Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10857 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 234 

[DOCKET No. FRA–2018–0096, Notice No. 

3] 

RIN 2130–AC72 

State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 

Action Plans; Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Correcting amendment. 

SUMMARY: On December 14, 2020, FRA 

published a final rule amending FRA’s 

grade crossing safety standards. In 

preparing the final rule for publication, 

an error was made that resulted in a 

cross-reference to the wrong paragraph. 

FRA is correcting that inadvertent error. 

DATES: Effective on February 23, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathryn Gresham, Attorney Adviser, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Railroad Administration, Office 

of the Chief Counsel (email: 

kathryn.gresham@dot.gov, telephone: 

202–493–6063). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

§ 234.11 of FRA’s December 14, 2020, 

final rule requiring States and the 

District of Columbia to develop and 

implement highway-rail grade crossing 

action plans, paragraph (d) erroneously 

referenced paragraph (d)(2) for a list of 

10 States required to submit their 

updated highway-rail grade crossing 

action plans and implementation 

reports electronically through FRA’s 

website in Portable Document Format 

(PDF). 85 FR 80648, 80660. The 

referenced list is actually contained in 

paragraph (c)(3) of § 234.11; there is no 

paragraph (d)(2) in § 234.11. Therefore, 

FRA is issuing this correction amending 

paragraph § 234.11(d) to refer to the 

actual regulatory provision 

(§ 234.11(c)(3)) that contains the list of 

10 States required to submit their 

updated highway-rail grade crossing 

action plans and implementation 

reports to FRA. FRA is proceeding 

directly to a final rule as it finds public 

notice and comment to be unnecessary 

per the ‘‘good cause’’ exemption in 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) for this clearly 

inadvertent error. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 234 

Highway safety, Penalties, Railroad 

safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, State and local 

governments. 

The Final Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, FRA amends part 234 of 

chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of 

Federal Regulations, with the following 

correcting amendment: 

PART 234—GRADE CROSSING 

SAFETY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 234 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20152, 

20160, 21301, 21304, 21311; Sec. 11401, Div. 

A, Pub. L. 114–94, 129 Stat. 1679 (49 U.S.C. 

22501 note); and 49 CFR 1.89. 

■ 2. In § 234.11, revise paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 234.11 State highway-rail grade crossing 

action plans. 

* * * * * 

(d) Electronic submission of updated 

Action Plan and implementation report. 

Each of the 10 States listed in paragraph 

(c)(3) of this section shall submit its 

updated highway-rail grade crossing 

action plan and implementation report 

electronically through FRA’s website in 

PDF form. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Brett A. Jortland, 

Acting Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03229 Filed 2–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 210205–0012] 

RIN 0648–BJ50 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 

Salmon Bycatch Minimization 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule implements salmon 

bycatch minimization measures to 

minimize incidental take of Endangered 

Species Act-listed salmon by vessels in 

the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. The 

rule establishes additional management 

tools to minimize incidental Chinook 

and coho salmon bycatch to keep 

fishery sectors within guidelines, 

establishes rules to allow industry to 

access the Chinook salmon bycatch 

reserve, and creates Chinook salmon 

bycatch closure thresholds for the trawl 

fishery. This rule fulfills the terms and 

conditions of a 2017 National Marine 

Fisheries Service Biological Opinion. 

This rule is intended to promote the 

goals and objectives of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, 

and other applicable laws, including the 

Endangered Species Act. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

25, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: This rule is accessible via 

the Office of the Federal Register 

website at https://

www.federalregister.gov/. Background 

information and documents, including a 

Biological Opinion and a Regulatory 

Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) (Analysis), 

which addresses the statutory 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), Executive 

Order 12866, and the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), are available at 

the NMFS West Coast Region website at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/ 

west-coast and at the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s (Council) 

website at http://www.pcouncil.org. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this final rule 

may be submitted to Barry A. Thom, 

Regional Administrator, West Coast 

Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way 

NE, Seattle, WA 98115–0070. Attn: 

Brian Hooper, and to www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Hooper, phone: (206) 526–6117, 

or email: brian.hooper@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The purpose of this final rule is to 

minimize interactions between 

Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed 

salmon species and Pacific Coast 

groundfish fishing gear. On the West 

Coast, vessels fishing under the Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) use gear types (e.g. 

midwater and bottom trawl, fixed gear, 

and hook-and-line) that interact with 

listed Evolutionary Significant Units 

(ESUs) of coho and Chinook salmon. 

The seasonality and geographic extent, 

including fishing depth and north/south 

distribution of the different target 

strategies and gear types, result in 

10858 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

different effects on different ESUs of 

these salmonids. 

On December 11, 2017, NMFS issued 

a Biological Opinion on the impact of 

the NMFS authorization of the 

groundfish fishery on ESA-listed 

salmonids (see ADDRESSES for electronic 

access information). The Incidental 

Take Statement (ITS) in the Biological 

Opinion sets forth terms and conditions. 

Compliance with those terms and 

conditions provides an exemption to the 

prohibition on take of listed species in 

Section 9 of the ESA. The components 

of the Biological Opinion are 

summarized in the proposed rule for 

2019–20 Pacific Coast groundfish 

harvest specifications and management 

measures (83 FR 47416; September 19, 

2018). NMFS and the Council 

implemented a number of ITS terms and 

conditions in the final rule for 2019–20 

Pacific Coast groundfish harvest 

specifications and management 

measures (83 FR 63970; December 12, 

2018). 

To address the remaining terms and 

conditions (2.b and 3.a), the Council 

developed new incidental salmon 

bycatch minimization tools to allow for 

timely inseason management of salmon 

bycatch (term and condition 2.b). The 

Council also developed regulations 

regarding the Chinook salmon bycatch 

reserve and its use (term and condition 

3.a). 

The Council evaluated the Biological 

Opinion and analyzed an action to 

amend the regulations implementing the 

FMP to address ESA-listed salmon 

bycatch in the fishery at its November 

2018, April 2019, September 2019, and 

November 2019 meetings. The Council 

recommended a preferred alternative at 

its September 2019 meeting and took 

final action in November 2019. The 

Council deemed the proposed 

regulations consistent with and 

necessary to implement this action in a 

June 2, 2020, letter from Council 

Chairman Phil Anderson to NMFS 

Regional Administrator Barry Thom. 

NMFS amends the regulations for the 

Pacific Coast groundfish fishery at 50 

CFR part 660 through this final rule to 

incorporate the Council’s 

recommendation and implement the 

terms and conditions set forth in the 

2017 NMFS Biological Opinion. 

Additional discussion of the 

background and rationale for the 

Council’s development of changes to the 

regulations is included in the proposed 

rule for this action (85 FR 66519; 

October 20, 2020) and is not repeated 

here. Detailed information, including 

the supporting documentation the 

Council considered while developing 

these recommendations, is available at 

the Council’s website, http://

www.pcouncil.org. 

Description of Existing Salmon Bycatch 

Management in the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery 

For purpose of analysis in the 

Biological Opinion, NMFS divided the 

groundfish fishery into two groups or 

‘‘sectors’’ for the purposes of estimating 

and analyzing ESA-listed salmon 

bycatch. This rule will refer to these 

groups as the whiting sector and nonwhiting sector. The whiting sector 

includes the Pacific Coast treaty Indian 

vessels that target whiting, as well as 

non-tribal vessels in the mothership 

(MS) Coop Program, Catcher/processor 

(C/P) Coop Program, and Pacific whiting 

Shorebased individual fishing quota 

(IFQ) fishery that target whiting. In this 

rule, the MS Coop Program, the C/P 

Coop Program and the Pacific whiting 

IFQ fishery are referred to as 

‘‘components’’ of the whiting sector. 

The non-whiting sector includes the 

Pacific Coast treaty Indian vessels that 

target Pacific coast groundfish species 

other than whiting, as well as non-tribal 

vessels in the Shoreside trawl, fixed 

gear, and recreational fisheries that are 

not accounted for in pre-season salmon 

modeling. The recreational fisheries not 

accounted for in pre-season salmon 

modeling are those occurring outside of 

the open salmon seasons and the 

Oregon longleader fishery. 

NMFS currently manages Chinook 

salmon bycatch to guidelines of 11,000 

fish for the whiting sector, and 5,500 

fish for the non-whiting sector. Fishery 

sectors may access a 3,500 Chinook 

salmon bycatch ‘‘reserve’’ upon 

reaching their Chinook bycatch 

guideline. NMFS automatically closes 

all groundfish fisheries once the 

guidelines plus the reserve are reached 

(i.e., a total of 20,000 Chinook salmon 

are caught as bycatch). For accounting 

purposes, Chinook salmon bycatch 

accrues to either the whiting sector or 

non-whiting sector. NMFS monitors 

Chinook salmon bycatch inseason and 

will (1) close the whiting sector if that 

sector catches its guideline limit and the 

full reserve amount, (2) close the nonwhiting sector if that sector catches its 

guideline limit and the full reserve 

amount, or (3) close either the whiting 

or non-whiting sector if either sector 

reaches its guideline limit when the 

other sector has already taken the 

reserve amount (83 FR 63970; December 

12, 2018). 

NMFS previously established two 

tools to manage Chinook and coho 

salmon bycatch in the groundfish 

fishery through prior rulemakings. 

These two tools are a Bycatch Reduction 

Area (BRA) for midwater trawl vessels 

at the 200-fathom (fm) (366-meter (m)) 

depth contour (83 FR 63970, December 

12, 2018), and Block Area Closures 

(BACs) for bottom trawl vessels from 

shore to the 250-fm (457-m) depth 

contour (84 FR 63966, November 19, 

2019) off Oregon and California. The 

Council may recommend NMFS 

implement BRAs and BACs to minimize 

salmon bycatch through routine 

management measures, as described in 

the FMP and regulation at 50 CFR 

660.60(c). Additional discussion of 

existing salmon bycatch management in 

the groundfish fishery is included in the 

proposed rule (85 FR 66519; October 20, 

2020) and is not repeated here. 

Additional Management Tools To 

Minimize ESA-Listed Salmon Bycatch 

This final rule implements additional 

management tools beyond BRAs and 

existing BACs, making these tools 

available to minimize incidental 

Chinook and coho salmon bycatch to 

keep fishery sectors within guidelines. 

These additional tools include: (1) BACs 

for midwater trawl fisheries; (2) an 

extension of BACs seaward of the 250- 

fm (457-m) depth contour for bottom 

trawl fisheries; and (3) a selective 

flatfish trawl (SFFT) gear requirement 

for bottom trawl vessels. These 

additional management tools apply only 

to non-tribal fisheries. NMFS expects 

the tribal fishery managers may 

implement area management measures 

to minimize salmon bycatch, as 

necessary. 

When deciding whether to 

recommend BACs or SFFT gear 

requirements for NMFS to implement, 

consistent with the FMP, the Council 

will consider environmental impacts, 

including economic impacts, and public 

comment via the Council process. 

Depending on the circumstances, NMFS 

may implement BACs or SFFT gear 

requirements for a defined period of 

time, for example, a few months or the 

remainder of the fishing year, or 

maintain the closure for an indefinite 

period of time, for example, until 

reopened by a subsequent action. NMFS 

may implement one or more BACs or 

BACs with SFFT gear requirements, and 

the size of the BACs or BACs with SFFT 

gear requirements can vary. A Federal 

Register document will announce the 

geographic boundaries (described with 

coordinates in codified regulations) of 

one or more BACs or BACs with SFFT 

gear requirements, the effective dates, 

applicable gear/fishery restrictions, as 

well as the purpose and rationale. 

NMFS will also disseminate this 

information on BACs or BACs with 

SFFT gear requirements through public 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10859 

notices and posting on the West Coast 

Region website (see ADDRESSES for 

electronic access information). 

Block Area Closures for Midwater Trawl 

Fisheries 

This final rule makes BACs available 

as a routine management measure to 

minimize salmon bycatch in the limited 

entry midwater trawl fisheries in the 

whiting and non-whiting sectors and 

prevent bycatch from exceeding the 

guidelines. BACs are size variable 

spatial closures bounded by latitude 

lines, defined at 50 CFR 660.11, and 

depth contour approximations defined 

at 50 CFR 660.71 through 660.74 ((10 fm 

(18-m) through 250 fm (457-m)), and 

§ 660.76 (700 fm (1,280-m)). 

Amendment 28 to the FMP (84 FR 

63966; November 19, 2019) established 

BACs for bottom trawl fisheries. This 

final rule will prohibit midwater trawl 

fishing within the BAC boundaries. 

BACs could be implemented or 

modified in the Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) off Oregon and California for 

vessels using midwater trawl gear. BACs 

may be implemented in the EEZ off 

Washington shoreward of the boundary 

line approximating the 250-fm (457-m) 

depth contour for vessels using 

midwater trawl gear. The Council 

decided to not include extending the 

available BAC boundary for vessels 

fishing with midwater trawl gear 

beyond 250-fm (457-m) off Washington 

as part of its recommendation due to the 

limited operation of midwater trawl 

vessels in that area. 

The BAC tool will allow the Council 

to recommend and NMFS to implement 

size variable area closures as a routine 

management measure to address 

specific areas of high salmon bycatch 

rather than large fixed closure areas 

(e.g., BRA). BACs will allow the 

midwater trawl fishery to remain open 

in areas outside of the BACs. 

This final rule does not implement 

specific individual BACs. BACs cannot 

be used to close an area to any type of 

fishing other than groundfish bottom or 

midwater trawling. This rule allows 

NMFS to close or reopen BACs 

preseason (e.g., before the start of the 

fishing year or before the May 15 start 

of the primary season for Pacific whiting 

fishery) or inseason. The approach is 

consistent with existing ‘‘routine 

inseason’’ frameworks already in the 

FMP and regulations. If good cause 

exists under the Administrative 

Procedure Act to waive notice and 

comment, a single Federal Register 

document will announce routine 

inseason BACs approved by NMFS. 

Extension of Block Area Closures for 

Bottom Trawl Fisheries 

This final rule allows NMFS to take 

routine inseason action to implement 

BACs seaward of the boundary line 

approximating the 250-fm (457-m) 

depth contour to the existing boundary 

line approximating the 700-fm (1,280-m) 

Essential Fish Habitat Conservation 

Area closure for bottom trawl fisheries. 

The boundary line approximating the 

700-fm (1,280-m) depth contour is 

described at 50 CFR 660.76. This 

extension of BACs only applies south of 

46°16′00′′ N latitude (in the EEZ off 

Oregon and California). This final rule 

allows NMFS to implement and modify 

BACs, as a routine management 

measure, in open areas beyond the 250- 

fm (457-m) boundary in order to 

minimize incidental salmon bycatch. 

While salmon bycatch rates are 

generally low in depths greater than 

250-fm (457-m) for trawl fisheries 

(Section 2.15 of the Analysis—see 

ADDRESSES), salmon distribution is 

known to extend into those depths. 

Therefore, the Council recommended, 

and NMFS is implementing, this 

extension so as to not constrain 

management of salmon bycatch in the 

bottom trawl fishery to the boundary 

line approximating the 250-fm (457-m) 

depth contour as the seaward boundary 

for a BAC. This final rule does not 

implement individual BACs for bottom 

trawl fisheries. 

Selective Flatfish Trawl Requirement for 

Bottom Trawl Fisheries 

The use of SFFT gear is expected to 

reduce bycatch of Chinook salmon (85 

FR 66519; October 20, 2020). This final 

rule makes an SFFT gear requirement 

available as a routine management 

measure to address ESA-listed salmon 

bycatch in the groundfish bottom trawl 

fisheries. The requirement to fish with 

SFFT gear could be used in conjunction 

with a BAC. In other words, if the 

Council were to recommend and NMFS 

were to implement a BAC for bottom 

trawl, it could allow bottom trawl 

vessels to continue fishing in the BAC 

if vessels used SFFT gear. The Council 

recommended, and NMFS is 

implementing, this action because it 

provides flexibility for those vessels 

with SFFT gear. 

This final rule does not implement 

individual SFFT gear requirements. The 

Council could recommend SFFT gear 

requirements in the future. This rule 

allows NMFS to implement SFFT 

requirements preseason or inseason. If 

consistent with the FMP, MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable law, 

NMFS may approve and implement a 

Council recommended SFFT gear 

requirement through a routine 

management measure, as described in 

the FMP and regulation at 50 CFR 

660.60(c). 

This final rule makes changes to the 

declaration report to allow NMFS Office 

of Law Enforcement (OLE) to 

sufficiently monitor and enforce SFFT 

gear requirements. In the list of 

potential gear type or sector/monitoring 

type declarations found at 50 CFR 

660.13(d)(4)(iv)(A), NFMS added a 

declaration for ‘‘Limited entry selective 

flatfish trawl, shorebased IFQ’’ and 

modified the existing ‘‘Limited entry 

bottom trawl, shorebased IFQ, not 

including demersal trawl’’ declaration 

to clarify that selective flatfish trawl 

gear is not included (i.e., ‘‘Limited entry 

bottom trawl, shorebased IFQ, not 

including demersal trawl or selective 

flatfish trawl’’). 

Rules for Access to the Chinook Salmon 

Reserve 

This final rule establishes the rules or 

circumstances in which the whiting and 

non-whiting sectors can access the 

Chinook salmon bycatch reserve. As 

described in the Biological Opinion, 

access to the reserve for additional 

Chinook salmon bycatch above the 

sector’s guideline is not guaranteed. The 

Council recommended that a sector may 

only access the reserve if NMFS has 

implemented a management measure to 

minimize Chinook salmon bycatch in 

that sector prior to it reaching its 

Chinook salmon bycatch guideline. The 

Council recommended, and NMFS is 

implementing, rules for accessing the 

reserve that hold the whiting and nonwhiting sectors accountable for 

minimizing bycatch. 

The Council recommended, and 

NMFS is implementing, that the nonwhiting sector may only access the 

reserve if NMFS has implemented a 

routine management measure (i.e. BRA, 

BAC, or a SFFT gear requirement) to 

minimize Chinook salmon bycatch in 

the non-whiting sector prior to it 

reaching its Chinook salmon bycatch 

guideline. This requirement may be 

satisfied where NMFS has implemented 

a BAC for bottom trawl or midwater 

trawl fisheries, or an SFFT gear 

requirement for bottom trawl fisheries. 

In contrast to the non-whiting sector, 

the Council recommended, and NMFS 

is implementing, that each component 

of the whiting sector (i.e. the MS 

Cooperative Program, C/P Cooperative 

Program, and the Pacific whiting 

Shorebased IFQ fishery) may access the 

reserve only if NMFS has implemented 

a management measure to minimize 

Chinook salmon bycatch for that 

10860 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

component. This requirement may be 

satisfied through the implementation of 

a BRA, BAC, or Salmon Mitigation Plan 

(SMP) for the applicable component. 

Those vessels with an approved SMP 

will have access to the reserve without 

further action by NMFS. The Council 

recommended, and NMFS is 

implementing, that vessels not party to 

an SMP may access the reserve only if 

NMFS has implemented a routine 

management measure (e.g., BRA or 

BAC) to minimize Chinook salmon 

bycatch for those vessels. 

As part of the rules for access to the 

reserve, the Council recommended, and 

NMFS is implementing, automatic 

fishery closure thresholds. The Council 

may recommend a routine management 

measure (e.g., BRA, BAC, or SFFT gear 

requirement) to minimize Chinook 

salmon bycatch in the groundfish 

fishery. If NMFS has not implemented 

a routine management measure to 

minimize Chinook salmon bycatch in 

the non-whiting sector, the non-whiting 

sector will close once the sector exceeds 

its Chinook salmon bycatch guideline of 

5,500 Chinook salmon. NMFS will 

automatically close the MS Coop 

Program, C/P Coop Program, and the 

Pacific whiting IFQ fishery if NMFS has 

not implemented a routine management 

measure to minimize Chinook salmon 

bycatch (i.e. BRAs or BACs) for that 

specific component of the whiting 

sector prior to the whiting sector 

exceeding its Chinook salmon bycatch 

guideline of 11,000 Chinook salmon. 

Those vessels with an approved SMP 

will be exempt from the 11,000 Chinook 

salmon bycatch guideline closure 

threshold condition that requires NMFS 

to close a specific component of the 

whiting sector if NMFS has not 

implemented a routine management 

measure to minimize Chinook salmon 

bycatch. Therefore, these vessels will 

have access to the reserve without 

further action by NMFS. If the whiting 

sector has caught 11,000 Chinook 

salmon, NMFS will close the entire 

whiting sector, including those with an 

approved SMP, if the non-whiting sector 

has caught its 5,500 Chinook salmon 

bycatch guideline and 3,500 Chinook 

salmon from the bycatch reserve. Table 

1 summarizes the automatic fishery 

closure thresholds that NMFS is 

implementing as part of the reserve 

access rules. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF FISHERY CLOSURE THRESHOLDS FOR RESERVE ACCESS RULES

Close: If Chinook salmon catch exceeds: And: 

Whiting sector ......... 11,000 fish in the whiting sector ........... (1) NMFS has not implemented a routine management measure to minimize 

Chinook salmon bycatch OR (2) The non-whiting sector has caught its 5,500 

Chinook salmon bycatch guideline and 3,500 Chinook salmon from the bycatch reserve. 

Non-whiting sector .. 5,500 fish in the non-whiting sector ...... (1) NMFS has not implemented a routine management measure to minimize 

Chinook salmon bycatch OR (2) The whiting sector has caught its 11,000 

Chinook salmon bycatch guideline and 3,500 Chinook salmon from the bycatch reserve. 

Salmon Mitigation Plans for Pacific 

Whiting Sector 

This final rule allows a Pacific 

whiting sector cooperative or group of 

vessels to develop a SMP for NMFS 

approval. The SMP is a voluntary 

agreement by a cooperative or group of 

vessels in the Pacific whiting fishery MS 

Coop Program, C/P Coop Program, or 

Pacific whiting Shorebased IFQ fishery 

to manage Chinook salmon bycatch. 

NMFS expects the SMP to promote 

reductions in Chinook salmon bycatch 

relative to what would have occurred in 

the absence of an SMP because the SMP 

will require bycatch minimization 

measures for all vessels party to that 

SMP. Therefore, NMFS approval of an 

SMP will give those vessels party to the 

SMP access to the Chinook salmon 

bycatch reserve. Additionally, vessels 

that are party to an approved SMP will 

have access to the reserve regardless of 

NMFS implementing other inseason 

measures to minimize bycatch, such as 

BACs. Vessels that are party to an 

approved SMP may fish into the reserve 

when the non-whiting sector has not 

used the full reserve and NMFS has 

closed the whiting sector on the basis 

that it has reached 11,000 Chinook 

bycatch. 

Salmon Mitigation Plan Parties 

Participants in the Pacific whiting 

Shorebased IFQ fishery may form 

groups around common goals such as 

managing bycatch. MS and C/P vessels 

receive permits from NMFS to operate 

as cooperatives. While it does not 

receive permits from NMFS, the 

Shorebased Whiting Cooperative also 

operates around common goals such as 

bycatch management. Under this final 

rule, groups of vessels, or cooperatives, 

may create and submit SMPs to NMFS 

for approval. Individual vessels are not 

eligible to submit an SMP for approval. 

After NMFS approves an SMP, any 

changes in the membership of vessels 

party to the SMP, including a vessel 

leaving an SMP or adding a vessel to an 

SMP, must be submitted to NMFS for 

approval though an SMP amendment. 

In recommending the SMP measures, 

the Council provided, and NMFS is 

implementing, an additional way to 

allow groups of Pacific whiting vessels 

to access the reserve. The Council 

limited SMP submissions to 

cooperatives or other groups of vessels 

because of concerns regarding the 

enforceability of plans from individual 

whiting vessels. The Council noted that 

other groups would have the potential 

to employ a robust management system 

similar to that employed by the existing 

whiting cooperatives. The Council did 

not recommend a minimum number of 

vessels in an SMP. In order to improve 

the clarity of the regulations and ensure 

the robust management and 

accountability system envisioned by the 

Council, NMFS is implementing a three 

vessel minimum for an approved SMP. 

Salmon Mitigation Plan Required 

Contents 

The SMP must detail how those 

vessels party to the SMP will avoid and 

minimize Chinook salmon bycatch, 

including the tools they will employ. 

The SMP must contain the names and 

signatures of the owner or 

representative for each vessel that is 

party to the SMP. The SMP must 

include the vessel name and United 

States Coast Guard (USCG) vessel 

registration number (as given on USCG 

Form 1270) or state registration number, 

if no USCG documentation, of each 

vessel that is party to the SMP. The SMP 

must designate a representative to serve 

as the SMP point of contact with NMFS 

and the Council, and to submit the SMP 

proposal, any SMP amendments, and 

post-season report. The SMP must also 

contain a compliance agreement in 

which all parties to the SMP agree to 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10861 

voluntarily comply with all the 

provisions of the SMP. 

Salmon Mitigation Plan Review and 

Approval 

Consistent with the dates for MS and 

C/P cooperative permit and agreement 

submission, applicants must submit 

proposed SMPs to NMFS between 

February 1 and March 31. An SMP will 

expire on December 31 of the year in 

which NMFS approved it. Given the 

timing of this rulemaking, NMFS may 

offer flexibility by extending the SMP 

proposal deadline for 2021. NMFS will 

announce any flexibility in the 2021 

SMP submission deadline via public 

notice. 

NMFS will approve a proposed SMP 

if the proposal contains the required 

contents and is reasonably expected to 

reduce Chinook salmon bycatch. NMFS 

will disapprove a proposed SMP if it 

does not contain the required contents, 

or is not reasonably expected to reduce 

Chinook salmon bycatch. If NMFS 

makes an initial administrative 

determination (IAD) to disapprove the 

proposed SMP, the applicant may 

appeal. Any appeal under the SMP 

program will be processed by the NOAA 

Fisheries National Appeals Office. 

After the SMP is approved, the 

designated SMP representative must 

submit any changes to the SMP, 

including any changes in which vessels 

are party to the SMP, as an amendment 

to the SMP for approval by NMFS. An 

amendment to an approved SMP may be 

submitted to NMFS at any time during 

the year in which the SMP is valid. 

NMFS will review the amendment to 

ensure it contains the required SMP 

contents. An amendment to an 

approved SMP will be effective upon 

written notification of approval by 

NMFS to the designated SMP 

representative. If NMFS makes an IAD 

to disapprove the proposed SMP 

amendment, the applicant may appeal. 

Any appeal under the SMP program will 

be processed by the NOAA Fisheries 

National Appeals Office. 

Inseason SMP Monitoring and 

Evaluation 

Those vessels party to the SMP will 

commit to voluntarily comply with the 

provisions of the SMP. The Council will 

evaluate Chinook salmon bycatch levels 

and adherence to SMP provisions by 

those vessels party to the SMP, as 

needed, during the inseason review 

process at Council meetings. In 

recommending and implementing a 

routine management measure to 

minimize Chinook salmon bycatch, the 

Council and NMFS will specifically 

state whether the measure will apply to 

vessels party to an approved SMP. The 

Council may choose to exempt vessels 

party to an approved SMP from any 

additional salmon bycatch minimization 

measure recommendation. If the SMP 

measures are not sufficient in 

minimizing salmon bycatch, as 

determined by the Council during 

inseason review at regular Council 

meetings, the Council could recommend 

that NMFS implement additional 

salmon bycatch minimization measures 

(i.e., BRAs or BACs) that apply to those 

vessels party to an approved SMP even 

if those vessels had access to the reserve 

through the SMP. For example, NMFS 

may implement a BAC for all whiting 

sector vessels, including those with an 

approved SMP, if the whiting sector 

were approaching the Chinook salmon 

bycatch guideline and the Council had 

determined SMP measures were not 

sufficiently minimizing salmon bycatch. 

By using the existing declarations and 

procedures, as well as a list of vessels 

party to an approved SMP, NMFS OLE 

anticipates it can sufficiently monitor 

for unauthorized fishing vessels within 

the boundaries of a BAC that exempts 

vessels with an approved SMP. 

Post-Season Reporting 

The Council also recommended, and 

NMFS is implementing, an SMP postseason report as a necessary component 

of the SMP measures. The post-season 

report will allow NMFS and the Council 

to monitor and assess Chinook salmon 

bycatch minimization efforts by vessels 

party to the SMP. This post-season 

report, and specifically information on 

the effectiveness of the bycatch 

avoidance measures, will also help 

NMFS comply with term and condition 

6.a.iii of the Biological Opinion. This 

term and condition requires that NMFS 

produce an annual report summarizing 

bycatch reduction measures used and 

their effectiveness. 

The designated SMP representative 

will provide an annual post-season 

report to the Council and NMFS no later 

than March 31 of the year following the 

year in which the SMP was valid. The 

report will describe the group’s use of 

Chinook salmon bycatch avoidance 

measures and an evaluation of the 

effectiveness of those measures. The 

report will also describe any 

amendments to the terms of the SMP 

that NMFS approved during that fishing 

year and the reasons that the group 

amended the SMP. 

Pacific whiting cooperatives currently 

produce an annual cooperative report 

documenting the cooperative’s catch, 

bycatch data, and any other significant 

activities undertaken by the cooperative 

during the year. For efficiency, the SMP 

post-season report could be combined 

with this annual cooperative report. 

Trawl Fishery Closures in Response to 

Chinook Salmon Bycatch 

This final rule establishes automatic 

actions that will close all trawl fisheries 

if Chinook salmon bycatch exceeds 

19,500 fish in the whiting and nonwhiting sectors, and will close nonwhiting trawl fisheries if Chinook 

salmon bycatch exceeds 8,500 fish in 

the non-whiting sector. The closures 

ensure that 500 Chinook salmon are 

available for bycatch in fixed gear and 

select recreational fisheries, so those 

fisheries can continue to operate in 

years of high Chinook salmon bycatch 

in the trawl fishery. For catch 

accounting purposes, the Chinook 

salmon bycatch from Pacific Coast treaty 

Indian fisheries will count towards the 

applicable whiting or non-whiting 

sector bycatch guideline. However, 

Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries will 

not close until the existing 20,000 

Chinook salmon total fishery limit is 

reached. 

This final rule does not change any of 

the existing closure thresholds 

established in the 2019–2020 Pacific 

Coast groundfish harvest specifications 

and management measures (83 FR 

63970; December 12, 2018). The closure 

thresholds (bycatch guideline plus 

reserve) for the whiting and non-whiting 

sectors will remain at 14,500 Chinook 

salmon for the whiting sector and 9,000 

Chinook salmon for the non-whiting 

sector, and a total closure of all 

groundfish fisheries at 20,000 Chinook 

salmon. The Council noted the existing 

fishery closure thresholds and inseason 

processes would be sufficient to manage 

to the Chinook salmon bycatch 

guidelines. However, the Council also 

recognized the importance of protecting 

fixed-gear and recreational fisheries 

from potential closure in years of high 

non-whiting trawl Chinook salmon 

bycatch. Therefore, the Council 

recommended, and NMFS is 

implementing, closure thresholds for 

trawl fisheries. Table 2 summarizes the 

closure thresholds for trawl fisheries 

implemented as a result of this final 

rule. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF FISHERY CLOSURES TO IMPLEMENT TRAWL FISHERY THRESHOLDS

Close: If Chinook salmon catch 

exceeds: 

Non-whiting 

trawl fisheries.

8,500 fish in the non-whiting 

sector. 

10862 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF FISHERY CLOSURES TO IMPLEMENT TRAWL FISHERY THRESHOLDS—Continued 

Close: If Chinook salmon catch 

exceeds: 

All trawl fisheries.19,500 fish in the whiting 

and non-whiting sectors. 

Summary of Groundfish Fishery 

Closures in Response to Chinook 

Salmon Bycatch 

Table 3 summarizes the groundfish 

fishery closures in response to Chinook 

salmon bycatch. The closures described 

in the table do not apply to Pacific Coast 

treaty Indian fisheries except for the 

existing threshold closing all groundfish 

fisheries, including Pacific Coast treaty 

Indian fisheries, if Chinook salmon 

bycatch in the groundfish fishery 

exceeds 20,000 fish. However, for catch 

accounting purposes, the Chinook 

salmon bycatch from Pacific Coast treaty 

Indian fisheries will count towards the 

applicable whiting or non-whiting 

sector bycatch guideline. NMFS will 

close each component of the whiting 

sector (Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, MS 

Coop Program and C/P Coop Program) 

when Chinook salmon bycatch exceeds 

11,000 Chinook salmon if NMFS has not 

implemented a routine management 

measure (i.e., BRA or BAC)) to minimize 

Chinook salmon bycatch for that 

individual component of the whiting 

sector. The whiting sector closure at 

11,000 Chinook salmon will not apply 

to those vessels that are parties to an 

approved SMP, unless the non-whiting 

sector has caught the entire 3,500 

Chinook salmon bycatch reserve. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF GROUNDFISH FISHERIES CLOSURES DUE TO CHINOOK SALMON BYCATCH

Implemented with this final rule? Close: If Chinook salmon bycatch exceeds: And: 

Yes (reserve access rules) .............................. Whiting sector ............ 11,000 fish in the whiting sector.(1) NMFS has not implemented a routine 

management measure to minimize Chinook 

salmon bycatch OR (2) The non-whiting 

sector has caught its 5,500 Chinook salmon bycatch guideline and 3,500 Chinook 

salmon from the bycatch reserve. 

No; previously established (83 FR 63970; December 12, 2018).Whiting sector ............ 14,500 fish in the whiting sector.The non-whiting sector has not accessed the 

Chinook salmon bycatch reserve. 

Yes (reserve access rules) .............................. Non-whiting sector ..... 5,500 fish in the nonwhiting sector.(1) NMFS has not implemented a routine 

management measure to minimize Chinook 

salmon bycatch OR (2) The whiting sector 

has caught its 11,000 Chinook salmon 

guideline and 3,500 Chinook salmon from 

the bycatch reserve. 

Yes (trawl fishery closures) .............................. Non-whiting trawl fisheries (midwater 

trawl and bottom 

trawl fisheries under 

the Shorebased IFQ 

Program).

8,500 fish in the nonwhiting sector.

No; previously established (83 FR 63970; December 12, 2018).Non-whiting sector ..... 9,000 fish in the nonwhiting sector.The whiting sector has not accessed the Chinook salmon bycatch reserve. 

Yes (trawl fishery closures) .............................. All trawl fisheries 

(whiting sector and 

non-whiting trawl 

fisheries).

19,500 fish in the whiting and non-whiting 

sector.

No; previously established (83 FR 63970; December 12, 2018).All groundfish fisheries 20,000 fish in the whiting and non-whiting 

sector.

Definition Correction 

This final rule makes a minor 

technical correction related to the 

definition of ‘‘Mothership Coop 

Program’’ at § 660.111. An inaccurate 

amendatory instruction (80 FR 77271, 

December 14, 2015) resulted in a 

duplicative definition with an incorrect 

title. This rule removes the definition 

for ‘‘Mothership Coop Program or MS 

Coop Program’’, and maintains the 

definition for ‘‘Mothership (MS) Coop 

Program or MS sector’’ at § 660.111. 

This change is not substantive, as it 

removes a redundant definition. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS solicited public comment on 

the proposed salmon bycatch 

minimization measures (85 FR 66519; 

October 20, 2020). The comment period 

ended November 19, 2020. NMFS 

received seven comment letters: three 

from industry groups, one from a nongovernmental organization, and three 

from private citizens. One letter noted 

several small errors or inconsistences in 

the preamble to the proposed rule. 

NMFS has addressed those in a separate 

section below, Clarifications and 

Corrections to the Preamble of the 

Propose Rule. The comment letters are 

available in their entirety from NMFS 

(see ADDRESSES) or at the following web 

address: https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0063. 

Comment 1: Three private citizens 

and one non-governmental organization 

were supportive of the proposed salmon 

bycatch minimization measures due to 

the potential benefits for salmon 

populations and other species like 

Southern Resident killer whales. 

Response 1: NMFS agrees and is 

implementing the proposed measures 

with the final rule. 

Comment 2: The proposed rule lacks 

information regarding the bycatch 

guidelines and projections for coho 

salmon bycatch. 

Response: The effects of the rule on 

Chinook and coho salmon overlap. 

Therefore, NMFS examined these 

species together in the proposed rule 

analysis. This rule does not change the 

coho salmon guidelines. As such, NMFS 

did not discuss these details in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10863 

proposed rule. NMFS manages coho 

salmon bycatch to guidelines of 474 fish 

for the whiting sector, and 560 fish for 

the non-whiting sector. These 

guidelines were established in the 2017 

NMFS Biological Opinion. For 

accounting purposes, coho salmon 

bycatch accrues to either the whiting 

sector or non-whiting sector. NMFS 

monitors coho salmon bycatch inseason. 

Comment 3: NMFS did not mention 

any significant alternatives to the 

bycatch minimization measures in the 

IRFA of the proposed rule. 

Response: Under the RFA, NMFS is 

required to consider reasonable 

regulatory alternatives that would 

minimize the economic impact on 

affected small entities. NMFS made this 

consideration, and as documented in 

the proposed and final rules, concluded 

there are no significant alternatives to 

the final rule that would accomplish the 

stated objectives in a way that would 

reduce economic impacts of the final 

rule on small entities. 

Comment 4: This rule should put 

further restrictions on bottom trawling 

to protect Chinook and coho salmon 

habitat. 

Response: This rule fulfills the terms 

and conditions of a 2017 NMFS 

Biological Opinion. This rule 

establishes additional management tools 

such as extending BACs for bottom 

trawl fisheries, which may benefit 

salmonid habitat. Further measures to 

protect salmonid habitat are beyond the 

scope of this action. 

Comment 5: Pacific whiting 

cooperatives should be allowed to 

incorporate the SMP into the 

cooperative agreement, as well as the 

SMP post-season report into the annual 

cooperative report. 

Response: NMFS agrees and will work 

with the cooperatives to implement this 

administrative efficiency. 

Comment 6: Two industry groups 

expressed support for implementation 

of the proposed SMP as a mechanism 

for groups in the whiting sector to 

access the Chinook salmon reserve. 

Response: NMFS agrees and is 

implementing the proposed measures 

with the final rule. 

Comment 7: Two industry groups 

expressed concerns with a provision of 

the proposed rule that ‘‘no vessel may 

join or leave an SMP after it is 

approved’’. Under the proposed rule, 

those vessels party to the SMP would be 

committed to follow the SMP provisions 

for the year in which it is approved. The 

industry groups contend this provision 

is unnecessarily restrictive, would limit 

flexibility, and potentially hinder 

fishery performance. First, they argue 

that whiting cooperatives are currently 

allowed under their cooperative 

agreements and cooperative permits to 

change vessels participating in the 

cooperative by submitting an amended 

cooperative agreement to NMFS. 

Catcher-processor limited entry trawl 

permits are also transferable. These 

flexibilities provide opportunities for 

fishery participants and cooperatives to 

optimize participation in the fishery. 

Second, the industry groups contend 

unforeseen circumstances might occur 

requiring a vessel to leave a cooperative 

or an SMP. This could include a vessel 

ownership change or cooperative 

actions against a vessel that is not 

meeting the requirements of the 

cooperative. The industry groups 

recommended that any changes in 

vessels party to the SMP could occur 

through an SMP amendment. 

Response: NMFS specifically sought 

comment on this provision in the 

proposed rule. NMFS proposed this 

provision to: (1) Maximize the potential 

salmon conservation benefits of an SMP; 

(2) prevent vessels that did not follow 

the SMP provisions throughout the year 

from receiving the benefit of access into 

the reserve on the basis of the SMP; and 

(3) ensure NMFS can sufficiently 

monitor and enforce a BAC from which 

vessels party to an approved SMP are 

exempt. 

NMFS agrees with the commenter that 

the provision could hinder flexible 

salmon bycatch management in the 

whiting sector. As such, NMFS did not 

include this provision in this final rule. 

NMFS agrees an SMP amendment is an 

appropriate avenue to document and 

approve membership changes. The SMP 

amendment process will give NMFS 

means to track current SMP 

membership and ensure NMFS can 

sufficiently monitor and enforce access 

to a BAC from which vessels party to an 

approved SMP are exempt. 

If vessels were to join an SMP after it 

was approved (i.e., mid-fishing year) 

and receive benefits such as access to 

salmon bycatch reserve or exemption 

from further bycatch management 

requirements, it may be inequitable for 

the vessels that had been following the 

SMP provisions throughout the year. 

However, because the SMP group selfselects its members, it would be the 

group’s choice to make membership 

changes equitable. While maximum 

salmon bycatch minimization benefits 

may be realized when vessels follow 

bycatch minimization requirements in 

an SMP for a full fishing year, partial 

year participation will still provide 

benefits for salmon bycatch 

minimization purposes. 

NMFS agrees with the need for those 

vessels party to the SMP to self-manage 

membership, including the removal of a 

vessel that is not following the SMP 

provisions. A vessel leaving an SMP 

mid-fishing year would not present 

equity issues, as that vessel would not 

have automatic access to the reserve 

once it leaves the SMP. NMFS will be 

able to track vessels party to the SMP 

through the SMP amendment process. 

Per the reserve access rules in this final 

rule, a salmon bycatch minimization 

action would need to be implemented 

prior to a vessel not party to an SMP 

having access to the reserve. This would 

provide the conservation benefits for 

Chinook salmon envisioned by the 

Council in recommending the reserve 

access rules. 

Comment 8: Voluntary, industrybased areas closures will be more timely 

and effective than BACs to manage 

salmon bycatch. Voluntary industry 

closures are based upon near real-time 

data and are adaptable to meet current 

conditions on the fishing grounds. In 

contrast, a BAC would be implemented 

on a much slower time frame and could 

be inconsistent with current fishing 

conditions. Due to this lag, a BAC could 

close a fishing area where salmon 

bycatch is no longer occurring. 

Response: NMFS agrees that industry 

based area closures may be more timely 

and effective than BACs. NMFS 

encourages industry to continue such 

voluntary measures in order to reduce 

the need for regulatory area-based 

closures like BACs. Per the 2017 NMFS 

Biological Opinion, NMFS must manage 

the fishery to the bycatch guidelines. 

The Council recommended, and NMFS 

agrees, that BACs would be a useful 

management tool to have available 

should mandatory salmon bycatch 

minimization measures be necessary. 

Comment 9: The extension of BACs 

deeper than 250 fm is not needed 

because a long history of fishery data 

clearly indicates that salmon incidental 

catch deeper than 250 fm is de minimis. 

Response: Salmon bycatch rates are 

generally low in depths greater than 250 

fm (457 m) for trawl fisheries (Section 

2.15 of the Analysis—see ADDRESSES). 

However, salmon distribution is known 

to extend into those depths. The 

extension of BACs for bottom trawl 

fisheries in this final rule would allow 

NMFS to implement and modify BACs 

in areas where salmon bycatch may 

occur in order to keep the fishery sector 

within bycatch guidelines. 

Comment 10: NMFS will need to 

enforce BACs which restrict access for 

vessels without an approved SMP. In 

addition to VMS tracking and on the 

water patrols, NMFS could inform the 

Pacific whiting cooperatives to alert 

vessels under their structure that do not 

10864 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

have an approved SMP to cease fishing 

operations within the BAC. The 

documentation of which vessels are 

party to an SMP would guide this effort. 

Response: NMFS agrees that 

documentation of vessels that are party 

to an SMP is critical to the enforcement 

of BACs that allow access for vessels 

with an SMP. As such, NMFS will 

require the vessel name and USCG 

vessel registration number (as given on 

USCG Form 1270) or state registration 

number, if no USCG documentation, of 

each vessel that is party to the SMP be 

included in the SMP proposal. 

Comment 11: Two commenters noted 

the need for strong implementation, 

monitoring, reporting of salmon bycatch 

minimization measures, including the 

SMP. In order to maximize the salmon 

conservation benefits of an SMP, one 

commenter noted the need for regular 

in-season and post-season reporting of 

salmon bycatch, as well as the 

implementation of effective SMP 

bycatch reduction tools. 

Response: NMFS agrees that strong 

reporting and monitoring are needed for 

effective salmon bycatch management. 

In the SMP post-season report NMFS 

will require the SMP representative to 

provide an evaluation of the 

effectiveness of their avoidance 

measures in minimizing Chinook 

salmon bycatch. Salmon bycatch will 

continue to be monitored by NMFS 

throughout the fishing year as is 

required by the 2017 Biological 

Opinion. Salmon bycatch data is also 

publically available online in near realtime through the Pacific Fisheries 

Information Network’s Reports 

Dashboard at https://reports.psmfc.org/ 

pacfin. Additionally, the Council 

reviews salmon bycatch information at 

each Council meeting and may 

recommend routine management 

measures to NMFS, if necessary to keep 

fishery sectors within the bycatch 

guidelines. NMFS agrees the bycatch 

tools in the SMP need effective 

implementation. NMFS noted in the 

proposed rule that it expects the SMP to 

promote reductions in Chinook salmon 

bycatch relative to what would have 

occurred in the absence of an SMP 

because the SMP will require bycatch 

minimization measures for all vessels 

party to that SMP. This reduction would 

occur because the SMP will require 

bycatch minimization measures for all 

vessels party to that SMP. In order to 

clarify how an SMP would be evaluated, 

consistent with the intent of the 

Council, NMFS has included in the final 

rule an additional SMP approval criteria 

that the SMP must reasonably be 

expected to reduce Chinook salmon 

bycatch. 

Comment 12: One commenter stated 

the fishery closure authority provisions 

previously implemented to fulfill 

requirements of the 2017 NMFS 

Biological Opinion are not consistent 

with guidance and direction provided 

by the Council to the agency in 

developing the opinion. The commenter 

noted the Council did not include, nor 

think necessary, the closure authorities 

independently developed by NMFS. 

Response: In this final rule, NMFS is 

not modifying the automatic fishery 

closure mechanisms previously 

implemented through the final rule to 

implement harvest specifications and 

management measures for the 2019– 

2020 biennium (83 FR 63970; December 

12, 2018). As such, this comment is 

outside the scope of this action. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

In response to public comments 

received and in order to provide clarity 

to the new requirements, NMFS is 

making four changes to the action as 

proposed previously. 

As detailed in the Comments and 

Responses section, NMFS will require 

the vessel name and USCG vessel 

registration number (as given on USCG 

Form 1270) or state registration number, 

if no USCG documentation, of each 

vessel that is party to the SMP be 

included in the SMP proposal or any 

SMP amendment. This requirement is 

needed to sufficiently enforce BACs that 

allow access for vessels with an SMP. 

NMFS is also including a requirement 

that the SMP proposal include a mailing 

address for the SMP representative. This 

will allow NMFS to send the SMP 

representative correspondence through 

the mail. These requirement do not 

change the estimated public reporting 

burden for the submission of an SMP. 

As detailed in the Comments and 

Responses section, NMFS is not 

including in the final rule a provision of 

the proposed rule that ‘‘no vessel may 

join or leave an SMP after it is 

approved’’. Under that provision, those 

vessels party to the SMP would have 

been committed to follow the SMP 

provisions for the year in which it is 

approved. Through this final rule, 

NMFS will allow vessels to join or leave 

an SMP after it is approved. The SMP 

representative must submit any 

membership changes through the SMP 

amendment process. This change will 

provide industry with flexibility to 

manage salmon bycatch and self-select 

its members, while still providing the 

conservation benefits for salmon 

envisioned by the Council in 

recommending the reserve access rules. 

The SMP amendment process will allow 

NMFS to track current SMP 

membership and ensure NMFS can 

sufficiently monitor and enforce access 

to a BAC from which vessels with an 

approved SMP are exempt. 

As detailed in the Comments and 

Responses section, the proposed rule 

lacked clarity on how the SMP would be 

evaluated. In order to meet the objective 

of the SMP to minimize salmon bycatch, 

consistent with the Council’s intent for 

this action, NMFS has clarified in the 

final rule that the SMP must reasonably 

be expected to reduce Chinook salmon 

bycatch. 

Clarifications and Corrections to the 

Preamble of the Proposed Rule 

The preamble to the proposed rule (85 

FR 66519; October 20, 2020) on page 

66521 was unclear in describing the 

‘‘whiting sector’’ and ‘‘non-whiting 

sector’’ with respect to Pacific Coast 

treaty Indian vessels. The final rule 

revised these descriptions to clarify that 

vessels that participate in the Pacific 

Coast treaty Indian groundfish fisheries 

are not part of the MS, C/P, or IFQ 

programs. 

Table 2 of the preamble to the 

proposed rule (page 66523) summarized 

the closure thresholds for reserve access 

rules. Table 2 incorrectly stated a 

closure condition for the non-whiting 

sector. This table, Table 1 of this final 

rule, has been revised to clarify that the 

non-whiting sector will close at 5,550 

Chinook salmon if the whiting sector 

has caught its 11,000 Chinook salmon 

bycatch guideline and 3,500 Chinook 

salmon from the bycatch reserve. 

In the preamble to the proposed rule 

NMFS incorrectly stated on page 66523 

that SFFT gear requirements were an 

example of a routine management 

measure to minimize salmon bycatch in 

the whiting sector. Whiting trawlers do 

not use SFFT gear. Therefore, this final 

rule omits reference to SFFT gear 

requirements for the whiting sector. 

The preamble to the proposed rule on 

page 66523 inadvertently omitted a 

provision for closing the whiting sector 

due to Chinook salmon bycatch. The 

preamble to the proposed rule stated 

‘‘the entire whiting sector, including 

those with an approved SMP, would 

close if the non-whiting sector has 

caught its 5,500 Chinook salmon 

bycatch guideline and 3,500 Chinook 

salmon from the bycatch reserve’’. As 

clarified in the final rule, this fishery 

closure will only occur if the whiting 

sector has caught 11,000 Chinook 

salmon. 

Classification 

NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to 

section 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provides 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10865 

specific authority and procedure for 

implementing this action. Section 

304(b)(1)(A) authorizes NMFS to 

implement a rule deemed by the 

Council under section 303(c) to 

implement regulatory amendments. 

Pursuant to MSA Section 305(d), this 

action is necessary to carry out a minor 

technical correction because of an error 

in the regulatory text. The NMFS 

Assistant Administrator has determined 

that this final rule is consistent with the 

FMP, other provisions of the MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable law. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

NMFS prepared a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (FRFA) under section 

604 of the RFA, which incorporates the 

IRFA. A summary of any significant 

issues raised by the public comments in 

response to the IRFA, NMFS’s responses 

to those comments, and a summary of 

the analyses completed to support the 

action are addressed below. NMFS also 

prepared a RIR for this action. A copy 

of the RIR and IRFA is available from 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES for electronic 

access information), and per the 

requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604(a), the text 

of the FRFA follows: 

As applicable, section 604 of the RFA 

requires an agency to prepare a FRFA 

after being required by that section or 

any other law to publish a general 

notice of proposed rulemaking and 

when an agency promulgates a final rule 

under 5 U.S.C. 553. The following 

paragraphs constitute the FRFA for this 

action. 

This FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a 

summary of any significant issues raised 

by the public comments, NMFS’s 

responses to those comments, and a 

summary of the analyses completed to 

support the action. Analytical 

requirements for the FRFA are described 

in the RFA, section 604(a)(1) through 

(6). FRFAs contain: 

1. A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule; 

2. A statement of the significant issues 

raised by the public comments in 

response to the IRFA, a statement of the 

assessment of the agency of such issues, 

and a statement of any changes made in 

the proposed rule as a result of such 

comments; 

3. The response of the agency to any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) in response to the 

proposed rule, and a detailed statement 

of any change made to the proposed rule 

in the final rule as a result of the 

comments; 

4. A description and an estimate of 

the number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply, or an explanation of 

why no such estimate is available; 

5. A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities which will be subject to 

the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; and 

6. A description of the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected. 

The ‘‘universe’’ of entities to be 

considered in a FRFA generally 

includes only those small entities that 

can reasonably be expected to be 

directly regulated by the action. If the 

effects of the rule fall primarily on a 

distinct segment of the industry, or 

portion thereof (e.g., user group, gear 

type, geographic area), that segment will 

be considered the universe for purposes 

of this analysis. 

In preparing a FRFA, an agency may 

provide either a quantifiable or 

numerical description of the effects of a 

rule (and alternatives to the rule), or 

more general descriptive statements, if 

quantification is not practicable or 

reliable. 

Need for and Objective of This Final 

Rule 

The need for and objective of this 

final rule is described above in the 

Background section of the preamble and 

not repeated here. 

Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

During Public Comment 

NMFS published a proposed rule to 

implement salmon bycatch 

minimization measures for the Pacific 

coast groundfish fishery on October 20, 

2020 (85 FR 66519). An IRFA was 

prepared and summarized in the 

Classification section of the preamble to 

the proposed rule. The comment period 

on the proposed rule ended on 

November 19, 2020. NMFS received 

seven comment letters on the proposed 

rule. One comment was received 

specific to the IRFA. The comment 

incorrectly asserted NMFS did not 

consider any significant alternatives to 

the bycatch minimization measures in 

the IRFA. As documented in the 

proposed and final rule, NMFS made 

this consideration and concluded there 

are no significant alternatives. This 

comment is discussed further in the 

Comments and Responses section 

above. This comment did not raise 

significant issues relative to the 

measures in the proposed rule. The 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA 

did not file any comments on the IRFA 

or the proposed rule. 

A Description and an Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rule Will Apply 

The RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 

requires government agencies to assess 

the effects that regulatory alternatives 

would have on small entities, defined as 

any business/organization 

independently owned and operated and 

not dominant in its field of operation 

(including its affiliates). A small 

harvesting business has combined 

annual receipts of $11 million or less for 

all affiliated operations worldwide. A 

small fish-processing business is one 

that employs 750 or fewer persons for 

all affiliated operations worldwide. 

For marinas and charter/party boats, a 

small business is one that has annual 

receipts not in excess of $7.5 million. A 

wholesale business servicing the fishing 

industry is a small business if it 

employs 100 or fewer persons on a full 

time, part time, temporary, or other 

basis, at all its affiliated operations 

worldwide. A nonprofit organization is 

determined to be ‘‘not dominant in its 

field of operation’’ if it is considered 

small under one of the following SBA 

size standards: environmental, 

conservation, or professional 

organizations are considered small if 

they have combined annual receipts of 

$15 million or less, and other 

organizations are considered small if 

they have combined annual receipts of 

$7.5 million or less. 

The RFA defines small governmental 

jurisdictions as governments of cities, 

counties, towns, townships, villages, 

school districts, or special districts with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

This final rule will directly affect all 

commercial groundfish vessels and 

select recreational groundfish vessels. In 

the C/P sector, all three permit owners 

(owning the collective 10 permits) selfreported as large entities. For the MS 

sector, of the 31 MS/Catcher Vessel 

endorsed permits, 25 permits and their 

associated vessels are registered as small 

entities. Nine permits held by seven 

entities self-reported as large, with one 

entity owning three permits. In order to 

fish in the shoreside whiting or 

midwater trawl sector, a limited entry 

trawl endorsed permit is required. Of 

the 164 limited entry trawl endorsed 

10866 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

permits (excluding those with a C/P 

endorsement), 110 permit owners 

holding 129 permits classified 

themselves as small entities. The 

average small entity owns 1.17 permits 

with 15 entities owning more than one 

permit. However, given that between 23 

and 26 vessels have participated in the 

shoreside whiting fishery in the last 

three years and the same range of 

vessels in the midwater rockfish 

fisheries, this is an overestimate of the 

potential impacted number of small 

entities. Additionally, it is likely some 

entities own more than one vessel. From 

2016–2018, there were 67–74 bottom 

trawl vessels. 

Since 2016–18, there have been 17 to 

23 fixed gear participants in the IFQ 

fishery, 136 to 144 in the limited entry 

fixed gear fisheries, and 746 to 769 in 

the open access fisheries. Of those fixed 

gear IFQ participants, there have been 

between 17 and 19 permits used to land 

groundfish. In 2018, an estimated 13 of 

these trawl endorsed permits were 

classified as small entities (based on 

2019 declarations). In 2019, 208 of the 

239 fixed gear endorsed limited entry 

permits (required to fish in the primary 

or limited entry fixed gear sectors) 

reported as small entities. For the 

permits that reported as large entities, 

one entity owned three permits and 

three owned two permits. All open 

access vessels are assumed to be small 

entities, with ex-vessel revenues for all 

landings averaging $8,966 in 2018. 

For the recreational sector, all charter 

businesses are designated as small 

entities. The portion of the recreational 

fishery that will be affected by this 

action are those groundfish trips 

occurring outside of the salmon season. 

Therefore, the estimates provided here 

may be an overestimate of the actual 

number of entities or trips that may be 

affected depending on when the salmon 

seasons are set and when a closure 

could occur. For Washington, there 

were 55 unique charter vessels that took 

20,833 bottomfish trips in 2018. In 2018, 

there were 48 charter vessels that took 

an estimated 19,208 angler trips in 

Oregon. However, this estimate does not 

include guide boats that do not have an 

official office. In California, there were 

approximately 290 vessels targeting 

bottomfish or lingcod, according to 

logbook submissions, that took an 

estimated 504,118 angler trips. 

The economic effects of the final rule 

are described in Section 4.6 of the 

Analysis (see ADDRESSES). The 

economic effects of the additional 

management tools to minimize ESAlisted salmon bycatch will depend on 

the extent and timing of the measure 

that is implemented. It is likely that 

there will be some negative economic 

impact on small entities with the 

implementation of a BAC or SFFT gear 

requirement. Vessels will potentially 

have to move from closed fishing 

locations, which may decrease the 

effectiveness at accessing target species. 

Cooperatives or other groups of 

vessels in the Pacific whiting C/P, MS, 

and shoreside IFQ sectors may incur 

additional administrative costs 

associated with developing and 

submitting the SMP and the post-season 

report. Because we estimate the 

reporting burden to average 10 hours 

per response for the SMP proposal, and 

8 hours per response for the SMP postseason report, we do not expect the 

reporting requirement to impact 

profitability of operations for small or 

large entities. 

Economic impacts to small entities 

affected by the trawl closure thresholds 

will depend on the time that the 

automatic closure points were reached. 

Table 3.15 of the Analysis details the 

potential estimated losses for fisheries 

by month. If the trawl sectors were to 

unexpectedly close the recreational 

sectors in November, this could be a 

loss of $27.4 million in revenue. 

There are no direct costs associated 

with the rules for access to the reserve. 

However, implementation of any 

inseason bycatch minimization 

measures prior to a sector accessing the 

reserve would have associated economic 

impacts. For example, if there were 

unexpected high bycatch in the nonwhiting sector, NMFS would have to 

implement bycatch minimization 

measures such as a BAC prior to that 

sector accessing the reserve. The 

associated impacts would be those 

described above for the additional 

bycatch minimization tools. 

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other 

Compliance Requirements 

Additional reporting or recordkeeping 

may be required of the regulated entities 

under the final action. Cooperatives or 

other groups of Pacific whiting vessels 

will have new reporting requirements if 

they chose to submit an SMP to NMFS 

for approval. The cooperatives or other 

groups of vessels with an approved SMP 

will also be required to submit a postseason report to the Council and NMFS. 

The final rule adds a declaration to the 

suite of available declarations to allow 

NMFS OLE to sufficiently monitor and 

enforce SFFT gear requirements. This 

change will have negligible impact on a 

vessel’s reporting burden. 

Description of Significant Alternatives 

to This Final Rule That Minimize 

Economic Impacts on Small Entities 

There are no significant alternatives to 

the final rule that would accomplish the 

stated objectives in a way that would 

reduce economic impacts of the final 

rule on small entities. This action 

allows NMFS to exempt any take of 

listed species from the prohibitions that 

would otherwise be imposed by Section 

9 of the ESA by complying with the 

terms and conditions in the 2017 NMFS 

Biological Opinion, which specify 

certain measures for the Council and 

NMFS to develop and implement, or 

consider to minimize bycatch of ESAlisted Chinook and coho salmon. For 

that reason, there are no significant 

alternatives to the action evaluated in 

this FRFA. 

Small Entity Compliance Guide 

Section 212 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 states that, for each rule or group 

of related rules for which an agency is 

required to prepare a FRFA, the agency 

shall publish one or more guides to 

assist small entities in complying with 

the rule, and shall designate such 

publications as ‘‘small entity 

compliance guides.’’ The agency shall 

explain the actions a small entity is 

required to take to comply with a rule 

or group of rules. As part of this 

rulemaking process, a small entity 

compliance guide (the guide) was 

prepared. Copies of this final rule are 

available from the West Coast Regional 

Office (see ADDRESSES), and the guide 

will be included in a public notice sent 

to all members of the groundfish email 

group. To sign-up for the groundfish 

email group, input your email address 

and name and then click on the ‘‘sign 

up’’ button on the following website: 

https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/ 

koE8GSV/groundfish. The guide and 

this final rule will also be available on 

the West Coast Region’s website (see 

ADDRESSES) and upon request. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Collection-ofInformation Requirements 

This final rule contains a new 

collection-of-information requirement 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) (OMB Control Number 0648– 

0794). This rule creates new 

requirements for the submission of 

SMPs and post-season reports. The 

following public reporting burden 

estimates for the submission of SMPs 

and post-season reports under this final 

rule include the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10867 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection information. 

Public reporting burden is estimated to 

average 10 hours per response for the 

SMP proposal, 3 hours per response for 

an SMP amendment, 6 hours per 

response for an administrative appeal of 

a disapproved SMP, and 8 hours per 

response for the SMP post-season 

report. 

We invite the general public and other 

Federal agencies to comment on 

proposed and continuing information 

collections, which helps us assess the 

impact of our information collection 

requirements and minimize the public’s 

reporting burden. Written comments 

and recommendations for this 

information collection should be 

submitted at the following website: 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Find this particular information 

collection by using the search function 

and entering the title of the collection, 

‘‘Pacific Coast Groundfish Salmon 

Bycatch Minimization’’. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

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. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 10, 2021. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 

660 as follows: 

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST 

COAST STATES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 660 

continues to read as follows: 

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

U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq. 

■ 2. Amend § 660.11, in the definition 

of ‘‘Conservation area(s)’’, by revising 

the introductory text to paragraph (1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 660.11 General definitions. 

* * * * * 

Conservation area(s) * * * 

(1) Groundfish Conservation Area or 

GCA means a conservation area created 

or modified and enforced to control 

catch of groundfish or protected species. 

Regulations at § 660.60(c)(3) describe 

the various purposes for which NMFS 

may implement certain types of GCAs 

through routine management measures. 

Regulations at § 660.70 further describe 

and define coordinates for certain GCAs, 

including: Yelloweye Rockfish 

Conservation Areas; Cowcod 

Conservation Areas; waters encircling 

the Farallon Islands; and waters 

encircling the Cordell Banks. GCAs also 

include depth-based closures bounded 

by lines approximating depth contours, 

including Bycatch Reduction Areas or 

BRAs, or bounded by depth contours 

and lines of latitude, including, Block 

Area Closures or BACs, and Rockfish 

Conservation Areas or RCAs, which may 

be closed to fishing with particular gear 

types. BRA, BAC, and RCA boundaries 

may change seasonally according to 

conservation needs. Regulations at 

§§ 660.71 through 660.74, and § 660.76 

define depth-based closure boundary 

lines with latitude/longitude 

coordinates. Regulations at § 660.11 

describe commonly used geographic 

coordinates that define lines of latitude. 

Fishing prohibitions associated with 

GCAs are in addition to those associated 

with other conservation areas. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 660.12 by adding 

paragraph (a)(19) to read as follows: 

§ 660.12 General groundfish prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(19) Fish for, or take and retain, any 

species of groundfish, during salmon 

bycatch fishery closures described in 

§ 660.60(d)(1)(iv) and (v), or fail to 

comply with the salmon bycatch 

management provisions described in 

§ 660.60(i). 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 660.13 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A)(10); 

■ b. Republishing paragraph 

(d)(4)(iv)(A)(11); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs 

(d)(4)(iv)(A)(12) through (30); and 

■ d. Adding paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A)(31). 

The revisions, republication, and 

addition read as follows: 

§ 660.13 Recordkeeping and reporting. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(10) Limited entry bottom trawl, 

shorebased IFQ, not including demersal 

trawl or selective flatfish trawl, 

(11) Limited entry demersal trawl, 

shorebased IFQ, 

(12) Limited entry selective flatfish 

trawl, shorebased IFQ, 

(13) Non-groundfish trawl gear for 

pink shrimp, 

(14) Non-groundfish trawl gear for 

ridgeback prawn, 

(15) Non-groundfish trawl gear for 

California halibut, 

(16) Non-groundfish trawl gear for sea 

cucumber, 

(17) Open access longline gear for 

groundfish, 

(18) Open access Pacific halibut 

longline gear, 

(19) Open access groundfish trap or 

pot gear, 

(20) Open access Dungeness crab trap 

or pot gear, 

(21) Open access prawn trap or pot 

gear, 

(22) Open access sheephead trap or 

pot gear, 

(23) Open access line gear for 

groundfish, 

(24) Open access HMS line gear, 

(25) Open access salmon troll gear, 

(26) Open access California Halibut 

line gear, 

(27) Open access Coastal Pelagic 

Species net gear, 

(28) Other gear, 

(29) Tribal trawl, 

(30) Open access California gillnet 

complex gear, or 

(31) Gear testing. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 660.50 by revising 

paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 660.50 Pacific Coast treaty Indian 

fisheries. 

* * * * * 

(h) Salmon bycatch. This fishery may 

be closed through automatic action at 

§ 660.60(d)(1)(v). 

■ 6. Amend § 660.60 by revising 

paragraphs (c)(3)(i) introductory text, 

(c)(3)(i)(C), and (d)(1)(iv) and (v) and 

adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 660.60 Specifications and management 

measures. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) Depth-based management 

measures. Depth-based management 

measures, particularly closed areas 

known as Groundfish Conservation 

Areas, defined in § 660.11, include 

RCAs, BRAs, and BACs, and may be 

implemented in any fishery sector that 

takes groundfish directly or 

incidentally. Depth-based management 

measures are set using specific 

boundary lines that approximate depth 

contours with latitude/longitude 

waypoints found at §§ 660.70 through 

660.74 and 660.76. Depth-based 

management measures and closed areas 

10868 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

may be used for the following 

conservation objectives: To protect and 

rebuild overfished stocks; to prevent the 

overfishing of any groundfish species by 

minimizing the direct or incidental 

catch of that species; or to minimize the 

incidental harvest of any protected or 

prohibited species taken in the 

groundfish fishery. Depth-based 

management measures and closed areas 

may be used for the following economic 

objectives: To extend the fishing season; 

for the commercial fisheries, to 

minimize disruption of traditional 

fishing and marketing patterns; for the 

recreational fisheries, to spread the 

available catch over a large number of 

anglers; to discourage target fishing 

while allowing small incidental catches 

to be landed; and to allow small 

fisheries to operate outside the normal 

season. 

* * * * * 

(C) Block Area Closures. BACs, as 

defined at § 660.111, may be closed or 

reopened, in the EEZ off Oregon and 

California, for vessels using limited 

entry bottom trawl gear, and in the EEZ 

off Washington, Oregon and California 

for vessels using midwater trawl gear, 

consistent with the purposes described 

in this paragraph (c)(3)(i). 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) Close the following groundfish 

fisheries, not including Pacific Coast 

treaty Indian fisheries, when conditions 

for Chinook salmon bycatch described 

in this table and paragraphs (d)(1)(iv)(A) 

and (B) of this section are met: 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (d)(1)(iv) 

Close: If Chinook salmon bycatch, as 

described in § 660.60(i)(2), exceeds: And: 

Whiting sector (Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, MS 

Coop Program and/or C/P Coop Program).

11,000 fish in the whiting sector ......... (1) A routine management measure specified at 

§ 660.60(c) has not been implemented as described in § 660.60(i)(1) OR (2) The non-whiting 

sector has caught its 5,500 Chinook salmon bycatch guideline and 3,500 Chinook salmon from 

the bycatch reserve. 

Whiting sector (Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, MS 

Coop Program and C/P Coop Program).

14,500 fish in the whiting sector ......... The non-whiting sector has not accessed the Chinook salmon bycatch reserve. 

Non-whiting sector (midwater trawl, bottom trawl, 

and fixed gear fisheries under the Shorebased 

IFQ Program, limited entry fixed gear fisheries, 

open access fisheries, and recreational fisheries 

subject to this provision as set out in 

§ 660.360(d)).

5,500 fish in the non-whiting sector ... (1) A routine management measure specified at 

§ 660.60(c) has not been implemented as described in § 660.60(i)(1) OR (2) The whiting sector has caught its 11,000 Chinook salmon 

guideline and 3,500 Chinook salmon from the 

bycatch reserve. 

Non-whiting sector (midwater trawl, bottom trawl, 

and fixed gear fisheries under the Shorebased 

IFQ Program, limited entry fixed gear fisheries, 

open access fisheries, and recreational fisheries 

subject to this provision as set out in 

§ 660.360(d)).

9,000 fish in the non-whiting sector ... The whiting sector has not accessed the Chinook 

salmon bycatch reserve. 

Non-whiting trawl fisheries (midwater trawl and bottom trawl fisheries under the Shorebased IFQ 

Program).

8,500 fish in the non-whiting sector.

All trawl fisheries (whiting sector and non-whiting 

trawl fisheries).

19,500 fish in the whiting and nonwhiting sector.

(A) Consistent with § 660.60(i)(2), 

each component of the whiting sector 

(Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, MS Coop 

Program and C/P Coop Program) will be 

closed when Chinook salmon bycatch 

exceeds 11,000 Chinook salmon if a 

routine management measure specified 

at § 660.60(c) has not been implemented 

as described in § 660.60(i)(2) for that 

individual component of the whiting 

sector. 

(B) Consistent with § 660.60(i)(2), the 

Chinook salmon closure at 11,000 fish 

does not apply to those whiting sector 

vessels that are parties to an approved 

Salmon Mitigation Plan, as specified at 

§ 660.113(e), unless the non-whiting 

sector has caught the entire 3,500 

Chinook salmon bycatch reserve. 

(v) Close all groundfish fisheries, 

including Pacific Coast treaty Indian 

fisheries, if Chinook salmon bycatch in 

the groundfish fishery exceeds 20,000 

fish. 

* * * * * 

(i) Salmon bycatch management. 

Salmon bycatch is managed through 

routine management measures, salmon 

bycatch guidelines and a Chinook 

salmon bycatch reserve, and fisheries 

closures. For purposes of salmon 

bycatch management, the groundfish 

fishery is divided into the whiting 

sector and non-whiting sector and 

includes bycatch of Chinook salmon 

and coho salmon from both non-tribal 

fisheries and Pacific Coast treaty Indian 

fisheries. The non-whiting sector 

includes the Pacific Coast treaty Indian 

vessels that target Pacific coast 

groundfish species other than whiting, 

as well as non-tribal vessels that target 

Pacific coast groundfish species other 

than whiting in the midwater trawl, 

bottom trawl, and fixed gear fisheries 

under the Shorebased IFQ Program, 

limited entry fixed gear fisheries, open 

access fisheries as defined at § 660.11, 

and recreational fisheries subject to this 

provision as set out in § 660.360(d). The 

whiting sector is the Pacific whiting 

fishery, as defined in § 660.111, and 

includes the Pacific Coast treaty Indian 

vessels that target whiting, as well as 

non-tribal vessels that target whiting 

participating in the C/P Coop Program, 

the MS Coop Program, and the Pacific 

whiting IFQ fishery. 

(1) Routine management measures. 

Routine management measures 

specified at § 660.60(c) may be 

implemented to minimize Chinook 

salmon and/or coho salmon bycatch in 

the groundfish fishery. These measures 

may include BRAs, BACs, or a selective 

flatfish trawl gear requirement. These 

measures would not apply to vessels 

fishing in Pacific Coast treaty Indian 

fisheries. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10869 

(i) Non-whiting sector. Routine 

management measures to manage 

salmon bycatch in the non-whiting 

sector include: 

(A) A BAC for bottom trawl or 

midwater trawl as specified at 

§ 660.60(c)(3)(i). 

(B) A BRA for midwater trawl as 

specified at § 660.60(c)(3)(i). 

(C) A selective flatfish trawl gear 

requirement for bottom trawl. 

(ii) Whiting sector. Routine 

management measures to manage 

salmon bycatch in the whiting sector 

include: 

(A) A BAC as specified at 

§ 660.60(c)(3)(i). 

(B) A BRA as specified at 

§ 660.60(c)(3)(i). 

(2) Chinook salmon bycatch 

guidelines and Chinook salmon bycatch 

reserve. The Chinook salmon bycatch 

guideline for the non-whiting sector is 

5,500 fish. The Chinook salmon bycatch 

guideline for the whiting sector is 

11,000 fish. If a sector exceeds its 

Chinook salmon bycatch guideline, it 

may access a reserve of 3,500 Chinook 

salmon reserve provided action has 

been taken to minimize Chinook salmon 

bycatch as described in paragraph 

(i)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section. For 

bycatch accounting purposes, all 

Chinook salmon bycatch from the 

groundfish fishery, including both nontribal and Pacific Coast treaty Indian 

fisheries, counts towards the applicable 

whiting or non-whiting sector bycatch 

guideline and the reserve. 

(i) Reserve access for the non-whiting 

sector. The non-whiting sector may only 

access the reserve if a measure 

described in paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this 

section has been implemented. 

(ii) Reserve access for the whiting 

sector. Each component of the whiting 

sector (Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, MS 

Coop Program and C/P Coop Program) 

may only access the reserve if a measure 

described in paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of this 

section has been implemented for that 

component of the whiting fishery. If a 

measure described in paragraph (i)(1)(ii) 

of this section has not been 

implemented for that component of the 

whiting fishery, vessels within that 

component that are parties to an 

approved Salmon Mitigation Plan 

(SMP), as specified at § 660.113(e), may 

access the reserve. 

(3) Fisheries closures. Groundfish 

fisheries may be closed through 

automatic action at § 660.60(d)(1)(iv) 

and (v). 

■ 7. Amend § 660.111 by: 

■ a. Revising the definition of ‘‘Block 

area closures or BACs’’; 

■ b. Removing the definition of 

‘‘Mothership Coop Program or MS Coop 

Program’’; and 

■ c. Adding a definition for ‘‘Salmon 

Mitigation Plan (SMP)’’ in alphabetical 

order. 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 660.111 Trawl fishery—definitions. 

* * * * * 

Block area closures or BACs are a type 

of groundfish conservation area, defined 

at § 660.11, bounded on the north and 

south by commonly used geographic 

coordinates, defined at § 660.11, and on 

the east and west by the EEZ, and 

boundary lines approximating depth 

contours, defined with latitude and 

longitude coordinates at §§ 660.71 

through 660.74 (10 fm through 250 fm), 

and § 660.76 (700 fm). BACs may be 

implemented or modified as routine 

management measures, per regulations 

at § 660.60(c). BACs may be 

implemented in the EEZ off Oregon and 

California for vessels using limited entry 

bottom trawl and/or midwater trawl 

gear. BACs may be implemented in the 

EEZ off Washington shoreward of the 

boundary line approximating the 250-fm 

depth contour for midwater trawl 

vessels. BACs may close areas to 

specific trawl gear types (e.g. closed for 

midwater trawl, bottom trawl, or bottom 

trawl unless using selective flatfish 

trawl) and/or specific programs within 

the trawl fishery (e.g. Pacific whiting 

fishery or MS Coop Program). BACs may 

vary in their geographic boundaries and 

duration. Their geographic boundaries, 

applicable gear type(s) and/or specific 

trawl fishery program, and effective 

dates will be announced in the Federal 

Register. BACs may have a specific 

termination date as described in the 

Federal Register, or may be in effect 

until modified. BACs that are in effect 

until modified by Council 

recommendation and subsequent NMFS 

action are set out in Tables 1 (North) 

and 1 (South) of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

Salmon Mitigation Plan (SMP) means 

a voluntary agreement amongst a group 

of at least three vessels in the MS Coop 

Program, C/P Coop Program, or Pacific 

whiting IFQ fishery to manage Chinook 

salmon bycatch, approved by NMFS 

under § 660.113(e). Vessels fishing 

under an approved SMP would have 

access to the Chinook salmon bycatch 

reserve as described in § 660.60(i)(2). 

Routine management measures to 

minimize Chinook salmon bycatch as 

described in § 660.60(i) may be 

implemented for vessels that are parties 

to an approved SMP. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 660.113 by adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 660.113 Trawl fishery—recordkeeping 

and reporting. 

* * * * * 

(e) Salmon Mitigation Plan (SMP). 

NMFS may approve a SMP for a group 

of at least three vessels in the MS Coop 

Program, C/P Coop Program, or Pacific 

whiting IFQ fishery. NMFS may 

approve an SMP for more than one 

group in a given year. 

(1) Applicability of further measures 

to manage salmon bycatch. Routine 

management measures to minimize 

Chinook salmon bycatch as described in 

§ 660.60(i) may be implemented for 

vessels with an approved SMP. 

(2) SMP contents. The SMP must 

contain, at a minimum, the following— 

(i) SMP name. The name of the SMP. 

(ii) Vessels party to the SMP. The 

vessel name and USCG vessel 

registration number (as given on USCG 

Form 1270) or state registration number, 

if no USCG documentation, of each 

vessel that is party to the SMP. A 

minimum of three vessels must be party 

to the SMP. 

(iii) Compliance agreement. A written 

statement that all parties to the SMP 

agree to voluntarily comply with all 

provisions of the SMP. 

(iv) Signatures of those party to SMP. 

The names and signatures of the owner 

or representative for each vessel that is 

party to the SMP. 

(v) Designated SMP representative. 

The name, telephone number, mailing 

address, and email address of a person 

appointed by those party to the SMP 

who is responsible for: 

(A) Serving as the SMP contact person 

between NMFS and the Council; 

(B) Submitting the SMP proposal and 

any SMP amendments; and 

(C) Submitting the SMP postseason 

report to the Council and NMFS. 

(vi) Plan. A description of: 

(A) How parties to the SMP will 

adequately monitor and account for the 

catch of Chinook salmon. 

(B) How parties to the SMP will avoid 

and minimize Chinook salmon bycatch, 

including a description of tools parties 

will employ. Tools may include, but 

would not be limited to, information 

sharing, area closures, movement rules, 

salmon excluder use, and internal 

bycatch guidelines. 

(C) How the SMP is expected to 

promote reductions in Chinook salmon 

bycatch relative to what would have 

occurred in absence of the SMP. 

(3) Deadline for proposed SMP. A 

proposed SMP must be submitted 

10870 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

between February 1 and March 31 of the 

year in which it intends to be in effect 

to NMFS at: NMFS, West Coast Region, 

ATTN: Fisheries Permit Office, Bldg. 1, 

7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 

98115. In 2021, NMFS may consider 

proposals received after March 31. In 

2021, NMFS will announce any changes 

to the SMP submission deadline via 

public notice. In 2022 and beyond, 

NMFS will not consider any proposals 

received after March 31. 

(4) Duration. Once approved, the SMP 

expires on December 31 of the year in 

which it was approved. An SMP may 

not expire mid-year. No party may join 

or leave an SMP once it is approved, 

except as allowed in paragraph (e)(5)(iii) 

of this section. 

(5) NMFS review of a proposed SMP— 

(i) Approval. The Assistant Regional 

Administrator will provide written 

notification of approval to the 

designated SMP representative if the 

SMP meets the following requirements: 

(A) Contains the information required 

in paragraph (e)(2) of this section; 

(B) Is submitted in compliance with 

the requirements of paragraphs (e)(3) 

and (4) of this section; and 

(C) As determined by NMFS, is 

reasonably expected to reduce Chinook 

salmon bycatch. 

(ii) SMP identification number. If 

approved, NMFS will assign an SMP 

identification number to the approved 

SMP. 

(iii) Amendments to an SMP. After 

the SMP is approved, the designated 

SMP representative must submit any 

changes to the SMP, including any 

changes in the vessels party to the SMP, 

as an amendment to the SMP for 

approval by NMFS. The designated SMP 

representative may submit amendments 

to an approved SMP to NMFS at any 

time during the year in which the SMP 

is approved. The amendment must 

include the SMP identification number. 

An amendment to an approved SMP is 

effective upon written notification of 

approval by NMFS to the designated 

SMP representative. The Assistant 

Regional Administrator will provide 

written notification of approval to the 

designated SMP representative if the 

SMP as amended meets the following 

requirements: 

(A) Contains the information required 

in paragraph (e)(2) of this section; 

(B) Is submitted in compliance with 

the requirements of paragraph (e)(4) of 

this section; and 

(C) As determined by NMFS, is 

reasonably expected to reduce Chinook 

salmon bycatch. 

(iv) Disapproval—(A) NMFS 

Disapproval. NMFS will disapprove a 

proposed SMP or a proposed 

amendment to an SMP for any of the 

following reasons: 

(1) If the proposed SMP fails to meet 

any of the requirements of paragraphs 

(e)(2) through (4) of this section, 

(2) If a proposed amendment to an 

SMP would cause the SMP to no longer 

meet the requirements of paragraphs 

(e)(2) and (4) of this section, or 

(3) If NMFS determines the proposed 

SMP or SMP amendment is not 

reasonably expected to reduce Chinook 

salmon bycatch. 

(B) Initial Administrative 

Determination (IAD). If, in NMFS’ 

review of the proposed SMP or 

amendment, NMFS identifies 

deficiencies in the proposed SMP that 

would require disapproval of the 

proposed SMP or amendment, NMFS 

will notify the applicant in writing. The 

applicant will be provided one 30-day 

period to address, in writing, the 

deficiencies identified by NMFS. 

Additional information or a revised 

SMP received by NMFS after the 

expiration of the 30-day period 

specified by NMFS will not be 

considered for purposes of the review of 

the proposed SMP or amendment. 

NMFS will evaluate any additional 

information submitted by the applicant 

within the 30-day period. If the 

Assistant Regional Administrator 

determines the additional information 

addresses deficiencies in the proposed 

SMP or amendment, the Assistant 

Regional Administrator will approve the 

proposed SMP or amendment under 

paragraph (e)(5)(i) or (iii) of this section. 

However, if, after consideration of the 

original proposed SMP or amendment, 

any additional information, or a revised 

SMP submitted during the 30-day 

period, NMFS determines the proposed 

SMP or amendment does not comply 

with the requirements of paragraph 

(e)(5)(i) or (iii) of this section, the 

Assistant Regional Administrator will 

issue an IAD to the applicant in writing 

providing the reasons for disapproving 

the proposed SMP or amendment. 

(C) Administrative Appeals. An 

applicant who receives an IAD 

disapproving a proposed SMP or 

amendment may appeal. The appeal 

must be filed in writing within 30 

calendar days of when NMFS issues the 

IAD. The NOAA Fisheries National 

Appeals Office will process any appeal. 

The regulations and policy of the 

National Appeals Office will govern the 

appeals process. The National Appeals 

Office regulations are specified at 15 

CFR part 906. 

(D) Pending appeal. While the appeal 

of an IAD disapproving a proposed SMP 

or amendment is pending, proposed 

parties to the SMP subject to the IAD 

will not have access to the Chinook 

salmon bycatch reserve unless a 

measure described in § 660.60(i)(1)(ii) 

has been implemented for that 

component of the whiting fishery. 

(6) SMP postseason report. The 

designated SMP representative for an 

approved SMP must submit a written 

postseason report to NMFS and the 

Council for the year in which the SMP 

was approved. 

(i) Submission deadline. The SMP 

postseason report must be received by 

NMFS and the Council no later than 

March 31 of the year following that in 

which the SMP was approved. 

(ii) Information requirements. The 

SMP postseason report must contain, at 

a minimum, the following information: 

(A) Name of the SMP and SMP 

identification number. 

(B) A comprehensive description of 

Chinook salmon bycatch avoidance 

measures used in the fishing year in 

which the SMP was approved, 

including but not limited to, 

information sharing, area closures, 

movement rules, salmon excluder use, 

and internal bycatch guidelines. 

(C) An evaluation of the effectiveness 

of these avoidance measures in 

minimizing Chinook salmon bycatch. 

(D) A description of any amendments 

to the terms of the SMP that were 

approved by NMFS during the fishing 

year in which the SMP was approved 

and the reasons the amendments to the 

SMP were made. 

■ 9. Amend § 660.130 by revising 

paragraphs (e) introductory text, (e)(5) 

introductory text, and (e)(5)(i) and (iii) 

and adding paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 660.130 Trawl fishery—management 

measures. 

* * * * * 

(e) Groundfish conservation areas 

(GCAs). GCAs are closed areas, defined 

at § 660.11, and using latitude and 

longitude coordinates specified at 

§§ 660.70 through 660.74, and § 660.76. 

* * * * * 

(5) Block area closures or BACs. 

BACs, defined at § 660.111, are 

applicable to vessels with groundfish 

bottom trawl or midwater trawl gear on 

board that is not stowed, per the 

prohibitions in § 660.112(a)(5). When in 

effect, BACs are areas closed to bottom 

trawl and/or midwater trawl fishing. A 

vessel operating, for any purpose other 

than continuous transiting, in the BAC 

must have prohibited trawl gear stowed, 

as defined at § 660.111. Nothing in these 

Federal regulations supersedes any state 

regulations that may prohibit trawling 

shoreward of the fishery management 

area, defined at § 660.11. Prohibitions at 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10871 

§ 660.112(a)(5) do not apply under any 

of the following conditions and when 

the vessel has a valid declaration for the 

allowed fishing: 

(i) Trawl gear. Limited entry midwater 

trawl gear and bottom trawl gear may be 

used within the BAC only when it is an 

authorized gear type for the area and 

season, and not prohibited by the BAC. 

* * * * * 

(iii) Multiple gears. If a vessel fishes 

in a BAC with an authorized groundfish 

trawl gear, it may fish outside the BAC 

on the same trip using another 

authorized trawl gear type for that area 

and season, provided it makes the 

appropriate declaration change. 

* * * * * 

(g) Salmon bycatch. This fishery may 

be closed through automatic action at 

§ 660.60(d)(1)(iv) and (v). 

[FR Doc. 2021–03204 Filed 2–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P