational activity to proceed. This would emphasize the educational nature of the activity and provide more assurance that the activity would be carried out as specified in the exempted educational activity authorization.
There have been questions regarding when, or if, observer programs are required to obtain EFPs in order for those observers to conduct catch sampling, biological studies, and retain fish for further analysis when doing so would be in violation of the applicable fishing regulations. In addition, the
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 provisions of section 318(d) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
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, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would provide clarifications of current regulations and information requirements, as well as other administrative requirements regarding scientific research, exempted fishing, and exempted educational activities. The proposed rule would serve only to define terms, clarify distinctions among scientific research activity, exempted fishing, and exempted educational activities, and standardize procedures for applying for and issuing EFPs and authorizations for exempted educational activities as allowed under EFPs.
As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated: (1) To average 6 hours per response to send NMFS a copy of a scientific research plan and average 1 hour per response to provide a copy of the cruise report or research publication; (2) to average 1 hour per response to complete an application for an EFP and average 0.5 hours per response or authorization for an exempted educational activity; and (3) to average 2 hours per response to provide a report at the conclusion of exempted fishing and average 0.5 hours per response to provide a report at the conclusion of exempted educational activities, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information.
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. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to the Office of Sustainable Fisheries at the
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Fisheries, Fishing.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 600 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 971
2. In § 600.10, definitions for “Exempted educational activity”, “Exempted or experimental fishing”, “Region”, “Regional Administrator”, “Science and Research Director”, and “Scientific research activity” are revised, and definitions for “Compensation fishing”, “Conservation engineering”, and “Gear testing” are added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
3. In § 600.512, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
(a)
4. In § 600.745:
A. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(3)(v)(C) through (H) as paragraphs (b)(3)(v)(D) through (I), respectively.
B. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(4) through (8) as paragraphs (b)(5) through (9), respectively.
C. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(B) through (F) as paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(C) through (G), respectively.
D. Add paragraphs (b)(3)(v)(C), (b)(4), (d)(3)(ii)(B), and (e).
E. Revise paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(v), (b)(3)(i) introductory text, (b)(3)(i)(C), (b)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(iii) introductory text, (b)(3)(iii)(B), (b)(3)(iii)(C), (b)(3)(v) introductory text, (b)(3)(v)(F), (b)(3)(v)(G), (b)(5), (c), (d)(1), (d)(2)(vii), (d)(3)(ii) introductory text, (d)(3)(ii)(E), (d)(3)(iii), and (d)(7).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(b) * * *
(1)
(2) * * *
(v) The species (target and incidental) expected to be harvested under the EFP, the amount(s) of such harvest necessary to conduct the exempted fishing, the arrangements for disposition of all regulated species harvested under the EFP, and any anticipated impacts on the environment, including impacts on fisheries, marine mammals, threatened or endangered species, and essential fish habitat.
(3) * * *
(i) The Regional Administrator or Director, as appropriate, will review each application and will make a preliminary determination whether the application contains all of the required information and constitutes an activity appropriate for further consideration. If the Regional Administrator or Director finds that any application does not warrant further consideration, both the applicant and the affected Council(s) will be notified in writing of the reasons for the decision. If the Regional Administrator or Director determines that any application warrants further consideration, notification of receipt of the application will be published in the
(C) Biological information relevant to the proposal, including appropriate statements of environmental impacts, including impacts on fisheries, marine mammals, threatened or endangered species, and EFH.
(ii) If the application is complete and warrants additional consultation, the Regional Administrator or Director may consult with the appropriate Council(s) concerning the permit application during the period in which comments have been requested. The Council(s) or the Regional Administrator or Director shall notify the applicant in advance of any public meeting at which the application will be considered, and offer the applicant the opportunity to appear in support of the application.
(iii) As soon as practicable after receiving a complete application, including all required analyses and consultations (e.g., NEPA, EFH, ESA and MMPA), and having received responses from the public, the agencies identified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, and/or after the consultation, if any, described in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, the Regional Administrator or Director shall issue the EFP or notify the applicant in writing of the decision to deny the EFP, and, if denied, the reasons for the denial. Grounds for denial of an EFP include, but are not limited to, the following:
(B) According to the best scientific information available, the harvest to be conducted under the permit would detrimentally affect the well-being of the stock of any regulated species of fish, marine mammal, threatened or endangered species or essential fish habitat; or
(C) Issuance of the EFP would have economic allocation as its sole purpose (other than compensation fishing); or
(v) The Regional Administrator or Director may attach terms and conditions to the EFP consistent with the purpose of the exempted fishing and as otherwise necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery resources and the marine environment, including, but not limited to:
(C) A citation of the regulations from which the vessel is exempted.
(F) Whether observers, a vessel monitoring system, or other electronic equipment must be carried on board vessels operated under the EFP, and any necessary conditions, such as predeployment notification requirements.
(G) Data reporting requirements necessary to document the activities and to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of the EFP and established time frames and formats for submission of the data to NMFS.
(4)
(i) Agrees to abide by all terms and conditions set forth in the permit, and all restrictions and relevant regulations under this subpart; and
(ii) Acknowledges that the authority to conduct certain activities specified in the permit is conditional and subject to authorization and revocation by the Regional Administrator or Director.
(5)
(c)
(2) Upon completion of the activities of the EFP, or periodically as required by the terms and conditions of the EFP, persons fishing under an EFP must submit a report of their catches and any other information required, to the appropriate Regional Administrator or Director, in the manner and within the time frame specified in the EFP. The report must be submitted to the Regional Administrator or Director no later than 6 months after concluding the exempted fishing activity. Persons conducting EFP activities are also requested to submit a copy of any publication prepared as a result of the EFP activity.
(d) * * *
(1)
(2) * * *
(vii) The species and amounts expected to be caught during the exempted educational activity, and any anticipated impacts on the environment, including impacts on fisheries, marine mammals, threatened or endangered species, and EFH.
(3) * * *
(ii) The Regional Administrator or Director may attach terms and conditions to the authorization, consistent with the purpose of the exempted educational activity and as otherwise necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery resources and the marine environment, including, but not limited to:
(B) A citation of the regulations from which the vessel is being exempted.
(E) Data reporting requirements necessary to document the activities and to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of the exempted educational activity.
(iii) The authorization will specify the scope of the authorized activity and will include, at a minimum, the duration, vessel(s), persons, species, and gear involved in the activity, as well as any additional terms and conditions specified under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section.
(7)
(e)