72314 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 600 and 679 

[Docket No. 231005–0237] 

RIN 0648–BM42 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; 

Amendment 16 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

availability of a fishery management 

plan amendment; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes Amendment 

16 to the Fishery Management Plan for 

the Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) Off Alaska 

(Salmon FMP) and associated 

implementing regulations. If approved, 

Amendment 16 and this proposed rule 

would establish Federal fishery 

management for all salmon fishing that 

occurs in the Cook Inlet EEZ, which 

includes commercial drift gillnet and 

recreational salmon fishery sectors. This 

action is necessary to comply with 

rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Alaska, 

and to ensure the Salmon FMP is 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This 

action is intended to promote the goals 

and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, the Salmon FMP, and other 

applicable laws. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

December 18, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2023–0065, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and enter 

NOAA–NMFS–2023–0065 in the Search 

box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Gretchen Harrington, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region NMFS. Mail 

comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, 

AK 99802–1668. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on https://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

Electronic copies of proposed 

Amendment 16; the Environmental 

Assessment, the Regulatory Impact 

Review, and the Social Impact Analysis 

(contained in a single document and 

collectively referred to as the 

‘‘Analysis’’); and the draft Finding of No 

Significant Impact prepared for this 

action may be obtained from http://

www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS 

Alaska Region website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to NMFS at the 

above address and to https://

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

Find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

30-day Review—Open for Public 

Comments’’ or by using the search 

function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doug Duncan, 907–586–7228 or 

doug.duncan@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for Action 

NMFS manages U.S. salmon fisheries 

off of Alaska under the Salmon FMP. 

The North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (Council) prepared, and the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 

approved, the Salmon FMP under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations 

implementing the Salmon FMP are 

located at 50 CFR part 679. General 

regulations governing U.S. fisheries also 

appear at 50 CFR part 600. NMFS is 

authorized to prepare an FMP 

amendment necessary for the 

conservation and management of a 

fishery managed under the FMP if the 

Council fails to develop and submit 

such an amendment after a reasonable 

period of time (section 304(c)(1)(A); 16 

U.S.C 1854(c)(1)(A)). Because the 

Council failed to take action to 

recommend a required FMP amendment 

in time for NMFS to implement it by a 

court-ordered deadline, NMFS 

developed a Secretarial FMP 

amendment and this proposed rule. 

NMFS has determined that it is 

necessary and appropriate, under 

section 304(c)(1)(A) of the MagnusonStevens Act, to develop a Secretarial 

amendment—Amendment 16 to the 

Salmon FMP—and proposed regulations 

in order to comply with rulings from the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit and the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Alaska, and to ensure the 

Salmon FMP is consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendment 16 

would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area (defined as the EEZ waters of Cook 

Inlet north of a line at 59°46.15′ N) into 

the Salmon FMP’s Fishery Management 

Unit. This proposed rule would 

implement Amendment 16. Amendment 

16 adds another management area to the 

Salmon FMP in addition to the existing 

West Area and East Area. This action 

would not modify management of the 

West Area and East Area. 

NMFS is soliciting public comments 

on Amendment 16 and this proposed 

rule. All relevant written comments 

received by the end of the comment 

period for this action (See DATES), 

whether specifically directed to the 

proposed FMP amendment or the 

implementing regulations, will be 

considered by NMFS in deciding 

whether to adopt and implement 

Amendment 16. 

Amendment 16 Overview 

This action, if approved, would 

incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ into the 

Salmon FMP as the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area, thereby bringing the salmon 

fishery that occurs within it under 

Federal management by the Council and 

NMFS. 

Two different sectors participate in 

the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery: 

the commercial drift gillnet sector and 

the recreational sector. The commercial 

drift gillnet fleet harvests over 99.99 

percent of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area. Currently, both drift gillnet and 

recreational salmon fishing occur in the 

State and EEZ waters of Cook Inlet 

under State management without regard 

to the boundary between State and 

Federal waters. Under this action, the 

Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery will be 

managed by NMFS and the Council 

separately from adjacent State water 

salmon fisheries. 

Amendment 16 would revise the 

Salmon FMP, beginning with an 

updated history of the FMP and 

introduction in Chapter 1, as well as a 

revised description of the fishery 

management unit in Chapter 2 that 

would include the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 

as a separate and distinctly managed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72315 

area. The management and policy 

objectives in Chapter 2 would also be 

revised to include consideration of the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Current chapters 

describing management of the Salmon 

FMP’s East Area and West Area would 

be consolidated into Chapter 3. No 

substantive changes would be made to 

Salmon FMP content related to the East 

Area and West Area. 

A new Chapter 4 would include a 

comprehensive description of Federal 

management for the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area. This chapter would describe 

management measures and the roles and 

responsibilities of NMFS and the 

Council in managing the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area salmon fishery. Centrally, Chapter 

4 would include descriptions of all 

conservation and management 

measures, including maximum 

sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield 

(OY), status determination criteria, and 

an outline of the harvest specifications 

process. Chapter 4 would also describe 

authorized fishery management 

measures and authorities including 

required Federal permits; fishing gear 

restrictions; fishing time and area 

restrictions; NMFS inseason 

management provisions; and 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements, as well as 

information about ongoing Council 

review of the FMP. 

Chapter 5 would contain all content 

related to domestic annual harvesting 

and processing capacity, which 

indicates that all salmon fisheries off 

Alaska can be fully utilized by U.S. 

harvesters and processors, which is 

unchanged by this action. 

Chapter 6 contains information on 

Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas 

of Particular Concern and would not be 

modified by this action. Amendment 16 

would remove the outdated Fishery 

Impact Statement in the Salmon FMP. 

The Analysis prepared for Amendment 

16 contains the Fishery Impact 

Statement for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon 

fishery and this action. 

History of the Salmon FMP 

The Council’s Salmon FMP manages 

the Pacific salmon fisheries in the EEZ 

from 3 nautical miles (nmi) to 200 nmi 

off Alaska. The Council developed the 

Salmon FMP under the MagnusonStevens Act, and it first became effective 

in 1979. The Salmon FMP was 

comprehensively revised by 

Amendment 3 in 1990 (55 FR 47773, 

November 15, 1990) and again by 

Amendment 12 in 2012 (77 FR 75570, 

December 21, 2012). 

Since 1979, the Council has divided 

the Salmon FMP’s coverage into the 

West Area and the East Area, with the 

boundary between the two areas at Cape 

Suckling, at 143°53.6′ W longitude. 

Prior to Amendment 12, the Salmon 

FMP authorized commercial fishing in 

the East Area, recreational salmon 

fishing in both areas, and prohibited 

commercial salmon fishing in the West 

Area. However, the commercial salmon 

fishing prohibition in the West Area was 

not applied to three adjacent areas of the 

EEZ where commercial salmon fishing 

with nets was originally authorized by 

the International Convention for the 

High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific 

Ocean, as implemented by the North 

Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954 (1954 Act). 

The Salmon FMP referred to the three 

areas of the EEZ where commercial net 

fishing for salmon occurs as the ‘‘Cook 

Inlet EEZ,’’ the ‘‘Alaska Peninsula EEZ,’’ 

and the ‘‘Prince William Sound EEZ,’’ 

and collectively as the ‘‘traditional net 

fishing areas.’’ Under the authority of 

the 1954 Act, NMFS issued regulations 

that set the outside fishing boundaries 

for the traditional net fishing areas as 

those set forth under State of Alaska 

(State) regulations and stated that any 

fishing in these areas was to be 

conducted pursuant to State regulations. 

In 1990, the Council amended the 

Salmon FMP, continuing to prohibit 

commercial salmon fishing with nets in 

the EEZ, with the exception of the 

traditional net fishing areas managed by 

the State. The next major modification 

to the Salmon FMP occurred when the 

Council recommended Amendment 12 

in December 2011. In developing 

Amendment 12, the Council recognized 

that the law governing the three 

traditional net fishing areas (the 1954 

Act) had changed and the Salmon FMP 

was vague with respect to Federal 

management of the traditional net 

fishing areas. After considering various 

alternatives, the Council recommended 

and NMFS approved Amendment 12, 

which removed the three traditional net 

fishing areas from the Salmon FMP’s 

Fishery Management Unit. 

By removing the traditional net 

fishing areas from the Salmon FMP’s 

West Area, the Council intended for the 

State to continue managing these areas, 

which the State has done since before 

the inception of the Salmon FMP in 

1979. In developing Amendment 12, the 

Council considered recommending 

Federal management of salmon fishing 

in the three traditional net fishing areas, 

but determined that (1) the State was 

managing the salmon fisheries within 

these three areas consistent with the 

policies and standards of the MagnusonStevens Act, (2) the Council and NMFS 

did not have the expertise or 

infrastructure (such as personnel, 

monitoring and reporting systems, and 

processes for salmon stock assessments) 

to manage Alaska salmon fisheries, and 

(3) Federal management of these areas 

would not serve a useful purpose or 

provide additional benefits and 

protections to the salmon fisheries 

within these areas. The Council 

recognized that salmon are best 

managed as a unit throughout their 

range and determined that dividing 

management into two separate salmon 

fishery jurisdictions—State and 

Federal—would not be optimal. The 

Council also recognized the State’s 

expertise and well-developed 

management infrastructure from 

managing the salmon fisheries in Alaska 

since Statehood. The Council 

determined that Amendment 12 was 

consistent with the management 

approach established in the original 

Salmon FMP in 1979. 

The final rule implementing 

Amendment 12 was published in the 

Federal Register on December 21, 2012 

(77 FR 75570). On January 18, 2013, 

Cook Inlet commercial salmon 

fishermen and seafood processors filed 

a lawsuit challenging Amendment 12 

and its implementing regulations. In 

United Cook Inlet Drift Ass’n v. NMFS, 

2014 WL 10988279 (D. Alaska 2014), the 

district court held that Amendment 12’s 

removal of the Cook Inlet EEZ from the 

Salmon FMP was lawful. On appeal, the 

Ninth Circuit held that section 302(h)(1) 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 

1852(h)(1)) clearly and unambiguously 

requires a Council to prepare and 

submit FMPs for each fishery under its 

authority that requires conservation and 

management. United Cook Inlet Drift 

Ass’n v. NMFS, 837 F.3d 1055, 1065 

(9th Cir. 2016). Because NMFS 

determined that the Cook Inlet EEZ 

salmon fishery requires conservation 

and management by some entity, the 

Ninth Circuit ruled that it must be 

included in the Salmon FMP. 

Developing Management Alternatives 

for Amendment 14 

In response to the Ninth Circuit’s 

ruling, the Council began work on 

Amendment 14. Because the history of 

Amendment 14 is integral to the need 

for and development of this action, a 

brief history is provided here. The 

Council worked from 2017 to 2020 

developing and evaluating management 

alternatives for Amendment 14. The 

Council broadly identified two 

management approaches to amend the 

FMP to include the Cook Inlet EEZ: one 

that would delegate authority over 

specific management measures to the 

State with review and oversight by the 

Council, and one that would retain all 

management within the Federal process. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
72316 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

The Council also formed the Cook 

Inlet Salmon Committee (Committee), 

consisting of Cook Inlet salmon fishery 

stakeholders tasked with developing 

recommendations for management of 

the fishery. The Committee proposed 

delegating management to the State, but 

with expanded Federal oversight and a 

management scope that included State 

marine and fresh waters in addition to 

the EEZ waters of Cook Inlet. This 

recommendation was not carried 

forward for further consideration 

because NMFS does not have 

jurisdiction over State waters. 

Generally, information in the analysis 

prepared for Amendment 14 indicated 

that Federal management would be 

unlikely to appreciably change salmon 

conservation metrics and thresholds 

established in Cook Inlet, but would 

increase costs, complexity, and 

management uncertainty without 

corresponding benefits. While the 

Council identified some flexibility with 

the specific management measures that 

could be implemented under either 

Federal management approach, neither 

the Council, NMFS, the State, nor 

stakeholders identified a fundamentally 

different management approach that 

could satisfy the Ninth Circuit ruling, 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable law. 

After the State announced it would 

not accept delegated management 

authority for Cook Inlet, the Council 

ultimately recommended expanding the 

existing adjacent West Area to include 

the Cook Inlet EEZ, thereby 

incorporating the Cook Inlet EEZ into 

the Salmon FMP and closing the area to 

commercial salmon fishing. In short, the 

rationale was that closure was a 

precautionary management approach, 

consistent with management throughout 

the West Area, avoided significantly 

increased costs and uncertainty, and 

drift gillnet fishing could continue 

entirely within State waters. On 

November 3, 2021, NMFS published a 

final rule to implement Amendment 14 

to the Salmon FMP (86 FR 60568, 

November 3, 2021). 

Amendment 14 was challenged by 

Cook Inlet commercial salmon 

fishermen before the first fishing season. 

On June 21, 2022, the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Alaska vacated the 

implementing regulations for 

Amendment 14. United Cook Inlet Drift 

Ass’n v. NMFS, 2022 WL 2222879 (D. 

Alaska 2022). The Court found that the 

final rule was arbitrary and capricious, 

in part because NMFS failed to include 

management measures for the Cook Inlet 

EEZ recreational fishery in the FMP and 

because the Court determined the rule 

still implicitly deferred too much 

management authority to the State of 

Alaska without formally delegating such 

authority. Id. at *8–*9, *13–*15. The 

Court later ordered NMFS to promulgate 

a new FMP amendment to federally 

manage the Cook Inlet EEZ in 

accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act by May 1, 2024. The 2022 and 2023 

Cook Inlet EEZ fishing seasons were 

managed by the State under preAmendment 14 conditions. 

Now, NMFS proposes Amendment 16 

and implementing regulations that 

would federally manage all Cook Inlet 

EEZ salmon fishing, consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 

decisions of the Ninth Circuit and the 

District Court. 

Developing Management Alternatives 

for Amendment 16 

In response to the District Court’s 

ruling, at its first meeting since the 

ruling (October 2022), the Council 

initiated an analysis for a new 

amendment to the Salmon FMP for 

initial review at its December 2022 

meeting. The Amendment 14 analysis 

was used as a basis for developing 

Amendment 16 because it contained the 

reasonable range of potential 

management alternatives. NMFS 

informed the Council that it would need 

to make a recommendation at its April 

2023 meeting to allow NMFS sufficient 

time to implement a new FMP 

amendment by the Court’s deadline. 

The Council reviewed the updated 

analysis at its December 2022 meeting, 

and after considering public comment 

tasked staff with analyzing four 

alternatives for final action: Alternative 

1 (status quo), Alternative 2 (delegated 

Federal management), Alternative 3 

(Federal management), and Alternative 

4 (Federal closure). NMFS, the Council, 

and the public did not identify any 

fundamentally new alternatives. The 

Council requested staff analyze 

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, include 

management measures for the 

recreational salmon fishery sector, and 

identify any possible variations in 

management approaches under either 

alternative. Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 4 were not viable options 

because of the courts’ rulings, but were 

retained for analytical comparison. 

Prior to the scheduled Council final 

action in April 2023, staff worked to 

improve Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. 

For Alternative 2, this included work to 

identify any added flexibilities under 

delegated management that might make 

delegation more appealing to the State 

while still complying with all 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. 

Previously, the State has expressed 

concerns over (1) the resources needed 

to manage fishing in the EEZ through 

the Council process (in addition to its 

Board of Fisheries process), and (2) 

Council review of State management 

targets that would be used to manage 

both the EEZ and State water fisheries 

that are not subject to the MagnusonStevens Act. A fundamental constraint 

for delegated management under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act is that neither 

the Council nor the Secretary can force 

the State to accept delegated 

management authority. Though some 

additional flexibilities were identified 

in the analysis, ultimately the State still 

declined to accept a delegation of 

management authority for the fishery. 

Alternative 3 was further refined to 

address concerns expressed by fishery 

stakeholders and the Council. The 

proposed management policy and 

objectives were updated to more closely 

reflect and balance the Council’s 

approach to salmon management with 

the proposed Federal responsibilities 

under Alternative 3. Options for NMFS 

to prepare the fishery stock assessments 

and a multi-year harvest specification 

process were also evaluated in an effort 

to increase efficiency. Generally, the 

description of management measures 

was refined and improved to describe 

the most practicable management 

regime. This included the addition of a 

potential season closure date, expected 

Federal regulatory prohibitions, and 

proposed legal drift gillnet gear 

configurations. 

During the Council process, Cook 

Inlet drift gillnet fishery stakeholders 

generally expressed their perspective 

that this action, and all MagnusonStevens Act requirements, must be 

applied to both the Federal and State 

waters of Cook Inlet. However, under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, there is only 

one narrow authority for NMFS to 

extend Federal jurisdiction into State 

waters. In order for a Federal FMP to 

govern fisheries occurring within State 

marine waters, both of the following 

conditions must be met under 

Magnuson-Stevens Act section 306(b) 

(16 U.S.C. 1856(b)): (1) the fishery must 

occur predominantly within the EEZ, 

and (2) State management must 

substantially and adversely affect the 

carrying out of the FMP. As 

approximately 75 percent of the total 

annual upper Cook Inlet salmon harvest 

occurs within State waters, there is no 

authority for NMFS to assert 

management authority over the State 

water salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet. In 

addition, even when the two conditions 

above are met, under no circumstance 

does NMFS or the Council have 

authority to manage fishing within State 

internal waters where salmon spawning 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72317 

takes place (i.e., landward of the 

coastline). 

Further, NMFS interprets MagnusonStevens Act language conferring 

‘‘exclusive fishery management 

authority beyond the exclusive 

economic zone over such anadromous 

species and Continental Shelf fishery 

resources’’ as granting NMFS 

jurisdiction to manage salmon further 

than 200 nmi from shore—i.e., beyond 

sovereign jurisdictional limits—rather 

than within 3nmi. The MagnusonStevens Act acknowledges that marine 

waters from the Alaskan coastline out to 

3 nmi are under State jurisdiction (16 

U.S.C. 1801(b)(1)) and provides for 

Federal management of those waters 

only when specific requirements 

described above are met, as they are not 

here. Therefore, Federal authority to 

manage Cook Inlet salmon fishing is 

limited to EEZ waters. Of course, to 

manage the EEZ NMFS must and would, 

pursuant to Amendment 16, consider 

the condition of salmon stocks as a 

whole and the impacts that State salmon 

fisheries have on management of the 

EEZ. But NMFS lacks statutory 

authority to establish harvest limits or 

implement a harvest strategy that 

applies in State waters. 

As most public commenters during 

the Council process emphasized, the 

jurisdictional issues in Cook Inlet are 

challenging because salmon are 

harvested in both State and Federal 

waters but originate from the same 

stocks that spawn entirely in State 

freshwaters. This makes separately 

managed State and Federal fisheries 

complex. Stakeholders and the Council 

noted with near unanimity that the State 

has significantly better tools, data, 

flexibility, and experience for inseason 

management of Cook Inlet salmon 

fisheries. NMFS agrees with this 

assessment. NMFS would have 

preferred delegated management under 

Alternative 2 so that State expertise and 

flexibility could be directly utilized for 

management of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. 

The State has more than 60 years of 

experience managing salmon fisheries 

in Cook Inlet while NMFS has no prior 

experience managing these fisheries. 

However, because, pursuant to court 

order, the Cook Inlet EEZ must be 

managed under the FMP and the State 

declined to accept delegated 

management, the only remaining option 

was to create a new fishery in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ managed by the Council and 

NMFS. 

Another concern of stakeholders was 

transitioning from a management system 

that could most quickly open and close 

an EEZ fishery based on real-time 

escapement data to one with established 

annual catch limits (ACLs). Federal 

salmon management challenges are 

compounded by various constraints on 

NMFS’s management flexibility: 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements 

that FMPs include a mechanism to 

establish ACLs; and notice and 

publication requirements for in-season 

actions under the Administrative 

Procedure Act that NMFS must abide by 

for all fishery management, including 

management of the Cook Inlet EEZ. 

These requirements make it infeasible 

for NMFS to implement an escapementbased salmon management approach in 

the Cook Inlet EEZ that is identical to 

that currently used by the State and 

familiar to stakeholders. 

Another consistent concern voiced by 

stakeholders and the Council was about 

the impacts and difficulty of 

coordinating management of salmon 

stocks across separate State and Federal 

jurisdictions. Management measures 

under Alternative 3 were designed, 

within the limits of Federal authority, to 

address the impacts of managing salmon 

fisheries across jurisdictions. Because 

Federal managers have less 

administrative flexibility and less 

salmon management expertise than 

State managers, NMFS expects initial 

management of the Cook Inlet EEZ to be 

conservative to account for the 

significant uncertainty and minimize 

the risk of overfishing. For example, all 

existing data on harvests in the EEZ are 

estimates because management and 

catch reporting have never 

differentiated between State and EEZ 

waters. After the implementation of 

Federal management, NMFS can begin 

collecting the data needed to address 

some of these uncertainties. Eventually, 

with better data NMFS may be able to 

more accurately project harvestable 

surpluses of salmon and liberalize 

future Cook Inlet EEZ Area harvests on 

stocks that can support additional 

harvest. However, NMFS does not see a 

way to immediately increase salmon 

harvests with less information, less 

flexibility, less expertise, more 

management uncertainty, and more 

scientific uncertainty at a time when 

salmon runs are experiencing significant 

volatility across most of Alaska and the 

Pacific coast. Further, no data can 

entirely eliminate the uncertainty 

associated with setting preseason catch 

limits—as required under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act—based on run 

forecasts that are never perfectly 

accurate. Over time, management 

measures may be refined as Federal 

managers gain experience and better 

data is available to assess harvest and 

stock composition within the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Area. 

Another central contention of drift 

gillnet fishery stakeholders is that 

NMFS must manage to achieve MSY 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and 

that appropriate management targets for 

Cook Inlet salmon stocks are not being 

used. Under any management 

alternative, NMFS’s mandate is to 

achieve OY and prevent overfishing, not 

to achieve MSY. National Standard 1 

states that conservation and 

management measures shall prevent 

overfishing while achieving, on a 

continuing basis, the OY from each 

fishery. Magnuson-Stevens Act section 

3(33) defines ‘‘optimum,’’ with respect 

to the yield from a fishery, as the 

amount of fish that will provide the 

greatest overall benefit to the Nation, 

particularly with respect to food 

production and recreational 

opportunities and taking into account 

the protection of marine ecosystems; 

that is prescribed on the basis of the 

MSY from the fishery, as reduced by 

any relevant economic, social, or 

ecological factor; and, in the case of an 

overfished fishery, that provides for 

rebuilding to a level consistent with 

producing the MSY in such fishery (16 

U.S.C. 1802(33)). Simply put, MSY must 

be considered in establishing OY, but 

the actual management targets 

established for the fishery can vary 

considerably depending on the 

balancing of factors identified above. 

The catch limits established for 

federally-managed crab, groundfish, and 

scallop fisheries off Alaska are regularly 

set significantly below their respective 

MSY values in consideration of these 

factors. 

Drift gillnet fishery stakeholders have 

also opined that because overfishing has 

been so rarely observed, there are no 

conservation concerns in Cook Inlet and 

therefore harvests may be increased. 

NMFS agrees that the State has 

successfully avoided overfishing over 

the long term. However, this is a result 

of proactive management that 

continually assesses conditions of the 

various stocks in Cook Inlet and 

implements restrictions in real time to 

avoid overfishing, rather than an 

indication that all salmon stocks are 

healthy and can support significant 

additional harvest in all instances. 

Additional discussion of the specific 

factors that may constrain harvest on 

healthy salmon stocks in Cook Inlet is 

provided below in Cook Inlet EEZ 

Commercial Salmon Fishing 

Management Measures. 

When evaluating management 

alternatives, the Council also noted that 

Alternative 3 would have increased 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
72318 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

costs, increased burdens on all 

participants, and overall decreased 

efficiencies relative to Alternatives 1 or 

2. However, the Council did not identify 

any alternative solutions consistent with 

the applicable court decisions and did 

not convince the State to accept 

delegated management under 

Alternative 2. The Council failed to take 

necessary action to recommend 

management measures for the Cook Inlet 

EEZ salmon fishery in April 2023 and 

thus, to comply with the governing 

court order, NMFS began developing 

Amendment 16 and this proposed rule. 

When the Secretary develops an FMP 

Amendment, according to section 

304(c)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, the Secretary must ‘‘conduct public 

hearings, at appropriate times and 

locations in the geographical areas 

concerned, so as to allow interested 

parties an opportunity to be heard in the 

preparation and amendment of the plan 

and any regulations implementing the 

plan.’’ In addition to the opportunities 

for public input provided at two 

Council meetings in Anchorage, AK, 

NMFS published a notice of a public 

hearing (88 FR 25382) on April 26, 2023 

and held a public hearing on May 18, 

2023. This public hearing was held 

virtually to maximize accessibility, and 

written public comments were accepted 

through May 25, 2023. Approximately 

40 people attended the public hearing 

and NMFS received 12 written 

comments. Nearly all commenters were 

drift gillnet fishery stakeholders. 

In general, drift gillnet fishery 

stakeholders that participated in the 

hearing expressed concerns about 

management that would establish 

preseason harvest limits rather than 

open and close the fishery throughout 

the fishing season based on real-time 

escapement data. In addition, they 

objected to any commercial fishery 

season closure date earlier than August 

or September, and any management that 

did not increase the number of weekly 

fishing periods over status quo, citing 

concerns about the economic viability of 

the drift gillnet fishery under 

conservative management, including 

existing State management. Participants 

emphasized that certain sockeye, chum, 

and pink salmon stocks have not been 

fully utilized in some years under the 

State management regime. NMFS took 

these comments into consideration 

during the development of Amendment 

16 and this proposed rule. A more 

detailed description of comments 

received can be found in Section 1.5 of 

the Analysis. 

NMFS also received multiple requests 

from tribal entities in the region for 

engagement meetings and consultations 

on the issue. NMFS held 3 tribal 

consultations and 3 tribal engagement 

sessions from February 2023 to June 

2023 to provide information, receive 

input, and fulfill NMFS’s 

responsibilities to conduct government 

to government consultations with tribes. 

Tribal members throughout Cook Inlet 

participate in all Cook Inlet salmon 

fisheries, including the drift gillnet, as 

well as other commercial, recreational, 

subsistence, tribal, ceremonial, 

educational, and personal use salmon 

fisheries. Participants were universally 

concerned about the health of Cook Inlet 

salmon stocks. There were discussions 

about the complexity of salmon 

management throughout Cook Inlet, 

including information noting that Kenai 

and Kasilof sockeye salmon stocks are 

healthy and can support additional 

harvest while others are severely 

depressed or otherwise require careful 

consideration. Many tribal groups 

expressed a particular concern about the 

health of Cook Inlet Chinook salmon 

stocks. 

Throughout all of the tribal meetings, 

there was support for Alternatives 3 and 

4, but not for Alternative 2. There was 

general concern about State 

management. Several tribal groups 

reported the challenges they had getting 

tribal priorities addressed by the State, 

with one group specifically citing the 

difficulty of getting the Ninilchik 

subsistence salmon fishery recognized 

and implemented. There was broad 

support for the establishment of new 

Federal tribal and subsistence fisheries 

in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Some also 

expressed the sentiment that under the 

existing State management regime, and 

likely Alternative 2, the Federal trust 

responsibility would be impeded by the 

State’s involvement. Many felt that this 

would improve under either Alternative 

3 or 4 with direct Federal management. 

There were divergent perspectives on 

possible management measures for the 

commercial fisheries, with some groups 

advocating for additional restrictions 

that would provide more salmon to 

subsistence harvesters and others 

requesting that current EEZ drift gillnet 

commercial salmon harvests be 

maintained or expanded. Finally, there 

was a general acknowledgement of the 

limitations of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act in the context of salmon 

management, but tribes expressed the 

view that this did not absolve the 

Federal responsibility to work to 

improve the health of Cook Inlet salmon 

stocks. 

Several tribes indicated that the 

window of time available was too short 

and did not allow sufficient time for 

meaningful tribal consultations, and 

that this action should be delayed to 

allow for it. NMFS noted it was unable 

to delay action due to the Court 

deadline. A more detailed summary of 

feedback received at meetings with 

tribal groups is provided in Section 1.6 

of the Analysis. 

Action Summary and Rationale 

This action would amend the Salmon 

FMP and revise Federal regulations. 

Amendment 16 would add the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area to the Salmon FMP’s 

fishery management unit. The FMP 

would also be amended to include all 

status determination criteria required by 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act for 

determining whether a stock is 

overfished (in terms of biomass) or 

subject to overfishing (in terms of the 

rate of removal). Amendment 16 would 

describe annual management processes, 

including the framework approach for 

establishing harvest specifications. The 

FMP would describe management 

measures related to fishing time, area, 

gear, and permits for the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area. 

This proposed rule would modify 

Federal regulations to implement 

Amendment 16 by revising the 

definition of Salmon Management Area 

at 50 CFR 679.2 to redefine the Cook 

Inlet Area as the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 

and incorporate it into the Federal 

Salmon Management Area. This 

proposed rule would also create Figure 

22 to 50 CFR part 679 to depict the 

location of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 600.725 would be 

modified to authorize the use of drift 

gillnet gear for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 

commercial salmon fishery. Existing 

regulations related to salmon fisheries 

under the Salmon FMP throughout 50 

CFR 679 would be moved to Subpart J— 

Salmon Fishery Management beginning 

at 50 CFR 679.110. Management 

measures necessary for the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Area would be added to Subpart J. 

The following sections provide a 

summary of management measures that 

would be implemented by this proposed 

rule. 

Maximum Sustainable Yield and 

Optimum Yield 

Amendment 16 would amend the 

Salmon FMP to include definitions of 

MSY and OY. All FMPs must be 

consistent with the 10 National 

Standards for fishery conservation and 

management under the MagnusonStevens Act. National Standard 1 

requires that fishery management 

measures prevent overfishing while 

achieving OY on a continuing basis. OY 

is the amount of fish that will provide 

the greatest overall benefit to the Nation 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72319 

in terms of food production and 

recreational opportunities, while taking 

into account the protection of marine 

ecosystems. Establishing the biological 

reference points used to prevent 

overfishing and achieve OY is a key 

component of Federal management. One 

of the required foundational reference 

points is MSY, which is the largest longterm average catch that can be taken 

from a stock or stock complex under 

prevailing conditions. OY is prescribed 

on the basis of MSY, and MSY informs 

the status determination criteria that are 

used to determine whether a stock is 

overfished or subject to overfishing. 

MSY therefore also informs the harvest 

limits set to achieve OY and prevent 

overfishing. As further explained below, 

MSY is a reference point, informed by 

the best available scientific information, 

related to maximum possible 

sustainable removals of a stock or stock 

complex throughout its range. 

Therefore, MSY must be defined at the 

stock or stock complex level without 

reference to management jurisdictions. 

In contrast, OY is a long term average 

amount of desired yield from a 

particular stock or fishery and is 

generally set below MSY. Under 

Amendment 16, OY would be defined at 

the EEZ fishery level to both account for 

the interactions between salmon stocks 

in the ecosystem and provide Federal 

managers with a target that is within 

their control to achieve. 

To have a sustainable salmon fishery, 

sufficient numbers of salmon from each 

stock must avoid harvest and reproduce 

(spawn) in freshwater. The number of 

spawning salmon is termed 

‘‘escapement’’ because they have 

escaped capture by all fisheries and 

predators to spawn. Estimates of how 

many salmon are expected to return 

from a given number of spawning 

salmon can be developed through the 

long term process of comparing 

escapement numbers to subsequent 

return numbers. For most stocks, the 

long term management objective is to 

allow a range of spawners that is likely 

to result in the highest potential for 

future yield (harvest in excess of 

spawning escapement). There is always 

uncertainty in what number of spawners 

will result in the highest future yield 

because the percentage of salmon that 

survive is different each year due to 

environmental conditions, the quality of 

the spawning population, and other 

factors. As such, the same numbers of 

spawning salmon could produce 

different numbers of returning offspring 

in different years. Because of this, the 

target number of spawning salmon 

(escapement goal) is generally defined 

as a range that is likely to achieve high 

yields over a broad range of expected 

conditions. 

For example, if an escapement goal 

range for a stock is established as 

750,000 to 1,000,000 fish based on the 

best available scientific information, 

then management is adjusted to try and 

achieve escapement within that range 

each year. The escapement target is 

fixed regardless of any other factor, 

unless or until better information 

becomes available that would cause 

fishery managers to revise an 

escapement goal. However, because of 

both changes to actual escapement and 

the survival of salmon, the management 

measures required to achieve the 

escapement goal can be very different 

across years. If the survival rate of 

offspring is poor in any given year— 

perhaps due to prevailing ocean 

conditions that year—then it is possible 

that few or no returning salmon could 

be harvested by fisheries while still 

allowing sufficient numbers to spawn 

and achieve the escapement goal. In 

contrast, when the survival rate is high, 

then fishing opportunities can be 

liberalized while still meeting the 

escapement goal. Escapement goals are 

often fixed for multiple years, and are 

only changed when multiple additional 

years of spawning and returning salmon 

show that a different number of 

spawning salmon is likely to optimize 

yields due to changing environmental 

conditions, better data, or other 

considerations. As described in the 

Salmon FMP, escapement goals for each 

stock will be vetted through the Federal 

management process. Harvest 

specifications established under Federal 

management would set ACLs to achieve 

at least the lower bound of spawning 

escapement goals for each stock to 

provide as much harvest opportunity as 

possible while avoiding overfishing on 

all stocks. 

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

MSY is defined as the largest long-term 

average catch that can be taken by the 

fishery under prevailing ecological, 

environmental conditions and fishery 

technological characteristics (e.g., gear 

selectivity), and the distribution of catch 

among fishery sectors (50 CFR 

600.310(e)(1)(i)). Under Amendment 16, 

MSY would be specified for salmon 

stocks and stock complexes in Cook 

Inlet, consistent with the National 

Standard Guidelines. MSY would be 

defined as the maximum potential yield, 

which is calculated by subtracting the 

lower bound of the escapement goal (or 

another value as recommended by the 

Council’s Scientific and Statistical 

Committee (SSC) based on the best 

scientific information available) from 

the total run size for stocks where data 

are available. Any fish in excess of that 

necessary to achieve the escapement 

goal for each stock or stock complex are 

theoretically available for harvest under 

this definition of MSY. For stocks where 

escapement is not known, historical 

catch would be used as a proxy for 

MSY. 

This definition of MSY is based on 

escapement goals established for salmon 

stocks in Cook Inlet, as informed by 

salmon stock assessments that use the 

best scientific information available, 

and undergo peer review by the 

Council’s SSC. Escapement goals 

account for biological productivity and 

other ecological factors. Representative 

indicator stocks are used to determine a 

suitable MSY proxy for stock complexes 

where escapement is not directly known 

for each component stock. Currently, 

the best scientific information available 

to determine escapement goals for 

stocks in Cook Inlet are contained in the 

escapement goal analysis reports 

developed by the State of Alaska, which 

have been vetted by the SSC (Sections 

3.1 and 12 of the Analysis). The 

escapement goals and catch history used 

to establish MSY for each stock and 

stock complex would continue be 

evaluated by the SSC during the annual 

stock assessment and harvest 

specification process and changed if 

necessary as new scientific information 

becomes available. 

As discussed in Section 14 of the 

Analysis, prior to endorsing this 

definition of MSY, the SSC reviewed an 

independent analysis of the primary 

sockeye salmon stocks harvested by the 

fishery (Late-Run Kenai and Kasilof) 

that found that estimates of spawning 

abundance expected to maximize yield 

were in agreement with the State 

escapement goal ranges established for 

these stocks. Further, the SSC 

considered alternate analyses submitted 

through public comment at the Council 

and did not find that they provided a 

better estimate of MSY. 

OY is another critical reference point 

because it defines the long-term 

management target for the fishery. 

Magnuson-Stevens Act section (3)(33) 

defines ‘‘optimum,’’ with respect to the 

yield from a fishery, as the amount of 

fish that will provide the greatest overall 

benefit to the Nation, particularly with 

respect to food production and 

recreational opportunities, and taking 

into account the protection of marine 

ecosystems; that is prescribed on the 

basis of the MSY from the fishery, as 

reduced by any relevant economic, 

social, or ecological factor; and, in the 

case of an overfished fishery, that 

provides for rebuilding to a level 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
72320 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

consistent with producing the MSY in 

such fishery. Achieving, on a continuing 

basis, the OY from each fishery means 

producing, from each stock, stock 

complex, or fishery, an amount of catch 

that is, on average, equal to the 

Council’s specified OY; prevents 

overfishing; maintains the long term 

average biomass near or above the level 

expected to produce MSY; and rebuilds 

overfished stocks and stock complexes 

consistent with timing and other 

requirements of section 304(e)(4) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and National 

Standard 1. 

Because OY must be defined on the 

basis of MSY, the potential upper bound 

would be all excess yield above the 

lower bound of the escapement goal for 

each stock in the EEZ. However, 

because it is not possible to harvest one 

stock at a time in this mixed stock 

fishery, because there are weak stocks 

intermingled with stocks that regularly 

exceed their escapement goal, and 

because harvest of all Cook Inlet stocks 

also occurs in State marine and fresh 

waters, OY must be reduced from MSY 

to account for these various ecological, 

economic, and social factors. For this 

reason, OY would be defined at the 

fishery level to account for mixed stock 

harvest and variabilities in run strength. 

Defining OY for the Cook Inlet EEZ 

salmon fishery is particularly 

challenging. Scientific information 

critical to defining OY for the Cook Inlet 

EEZ includes estimates of stock-specific 

historical harvests by fishery sector and 

escapements, as well as salmon stock 

assessments. All of these elements have 

varied substantially over time as a result 

of changes in salmon productivity, the 

relative abundance of salmon stocks, 

management measures intended to 

protect weak stocks, and management 

measures that have changed the 

allocations among salmon harvesters in 

Cook Inlet as the regional population 

has grown and fisheries have further 

developed. 

Amendment 16 would define the OY 

range for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon 

fisheries in the Salmon FMP as the 

range between the averages of the three 

lowest years of total estimated EEZ 

salmon harvest and the three highest 

years of total estimated EEZ salmon 

harvest from 1999 to 2021. The intent of 

using averages of the years with lowest 

and highest years of harvests is to 

temper the influence of extreme events 

in defining OY (e.g., fishery disasters at 

the low end, or extremely large harvests 

at the high end), thereby resulting in a 

range of harvests that are likely to be 

sustainable and provide the greatest net 

benefit to the Nation into the future. The 

period of time under consideration 

(1999–2021) represents the full range of 

years for which reliable estimates of 

Cook Inlet EEZ harvest are currently 

available, and represents a broad range 

of recent conditions in the fishery that 

may also be reasonably foreseeable in 

the future. This includes periods when 

State regulations allowed additional 

drift gillnet harvest in the Cook Inlet 

EEZ, as well as periods when time and 

area restrictions have limited harvest in 

the area. Harvests by the recreational 

sector in the area have averaged under 

100 salmon per year, but are also 

included in the OY range. This results 

in a proposed OY range of 

approximately 291,631 to 1,551,464 

salmon of all species. 

This OY also reflects a range of 

harvests that have provided for viable 

fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ in both 

high and low salmon abundance years 

across a wide range of ecological 

conditions while also avoiding 

overfishing and achieving escapement 

goals for most stocks in most years. 

Looking at average total EEZ salmon 

harvest in years of high and low 

abundance accounts for the fact that the 

different stocks and species of salmon 

will have varying total and relative 

abundances each year—a high 

abundance year for one species may be 

a low abundance year for another. It also 

acknowledges that the Cook Inlet EEZ 

commercial salmon fishery sector, 

which harvests over 99.99 percent of 

salmon in the EEZ (the remaining 

harvest being recreational), cannot 

individually target strong stocks of 

salmon without also harvesting other 

stocks that may not be able to support 

as much harvest and still meet their 

escapement goal. OY would therefore be 

defined as the average range of target 

EEZ harvest across all species that 

maximizes fishing opportunities while 

preventing overfishing on any one stock. 

This OY range provides the greatest 

overall net benefits to the Nation 

because it would ensure sustainable 

stock levels throughout the ecosystem, 

preserve a viable commercial fishery 

sector that ensures continued food 

production, maintain a viable 

recreational fishing sector that attracts 

participants from throughout the 

Nation, and protect subsistence harvest 

opportunities. 

Status Determination Criteria and 

Annual Catch Limits 

Amendment 16 would specify 

objective and measurable criteria for 

determining when a stock or stock 

complex is subject to overfishing or 

overfished. These are referred to as 

status determination criteria, and are 

established during the harvest 

specification process and evaluated 

each year after fishing is complete. 

Amendment 16 would establish a tier 

system to assess salmon stocks based on 

the amount of available information for 

each stock. NMFS would annually 

assign each salmon stock into a tier 

based on the best available scientific 

information during the harvest 

specifications process as follows: 

• Tier 1: salmon stocks with 

escapement goals and stock-specific 

estimates of harvests 

• Tier 2: salmon stocks managed as a 

complex, with specific salmon stocks 

as indicator stocks 

• Tier 3: salmon stocks or stock 

complexes with no reliable estimates 

of escapement 

The tier system uses a multi-year 

approach for calculating the status 

determination criteria. This accounts for 

high uncertainty in the estimate of 

fishery mortality in the most recent 

year, high stock abundance fluctuations, 

assessments that are not timely enough 

to forecast such changes, and the fact 

that a cohort of salmon spawned in a 

single year may return at different ages 

to be harvested or spawn. 

For stocks and stock complexes where 

escapement is known (e.g., Tier 1), or is 

thought to be a reliable index for the 

number of spawners in a stock complex 

(Tier 2), overfishing is defined as 

occurring when the fishing mortality 

rate in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area (FEEZ) 

exceeds the maximum fishery mortality 

threshold (MFMT). The MFMT for a 

stock or stock complex is calculated as 

the sum of maximum potential yield for 

that stock in the EEZ for the most recent 

generation (e.g., the most recent 5 years 

for sockeye salmon), divided by the sum 

of total run size of that stock for the 

most recent generation. This calculation 

would be used to evaluate whether 

overfishing occurred each year. For this 

definition, maximum potential yield in 

the EEZ means harvest in excess of the 

spawning escapement goal (e.g., lower 

bound of the spawning escapement 

goal) when accounting for harvests in 

other fisheries. Escapement goals used 

in calculating the status determination 

criteria for each stock would be 

recommended by NMFS and adopted by 

the SSC based on the best scientific 

information available. 

For Tier 3 stocks, which have no 

reliable estimates of escapement, 

overfishing would occur when harvest 

exceeds the overfishing limit (OFL). The 

OFL for Tier 3 stocks would be set as 

the maximum EEZ catch of the stock 

multiplied by the generation time 

(years). The result of this calculation 

would be compared against the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72321 

cumulative EEZ catch of the stock for 

the most recent generation. The SSC 

may recommend an alternative catch 

value for OFL on the basis of the best 

scientific information available. 

Under National Standard 1, a stock or 

stock complex is considered 

‘‘overfished’’ when its biomass declines 

below a minimum stock size threshold 

(MSST). MSST means the level of 

biomass below which the capacity of the 

stock or stock complex to produce MSY 

on a continuing basis has been 

jeopardized. Escapement is used to 

evaluate a salmon stock’s capacity to 

produce MSY. For Cook Inlet salmon, 

the MSST will be calculated for stocks 

in Tier 1 and 2 as follows: a stock or 

stock complex is overfished when 

summed escapements over a generation 

fall below one half of summed spawning 

escapement goals over that generation. 

Escapement goals used in establishing 

Federal status determination criteria 

would be recommended by NMFS and 

adopted by the SSC. 

For Tier 1 and Tier 2 stocks, the 

Salmon FMP would specify OFL as the 

amount of salmon harvest in the EEZ for 

the coming year that would correspond 

with the MFMT, based on information 

available preseason. Acceptable 

biological catch (ABC) would then be 

established based on OFL. As an ABC 

control rule, ABC must be less than or 

equal to OFL, and the SSC may 

recommend reducing ABC from OFL to 

account for scientific uncertainty, 

including uncertainty associated with 

the assessment of spawning escapement 

goals, forecasts, harvests, and other 

sources of uncertainty. The annual catch 

limit (ACL) for each stock would then 

be set equal to ABC. 

For Tier 3 stocks there is not 

information to determine MSST. ABC 

for these stocks would be based on the 

OFL with an additional buffer for 

scientific uncertainty. As an ABC 

control rule, ABC could be set lower by 

applying a more conservative buffer to 

the OFL to account for greater scientific 

uncertainty regarding the stock. ACL 

would then be set at ABC. 

While ABC and ACL would be 

calculated based on the best scientific 

information available preseason when 

harvest specifications must be 

established, realized harvest and 

escapement data would be used 

postseason to determine whether ACLs 

were exceeded, whether overfishing 

occurred, and if any stocks were 

overfished. Accountability measures 

would be applied to prevent the 

recurrence of any ACL overages. 

De Minimis Fishing Provision 

There are significant concerns about 

some Cook Inlet salmon stocks that are 

at low levels of abundance and 

productivity. For example, despite 

extensive fishery restrictions, there have 

been several recent years in which 

Chinook salmon escapements for some 

stocks did not meet their escapement 

goals and drift gillnet fishing was still 

allowed. As discussed later in Mixed 

Stock Management Considerations, the 

drift gillnet fleet harvests only small 

quantities of Chinook salmon, and they 

are not a primary target species for the 

fishery. 

De minimis fishing provisions would 

allow small amounts of incidental catch 

of stocks that are at low levels of 

abundance and for which there is 

minimal or no available projected yield, 

so long as de minimis harvest would not 

result in overfishing or the stock 

becoming overfished. De minimis 

fishing provisions give flexibility to the 

process of setting status determination 

criteria when the escapement goals for 

limiting stocks are projected to not be 

met, but harvest by the fishery is not 

expected to have significant impacts to 

the stock or result in a conservation 

concern. This can provide opportunity 

to harvest salmon stocks that are more 

abundant and reduce the risk of fishery 

restrictions that impose severe 

economic consequences on fishing 

communities without substantive 

management or conservation benefits. 

While de minimis provisions would be 

intended to provide management 

flexibility, there is an overriding 

mandate to prevent overfishing on and 

preserve the long-term productive 

capacity of all stocks to ensure 

meaningful contributions to all fisheries 

in the future. 

Under Amendment 16, if a preseason 

forecast suggests that the lower bound of 

the escapement goal will not be 

achieved for a given stock, de minimis 

harvest on the stock may be allowed if 

the SSC determines that the de minimis 

harvest will not result in overfishing. 

Thus, the maximum allowable de 

minimis harvest amount would be 

established to keep the post-season 

fishing mortality rate below MFMT. 

The SSC may recommend limiting 

allowable de minimis catch as needed to 

address uncertainties or year-specific 

circumstances. When recommending a 

de minimis catch limit in a given year, 

the SSC may also consider recent and 

projected abundance levels; the 

predicted magnitude of harvest in the 

EEZ; the status of other stocks in the 

mixed-stock fishery; indicators of 

marine and freshwater environmental 

conditions; impacts from other fisheries; 

whether the stock is currently subject to 

overfishing or approaching an 

overfished condition; whether the stock 

is currently overfished; and any other 

scientific considerations as appropriate. 

Management measures and any 

required accountability measures 

necessary to implement a de minimis 

harvest provision and prevent 

overfishing or any stock becoming 

overfished would be considered during 

the harvest specifications process. 

Harvest Specifications and Annual 

Processes 

Amendment 16 would establish the 

annual harvest specification process for 

the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, along with 

specific definitions of required status 

determination criteria using the tier 

system described in the previous 

section. 

The Federal fishery management 

cycle begins with the preparation of a 

Stock Assessment and Fisheries 

Evaluation (SAFE) report. The SAFE 

report would provide the SSC and 

Council with a summary of the most 

recent biological condition of the 

salmon stocks, including all status 

determination criteria, and the social 

and economic condition of the fishing 

and processing industries. NMFS would 

develop the SAFE for the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Area and public review would 

occur through the SSC and Council 

process. The Council could choose to 

establish a plan team through 

subsequent action. 

The SAFE report would summarize 

the best available scientific information 

concerning the past, present, and 

possible future condition of Cook Inlet 

salmon stocks and fisheries, along with 

ecosystem considerations. This would 

include recommendations of OFL, ABC, 

ACL, and MSST that are calculated 

following the tier system in the FMP 

and described in Section 2.5.2 of the 

Analysis. The SAFE report would 

include a final post-season evaluation of 

the previous fishing year based on 

realized catches and escapement with 

all information needed to make 

‘‘overfishing’’ and ‘‘overfished’’ 

determinations, as well as 

recommendations to develop harvest 

specifications for the upcoming fishing 

year. All recommendations would be 

based on the best scientific information 

available and would take into account 

any applicable uncertainty. In providing 

this information, the Salmon SAFE 

would use a time series of historical 

catch for each salmon stock, including 

estimates of retained and discarded 

catch taken in the salmon fishery; 

bycatch taken in other fisheries; catch in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
72322 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

State commercial, recreational, personal 

use, and subsistence fisheries; and 

catches taken during scientific research 

(e.g., test fisheries). 

The Salmon SAFE report would also 

provide information to the Council for 

documenting significant trends or 

changes in the stocks, marine 

ecosystem, and fisheries over time, as 

well as the impacts of management. The 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area Salmon SAFE 

would be structured like other Council 

SAFEs such that stock assessments, 

economic analyses, and ecosystem 

considerations comprise the three major 

themes of the SAFE document. The 

SAFE could contain economic, social, 

community, essential fish habitat, and 

ecological information pertinent to the 

success of salmon management or the 

achievement of Salmon FMP objectives. 

The SSC would review the SAFE and 

recommend the OFL, ABC, ACL, 

MFMT, and MSST, which are 

cumulatively used to determine the 

maximum allowable harvest for each 

stock based on biology and scientific 

uncertainty in the assessments. This 

SSC review would constitute the 

official, peer review of scientific 

information used to manage the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery for the 

purposes of the Information Quality Act. 

Upon review and acceptance by the 

SSC, the Salmon SAFE and any 

associated SSC comments would 

constitute the best scientific information 

available for purposes of the MagnusonStevens Act. 

The Council would then recommend 

total allowable catches (TACs) for each 

salmon species in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

salmon fishery to the Secretary. The 

TAC is referred to as an ‘‘Annual Catch 

Target’’ in the National Standard 1 

guidelines, but hereafter referred to as a 

TAC given common usage of the term by 

the Council. Closing a fishery when 

TACs are met is a recommended form of 

an accountability measure (AM) used to 

ensure an ACL is not exceeded. A TAC 

is an amount of annual catch of a stock, 

stock complex, or species that is the 

management target of the fishery, 

accounts for management uncertainty in 

controlling the catch at or below the 

ACL, and must be set equal to or less 

than ABC. The TACs would be set at the 

species level because estimates of stock 

contribution to EEZ fishery harvests 

cannot currently be made until after the 

fishing season. As such, in setting the 

TAC for each species, the Council 

would consider the estimated 

proportional contribution of each stock 

to total harvest of a species such that 

ACLs are not expected to be exceeded 

for any component stock if the TAC is 

fully achieved. If inseason genetic 

information becomes available, it may 

be possible to establish and manage for 

TACs for individual stocks within the 

same species (e.g., Kenai River sockeye 

and Kasilof River sockeye). Because 

NMFS and the Council have never 

previously managed a drift gillnet 

salmon fishery in Alaska, and as 

described in Section 2.5.2.6 of the 

Analysis, there are significant new 

management uncertainties that are 

introduced by this action, TACs will be 

a crucial management tool. 

To establish these Magnuson-Stevens 

Act required ACLs and their 

implementing TACs, NMFS would 

publish proposed and final salmon 

harvest specifications in the Federal 

Register. Under the Federal rulemaking 

process, the public is informed through 

the Federal Register of Federal actions 

and can comment on them and provide 

additional information to the agency. A 

final rule is then issued with 

modifications, as needed, and includes 

the agency responses to issues raised by 

public comments. This is a lengthy 

process: it takes a significant amount of 

time to conduct the stock assessments, 

review them through the SSC and 

Council, make any overfishing or 

overfished determinations, recommend 

TACs, and then conduct notice and 

comment rulemaking under the 

Administrative Procedure Act. 

Because harvest specifications must 

be in place before the fishery begins, 

this process must rely on salmon 

forecasts. NMFS would use Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) 

pre-season salmon forecasts (subject to 

NMFS and SSC review) or develop 

suitable alternate forecasts. 

Fundamentally, status determination 

criteria and harvest specifications 

would be calculated in terms of 

potential yield for the Cook Inlet EEZ 

and would be based, in part, on the 

forecasted run size minus the minimum 

number of salmon required for 

spawning and the expected mortality in 

other fisheries. If no forecasts are 

available, NMFS would use fishery 

catch in prior years to inform harvest 

specification, as it does for other datalimited fisheries. 

Cook Inlet EEZ Commercial Salmon 

Fishing Management Measures 

Salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet are 

complex and must take into account 

many different factors when 

establishing management measures for 

each component sector. The drift gillnet 

fleet generally harvests the largest 

proportion of salmon in Cook Inlet of 

any fishery sector and has significant 

harvest power. The State has 

historically managed the drift gillnet 

fishery through the combination of time 

and areas open to fishing. This section 

provides a discussion of key 

considerations related to status quo 

management of the Cook Inlet drift 

gillnet fleet and proposed Cook Inlet 

EEZ management measures under this 

action. 

Seasonal Fishery Progression 

Commercial salmon fishing in Cook 

Inlet is bounded by when salmon return 

to the Cook Inlet en route to natal 

freshwater locations to spawn. 

Commercial salmon fisheries in Cook 

Inlet begin in June under State 

regulations. Around this time, Chinook 

salmon are already present in Cook Inlet 

and sockeye salmon begin migrating 

into Cook Inlet from the Gulf of Alaska. 

As salmon begin to move into Cook 

Inlet, with the exception of Chinook, 

they typically group in large tide rips in 

the middle of Cook Inlet (i.e., the EEZ) 

to start moving north up the inlet 

toward their spawning streams, rivers, 

and lakes. The first commercial fishery 

that salmon typically encounter when 

moving up Cook Inlet is the upper Cook 

Inlet drift gillnet fishery. Commercial 

salmon fisheries south of this area occur 

entirely in State waters. 

In the Cook Inlet EEZ, salmon stocks 

originating from throughout Cook Inlet 

are mixed together. As they move 

northward up farther into Cook Inlet, 

individual salmon stocks will 

eventually move shoreward into State 

waters to reach their spawning streams. 

Stocks returning to freshwater systems 

farther north in Cook Inlet tend to stay 

close to the middle of the inlet when 

they move through the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area. The Upper Cook Inlet drift gillnet 

fishery occurs entirely within the State’s 

‘‘Central District,’’ which are waters 

north of the Anchor Point line at 

59°46.15′ N to approximately Boulder 

Point at 60°46.39′ N. Commercial, 

subsistence, recreational, and personal 

use salmon fisheries also occur 

northward of Boulder Point, which 

includes the waters of Turnagain Arm 

and Knik Arm, and this area is generally 

referred to as the State’s ‘‘Northern 

District.’’ All salmon returning to the 

Northern District must first past through 

fisheries in the Central District before 

reaching fisheries and spawning 

grounds in the Northern District. 

Mixed Stock Management 

Considerations 

In recent years, the State’s 

management of Cook Inlet salmon has 

been complicated by the relative 

abundance of salmon stocks, and the 

characteristics of the different user 

groups and gear types. Central District 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72323 

drift gillnet, set gillnet, recreational, and 

personal use fishermen all target 

valuable Kenai and Kasilof sockeye 

salmon, which in recent years have been 

in relatively high abundance. As 

described in Section 4.5 of the Analysis, 

sockeye salmon accounted for more 

than 80 percent of the salmon caught in 

the drift gillnet fishery, and an even 

greater percentage of fishery value from 

1990–2021. Over this same time, the 

drift gillnet fishery has harvested 

approximately 42 percent of the sockeye 

salmon in Cook Inlet, while the set 

gillnet fishery harvested around 40 

percent, and non-commercial harvests 

accounted for the remainder. 

The amount and proportion of harvest 

by each fishery is significantly impacted 

by which salmon stocks it targets, or 

cannot avoid, and whether unintended 

catch can be released alive. Gillnet gear 

generally catch all species of salmon in 

the area and cannot target individual 

stocks. It is assumed that salmon that 

become entangled in commercial gillnet 

gear generally do not survive being 

released. Therefore, management must 

consider all stocks that would be 

harvested by each drift gillnet fishery 

opening, the conservation status of each 

stock, and their relative abundance. 

While Kenai and Kasilof sockeye 

salmon stocks have been abundant in 

recent years, salmon abundance can be 

highly variable over time and 

management plans must be able to 

account for a wide variety of absolute 

and relative salmon stock abundance 

scenarios. 

The drift gillnet fishery harvests only 

approximately 1 percent of upper Cook 

Inlet Chinook salmon, on average. This 

is because Chinook salmon generally 

migrate in State waters near the shore 

outside of EEZ and State waters open to 

drift gillnet fishing, or at depths below 

drift gillnet gear. However, the drift 

gillnet fishery, particularly in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ, can catch significant 

quantities of Cook Inlet sockeye and 

coho salmon stocks bound for the 

Northern District. These are smaller and 

less productive stocks that cannot 

support as much harvest as co-occurring 

Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon 

stocks. The Cook Inlet EEZ is a 

productive fishing area for all Cook Inlet 

sockeye salmon and coho stocks, as they 

are aggregated in tide rips within the 

Cook Inlet EEZ. 

Fishing at a rate to fully harvest the 

most abundant stocks would likely 

result in overfishing on these weaker or 

less abundant salmon stocks. Therefore, 

to support conservation of these 

Northern District stocks, and to ensure 

at least some harvestable surplus for 

Northern District salmon fisheries, the 

State has reduced the number of drift 

gillnet fishing periods in Cook Inlet EEZ 

waters after July 15 to minimize mixed 

stock harvests. After this date, State 

management measures in the last 

decade generally reduced fishing time 

in the EEZ and provided additional 

fishing time in State waters on the east 

side of Cook Inlet, adjacent to the Kenai 

and Kasilof Rivers to focus harvests on 

Kenai and Kasilof salmon stocks during 

the peak of the run. This management 

approach was in response to significant 

declines in coho salmon stocks and long 

term yield concerns for Northern 

District sockeye salmon, as well as an 

increasing populations in the Anchorage 

and Kenai Peninsula areas utilizing 

Cook Inlet salmon resources. This has 

also limited the drift gillnet fleet’s 

harvests of pink and chum salmon 

stocks. 

Additionally, reducing Cook Inlet EEZ 

harvests after July 15 allows for the 

collection of more data on escapement 

and realized salmon abundance in order 

to either avoid overharvesting a given 

stock or increase harvest to more fully 

utilize abundant runs. After July 15, the 

amount of fishing time available to the 

drift gillnet fleet under State 

management has varied widely 

depending on run strength. For Kenai 

and Kasilof sockeye salmon stocks, 

managers get robust information on run 

strength from an inseason abundance 

model around July 25. Prior to July 25, 

there is significant uncertainty from the 

inseason model about run strength for 

these stocks, which increases 

management uncertainty. A major 

concern is harvesting too many fish and 

not meeting spawning escapement 

goals, potentially resulting in 

overfishing. This issue is exacerbated 

for Northern District stocks, for which 

there is significant time lag (relative to 

Kenai and Kasilof stocks) between 

harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ and 

information on escapement becoming 

available. 

The State has adjusted management 

within State waters, where stocks are 

more distinctly separated, to focus on 

harvests on Kenai or Kasilof stocks 

while minimizing drift gillnet harvests 

of Northern District salmon stocks. 

Fishery managers must also account for 

harvest in freshwater fisheries upstream 

of escapement monitoring when making 

management decisions to reach final 

escapement goal targets (e.g., 1.4 million 

salmon may be counted at the 

monitoring station, but if 200,000 are 

subsequently caught in freshwater 

fisheries, than only 1.2 million salmon 

would actually spawn). 

Proposed Federal Commercial Fishing 

Season and Fishing Periods 

Under this proposed rule, the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area would open to 

commercial drift gillnet fishing on a 

Monday, either the third Monday in 

June or the Monday on or after June 19, 

whichever is later. Prior to this time, 

salmon stocks harvested by the drift 

gillnet fleet are not present in 

commercially viable quantities. 

Historically, estimated harvests in the 

EEZ have been relatively small during 

the initial openings as sockeye salmon 

are just beginning to move into the area 

and the bulk of the fish do not arrive 

until July. Opening after mid-June helps 

avoid potential additional impacts to 

early-run Cook Inlet Chinook salmon 

stocks. These stocks migrate through 

upper Cook Inlet in May and early June. 

Opening the drift gillnet fishery after 

mid-June would also continue to 

provide consistent data to inform State 

and Federal managers about preliminary 

estimates of run strength compared to 

historical averages. The scientific test 

fishery carried out by the State, which 

also helps provide information about 

salmon run strength in Cook Inlet, 

would not be affected by this action and 

could continue to occur. 

After the season start date, this 

proposed rule would open the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area for drift gillnet fishing 

for two,12-hour periods each week, from 

7 a.m. Monday until 7 p.m. Monday, 

and from 7 a.m. Thursday until 7 p.m. 

Thursday until either (1) the TAC is 

reached, or (2) August 15, whichever 

comes first. This schedule would align 

possible drift gillnet fishing periods in 

the Cook Inlet EEZ with current State 

drift gillnet periods, thereby 

maintaining a similar number of regular 

drift gillnet fishing periods per week. If 

the State and Federal fisheries were 

open on separate days, there could be 

additional drift gillnet openings that 

could result in significantly increased 

harvest (the drift gillnet fleet has the 

potential to harvest over 300,000 salmon 

per opening), and there are not existing 

data to inform managers about the 

potential impacts of additional openings 

on spawning escapement and other 

salmon users. 

Some drift gillnet fishery stakeholders 

requested that NMFS open the drift 

gillnet fishery for three, 12-hour periods 

per week from June through October. If 

NMFS were to allow that amount of 

fishing opportunity, overfishing on 

some Cook Inlet salmon stocks— 

particularly Northern District stocks of 

low abundance—would be more likely. 

Under such a management approach, it 

is possible that even a complete closure 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
72324 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

of State fisheries would be insufficient 

to prevent overfishing on low 

abundance stocks. 

NMFS received input from other 

Northern District salmon users and 

tribes in Northern Cook Inlet requesting 

that Federal management measures limit 

EEZ harvests during the middle of the 

season to allow for a harvestable surplus 

of salmon for Northern District salmon 

fisheries. 

As a result of this conflicting 

feedback, NMFS carefully considered 

when the commercial drift gillnet 

fishery in the EEZ should be closed. 

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ACLs 

must be established for each fishery, 

along with accountability measures to 

prevent ACLs from being exceeded. 

Because there is both scientific and 

management uncertainty surrounding 

the ACLs set for each stock or stock 

complex, TACs are set as the 

management target for the fishery to 

prevent exceeding ACLs. The fishery 

would be closed when the TAC for a 

single species is reached. Because of the 

mixed-stock nature of the fishery, the 

drift gillnet fleet could not avoid 

continuing to harvest stocks for which 

the TAC had been reached and target 

only those stocks for which there was 

still TAC remaining. 

In addition to closing the fishery 

when a TAC is reached, NMFS 

considered whether a fixed commercial 

fishery season closure date may be 

required. Season closure dates are 

commonly used to end fisheries when a 

TAC is not reached, and to achieve 

other conservation and management 

objectives. To describe how these 

management measures would interact, 

the fishery would close before the 

closure date if the TAC is reached prior 

to that date. NMFS may also close the 

fishery before a TAC or the closure date 

is reached in the event it has 

information showing further fishery 

openings could result in overfishing of 

any stock. One potential example of this 

is if actual salmon returns were 

significantly below the salmon forecasts. 

In this instance, fishing to fully achieve 

a TAC based on a forecast that is much 

higher than realized abundance could 

result in not meeting at least the lower 

bound of the escapement goal, 

overfishing occurring, or both. 

In developing this proposed rule 

NMFS evaluated a range of potential 

options, including no closure date and 

a closure date as early as July 9. After 

receiving input from drift gillnet 

stakeholders that a fixed July closure 

could severely restrict fishing 

opportunities and would not account for 

delayed run timing that has been 

observed in recent years, NMFS is 

proposing an August 15 closure date. In 

years when there is sufficient TAC and 

salmon abundance to support a longer 

fishing season, this could result in 

additional EEZ fishing days in mid-July 

and greater harvest of one or more 

stocks in the EEZ relative to status quo 

management. However, due to mixed 

stock management considerations, total 

annual removals in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

and throughout Cook Inlet would 

generally be expected to remain 

consistent with historical averages that, 

when accounting for run size, have 

prevented overfishing. NMFS would 

still manage to protect weak stocks in 

Northern Cook Inlet in years of low 

abundance. As under existing 

management, the number of EEZ fishing 

days is expected to vary based on the 

abundance of salmon (i.e., amount of 

fishing time required to achieve the 

target harvest when accounting for all 

stocks that are being harvested before 

the fishery is closed). NMFS also 

received input from other Cook Inlet 

stakeholders concerned about the 

potential negative impacts of an 

extended EEZ drift gillnet fishery on 

salmon stocks and later occurring 

fisheries in Cook Inlet, particularly 

without restrictions in mid-July that 

have been occurring under State 

management. These stakeholders raised 

concerns about reduced harvestable 

surplus for other fisheries outside of the 

EEZ and concerns about achieving 

spawning escapement goals. NMFS 

anticipates addressing these concerns 

through the annual harvest specification 

process, which would account for total 

removals of each stock and scientific 

uncertainty. 

NMFS is particularly interested in 

feedback from the public about the 

implications of an August 15 closure 

date—or an earlier or later closure 

date—on fishery resources and 

participants, or impacts on any other 

part of the ecosystem. NMFS will take 

all public comments into consideration 

and may modify the closure date in the 

final rule. 

NMFS has significant concerns about 

management measures that would 

significantly increase salmon harvests 

above the status quo, particularly of 

Northern District salmon stocks, 

because that may decrease prey 

availability for endangered Cook Inlet 

beluga whales. Reduced availability of 

salmon prey in the Northern District, 

where Cook Inlet beluga whales are 

concentrated during the summer, has 

been identified in the Cook Inlet Beluga 

Whale Recovery Plan as a threat for 

Cook Inlet beluga whales. If this 

proposed action results in reduced prey 

availability, take of belugas would need 

to be authorized under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) assuming such take 

could be authorized and would not 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species. NMFS Sustainable Fisheries 

Division is consulting under ESA 

section 7 with NMFS Protected 

Resources Division to evaluate the 

potential impacts of these proposed 

management measures to all ESA listed 

species that may be affected. 

Inseason Management 

NMFS would carry out inseason 

management of the commercial salmon 

fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. 

Fishing would occur during the 

regularly scheduled fishing periods 

described above. As the fishing season 

progresses, NMFS would project the 

additional harvest expected from each 

additional opening of the fishery based 

on the number of participating vessels, 

catch rates, and any other available 

information. NMFS would carry out an 

inseason action to close the fishery if 

projections indicate that an additional 

fishery opening would be expected to 

exceed the TAC specified for one or 

more salmon stocks or species. Inseason 

actions also may be necessary to ensure 

that overfishing of salmon stocks or 

species does not occur. NMFS would 

publish every inseason action in the 

Federal Register to notify the public of 

the effectiveness. 

NMFS would monitor all available 

sources of information during the 

fishery to evaluate whether the TAC was 

specified correctly. If information 

indicates that the number of salmon 

returning to Cook Inlet is significantly 

different than what was forecasted, 

NMFS may make adjustments to 

management of the fishery. If 

information indicates that run strength 

is significantly below what was 

forecasted, then fishing to fully achieve 

that TAC would likely result in 

overfishing. Therefore, NMFS may close 

the fishery before the season closure 

date to prevent overfishing if 

information indicates that abundance is 

significantly lower than expected. This 

may be determined based on fishery 

catches, test-fishery catches, 

escapement, or any other scientific 

information. 

NMFS may consider an inseason 

adjustment to modify the TAC if 

scientific information indicates that 

salmon abundance is significantly 

higher than forecasted. To implement an 

inseason adjustment, NMFS must 

publish a temporary rule in the Federal 

Register and consider all public 

comments on the action. Any such 

action must not result in overfishing on 

any other co-occurring fish stocks and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72325 

would also consider the potential 

impacts of such an action to all Cook 

Inlet salmon harvesters. Depending on 

the specifics of the situation, it may take 

up to 30 days to implement an inseason 

adjustment to the TAC. NMFS could not 

adjust the TAC above any ABC or 

allowable de minimis amounts set forth 

in the harvest specifications established 

for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in that 

fishing year without engaging in notice 

and comment rulemaking to amend the 

specifications. 

This proposed rule also considers the 

potential for adjustments to fishing time 

and area, as well as reopening the 

fishery within the fishing season 

defined in regulation to achieve 

conservation and management goals. 

These tools may be used to either 

increase or decrease harvests in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area drift gillnet fishery 

as appropriate based on the specified 

TAC amounts, the amount already 

harvested, and other available 

information. NMFS expects to refine 

application of these management tools 

as it develops management expertise 

and collects data over time. 

Proposed Federal Management Area 

The proposed management area is all 

Federal waters of upper Cook Inlet (EEZ 

waters of Cook Inlet north of a line at 

59°46.15′ N). This is analogous to 

previous State management of the area 

under ‘‘Area 1’’ openings, excluding the 

State water portion of the area off the 

Southeast corner of Kalgin Island. The 

State’s ‘‘Districtwide’’ openings 

included all of the Federal waters in 

‘‘Area 1’’ and also allowed fishing in all 

State waters of the Central District. The 

State’s openings of these areas include 

approximately all Federal waters of 

upper Cook Inlet. 

Retention of Bycatch 

Drift gillnet vessels fishing in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area would be able to 

retain and sell non-salmon bycatch 

including groundfish (e.g., Pacific cod, 

pollock, flounders, etc.). These are 

referred to as incidental catch species 

and this proposed rule allows fishermen 

to retain these species up to a specified 

maximum retainable amount (MRA). 

Drift gillnet vessels retaining nonsalmon incidental catch species would 

be required to have a groundfish Federal 

fisheries permit (FFP) as well as comply 

with all State requirements when 

landing these fish in Alaska. The MRA 

of an incidental catch species is 

determined as a proportion of the 

weight of salmon on board the vessel. 

Table 10 to 50 CFR part 679 is used 

to calculate MRA amounts in the Gulf 

of Alaska, and would also be used to 

calculate MRA amounts for the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area. For commercial salmon 

fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, the 

basis species would be salmon, which 

would be classified as ‘‘Aggregated 

amount of non-groundfish species’’ for 

the purposes of the calculation. To 

obtain the MRAs for each incidental 

catch species, multiply the retainable 

percentage for the incidental catch 

species by the round weight of salmon 

(Basis Species—Aggregated amount of 

non-groundfish species) on board. For 

example, if there were 100 pounds 

(45.36 kg) of salmon aboard the vessel, 

then 20 pounds (9.07 kg) of pollock 

could be retained, 5 pounds (2.27 kg) of 

aggregated rockfish, 20 pounds (9.07 kg) 

of sculpins. Pacific halibut are not 

defined as a groundfish and could not 

be retained by drift gillnet vessels. 

Vessels landing bycatch species in 

Alaska would have to comply with all 

State requirements, including any 

applicable State permits. 

Cook Inlet EEZ Commercial Salmon 

Fishery Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting Requirements 

This action would manage the Cook 

Inlet EEZ salmon fishery separately 

from the adjacent State waters salmon 

fisheries. To manage the fishery 

successfully and avoid overfishing, 

Federal managers need accurate and 

rapidly reported catch data from the 

EEZ. The eLandings system is an 

electronic system for reporting 

commercial fishery landings in Alaska 

used to manage both State and Federal 

fisheries. Landings submitted through 

eLandings are transmitted to NMFS 

multiple times per day which would 

allow managers to have the most up to 

date information possible. This 

proposed rule would require processors 

to report all landings of Cook Inlet 

salmon harvested in the EEZ through 

eLandings by noon of the day following 

completion of the delivery. In order to 

implement this reporting requirement 

and other monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting measures, fishing vessels 

(harvesters), processors, and other 

entities receiving deliveries of Cook 

Inlet EEZ salmon (i.e., fish transporters, 

catcher sellers, and direct markets) 

would have to obtain Federal permits 

and comply with Federal recordkeeping, 

reporting, and monitoring requirements. 

Requirements for Catcher Vessels 

Harvesting vessel owners would be 

required to obtain a Salmon Federal 

Fisheries Permit (SFFP). NMFS would 

issue SFFPs at no charge to the owner 

or authorized representative of a vessel. 

An SFFP would authorize a vessel of the 

United States to conduct commercial 

salmon fishing operations in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area, subject to all other 

Federal requirements. An SFFP 

applicant must be a citizen of the 

United States. NMFS would issue SFFPs 

after receipt, review, and approval of a 

complete SFFP application. SFFPs 

would have a 3-year application cycle. 

Once a vessel owner or authorized 

representative obtains an SFFP, it would 

be valid for 3 years. Participants must 

maintain a physical or electronic copy 

of their valid SFFP aboard the named 

vessel. As with other Federal fisheries, 

if a vessel owner or authorized 

representative surrenders an SFFP, they 

could not obtain a new SFFP for that 

vessel until the start of the next 3-year 

permit cycle. This prevents vessels from 

regularly surrendering and reobtaining 

SFFPs to avoid Federal monitoring 

requirements. 

The SFFP is associated with a specific 

vessel and not transferable to another 

vessel. If the vessel is sold, the new 

owner would need to apply for an SFFP 

amendment from NMFS to reflect the 

new owner or authorized representative 

of the vessel. A vessel could not operate 

in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area fishery until 

the SFFP amendment was complete and 

the amended SFFP issued. The SFFP 

number would be required to be 

displayed on the vessel’s hull and buoys 

attached to the vessel’s drift gillnet. 

For a vessel being leased, the vessel 

operator would be considered the 

authorized representative of the SFFP 

holder and no amendments to the 

permit would be required. The vessel 

operator would be subject to all SFFP 

requirements and limitations and liable 

for any violations. 

To monitor participation in the 

fishery and help Federal managers 

estimate expected removals from each 

opening, as well as to ensure that 

participants remain within EEZ waters 

open to fishing, the proposed rule 

would require commercial salmon 

fishing vessels to operate a Vessel 

Monitoring System (VMS). VMS 

transmits the real-time GPS location of 

fishing vessels to NMFS. This would 

also help ensure that vessels are not 

fishing in both State and EEZ waters 

during the same fishing trip, which 

would be prohibited under this 

proposed rule to improve the accuracy 

of catch accounting for Federal 

managers. VMS would also aid in 

verifying when a vessel may be lawfully 

transiting through Cook Inlet EEZ Area 

waters after participating in a State 

fishery. A vessel with an SFFP would be 

required to keep their VMS active 

within State waters to ensure that entire 

fishing trips are monitored and to help 

verify that no fishing occurred within 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
72326 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

State waters during a fishing trip that 

included salmon harvest in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ. 

During fishing operations, a drift 

gillnet is not always attached to the 

vessel. Therefore, the position of the 

vessel as determined by VMS may be 

different than the exact location of the 

net it deployed. However, because drift 

gillnet vessels in Cook Inlet remain 

relatively close to their nets due to the 

significant tidal currents in the area, 

VMS data, when combined with 

logbook information and vessel or 

aircraft enforcement patrols, provides 

robust information to determine 

compliance with Federal fishing area, 

time, and catch accounting regulations. 

This approach is also more practicable 

and cost-efficient to fishery participants 

than the alternatives of comprehensive 

electronic monitoring systems or human 

fishery observers. 

To collect catch and bycatch 

information, this proposed rule would 

require a Federal fishing logbook. 

Commercial salmon fishing vessels 

would record the start and end time and 

GPS position of each set, as well as a 

count of the catch and bycatch. In 

addition, any interactions or 

entanglements with marine mammals 

would be required to be recorded in the 

logbook. Logbook sheets would be 

submitted electronically to NMFS by the 

vessel operator when the fish are 

delivered to a processor. There is 

currently no quantitative information 

available on discards of salmon and 

groundfish in the Cook Inlet drift gillnet 

salmon fisheries or other closely 

analogous fisheries to estimate bycatch 

amounts and mortality. The data 

provided by the logbooks would provide 

this information and satisfy the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Standardized 

Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) 

requirement (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(11)). 

Information from logbooks would also 

be used to corroborate VMS data in the 

event of a suspected Federal fishery 

violation. 

State requirements, including an 

appropriate State Commercial Fisheries 

Entry Commission (CFEC) permit(s), 

would still apply for drift gillnet vessels 

to land salmon or other species caught 

in the EEZ within the State or enter 

State waters. 

This proposed rule would prohibit 

commercial salmon harvesting vessels 

from landing or otherwise transferring 

salmon caught within the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Area in the EEZ. Harvesting vessels 

delivering to tenders would have to do 

so within State waters. This proposed 

rule would also prohibit processing 

salmon (as defined by Federal 

regulations) in the EEZ aboard either the 

harvesting vessel or another vessel. 

Harvesting vessels would be permitted 

to gut, gill, and bleed salmon prior to 

landing, but could not freeze or further 

process salmon prior to landing their 

catch. 

Requirements for Processors and Other 

Entities Receiving Deliveries of 

Commercially Caught Cook Inlet EEZ 

Salmon 

The proposed rule would require 

processors that receive and process 

landings of salmon caught in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area by a vessel authorized by 

an SFFP to obtain a Salmon Federal 

Processor Permit (SFPP). This includes 

any person, facility, vessel, or stationary 

floating processor that receives, 

purchases, or arranges to purchase and 

processes unprocessed salmon 

harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, 

except registered salmon receivers. 

Persons or businesses that receive 

landings (deliveries) of Cook Inlet EEZ 

salmon from harvesting vessels but do 

not immediately process it, or transport 

it to another location for processing, 

would be required to obtain a Registered 

Salmon Receiver Permit (RSRP). 

SFPP and RSRP holders would be 

required to be report all salmon 

landings through eLandings by noon of 

the day following completion of the 

delivery. This would ensure that 

Federal fishery managers would receive 

timely catch information from all 

Federal landings to inform Federal 

management actions. Landings would 

be reported using existing Cook Inlet 

drift gillnet statistical areas, with the 

addition of an EEZ identifier and a 

requirement to identify the Federal 

permit associated with each landing. 

This approach would maintain the 

continuity of long-term datasets for 

fishery managers and scientists while 

clearly delineating EEZ harvests. 

NMFS would issue SFPPs and RSRPs 

on a 1-year cycle. The shorter timeframe 

reflects the need to maintain a current 

and comprehensive inventory of all 

Federal salmon landings in Cook Inlet 

given frequent business or ownership 

changes for Cook Inlet salmon 

processing and buying operations. If the 

ownership of an entity holding a SFPP 

or RSRP changes, the new owner would 

need to submit an application for an 

amended permit. The amended permit 

would be issued with a new permit 

number to reflect the change. 

Because SFPPs would be facilityspecific, one SFPP would be required 

for every processing facility, even if a 

facility was controlled by a company 

already holding an SFPP at another 

processing facility. An RSRP would be 

required for each entity receiving but 

not processing landings of Cook Inlet 

EEZ salmon at the location of the 

delivery. This includes fish transporters 

or buying stations that receive deliveries 

directly from harvesting vessels. The 

RSRP would ensure that there is not a 

significant time lag between a landing 

occurring across all entities that receive 

deliveries of Cook Inlet salmon and that 

information being reported to Federal 

managers. 

These proposed regulations are 

intended to accommodate vessels that 

catch and then sell unprocessed or 

processed fish directly to consumers. 

For direct-marketing operations where 

the owner or operator of a harvesting 

vessel catches and processes their catch, 

both an SFFP and an SFPP would be 

required. For catcher-seller operations 

where the owner or operator of a 

harvesting vessel catches and sells 

unprocessed salmon (e.g., whole fish or 

headed and gutted) themselves, both an 

SFFP and an RSRP would be required. 

The proposed rule would prohibit 

processing Cook Inlet EEZ salmon in 

EEZ waters in order to ensure historical 

participants and operation types are not 

displaced. Viscera and gills may be 

removed at sea. Freezing is considered 

processing per Federal regulations and 

therefore would be prohibited in Cook 

Inlet EEZ waters. 

Other Commercial Fishery Management 

Measures and Prohibitions 

This proposed rule would define the 

legal gear for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 

drift gillnet fishery consistent with 

existing State gear to the extent 

practicable. Legal drift gillnet gear 

would be no longer than 200 fathoms 

(365.76 m) in length, 45 meshes deep, 

and have a mesh size no greater than 6 

inches (15.24 cm). Maintaining gear 

definitions consistent with State 

regulations would prevent participants 

from having to acquire new gear to 

participate in the Federal fishery, and is 

expected to help maintain existing gear 

selectivity for comparability with 

historical data that would help Federal 

managers estimate expected catches. 

Buoys at each end of the drift gillnet 

would have to be marked with the 

participants’ SFFP number. 

Gillnets would be measured, either 

wet or dry, by determining the 

maximum or minimum distance 

between the first and last hanging of the 

net when the net is fully extended with 

traction applied at one end only. It 

would be illegal to stake or otherwise fix 

a drift gillnet to the seafloor. The float 

line and floats of drift gillnets would be 

required to float on the surface of the 

water while the net is fishing, unless 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72327 

natural conditions cause the net to 

temporarily sink. 

This proposed rule includes the 

following prohibitions for drift gillnet 

fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. 

• Vessels would be prohibited from 

fishing in both State and Federal waters 

on the same day, or otherwise have on 

board or deliver fish harvested in both 

EEZ and State waters, to ensure accurate 

catch accounting for Federal managers. 

• Vessels could not have salmon 

harvested in any other fishery on board. 

• Vessels would be prohibited from 

having gear in excess of the allowable 

configuration or deploying multiple 

nets. 

• Vessels would be prohibited from 

participating in other fisheries while 

drift gillnetting for salmon in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area and would not be 

allowed to have other fishing gear on 

board capable of catching salmon while 

commercial fishing (e.g., drift 

gillnetting) for salmon in the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Area. 

• Because vessels legally 

participating in adjacent salmon 

fisheries transit across the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Area, vessels could have other 

fishing gear on board while moving 

through the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, but 

would be prohibited from commercial 

fishing for salmon within the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Area. 

• Manned or unmanned aircraft could 

not be used to locate salmon or 

otherwise direct fishing. 

• Vessels would be prohibited from 

discarding any salmon caught while 

drift gillnetting for salmon in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area. 

Cook Inlet EEZ Recreational Salmon 

Fishing 

The saltwater recreational fishery 

sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ is 

extremely small relative to the drift 

gillnet sector, harvesting an estimated 

annual average of 66 salmon of all 

species, or less than 0.01 percent of all 

salmon harvests in the Cook Inlet EEZ. 

This includes harvests by both guided 

(charter) anglers and unguided anglers. 

Over the course of a year, the limits 

historically established by the State are 

not constraining, and nearly all 

recreational salmon fishing occurs 

within State waters. Therefore, 

relatively limited management of Cook 

Inlet EEZ recreational salmon fishing is 

required at this time. 

Recreational fishing in the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Area primarily targets Chinook and 

coho salmon. Pink and chum salmon are 

sometimes also caught and retained for 

personal consumption and bait. Sockeye 

salmon are rarely caught in the saltwater 

recreational fishery as recreational 

fishing gear does not target them 

effectively. 

A small portion of recreational 

salmon fishing occurs during the winter, 

targeting immature Chinook salmon 

originating from stocks outside of Cook 

Inlet from October to the end of March. 

Other salmon species are not generally 

available and are not harvested by the 

recreational salmon fishery during this 

period. 

The primary salmon species of 

potential conservation concern are 

Chinook salmon. Cook Inlet origin 

Chinook salmon generally migrate 

through Cook Inlet close to shore and 

are almost exclusively caught within 

State waters. Declines in Cook Inlet 

Chinook salmon stocks have resulted in 

significant restrictions and closures of 

this early season recreational fishery. In 

some years, restrictions on recreational 

anglers retaining coho salmon may also 

be required. 

Cook Inlet EEZ Recreational Salmon 

Fishery Management Measures 

This proposed rule includes 

management measures for recreational 

salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area. NMFS would establish bag and 

possession limits in Federal regulations 

consistent with current State 

regulations. For Chinook salmon, from 

April 1 to August 31, the bag limit 

would be one Chinook salmon per day 

including a total limit of one in 

possession of any size. From September 

1 to March 31, the bag limit would be 

two Chinook salmon per day including 

a total limit of two in possession of any 

size. For coho (silver) salmon, sockeye 

salmon, pink salmon, and chum salmon 

there would be a combined six fish bag 

limit per day, including a total limit of 

six in possession of any size. However, 

only 3 per day, including a total limit 

of three in possession, may be coho 

salmon. 

In addition to these proposed Federal 

limits, recreational anglers would also 

be constrained by State bag and 

possession limits if landing fish in 

Alaska. Because of this, an angler could 

not exceed State limits when landing 

fish in Alaska, or otherwise have both 

an EEZ limit and a State limit on board 

at the same time in either area. 

Recreational fishing would be open 

for the entire calendar year. Because 

recreational anglers can release fish 

with limited mortality, NMFS could 

prohibit retention of individual salmon 

species while still allowing harvest of 

other salmon stocks if necessary. 

Inseason management actions for the 

recreational sector would be published 

in the Federal Register for effectiveness 

and subject to the same process and 

timing limitations outlined for the 

commercial sector in the Cook Inlet 

EEZ. Given the limited Cook Inlet EEZ 

recreational salmon harvest and slow 

pace of the fishery, these notice and 

publication requirements are expected 

to be less problematic for managing the 

recreational sector. 

Recreational fishing for salmon in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area could only be done 

using hook and line gear with a single 

line per angler with a maximum of two 

hooks. Salmon harvested could not be 

filleted or otherwise mutilated in a way 

that could prevent determining how 

may fish had been retained prior to 

landing. Gills and guts could be 

removed from retained fish prior to 

landing. Any salmon that is not 

returned to the water with a minimum 

of injury would count toward an 

angler’s bag limit. 

There is little or no inseason catch 

information available for the 

recreational salmon sector in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area. However, Federal 

managers would review any available 

developing inseason information, 

including escapement data, and may 

prohibit retention of one or more 

salmon species if additional harvest 

could not be supported. This proposed 

rule would not establish a TAC specific 

to the recreational sector, but estimated 

removals in combination with 

commercial harvests would still be 

evaluated against the ABC and ACL to 

ensure they are not exceeded, and to 

implement accountability measures, if 

required, for future seasons. This is 

analogous to the process used to 

account for recreational harvests in 

Federal groundfish and halibut 

fisheries. 

Information provided by the State’s 

existing Saltwater Charter Logbook, the 

Statewide Harvest Survey, and creel 

surveys provide information to account 

for recreational harvest in the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Area, as well as satisfy the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act SBRM 

requirement. This is consistent with the 

measures established for recreational 

salmon fishing in the East Area. 

If the recreational sector in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area significantly increases its 

harvests of salmon, additional 

management measures may be required 

and implemented through subsequent 

actions. 

Consistency of Proposed Action With 

the National Standards 

In developing Amendment 16 and 

this proposed rule, NMFS considered 

whether the proposed action is 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act’s 10 National Standards (16 U.S.C. 

1851) and designed this proposed action 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
72328 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

to balance their competing demands. 

While all of the National Standards 

were considered in Section 5.1 of the 

Analysis, five National Standards 

figured prominently in the NMFS’s 

recommendation for Amendment 16 

and this proposed rule: National 

Standard 1, National Standard 2, 

National Standard 3, National Standard 

7, and National Standard 8. 

National Standard 1 

National Standard 1 states that 

conservation and management measures 

shall prevent overfishing while 

achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY 

from each fishery for the United States 

fishing industry. OY is the amount of 

fish that will provide the greatest overall 

benefit to the Nation, particularly with 

respect to food production and 

recreational opportunities and taking 

into account the protection of marine 

ecosystems, that is prescribed on the 

basis of the MSY from the fishery, as 

reduced by any relevant economic, 

social, or ecological factor. As described 

above, this action specifies MSY on the 

basis of escapement goals and proxies 

that were evaluated through the 

analytical process for this action and 

determined to be consistent with the 

goals and objectives of the Salmon FMP 

and the conservation objectives of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. The escapement 

goal values that inform OY will be 

regularly assessed and updated as new 

information becomes available. 

For the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon 

fishery, as further discussed above, OY 

is prescribed on the basis of MSY in that 

it represents a range of total fishery 

removals in the EEZ that target 

harvesting as much of the EEZ potential 

yield in excess of escapement goals as 

possible for each stock without causing 

any stock to miss the lower bound of its 

escapement goal or result in overfishing. 

Because the Cook Inlet EEZ Area fishery 

is a mixed-stock fishery and involves 

harvest of co-occurring stocks of varying 

abundance, OY is based on a range of 

harvest levels that have provided for a 

viable fisheries and avoided overfishing 

over the long-term. This OY ensures the 

Cook Inlet salmon fishery produces the 

greatest net benefit to the Nation by 

maintaining an economically viable 

commercial fishery while still providing 

recreational and subsistence 

opportunities for people dependent on 

these same salmon stocks, accounting 

for consumption of salmon by a variety 

of marine predators, and protecting 

weaker stocks. NMFS finds that the 

proposed OY for the Cook Inlet salmon 

fishery would be achieved on a 

continuing basis under Amendment 16. 

National Standard 2 

National Standard 2 states that 

conservation and management measures 

shall be based upon the best scientific 

information available. Among other 

things, NMFS considered the relevance, 

inclusiveness, objectivity, transparency, 

timeliness, and peer review of available 

information when evaluating the 

available biological, ecological, 

environmental, economic, and 

sociological scientific information to 

determine how to most effectively 

conserve and manage Cook Inlet 

salmon. This process included SSC 

review of proposed fishery management 

policies and reference points, evaluation 

of uncertainty in the development of 

salmon escapement goals used to 

initially inform Federal reference points 

(Section 12 of the Analysis), a 

comprehensive description of social and 

economic conditions in the Cook Inlet 

salmon fishery (Section 4 of the 

Analysis), and consideration of 

alternative scientific points of view 

regarding the potential for 

overcompensation in Cook Inlet salmon 

stocks (Section 14 of the Analysis). 

From this analysis, NMFS determined 

that escapement goals established by the 

State currently rely on the best scientific 

information available to manage Cook 

Inlet salmon fisheries. It is on the basis 

of this information that Federal status 

determination criteria are initially 

established. Each year, NMFS will rely 

on the best scientific information 

available to assess the status of the 

stocks and calculate the status 

determination criteria—the best 

scientific information available is not 

static and may change with 

developments in data collection and 

processing. NMFS will collect data from 

the fisheries, routinely evaluate the best 

scientific information available, and 

may modify the escapement goals used 

in Federal management as scientific 

information related to Cook Inlet salmon 

stocks is improved. In addition, the SSC 

will provide objective, ongoing 

scientific advice to the Council 

regarding appropriate harvest 

specifications for the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area based on information the SSC 

determines to meet the guidelines for 

the best scientific information available. 

National Standard 3 

Management of salmon in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area is highly complex, 

requiring consideration of other 

management jurisdictions in order to 

achieve sustainable harvest of Cook 

Inlet salmon stocks that benefits all user 

groups. National Standard 3 states that 

to the extent practicable, an individual 

stock of fish shall be managed as a unit 

throughout its range, and interrelated 

stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit 

or in close coordination. Given the 

significant degree of interaction among 

salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet, 

management of salmon stocks as a unit 

or in close coordination throughout all 

Cook Inlet salmon fisheries is 

particularly important. Management 

action in one Cook Inlet salmon fishery 

often has direct relationships with 

harvest rates and harvest composition 

(by stock) in other regional salmon 

fisheries. Federal management of the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area under Amendment 

16 achieves National Standard 3 

objectives through coordination with 

the State before, during, and after each 

fishing season, as described in Harvest 

Specifications and Annual Processes. 

NMFS and the Council will evaluate 

both where harvest of salmon stocks 

may be constrained by the presence of 

weak stocks and where there may be 

opportunities to harvest additional 

salmon that would not otherwise be 

utilized. NMFS will provide data on 

early EEZ catches to the State to inform 

run-strength forecasts for management 

of all other upper Cook Inlet salmon 

fisheries. As stated above, because 

NMFS has no jurisdiction over State 

marine or fresh water salmon fisheries, 

it is impossible for NMFS to unilaterally 

manage Cook Inlet salmon as a unit 

throughout their range, and the State of 

Alaska declined to accept delegated 

management authority for the EEZ. 

Thus, two separate management 

jurisdictions are unavoidable in Cook 

Inlet. Still, under Amendment 16 NMFS 

anticipates close coordination with the 

State and Cook Inlet salmon stocks 

would be managed as a unit throughout 

their range to the extent practicable. 

National Standard 7 

National Standard 7 states that 

conservation and management measures 

shall, where practicable, minimize costs 

and avoid unnecessary duplication. 

Though some Federal management 

measures for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 

may duplicate similar requirements in 

adjacent State waters, any such 

duplication is necessary to implement a 

new Federal management regime and 

incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 

into the Salmon FMP consistent with 

the applicable court decisions. 

Amendment 16 would include no 

unnecessary duplication of any State or 

Federal management measures. Further, 

the management measures proposed 

under Amendment 16 impose only 

those costs necessary to ensure accurate 

catch accounting and reporting. As 

explained in Cook Inlet EEZ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72329 

Commercial Salmon Fishery Monitoring, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting 

Requirements, the management 

infrastructure and resulting costs are 

required by NMFS for successful 

management of the fishery. Therefore 

Amendment 16 is consistent with 

National Standard 7. 

National Standard 8 

National Standard 8 requires that 

conservation and management measures 

shall, consistent with the conservation 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, take into account the importance of 

fishery resources to fishing communities 

by utilizing economic and social data 

that are based upon the best scientific 

information available, in order to (a) 

provide for the sustained participation 

of such communities, and (b) to the 

extent practicable, minimize adverse 

economic impacts on such 

communities. This action is expected to 

result in Cook Inlet EEZ salmon harvests 

near existing levels. In some years, EEZ 

harvests may fall below the status quo 

(as a percentage of total Cook Inlet 

salmon harvest) to account for increased 

uncertainty. If EEZ harvests are reduced, 

additional salmon would be available 

for harvest in State waters by the drift 

gillnet fishery sector and all other 

salmon users. Therefore, any such 

reductions are not anticipated to result 

in community level impacts. Some 

adjustments to EEZ harvest totals are 

unavoidable as NMFS takes over a 

management of a new fishery, as NMFS 

will have less data, experience, and 

expertise than State managers upon 

implementation. However, by 

coordinating with State managers and 

carefully vetting stock assessments 

through the SSC, NMFS will be able to 

continue managing a viable commercial 

salmon fishery that minimizes adverse 

impacts on fishing communities to the 

extent practicable. Providing for the 

sustained participation of fishing 

communities by protecting the longterm health of the fishery depends on 

conserving stocks with low abundance 

and ensuring no stock becomes 

overfished, which could result in 

further restrictions on harvest in some 

years. The Analysis considered the 

social and economic importance of the 

Cook Inlet salmon fisheries to fishing 

communities, and recognized these 

communities participate in a variety of 

salmon fisheries apart from the drift 

gillnet fishery. In general, total removals 

of salmon in Cook Inlet are expected to 

remain consistent with the status quo— 

harvests will vary from year to year 

depending on run size and the 

abundance of any constraining stocks, 

but all participating fishing 

communities will continue to have the 

same access to fishery resources (as 

constrained by stock status). 

Community level distributive impacts 

under this action are not anticipated to 

substantially affect net benefits to the 

nation (Section 4.10 of the Analysis). 

Therefore, the Analysis supports a 

finding that this action would provide 

for the sustained participation of fishing 

communities in Cook Inlet salmon 

fisheries and minimize any adverse 

economic impacts to the extent 

practicable, consistent with National 

Standard 8. 

Potential Impacts of the Action 

The entire active salmon drift gillnet 

fleet likely fishes in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area at some time during each fishing 

season, but over the entire season, each 

vessel differs with respect to its level of 

economic dependency on fishing in this 

area. Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis 

describes that from 2009 through 2021 

an estimated average of 46.9 percent of 

gross revenue ($13.9 million) for the 

drift gillnet fleet was generated from 

salmon caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area. In the last 5 years, an estimated 

average of approximately 41.3 percent of 

gross revenue ($7.3 million) was 

generated in the EEZ for the drift gillnet 

fishery. This action would likely allow 

drift gillnet fishery participants to 

continue a significant portion of their 

EEZ fishing activities. Some reduction 

in EEZ harvest may occur to account for 

the uncertainty inherent in creating a 

new management jurisdiction and 

establishing pre-season catch limits 

consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requirements, but drift gillnet vessels 

may also have the opportunity to 

increase harvests within State waters. 

This action would also impose some 

additional costs on fishery participants 

(such as installing and operating VMS) 

and involves additional recordkeeping, 

reporting, and permit requirements 

compared to the status quo (though at 

no additional cost beyond the labor 

needed to comply). 

This rule will largely preserve 

existing EEZ fishing opportunities in 

terms of time and location, and may 

result in additional openers compared 

to the status quo in years with strong 

runs and a high TAC. Vessels will be 

able to continue fishing in the same EEZ 

areas they have historically fished so 

long as they comply with new Federal 

permitting, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements in the EEZ. 

While the uncertainty associated with a 

new management jurisdiction will 

require conservative management as 

NMFS builds expertise and collects 

data, the goal of this rule is to preserve 

or facilitate as much fishing opportunity 

in the EEZ as possible without causing 

overfishing and creating adverse 

impacts on stocks of low abundance or 

any other part of the ecosystem. This 

action would not directly modify 

management of salmon fishing in State 

waters. The drift gillnet fleet is expected 

to continue to operate in State waters 

under Amendment 16. Though EEZ 

harvest levels are expected to remain 

close to historic averages, the State, in 

its discretion, could modify 

management measures in State waters to 

account for any changes to EEZ harvest 

levels. In all, total harvests throughout 

Cook Inlet are expected to remain close 

to the status quo. As described in 

Section 3.1.3 of the Analysis, total 

harvest of Cook Inlet salmon stocks is 

expected to remain near existing levels 

resulting in salmon escapements near 

existing levels. NMFS finds these 

harvest levels have consistently 

prevented overfishing and ensured the 

majority of stocks in Cook Inlet meet 

their escapement goals, thus ensuring 

sustainable salmon stocks for future 

generations. This action is not expected 

to have significant impacts on salmon 

stocks or other affected parts of the 

environment. 

This action would also directly 

regulate salmon processors and buyers. 

It would impose additional monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting burden on 

processors receiving deliveries from the 

Cook Inlet EEZ. To the extent that this 

action results in slight decreases in 

catch by the drift gillnet fleet in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ that are not offset by 

increased catch in State waters by the 

drift gillnet fleet or by other commercial 

salmon fishing sectors, deliveries of 

Cook Inlet salmon and associated 

revenues to processors could be 

reduced. The impacts to individual 

processors would be influenced by the 

dependency on Cook Inlet salmon 

harvested in the EEZ as described in 

Section 4.5.1.4 of the Analysis. Because 

minimal reductions in harvest are 

anticipated, no significant impacts on 

processors are expected under this 

proposed rule compared to the status 

quo. 

While no significant impacts on Cook 

Inlet salmon stocks are expected, any 

reductions of salmon harvest in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area could improve the 

density of salmon prey available to 

endangered Cook Inlet belugas present 

in northern Cook Inlet during the 

summer months as noted in Section 

3.3.1.1 of the Analysis. As noted above, 

NMFS is undertaking consultation 

pursuant to section 7 of the ESA 

regarding this proposed action. While 

increased escapement may not be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
72330 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

desirable for all stocks in all years, 

conservative management of 

commercial harvest in the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Area will prevent overfishing and 

would be expected to allow utilization 

to be maximized over the long term as 

management measures are developed 

and refined. 

Classification 

The NMFS Assistant Administrator 

has determined that this action is 

consistent with the Salmon FMP, other 

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, and other applicable law, subject to 

further consideration after public 

comment. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

A Regulatory Impact Review was 

prepared to assess costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives. A copy 

of this analysis is available from NMFS 

(see ADDRESSES). NMFS proposes 

Amendment 16 and these regulations 

based on those measures that maximize 

net benefits to the Nation when 

considering the viable management 

alternatives. Specific aspects of the 

economic analysis are discussed below 

in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis section. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

This Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for this 

action, as required by Section 603 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 603), to describe the economic 

impact this action, if adopted, would 

have on small entities. The IRFA 

describes the action; the reasons why 

this action is proposed; the objectives 

and legal basis for this action; the 

number and description of directly 

regulated small entities to which this 

action would apply; the recordkeeping, 

reporting, and other compliance 

requirements of this action; and the 

relevant Federal rules that may 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this 

action. The IRFA also describes 

significant alternatives to this action 

that would accomplish the stated 

objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

and any other applicable statutes, and 

that would minimize any significant 

economic impact of this action on small 

entities. The description of the action, 

its purpose, and the legal basis are 

explained in the preamble and are not 

repeated here. 

For RFA purposes only, NMFS has 

established small business size 

standards for businesses, including their 

affiliates, whose primary industries are 

commercial fishing, charter fishing, 

seafood processing, and seafood buying 

(see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily 

engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS 

code 11411) is classified as a small 

business if it is independently owned 

and operated, is not dominant in its 

field of operation (including its 

affiliates), and has combined annual 

receipts not in excess of $11 million for 

all its affiliated operations worldwide. 

For charter fishing vessels (NAICS code 

713990), this threshold is combined 

annual receipts not in excess of $9 

million. For shoreside processors 

(NAICS code 311710), the small 

business size is defined in terms of 

number of employees, with the 

threshold set at not greater than 750 

employees. For entities that purchase 

seafood but do not process it (NAICS 

code 424460), the small business 

threshold is not greater than 100 

employees. 

Number and Description of Small 

Entities Regulated by This Action 

This action would directly regulate 

holders of State of Alaska S03H CFEC 

Limited Entry salmon permits (S03H 

permits) fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area, charter guides and charter 

businesses fishing for salmon in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area, and entities 

receiving deliveries of salmon harvested 

in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. From 2019 

to 2021, there was an average of 567 

S03H permits in circulation, with an 

average of 361 active permit holders, all 

of which are considered small entities 

based on the $11 million threshold. 

From 2019 to 2021, there was an average 

of 11 shoreside processors and 6 direct 

marketers, all of which are considered 

small entities based on the 750 

employee threshold. From 2019 to 2021, 

there was an average of 4 catcher-sellers, 

all of which are considered small 

entities based on the 100 employee 

threshold. From 2019 to 2021, there was 

an average of 58 charter guides that 

fished for salmon at least once in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area, all of which are 

considered small entities based on the 

$9 million threshold. Additional detail 

is included in Sections 4.5 and 4.9 in 

the Analysis prepared for this action 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Description of Significant Alternatives 

That Minimize Adverse Impacts on 

Small Entities 

NMFS considered, but did not select 

three other alternatives. The 

alternatives, and their impacts to small 

entities, are described below. 

Alternative 1 would take no action 

and would maintain existing 

management measures and conditions 

in the fishery within recently observed 

ranges, resulting in no change to 

impacts on small entities. This is not a 

viable alternative because it would be 

inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit’s 

ruling that the Cook Inlet EEZ must be 

included within the Salmon FMP and 

managed according to the MagnusonStevens Act. 

Alternative 2 would delegate 

management to the State. If fully 

implemented, Alternative 2 would 

maintain many existing conditions 

within the fishery. Fishery participants 

would have the added burdens of 

obtaining a Salmon Federal Fisheries 

Permit, maintaining a Federal fishing 

logbook, and monitoring their fishing 

position with respect to EEZ and State 

waters as described in Sections 2.4.8 

and 4.7.2.2 of the Analysis. However, 

section 306(a)(3)(B) of the MagnusonStevens Act provides that NMFS cannot 

delegate management to the State 

without a three-quarter majority vote by 

the Council, which did not occur. 

Therefore, Alternative 2 cannot be 

implemented and is not a viable 

alternative. 

Alternative 4 would close the Cook 

Inlet EEZ but not impose any additional 

direct regulatory costs on participants 

and would allow directly regulated 

entities to possibly recoup lost EEZ 

harvest inside State waters. However, 

the District Court ruled that Alternative 

4 was contrary to law. Therefore, 

Alternative 4 is not a viable alternative. 

This action (Alternative 3) would 

result in a Cook Inlet EEZ drift gillnet 

salmon fishery managed directly by 

NMFS and the Council. Alternative 3 

would increase direct costs and burdens 

to S03H permit holders due to 

requirements including obtaining a 

SFFP, installing and operating a VMS, 

and maintaining a Federal logbook as 

described in Sections 2.5.6 and 4.7.2.2 

of the Analysis. This action would also 

require that TACs be set before each 

fishing season. The TAC would likely be 

set conservatively to reduce the risk of 

overfishing without the benefit of 

inseason harvest data, but is likely to 

remain near existing levels. As is 

possible under the status quo, salmon 

harvest in the EEZ could be reduced or 

prohibited in years when a harvestable 

surplus is not certain, with an 

appropriate buffer to account for 

scientific and management uncertainty. 

Processors receiving deliveries of 

salmon commercially harvested in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area would be required 

to obtain a SFPP. Entities receiving 

deliveries of salmon commercially 

harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ but not 

processing the fish would be required to 

have a RSRP. All of these permits would 

be available at no cost from NMFS. 

However, entities with these permits 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72331 

would be required to use eLandings 

with its associated requirements and 

report landings with all associated 

information by noon of the day 

following the completion of each 

delivery, which would increase direct 

costs and burden. 

While these measures do increase 

costs to commercial fishery participants, 

all of these elements are required by 

NMFS to manage the fishery and 

prevent overfishing. Specific 

consideration was given in their 

development to minimize burden to the 

extent practicable while also providing 

required information to Federal fishery 

managers in a timely manner. All 

entities that would be directly regulated 

by this action could also choose to 

continue participating in only the State 

waters fisheries to avoid being subject to 

these Federal requirements. 

Charter fishing vessels would not 

have any additional Federal 

recordkeeping, reporting, or monitoring 

requirements, but would be subject to 

Federal bag, possession, and gear 

regulations. These proposed measures 

would be the same as existing State 

requirements and not add additional 

burdens. 

Based upon the best available 

scientific data, it appears that there are 

no significant alternatives to the action 

that have the potential to comply with 

applicable court rulings, accomplish the 

stated objectives of the MagnusonStevens Act and any other statutes, and 

minimize any significant adverse 

economic impact of the action on small 

entities while preventing overfishing. 

After public process, NMFS concluded 

that of the viable alternatives, 

Alternative 3, the proposed Amendment 

16, would best accomplish the stated 

objectives articulated in the preamble 

for this action, and in applicable 

statutes, and would minimize to the 

extent practicable adverse economic 

impacts on the universe of directly 

regulated small entities. 

Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting 

Federal Rules 

NMFS has not identified any 

duplication, overlap, or conflict 

between this action and existing Federal 

rules. 

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other 

Compliance Requirements 

This action would implement new 

recordkeeping, reporting, and 

compliance requirements. These 

requirements are necessary for the 

management and monitoring of the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fisheries. 

All Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial 

salmon fishery participants would be 

required to provide additional 

information to NMFS for management 

purposes. As in other North Pacific 

fisheries, processors would provide 

catch recording data to managers to 

monitor harvest. Processors would be 

required to record deliveries and 

processing activities to aid in fishery 

administration. 

To participate in the fishery, persons 

are required to complete application 

forms, reporting requirements, and 

monitoring requirements. These 

requirements impose costs on small 

entities in gathering the required 

information and completing the 

information collections. 

NMFS has estimated the costs of 

complying with the requirements based 

on information such as the burden 

hours per response, number of 

responses per year, and wage rate 

estimates from industry or the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. Persons are required to 

complete many of the requirements 

prior to fishing, such as obtaining 

permits. Persons are required to 

complete some requirements every year, 

such as the SFPP and RSRP 

applications. Other requirements are 

more periodic, such as the SFFP which 

is applied for every 3 years. The impacts 

of these changes are described in more 

detail in Sections 2.5.6 and 4.7.2 of the 

Analysis prepared for this action (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Vessels commercially fishing for 

salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ area 

would be required to obtain a SFFP, 

complete a Federal fishing logbook, and 

install and maintain an operational 

VMS. The vessel would also be required 

to mark buoys at each end of their drift 

gillnet with their SFFP number. While 

commercially fishing for salmon in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area, participants must 

remain within Federal waters and 

cannot also fish in State waters on the 

same calendar day or conduct any other 

types of fishing while in Federal waters. 

Processors and other entities receiving 

landings of commercially caught Cook 

Inlet salmon from the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area would be required to obtain a 

SFPP, a RSRP, and report landings 

through eLandings by noon of the day 

following completion of the delivery. 

NMFS would issue SFPPs and RSRPs at 

no cost. 

For recreational salmon fishing, no 

additional Federal recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are established. 

The existing recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements implemented by 

the State are expected to be sufficient to 

inform management and satisfy 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements 

given the small scale and limited 

removals of the recreational sector. 

These include creel sampling, the 

ADF&G’s Statewide Harvest Survey, 

harvest records for annual limits, and 

the Saltwater Guide Logbooks. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action contains collection of 

information requirements subject to 

review and approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). 

This action would add a new collection 

of information for the Cook Inlet EEZ 

salmon fishery under a new OMB 

control number and revise and extend 

for 3 years existing collection-ofinformation requirements for OMB 

Control Number 0648–0445 (NMFS 

Alaska Region VMS Program). The 

public reporting burden estimates 

provided below for these collections of 

information include the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

OMB Control Number 0648–NEW 

A new collection of information 

would be created for reporting, 

recordkeeping, and monitoring 

requirements implemented by this 

action that are necessary to federally 

manage the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon 

fishery. This new collection would 

contain the applications and processes 

used by harvesters, processors, and 

other entities receiving deliveries of 

Cook Inlet EEZ salmon to apply for and 

manage their permits; provide catch, 

landings, and processing data; and mark 

drift gillnet buoys. The data would be 

used to ensure that the fishery 

participants adhere to harvesting, 

processing, and other requirements for 

the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery. 

The public reporting burden per 

individual response is estimated to 

average 15 minutes for the SFFP 

application, 25 minutes for the SFPP 

application, 20 minutes for the RSRP 

application, 15 minutes to register for 

eLandings, 10 minutes for landing 

reports, 15 minutes for the daily fishing 

logbook, and 30 minutes to mark drift 

gillnet buoys. 

OMB Control Number 0648–0445 

NMFS proposes to revise and extend 

by 3 years the existing requirements for 

OMB Control Number 0648–0445. This 

collection contains the VMS 

requirements for the federally managed 

groundfish and crab fisheries off Alaska. 

This collection would be revised 

because this action would require 

vessels commercially fishing for salmon 

in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area to install and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
72332 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

maintain an operational VMS. The 

public reporting burden per individual 

response is estimated to average 6 hours 

for installation of a VMS unit, 4 hours 

for VMS maintenance, and 2 hours for 

VMS failure troubleshooting. VMS 

transmissions are not assigned a 

reporting burden because the 

transmissions are automatic. 

Public Comment 

Public comment is sought regarding: 

whether this proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the burden estimate; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Submit 

comments on these or any other aspects 

of the collection of information at 

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. 

Notwithstanding any other provisions 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond or, nor shall any person by 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

List of Subjects 

50 CFR Part 600 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, 

Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Statistics. 

50 CFR Part 679 

Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 10, 2023. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 

CFR parts 600 and 679 as follows: 

TITLE 50—WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS 

ACT PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 600 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq. 

■ 2. Amend § 600.725, in the table in 

paragraph (v), under the heading ‘‘VII. 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council’’ by revising entry ‘‘8’’ to read 

as follows: 

§ 600.725 General prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(v) * * * 

VII—NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

*******

8. Alaska Salmon Fishery (FMP): 

A. East Area ...................................................................................... A. Hook and line. 

B. Cook Inlet EEZ Area ............................................................................ B. Drift gillnet, handline, rod and reel, hook and line. 

*******

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 

ALASKA 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 679 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et 

seq., 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108–447; Pub. L. 

111–281. 

■ 4. Amend § 679.1 by revising 

paragraph (i)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 679.1 Purpose and scope. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) Regulations in this part govern 

commercial fishing for salmon by 

fishing vessels of the United States in 

the West Area and commercial and 

recreational fishing for salmon in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area of the Salmon 

Management Area. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 679.2 by: 

■ a. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definition for ‘‘Daily bag limit’’; 

■ b. Revising the definition of 

‘‘Federally permitted vessel’’; 

■ c. Adding paragraph (7) to the 

definition of ‘‘Fishing trip’’; 

■ d. Adding in alphabetical order 

definitions for ‘‘Possession limit’’ and 

‘‘Registered Salmon Receiver’’; 

■ e. Revising the definition of ‘‘Salmon 

Management Area’’; and 

■ f. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definition for ‘‘Salmon shoreside 

processor’’. 

The additions and revision reads as 

follows: 

§ 679.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Daily bag limit means the maximum 

number of salmon a person may retain 

in any calendar day from the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Area. 

* * * * * 

Federally permitted vessel means a 

vessel that is named on a Federal 

fisheries permit issued pursuant to 

§ 679.4(b), a Salmon Federal Fisheries 

Permit issued pursuant to § 679.114(b), 

or a Federal crab vessel permit issued 

pursuant to § 680.4(k) of this chapter. 

Federally permitted vessels must 

conform to regulatory requirements for 

purposes of fishing restrictions in 

habitat conservation areas, habitat 

conservation zones, habitat protection 

areas, and the Modified Gear Trawl 

Zone; for purposes of anchoring 

prohibitions in habitat protection areas; 

for purposes of requirements for the BS 

and GOA nonpelagic trawl fishery 

pursuant to § 679.7(b)(9), § 679.7(c)(5), 

and § 679.24(f); and for purposes of 

VMS requirements. 

* * * * * 

Fishing trip means: 

* * * * * 

(7) For purposes of subpart J of this 

part, the period beginning when a vessel 

operator commences commercial fishing 

for any salmon species in the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Area and ending when the vessel 

operator offloads or transfers any 

unprocessed salmon species from that 

vessel. 

* * * * * 

Possession limit means the maximum 

number of unprocessed salmon a person 

may possess. 

* * * * * 

Registered Salmon Receiver means a 

person holding a Registered Salmon 

Receiver Permit issued by NMFS. 

* * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72333 

Salmon Management Area means 

those waters of the EEZ off Alaska (see 

Figure 22 and Figure 23 to part 679) 

under the authority of the Salmon FMP. 

The Salmon Management Area is 

divided into three areas: the East Area, 

the West Area, and the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area: 

(1) The East Area means the area of 

the EEZ in the Gulf of Alaska east of the 

longitude of Cape Suckling (143°53.6′ 

W). 

(2) The West Area means the area of 

the EEZ off Alaska in the Bering Sea, 

Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, and the Gulf 

of Alaska west of the longitude of Cape 

Suckling (143°53.6′ W), but excludes the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area, Prince William 

Sound Area, and the Alaska Peninsula 

Area. The Prince William Sound Area 

and the Alaska Peninsula Area are 

shown in Figure 23 to this part and 

described as: 

(i) the Prince William Sound Area 

means the EEZ shoreward of a line that 

starts at 60°16.8′ N and 146°15.24′ W 

and extends southeast to 59°42.66′ N 

and 144°36.20′ W and a line that starts 

at 59°43.28′ N and 144°31.50′ W and 

extends northeast to 59°56.4′ N and 

143°53.6′ W. 

(ii) the Alaska Peninsula Area means 

the EEZ shoreward of a line at 54°22.5′ 

N from 164°27.1′ W to 163°1.2′ W and 

a line at 162°24.05′ W from 54°30.1′ N 

to 54°27.75′ N. 

(3) The Cook Inlet EEZ Area, shown 

in Figure 22 to this part, means the EEZ 

of Cook Inlet north of a line at 59°46.15′ 

N. 

* * * * * 

Salmon shoreside processor means 

any person or vessel that receives, 

purchases, or arranges to purchase, and 

processes unprocessed salmon 

harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, 

except a Registered Salmon Receiver. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 679.3 by revising 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 679.3 Relation to other laws. 

* * * * * 

(f) Domestic fishing for salmon. 

Management of the salmon commercial 

troll fishery and recreational fishery in 

the East Area of the Salmon 

Management Area, defined at § 679.2, is 

delegated to the State of Alaska. 

Regulations governing the commercial 

drift gillnet salmon fishery and 

recreational salmon fishery in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area, defined at § 679.2, are 

set forth in subpart J of this Section. 

* * * * * 

§ 679.7 Prohibitions [Amended] 

■ 7. Amend § 679.7 by removing and 

reserving paragraph (h). 

■ 8. Amend § 679.25 by 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (a)(1)(vi), 

(a)(2)(vi) and (vii); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text, (b)(3), and (b)(8). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 679.25 Inseason adjustments. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Types of adjustments. Inseason 

adjustments for directed fishing for 

groundfish, fishing for IFQ or CDQ 

halibut, or fishing for Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area salmon issued by NMFS under this 

section include: 

* * * * * 

(vi) Adjustment of TAC for any 

salmon species or stock and closure or 

opening of a season in all or part of the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area. 

(2) * * * 

(vi) Any inseason adjustment taken 

under paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of this section 

must be based on a determination that 

such adjustments are necessary to 

prevent: 

(A) Overfishing of any species or 

stock of fish or shellfish; 

(B) Harvest of a TAC for any salmon 

species or stock that, on the basis of the 

best available scientific information, is 

found by NMFS to be incorrectly 

specified; or 

(C) Underharvest of a TAC for any 

salmon species or stock when catch 

information indicates that the TAC has 

not been reached, and there is not a 

conservation or management concern 

for any species or stock that would also 

be harvested with additional fishing 

effort. 

(vii) The selection of the appropriate 

inseason management adjustments 

under paragraphs (a)(1)(vi) of this 

section must be from the following 

authorized management measures and 

must be based on a determination by the 

Regional Administrator that the 

management adjustment selected is the 

least restrictive necessary to achieve the 

purpose of the adjustment: 

(A) Closure of a management area or 

portion thereof, or gear type, or season 

to all salmon fishing; or 

(B) Reopening of a management area 

or season to achieve the TAC for any of 

the salmon species or stock without 

exceeding the TAC of any other salmon 

species or stock. 

(viii) The adjustment of a TAC for any 

salmon species or stock under 

paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of this section must 

be based upon a determination by the 

Regional Administrator that the 

adjustment is based upon the best 

scientific information available 

concerning the biological stock status of 

the species in question and that the 

currently specified TAC is incorrect. 

Any adjustment to a TAC must be 

reasonably related to the change in 

biological stock status. 

(b) Data. Information relevant to one 

or more of the following factors may be 

considered in making the 

determinations required under 

paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (ii), (vi) and (vii) of 

this section: 

* * * * * 

(3) Relative distribution and 

abundance of stocks of groundfish 

species, salmon species or stocks, and 

prohibited species within all or part of 

a statistical area; 

* * * * * 

(8) Any other factor relevant to the 

conservation and management of 

groundfish species, salmon species or 

stocks, or any incidentally caught 

species that are designated as prohibited 

species or for which a PSC limit has 

been specified. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 679.28 by adding 

paragraph (f)(6)(x) to read as follows: 

§ 679.28 Equipment and operational 

requirements 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(6) * * * 

(x) You operate a vessel named, or 

required to be named, on an SFFP 

issued under § 679.114 in the waters of 

Cook Inlet and have drift gillnet gear on 

board. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Add subpart J, consisting of 

§§ 679.110 through 679.119, to read as 

follows: 

Subpart J—Salmon Fishery Management 

Sec. 

679.110 Applicability. 

679.111 [Reserved] 

679.112 [Reserved] 

679.113 [Reserved] 

679.114 Permits. 

679.115 Recordkeeping and Reporting. 

679.116 [Reserved] 

679.117 Salmon Fisheries Prohibitions. 

679.118 Management Measures. 

679.119 Recreational Salmon Fisheries. 

Subpart J—Salmon Fishery 

Management 

§ 679.110 Applicability. 

This subpart contains regulations 

governing the commercial and 

recreational harvest of salmon in the 

Salmon Management Area (See § 679.2). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
72334 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

§ 679.111 [Reserved] 

§ 679.112 [Reserved] 

§ 679.113 [Reserved] 

§ 679.114 Permits. 

(a) Requirements— 

(1) What permits are available? The 

following table describes the permits 

available under this subpart that 

authorize the retention, processing, and 

receipt of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area, respectively, along with date of 

effectiveness for each permit and 

reference paragraphs for further 

information: 

If permit type is: Permit is in effect from issue date through the 

end of: For more information, see . . . 

(i) Salmon Federal Fisheries Permit (SFFP) ...... 3 years or until expiration date shown on permit.Paragraph (b) of this section. 

(ii) Salmon Federal Processor Permit (SFPP) ... Until expiration date shown on permit ............. Paragraph (c) of this section. 

(iii) Registered Salmon Receiver Permit (RSRP) 1 year ............................................................... Paragraph (d) of this section. 

(2) Permit and logbook required by 

participant and fishery. For the various 

types of permits issued pursuant to this 

subpart, refer to § 679.115 for 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

(3) Permit application. 

(i) A person may obtain an 

application for a new permit, or for 

renewal or revision of an existing 

permit, from NMFS for any of the 

permits under this section and must 

submit forms to NMFS as instructed in 

application instructions. All permit 

applications may be completed online 

and printed from the NMFS Alaska 

Region website (See § 679.2); 

(ii) Upon receipt of an incomplete or 

improperly completed permit 

application, NMFS will notify the 

applicant of the deficiency in the permit 

application. If the applicant fails to 

correct the deficiency, the permit will 

not be issued. NMFS will not approve 

a permit application that is untimely or 

incomplete; 

(iii) The owner or authorized 

representative of a vessel, owner or 

authorized representative of a processor, 

and Registered Salmon Receiver must 

obtain a separate permit for each vessel, 

entity, operation, or facility, as 

appropriate to each Federal permit in 

this section; 

(iv) All permits are issued free of 

charge; 

(v) NMFS will consider objective 

written evidence in determining 

whether an application is timely. The 

responsibility remains with the sender 

to provide objective written evidence of 

when an application to obtain, amend, 

or to surrender a permit was received by 

NMFS (e.g., certified mail or other 

method that provides written evidence 

that NMFS Alaska Region received it); 

and 

(vi) For applications delivered by 

hand delivery or carrier, the date the 

application was received by NMFS is 

the date NMFS staff signs for it upon 

receipt. If the application is submitted 

by fax or mail, the receiving date of the 

application is the date stamped received 

by NMFS. 

(4) Disclosure. NMFS will maintain a 

list of permit holders that may be 

disclosed for public inspection. 

(5) Sanctions and denials. Procedures 

governing permit sanctions and permit 

denials for enforcement purposes are 

found at subpart D of 15 CFR part 904. 

Such procedures are not required for 

any other purposes under this part. 

(6) Harvesting privilege. Permits 

issued pursuant to this subpart, are 

neither a right to the resource nor any 

interest that is subject to the ‘‘Takings 

Clause’’ provision of the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

Rather, such permits represent only a 

harvesting privilege that may be revoked 

or amended subject to the requirements 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable law. 

(7) Permit surrender. 

(i) NMFS will recognize the voluntary 

surrender of a permit issued under this 

subpart, if a permit is authorized to be 

surrendered and if an application is 

submitted by the permit holder or 

authorized representative and approved 

by NMFS; and 

(ii) For surrender of an SFFP and 

SFPP, refer to paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) and 

(c)(3)(ii) of this section, respectively. 

(b) Salmon Federal Fisheries Permit 

(SFFP)— 

(1) Requirements. 

(i) No vessel of the United States may 

be used to commercially fish for salmon 

in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area unless the 

owner or authorized representative first 

obtains an SFFP for the vessel issued 

under this part. Only persons who are 

U.S. citizens are authorized to obtain an 

SFFP; and 

(ii) Each vessel used to commercially 

fish for salmon within the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Area must have a legible copy of a 

valid SFFP on board at all times. The 

vessel operator must present the valid 

SFFP for inspection upon the request of 

any authorized officer. 

(2) Vessel operation. An SFFP 

authorizes a vessel to conduct 

operations in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. 

(3) Duration. 

(i) Length of permit effectiveness. 

NMFS issues SFFPs on a three-year 

cycle, and an SFFP is in effect from the 

effective date through the expiration 

date, as indicated on the SFFP, unless 

the SFFP is revoked, suspended, or 

modified under § 600.735 or § 600.740 

of this chapter, or surrendered in 

accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of this 

section. 

(ii) Surrendered permit. 

(A) An SFFP may be voluntarily 

surrendered in accordance with 

paragraph (a)(7) of this section. NMFS 

will not reissue a surrendered SFFP to 

the owner or authorized representative 

of a vessel named on an SFFP until after 

the expiration date of the surrendered 

SFFP as initially issued. 

(B) An owner or authorized 

representative who applied for and 

received an SFFP must notify NMFS of 

the intention to surrender the SFFP by 

submitting an SFFP application found at 

the NMFS Alaska Region website and 

indicating on the application that 

surrender of the permit is requested. 

Upon receipt and approval of an SFFP 

surrender application, NMFS will 

withdraw the SFFP from active status. 

(4) Amended permit. An owner or 

authorized representative who applied 

for and received an SFFP must notify 

NMFS of any change in the permit 

information by submitting an SFFP 

application found at the NMFS Alaska 

Region website. The owner or 

authorized representative must submit 

the application form as instructed on 

the form. Except as provided under 

paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, 

upon receipt and approval of an 

application form for permit amendment, 

NMFS will issue an amended SFFP. 

(5) SFFP application. To obtain, 

amend, renew, or surrender an SFFP, 

the vessel owner or authorized 

representative must complete an SFFP 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72335 

application form per the instructions 

from the NMFS Alaska Region website. 

The owner or authorized representative 

of the vessel must sign and date the 

application form, certifying that all 

information is true, correct, and 

complete to the best of their knowledge 

and belief. If the application form is 

completed by an authorized 

representative, proof of authorization 

must accompany the application form. 

(6) Issuance. 

(i) Except as provided in subpart D of 

15 CFR part 904, upon receipt and 

approval of a properly completed permit 

application, NMFS will issue an SFFP 

required by this section (§ 679.114(b)). 

(ii) NMFS will send an SFFP with the 

appropriate logbooks to the owner or 

authorized representative, as provided 

under § 679.115. 

(7) Transfer. An SFFP issued under 

this this section (§ 679.114(b)) is not 

transferable or assignable and is valid 

only for the vessel for which it is issued. 

(c) Salmon Federal Processor Permit 

(SFPP)— 

(1) Requirements. No salmon 

shoreside processor, as defined at 

§ 679.2, may process salmon harvested 

in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, unless the 

owner or authorized representative first 

obtains an SFPP issued under this 

subpart. A salmon shoreside processor 

may not be operated in a category other 

than as specified on the SFPP. A legible 

copy of a valid SFPP must be on site at 

the salmon shoreside processor at all 

times and must be presented for 

inspection upon the request of any 

authorized officer. 

(2) SFPP application. To obtain, 

amend, renew, or surrender an SFPP, 

the owner or authorized representative 

of the salmon shoreside processor must 

complete an SFPP application form per 

the instructions from the NMFS Alaska 

Region website. The owner or 

authorized representative of the salmon 

shoreside processor must sign and date 

the application form, certifying that all 

information is true, correct, and 

complete to the best of their knowledge 

and belief. If the application form is 

completed by an authorized 

representative, proof of authorization 

must accompany the application form. 

(3) Issuance. Except as provided in 

subpart D of 15 CFR part 904, upon 

receipt and approval of a properly 

completed permit application, NMFS 

will issue an SFFP required by this 

section (§ 679.114(c)). 

(4) Duration— 

(i) Length of effectiveness. An SFPP is 

in effect from the effective date through 

the date of permit expiration, unless it 

is revoked, suspended, or modified 

under § 600.735 or § 600.740 of this 

chapter, or surrendered in accordance 

with paragraph (a)(7) of this section. 

(ii) Surrendered permit. 

(A) An SFPP may be voluntarily 

surrendered in accordance with 

paragraph (a)(7) of this section. NMFS 

may reissue an SFPP to the person to 

whom the SFPP was initially issued in 

the same fishing year in which it was 

surrendered. 

(B) An owner or authorized 

representative who applied for and 

received an SFPP must notify NMFS of 

the intention to surrender the SFPP by 

submitting an SFPP surrender 

application form found at the NMFS 

Alaska Region website and indicating 

on the application form that surrender 

of the SFPP is requested. Upon receipt 

and approval of an SFPP surrender 

application form, NMFS will withdraw 

the SFPP from active status. 

(5) Amended permit. An owner or 

authorized representative who applied 

for and received an SFPP must notify 

NMFS of any change in the permit 

information by submitting an SFPP 

amendment application form found at 

the NMFS Alaska Region website. The 

owner or authorized representative must 

submit the application form as 

instructed on the form. Upon receipt 

and approval of an SFPP amendment 

application form, NMFS will issue an 

amended SFPP. 

(6) Transfer. An SFPP issued under 

this paragraph (c) is not transferable or 

assignable and is valid only for the 

salmon shoreside processor for which it 

is issued. 

(d) Registered Salmon Receiver Permit 

(RSRP)— 

(1) Requirements. An RSRP authorizes 

the person identified on the permit to 

receive a landing of salmon from an 

SFFP holder at any time during the 

fishing year for which it is issued until 

the RSRP expires, as indicated on the 

RSRP, or is revoked, suspended, or 

modified under § 600.735 or § 600.740 

of this chapter, or surrendered in 

accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of this 

section. An RSRP is required for any 

person, other than an SFPP holder, to 

receive salmon commercially harvested 

in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area from the 

person(s) who harvested the fish. A 

legible copy of the RSRP must be 

present at the time and location of a 

landing. The RSRP holder or their 

authorized representative must make 

the RSRP available for inspection upon 

the request of any authorized officer. 

(2) Application. To obtain, renew, or 

surrender an RSRP, the owner or 

authorized representative must 

complete an RSRP application form per 

the instructions from the NMFS Alaska 

Region website. The owner or 

authorized representative of a 

Registered Salmon Receiver must sign 

and date the application form, certifying 

that all information is true, correct, and 

complete to the best of their knowledge 

and belief. If the application form is 

completed by an authorized 

representative, proof of authorization 

must accompany the application form. 

(3) Issuance. Except as provided in 

subpart D of 15 CFR part 904, upon 

receipt and approval of a properly 

completed permit application, NMFS 

will issue an SFFP required by this 

section (§ 679.114(d)). 

(4) Duration. An RSRP is issued on an 

annual cycle defined as May through 

the end of April of the next calendar 

year, to persons who submit a 

Registered Salmon Receiver Permit 

application that NMFS approves. 

(i) An RSRP is in effect from the first 

day of May in the year for which it is 

issued or from the date of issuance, 

whichever is later, through the end of 

the current annual cycle, unless it is 

revoked, suspended, or modified under 

§ 600.735 or § 600.740 of this chapter, or 

surrendered in accordance with 

paragraph (a)(7) of this section. 

(ii) An RSRP may be voluntarily 

surrendered in accordance with 

paragraph (a)(7) of this section. An 

RSRP may be reissued to the permit 

holder of record in the same fishing year 

in which it was surrendered. 

(5) Amended permit. An owner or 

authorized representative who applied 

for and received an RSRP must notify 

NMFS of any change in the permit 

information by submitting an RSRP 

application form found at the NMFS 

Alaska Region website. The owner or 

authorized representative must submit 

the application form as instructed on 

the form. Upon receipt and approval of 

an RSRP amendment application form, 

NMFS will issue an amended RSRP. 

§ 679.115 Recordkeeping and Reporting. 

(a) General Recordkeeping and 

Reporting (R&R) requirement—R&R 

requirements include, but are not 

limited to, paper and electronic 

documentation, logbooks, forms, 

reports, and receipts. 

(1) Salmon logbooks and forms. 

(i) The Regional Administrator will 

prescribe and provide logbooks required 

under this section. All forms required 

under this section are available from the 

NMFS Alaska Region website or may be 

requested by calling the Sustainable 

Fisheries Division at 907–586–7228. 

These forms may be completed online, 

or submitted according to the 

instructions shown on the form. 

(ii) The operator must use the current 

edition of the logbooks and current 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
72336 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

format of the forms, unless they obtain 

prior written approval from NMFS to 

use logbooks from the previous year. 

Upon approval from NMFS, electronic 

versions of the forms may be used. 

(iii) Commercial salmon harvest that 

occurred in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 

must be recorded in eLandings by an 

SFPP or RSRP holder. See paragraph (b) 

of this section for more information. 

(2) Responsibility. (i) The operator of 

a vessel, the manager of a salmon 

shoreside processor (hereafter referred 

to as the manager), and a Registered 

Salmon Receiver are responsible for 

complying with applicable R&R 

requirements in this section. 

(ii) The owner of a vessel, the owner 

of a salmon shoreside processor, and the 

owner of a Registered Salmon Receiver 

are responsible for ensuring their 

employees and agents comply with 

applicable R&R requirements in this 

section. 

(3) Fish to be recorded and reported. 

The operator of a vessel or manager 

must record and report the following 

information (see paragraphs (a)(3)(i) 

through (iv) of this section) for all 

salmon, groundfish (see Table 2a to this 

part), halibut and crab, forage fish (see 

Table 2c to this part), and sculpins (see 

Table 2c to this part). The operator of a 

vessel or manager may record and report 

the following information (see 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv) of this 

section) for other species (see Table 2d 

to this part): 

(i) Harvest information from vessels; 

(ii) Receipt information from vessels, 

buying stations, and tender vessels, 

including fish received from vessels not 

required to have an SFFP or FFP, and 

fish received under contract for 

handling or processing for another 

processor; 

(iii) Discard or disposition 

information, including fish reported but 

not delivered to the operator or manager 

(e.g., fish used on board a vessel, 

retained for personal use, discarded at 

sea), when receiving catch from a vessel, 

buying station, or tender vessel; and 

(iv) Transfer information, including 

fish transferred off the vessel or out of 

the facility. 

(4) Inspection and retention of 

records— 

(i) Inspection of records. The operator 

of a vessel, a manager, and a Registered 

Salmon Receiver must make available 

for inspection R&R documentation they 

are required to retain under this section 

upon the request of an authorized 

officer; and 

(ii) Retention of records. The operator 

of a vessel, a manager, and a Registered 

Salmon Receiver must retain the R&R 

documentation they are required to 

make under this section as follows: 

(A) Retain these records on board a 

vessel, on site at the salmon shoreside 

processor or stationary floating 

processor (see § 679.2), or at the 

Registered Salmon Receiver’s place of 

business, as applicable, until the end of 

the fishing year during which the 

records were made and for as long 

thereafter as fish or fish products 

recorded in the R&R documentation are 

retained on site. 

(B) Retain these records for three 

years after the end of the fishing year 

during which the records were made. 

(5) Maintenance of records. The 

operator of a vessel, a manager, and a 

Registered Salmon Receiver must 

maintain all records described in this 

section in English and in a legible, 

timely, and accurate manner, based on 

Alaska local time (A.l.t.); if handwritten, 

in indelible ink; if computer-generated, 

as a readable file or a legible printed 

paper copy; 

(6) Custom processing. The manager 

or Registered Salmon Receiver must 

record products that result from custom 

processing for another person in 

eLandings consistently throughout a 

fishing year using one of the following 

two methods: 

(i) For combined records, record 

landings, discards or dispositions, and 

products of custom-processed salmon 

routinely in eLandings using processor 

name, any applicable RSRP number or 

SFPP number, and ADF&G processor 

code; or 

(ii) For separate records, record 

landings, discards or dispositions, and 

products of custom-processed salmon in 

eLandings identified by the name, SFPP 

number or RSRP number, and ADF&G 

processor code of the associated 

business entity. 

(7) Representative. The operator of a 

vessel, manager, and RSRP holder may 

identify one contact person to complete 

the logbook and forms and to respond 

to inquiries from NMFS. 

(b) Interagency Electronic Reporting 

System (IERS) and eLandings— 

(1) Responsibility. 

(i) An eLandings User must obtain at 

his or her own expense hardware, 

software, and internet connectivity to 

support internet submissions of 

commercial fishery landings for which 

participants report to NMFS: landing 

data, production data, and discard or 

disposition data. The User must enter 

this information via the internet by 

logging on to the eLandings system at 

http://elandings.alaska.gov or other 

NMFS-approved software or by using 

the desktop client software. 

(ii) If the User is unable to submit 

commercial fishery landings of Cook 

Inlet EEZ salmon due to hardware, 

software, or internet failure for a period 

longer than the required reporting time, 

the User must contact NMFS 

Sustainable Fisheries Division at 907– 

586–7228 for instructions. When the 

hardware, software, or internet is 

restored, the User must enter this same 

information into eLandings or other 

NMFS-approved software. 

(2) eLandings processor registration. 

(i) Before a User can use the eLandings 

system to report landings, production, 

discard, or disposition data, he or she 

must request authorization to use the 

system, reserve a unique UserID, and 

obtain a password by using the internet 

to complete the eLandings processor 

registration at https://

elandings.alaska.gov/elandings/ 

Register; 

(ii) Upon registration acceptance, the 

User must print, sign, and mail or fax 

the User Agreement Form to NMFS at 

the address or fax number shown on the 

form. Confirmation will be emailed to 

indicate that the User is registered, 

authorized to use eLandings, and that 

the UserID and User’s account are 

enabled; and 

(iii) The User’s signature on the 

registration form means that the User 

agrees to the following terms: 

(A) To use eLandings access 

privileges only for submitting legitimate 

fishery landing reports; 

(B) To safeguard the UserID and 

password to prevent their use by 

unauthorized persons; and 

(C) To ensure that the User is 

authorized to submit landing reports for 

the processor permit number(s) listed. 

(3) Information required for eLandings 

processor registration form. The User 

must enter the following information 

(see paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (ix) of 

this section) to obtain operation 

registration and UserID registration: 

(i) Select the operation type from the 

dropdown list; 

(ii) Enter a name that will refer to the 

specific operation. For example, if the 

plant is in Kodiak and the company is 

East Pacific Seafoods, the operation 

name might read ‘‘East Pacific 

Seafoods—Kodiak;’’ 

(iii) Enter ADF&G processor code; 

(iv) Enter all the Federal permits 

associated with the operation; 

(A) If a processor for Cook Inlet EEZ 

salmon, enter the SFPP number; and 

(B) If a Registered Salmon Receiver, 

enter the RSRP number; 

(v) Enter the home port code (see 

Tables 14a, 14b, and 14c to this part) for 

the operation; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72337 

(vi) If a tender operation, the operator 

must enter the ADF&G vessel 

identification number of the vessel; 

(vii) If a buying station or Registered 

Salmon Receiver operation is a vehicle, 

enter vehicle license number and the 

state of license issuance; 

(viii) If a buying station, tender vessel, 

or custom processor, enter the following 

information to identify the associated 

processor where the processing will take 

place: operation type, ADF&G processor 

code, and applicable SFPP number, and 

RSRP number; and 

(ix) Each operation requires a primary 

User. Enter the following information 

for the primary User for the new 

operation: create and enter a UserID, 

initial password, company name, User 

name (name of the person who will use 

the UserID), city and state where the 

operation is located, business telephone 

number, business fax number, business 

email address, security question, and 

security answer. 

(4) Information entered automatically 

for eLandings landing report. eLandings 

autofills the following fields from 

processor registration records (see 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section): UserID, 

processor company name, business 

telephone number, email address, port 

of landing, operation type (for catcher/ 

processors, motherships, or stationary 

floating processors), ADF&G processor 

code, and Federal permit number. The 

User must review the autofilled cells to 

ensure that they are accurate for the 

landing that is taking place. eLandings 

assigns a unique landing report number 

and an ADF&G electronic fish ticket 

number upon completion of data entry. 

(5) Registered Salmon Receiver 

landing report. The manager and a 

Registered Salmon Receiver that 

receives salmon from a vessel issued an 

SFFP under § 679.114 and that is 

required to have an SFPP or RSRP under 

§ 679.114(c) or (d) must use eLandings 

or other NMFS-approved software to 

submit a daily landing report during the 

fishing year to report processor 

identification information and the 

following information under paragraphs 

(b)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section: 

(i) Information entered for each 

salmon delivery to a salmon shoreside 

processor or Registered Salmon 

Receiver. The User for a shoreside 

processor, stationary floating processor, 

or Registered Salmon Receiver must 

enter the information specified at 

(b)(5)(i)(A) through (C) of this section for 

each salmon delivery provided by the 

operator of a vessel, the operator or 

manager of an associated buying station 

or tender vessel, and from processors for 

reprocessing or rehandling product into 

eLandings or other NMFS-approved 

software: 

(A) Delivery information—The User 

must: 

(1) For crew size, enter the number of 

licensed crew aboard the vessel, 

including the operator; 

(2) Enter the management program 

name in which harvest occurred (see 

paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section); 

(3) Enter the ADF&G salmon 

statistical area of harvest; 

(4) For date of landing, enter date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) that the delivery was 

completed; 

(5) Indicate (YES or NO) whether 

delivery is from a buying station or 

tender vessel; 

(6) If the delivery is received from a 

buying station, indicate the name of the 

buying station; 

(7) If the delivery is received from a 

tender vessel, enter the ADF&G vessel 

registration number; 

(8) If delivery is received from a 

vessel, indicate the ADF&G vessel 

registration number of the vessel; and 

(9) Mark whether the vessel logsheet 

has been received. 

(B) Catch information—The User 

must record the number and landed 

scale weight in pounds of salmon, 

including any applicable weight 

modifier such as delivery condition 

code, and disposition code of fish by 

species. 

(C) Discard or disposition 

information— 

(i) The User must record discard or 

disposition of fish: that occurred on and 

was reported by a vessel; that occurred 

on and was reported by a salmon 

shoreside processor or Registered 

Salmon Receiver; and that occurred 

prior to, during, and/or after production 

at the salmon shoreside processor. 

(ii) The User for a salmon shoreside 

processor or Registered Salmon Receiver 

must submit a landing report containing 

the information described in paragraph 

(b)(5)(i) of this section for each salmon 

delivery from a specific vessel by 1,200 

hours, A.l.t., of the day following 

completion of the delivery. If the landed 

scale weight required in paragraph 

(b)(5)(i)(B) of this section is not 

available by this deadline, the User 

must transmit an estimated weight and 

count for each species by 1,200 hours, 

A.l.t., of the day following completion 

of the delivery, and must submit a 

revised landing report with the landed 

scale weight for each species by 1,200 

hours, A.l.t., of the third day following 

completion of the delivery. 

(iii) By using eLandings, the User for 

a salmon shoreside processor or a 

Registered Salmon Receiver and the 

operator of the vessel providing 

information to the User for the salmon 

shoreside processor or Registered 

Salmon Receiver accept the 

responsibility of and acknowledge 

compliance with § 679.117(b)(5). 

(c) Logbooks— 

(1) Requirements. 

(i) All Cook Inlet EEZ Area logbook 

pages must be sequentially numbered. 

(ii) Except as described in paragraph 

(c)(1)(iii) or (iv) of this section, no 

person may alter or change any entry or 

record in a logbook; 

(iii) An inaccurate or incorrect entry 

or record in printed data must be 

corrected by lining out the original and 

inserting the correction, provided that 

the original entry or record remains 

legible. All corrections must be made in 

ink; and 

(iv) If after an electronic logsheet is 

signed, an error is found in the data, the 

operator must make any necessary 

changes to the data, sign the new 

logsheet, and export the revised file to 

NMFS. The operator must retain both 

the original and revised logsheet 

reports. 

(2) Logsheet distribution and 

submittal. The operator of a vessel must 

distribute and submit accurate copies of 

logsheets to the salmon shoreside 

processor or Registered Salmon Receiver 

and to NOAA Fisheries Office of Law 

Enforcement Alaska Region according to 

the logsheet instructions. 

(3) Salmon drift gillnet vessel daily 

fishing log. The operator of a vessel that 

is required to have an SFFP under 

§ 679.114(b), and that is using drift 

gillnet gear to harvest salmon in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area, must maintain a 

salmon drift gillnet vessel daily fishing 

log. 

(4) Reporting time limits. The operator 

of a vessel using drift gillnet gear must 

record in the daily fishing log the 

information from the following table for 

each set within the specified time limit: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
72338 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

REPORTING TIME LIMITS, CATCHER VESSEL DRIFT GILLNET GEAR

Required information Time limit for recording 

(i) SFFP number, set number, date and time gear set, date and time gear hauled, beginning 

and end positions of set, length of net deployed, total number of salmon, marine mammal 

interaction code, and estimated hail weight of groundfish for each set.

Within 2 hours after completion of gear retrieval. 

(ii) Discard and disposition information ........................................................................................... Prior to landing. 

(iii) Submit an accurate copy of the groundfish discards reported on the daily fishing log to 

shoreside processor or Registered Salmon Receiver receiving catch.

At the time of catch delivery. 

(iv) All other required information .................................................................................................... At the time of catch delivery. 

(v) Operator sign the completed logsheets ..................................................................................... At the time of catch delivery. 

§ 679.116 [Reserved] 

§ 679.117 Salmon Fisheries Prohibitions. 

In addition to the general prohibitions 

specified in § 600.725 of this chapter 

and § 679.7, it is unlawful for any 

person to do any of the following: 

(a) The East Area and the West Area. 

(1) Engage in commercial fishing for 

salmon using any gear except troll gear, 

defined at § 679.2, in the East Area of 

the Salmon Management Area, defined 

at § 679.2 and Figure 23 to this part. 

(2) Engage in commercial fishing for 

salmon in the West Area of the Salmon 

Management Area, defined at § 679.2 

and Figure 23 to this part. 

(b) Cook Inlet EEZ Area. 

(1) Commercial fishery participants. 

(i) Engage in commercial fishing for 

salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area with 

a vessel of the United States that does 

not have on board a legible copy of a 

valid SFFP issued to the vessel under 

§ 679.114; 

(ii) Engage in commercial fishing for 

salmon using any gear except drift 

gillnet gear, described at § 679.118, in 

the Cook Inlet EEZ Area of the Salmon 

Management Area, defined at § 679.2 

and Figure 22 to this part; 

(iii) Have on board, retrieve, or deploy 

any gear, except a drift gillnet legally 

configured for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 

commercial salmon fishery while 

commercial fishing for salmon in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area; 

(iv) Deploy more than one drift gillnet 

while commercial fishing for salmon in 

the Cook Inlet EEZ Area; 

(v) Set drift gillnet gear within, or 

allow any portion of drift gillnet gear to 

enter, Alaska State waters on the same 

calendar day that drift gillnet gear is 

also deployed in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area while commercial fishing for 

salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area; 

(vi) Deploy drift gillnet gear in excess 

of the allowable configuration for total 

length and mesh size specified at 

§ 679.118(f) while commercial fishing 

for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area; 

(vii) Use a vessel named, or required 

to be named, on an SFFP to fish for 

salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area if 

that vessel fishes for salmon in Alaska 

State waters on the same calendar day; 

(viii) Possess salmon, harvested in 

Alaska State waters, on board a vessel 

commercial fishing for salmon in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area; 

(ix) Have salmon on board a vessel at 

the time a fishing trip commences in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area; 

(x) Conduct recreational fishing for 

salmon, or have recreational or 

subsistence salmon on board, while 

commercial fishing for salmon in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area; 

(xi) Use or employ aircraft (manned or 

unmanned) to locate salmon or to direct 

commercial fishing while commercial 

fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area one hour before, during, and one 

hour after a commercial salmon fishing 

period; 

(xii) Land salmon harvested in Alaska 

State waters concurrently with salmon 

harvested commercially in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area; 

(xiii) Land or transfer salmon 

harvested while commercial fishing for 

salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, 

within the EEZ off Alaska; 

(xiv) Operate a vessel named, or 

required to be named, on an SFFP to 

commercially fish for salmon in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area without a 

functioning VMS as described in 

§ 679.28(f). 

(xv) Discard any salmon harvested 

while commercial fishing for salmon in 

the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. 

(2) Recreational fishery participants. 

(i) Engage in recreational fishing for 

salmon using any gear except for 

handline, rod and reel, or hook and line 

gear, defined at § 600.10, in the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area of the Salmon 

Management Area, defined at § 679.2 

and Figure 22 to this part; 

(ii) Use more than a single line, with 

more than two hooks attached, per 

angler; 

(iii) No person shall possess on board 

a vessel, including charter vessels and 

pleasure craft used for fishing, salmon 

that have been filleted, mutilated, or 

otherwise disfigured in any manner, 

except that each salmon may be cut into 

no more than 2 pieces with a patch of 

skin on each piece, naturally attached. 

One piece from one salmon on board 

may be consumed. 

(iv) Exceed the daily bag limits and 

possession limits established under 

§ 679.119. 

(3) Processors and Registered Salmon 

Receivers. 

(i) Receive, purchase or arrange for 

purchase, discard, or process salmon 

harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 

without having on site a legible copy of 

a valid SFPP or valid RSRP issued 

under § 679.114; 

(ii) Process or receive salmon 

harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 

without submitting a timely and 

complete landing report as required 

under § 679.115; 

(iii) Process salmon harvested in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area in the EEZ off 

Alaska; and 

(iv) Receive or transport salmon 

caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 

without an SFPP or RSRP issued under 

§ 679.114. 

(4) Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(i) Fail to comply with or fail to 

ensure compliance with requirements in 

§§ 679.114 or 679.115. 

(ii) Alter or forge any permit or 

document issued under §§ 679.114 or 

679.115; 

(iii) Fail to submit or submit 

inaccurate information on any report, 

application, or statement required under 

this part; and 

(iv) Intentionally submit false 

information on any report, application, 

or statement required under this part. 

(5) Fail to comply with any other 

requirement or restriction specified in 

this part or violate any provision under 

this part. 

§ 679.118 Management Measures. 

This section applies to vessels 

engaged in commercial fishing and 

recreational fishing for salmon in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area. 

(a) Harvest limits—(1) TAC. NMFS, 

after consultation with the Council, will 

specify the annual TAC amounts for 

commercial fishing for each salmon 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72339 

stock or species after accounting for 

projected recreational fishing removals. 

(2) Annual TAC determination. The 

annual determinations of TAC for each 

salmon species or stock may be based 

on a review of the following: 

(i) Resource assessment documents 

prepared regularly for the Council that 

provide information on historical catch 

trends; updated estimates of the MSY of 

the salmon stocks or stock complexes; 

assessments of the stock condition of 

each salmon stock or stock complex; 

SSC recommendations on reference 

points established for salmon stocks; 

management uncertainty; assessments of 

the multispecies and ecosystem impacts 

of harvesting the salmon stocks at 

current levels, given the assessed 

condition of stocks, including 

consideration of rebuilding depressed 

stocks; and alternative harvesting 

strategies and related effects on the 

salmon species; 

(ii) Social and economic 

considerations that are consistent with 

Salmon FMP goals for the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Area, including the need to 

promote efficiency in the utilization of 

fishery resources, including minimizing 

costs; the desire to conserve, protect, 

and rebuild depleted salmon stocks; the 

importance of a salmon fishery to 

harvesters, processors, local 

communities, and other salmon users in 

Cook Inlet; and the need to promote 

utilization of certain species. 

(b) Annual specifications— 

(1) Proposed specifications. 

(i) As soon as practicable after 

consultation with the Council, NMFS 

will publish proposed specifications for 

the salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area; and 

(ii) NMFS will accept public comment 

on the proposed specifications 

established by this section for a period 

specified in the notice of proposed 

specifications published in the Federal 

Register. 

(2) Final specifications. NMFS will 

consider comments received on the 

proposed specifications and will 

publish a notice of final specifications 

in the Federal Register unless NMFS 

determines that the final specifications 

would not be a logical outgrowth of the 

notice of proposed specifications. If the 

final specifications would not be a 

logical outgrowth of the notice of 

proposed specifications, NMFS will 

either: 

(i) Publish a revised notice of 

proposed specifications in the Federal 

Register for public comment, and after 

considering comments received on the 

revised proposed specifications, publish 

a notice of final specifications in the 

Federal Register; or 

(ii) Publish a notice of final 

specifications in the Federal Register 

without an additional opportunity for 

public comment based on a finding that 

good cause pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedure Act justifies 

waiver of the requirement for a revised 

notice of proposed specifications and 

opportunity for public comment 

thereon. 

(c) Management Authority— 

(1) Fishery closures. (i) For 

commercial fishing, if NMFS determines 

that any salmon TAC for commercial 

fishing as specified under paragraph (b) 

of this section has been or may be 

reached for any salmon species or stock, 

NMFS will publish notification in the 

Federal Register prohibiting 

commercial fishing for salmon in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area. 

(ii) For recreational fishing, if NMFS 

determines that any salmon ABC as 

specified under paragraph (b) of this 

section has been or may be reached, 

NMFS will publish notification in the 

Federal Register prohibiting retention 

for that salmon species when 

recreational fishing in the Cook Inlet 

EEZ Area. 

(d) Commercial Fishery maximum 

retainable amounts (MRA)— 

(1) Proportion of basis species. The 

MRA of an incidental catch species is 

calculated as a proportion of the basis 

species retained on board the vessel 

using the retainable percentages in 

Table 10 to this part for the GOA species 

categories. 

(2) Calculation. (i) To calculate the 

MRA for a specific incidental catch 

species, an individual retainable 

amount must be calculated with respect 

to each basis species that is retained on 

board that vessel. 

(ii) To obtain these individual 

retainable amounts, multiply the 

appropriate retainable percentage for the 

incidental catch species/basis species 

combination, set forth in Table 10 to 

this part for the GOA species categories, 

by the amount of the relevant basis 

species on board, in round-weight 

equivalents. 

(iii) The MRA for that specific 

incidental catch species is the sum of 

the individual retainable amounts for 

each basis species. 

(e) Seasons— 

(1) Fishing Season. Directed fishing 

for salmon using drift gillnet gear in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area may be conducted 

from 0700 hours, A.l.t., from the third 

Monday in June or June 19, whichever 

is later, through 1900 hours, A.l.t., 

August 15. 

(2) Fishing Periods. Notwithstanding 

other provisions of this part, fishing for 

salmon with drift gillnet gear in the 

Cook Inlet EEZ Area is authorized 

during the fishing season only from 

0700 hours, A.l.t., until 1900 hours, 

A.l.t., Mondays and from 0700 hours, 

A.l.t., until 1900 hours, A.l.t., 

Thursdays. Fishing for salmon using 

drift gillnet gear at times other than 

during the specified fishing periods is 

not authorized. 

(f) Legal gear— 

(1) Size. Drift gillnet gear must be no 

longer than 200 fathoms (1.1 kilometer) 

in length, 45 meshes deep, and have a 

mesh size of no greater than 6 inches 

(15.24 cm). 

(2) Marking. Drift gillnet gear must be 

marked at both ends with buoys that 

legibly display the vessel’s SFFP 

number. 

(3) Floating. The float line and floats 

of gillnets must be floating on the 

surface of the water while the net is 

fishing, unless natural conditions cause 

the net to temporarily sink. Staking or 

otherwise fixing a drift gillnet to the 

seafloor is not authorized. 

(4) Measurement. For purposes of 

paragraph (f)(1), nets must be measured, 

either wet or dry, by determining the 

maximum or minimum distance 

between the first and last hanging of the 

net when the net is fully extended with 

traction applied at one end only. 

§ 679.119 Recreational Salmon Fisheries. 

(a) Daily bag limits and possession 

limits—For each person recreational 

fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area, the following daily bag and 

possession limits apply: 

(1) Chinook salmon. From April 1 to 

August 31, the daily bag limit is one 

Chinook salmon of any size and the 

possession limit is one daily bag limit 

(one Chinook salmon). From September 

1 to March 31, the daily bag limit is two 

Chinook salmon of any size and the 

possession limit is one daily bag limit 

(two Chinook salmon). 

(2) Coho salmon, sockeye salmon, 

pink salmon, and chum salmon. For 

coho salmon, sockeye salmon, pink 

salmon, and chum salmon, the daily bag 

limit is a total of six fish combined, of 

any size, of which a maximum of three 

may be coho salmon. The possession 

limit for coho salmon, sockeye salmon, 

pink salmon, and chum salmon is one 

daily bag limit (six fish total). 

(3) Combination of bag/possession 

limits. A person who fishes for or 

possesses salmon in or from the Cook 

Inlet EEZ Area, specified in paragraph 

(a) of this section, may not combine 

such bag or possession limits with any 

bag or possession limit applicable to 

Alaska State waters. 

(4) Responsibility for bag/possession 

limits. The operator of a vessel that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
72340 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

fishes for or possesses salmon in or from 

the Cook Inlet EEZ Area is responsible 

for the cumulative bag or possession 

limit specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section that apply to that vessel, based 

on the number of persons aboard. 

(5) Transfer at sea. A person who 

fishes for or possesses salmon in or from 

the Cook Inlet EEZ Area under a bag or 

possession limit specified in paragraph 

(a) of this section may not transfer a 

salmon at sea from a fishing vessel to 

any other vessel, and no person may 

receive at sea such salmon. 

(b) Careful release—Any salmon 

brought aboard a vessel and not 

immediately returned to the sea with a 

minimum of injury will be included in 

the daily bag limit of the person 

catching the salmon. 

■ 11. Add figure 22 to part 679 to read 

as follows: 

Figure 22 to Part 679—Cook Inlet EEZ 

Area (see § 679.2). 

■ 12. Amend table 15 to part 679 by: 

■ a. Adding in alphabetical order the 

entry ‘‘Gillnet, drift’’ under the heading 

‘‘NMFS AND ADF&G GEAR CODES’’; 

and 

■ b. Removing the entry ‘‘Gillnet, drift’’ 

under the heading ‘‘ADF&G GEAR 

CODES’’. 

The addition reads as follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19OC23.012</GPH>

Cook Inlet EEZ Area 

•Alaska 

:. :• EEZ Boundary 

f?A Cook Inlet EEZ Area 

30 ., S:··-··~ ~- .. 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72341 

TABLE 15 TO PART 679—GEAR CODES, DESCRIPTIONS, AND USE

NMFS and ADF&G Gear Codes 

*******

Gillnet, drift ............................................. ............................................................... 03 X X 

*******

[FR Doc. 2023–22747 Filed 10–18–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3