71350 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 130710606–4972–02] 

RIN 0648–BD48 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Chinook Salmon 

Bycatch Management in the Gulf of 

Alaska Non-Pollock Trawl Fisheries; 

Amendment 97 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS adopts a final rule to 

implement Amendment 97 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). 

Amendment 97 limits Chinook salmon 

prohibited species catch (PSC) in 

Western and Central Gulf of Alaska 

(GOA) non-pollock trawl catcher/

processor (C/P) and catcher vessel (CV) 

fisheries. This action establishes 

separate annual Chinook salmon PSC 

limits for three sectors fishing for 

groundfish species other than pollock: 

trawl C/Ps, trawl CVs participating in 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program, and 

trawl CVs not participating in the 

Central GOA Rockfish Program. If a 

sector reaches its Chinook salmon PSC 

limit, NMFS will prohibit further 

fishing for non-pollock groundfish by 

vessels in that sector. This action also 

establishes and clarifies Chinook 

salmon retention and discard 

requirements for vessels and processors 

participating in both the GOA pollock 

and non-pollock groundfish trawl 

fisheries. This action is necessary to 

minimize the catch of Chinook salmon 

to the extent practicable in the GOA 

non-pollock trawl fisheries. Amendment 

97 is intended to promote the goals and 

objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, 

and other applicable laws. 

DATES: Effective January 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the 

Environmental Assessment/Regulatory 

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA or 

Analysis) prepared for this action may 

be obtained from http://

www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska 

Region Web site at https://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/cm/analyses/. 

An electronic copy of the Biological 

Opinion on the effects of the Alaska 

groundfish fisheries on Endangered 

Species Act (ESA)-listed species is 

available at http://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/

protectedresources/stellers/plb/

default.htm. 

An electronic copy of the proposed 

rule (79 FR 35971, June 25, 2014) may 

be obtained from http://

www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska 

Region Web site at https://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/regs/

summary.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hartman, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fisheries in the 

U.S. exclusive economic zone of the 

GOA under the FMP. The North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

prepared, and NMFS approved, the FMP 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and 

implementing the FMP appear at 50 

CFR parts 600 and 679. 

NMFS published the Notice of 

Availability for Amendment 97 in the 

Federal Register on June 5, 2014 (79 FR 

32525), with a 60-day comment period 

that ended on August 4, 2014. The 

Secretary of Commerce approved 

Amendment 97 on September 3, 2014, 

after taking into account public 

comments received on Amendment 97 

and the proposed rule that would 

implement Amendment 97, and 

determining that Amendment 97 is 

consistent with the national standards 

in section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, other provisions of the MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable laws. 

NMFS published a proposed rule to 

implement Amendment 97 on June 25, 

2014 (79 FR 35971). The 30-day 

comment period on the proposed rule 

ended July 25, 2014. A brief summary 

of this action is provided in the 

following paragraphs. A detailed 

description of this action is provided in 

the preamble to the proposed rule and 

is not repeated here. 

Background 

This final rule implements 

Amendment 97 to the FMP. Under this 

rule, NMFS establishes separate annual 

Chinook salmon PSC limits for trawl 

catcher/processors (Trawl C/P Sector), 

trawl CVs participating in the Central 

GOA Rockfish Program (Rockfish 

Program CV Sector), and trawl CVs not 

participating in the Central GOA 

Rockfish Program (Non-Rockfish 

Program CV Sector). These Chinook 

salmon PSC limits will apply to these 

three sectors when they are directed 

fishing for groundfish species other than 

pollock in the Western and Central 

Regulatory Areas of the GOA. Existing 

regulations at § 679.2 define the term 

‘‘directed fishing.’’ If a sector reaches its 

Chinook salmon PSC limit, NMFS will 

prohibit further directed fishing for nonpollock groundfish by vessels in that 

sector. This action also establishes and 

clarifies Chinook salmon retention and 

discard requirements for vessels, 

shoreside processors, and stationary 

floating processors (SFPs) participating 

in both the GOA pollock and nonpollock groundfish trawl fisheries. In 

the preamble to the proposed rule, 

NMFS provided a detailed review of 

Amendment 97 and its implementing 

regulations (79 FR 35971, June 25, 

2014). The key components of 

Amendment 97 and its implementing 

regulations are briefly described in this 

preamble. 

The Council and NMFS have adopted 

various measures intended to control 

the catch of species taken incidentally 

in groundfish fisheries. Certain species 

are designated as ‘‘prohibited species’’ 

in the FMP because they are the target 

of other, fully utilized domestic 

fisheries. The prohibited species 

include Pacific halibut, Pacific herring, 

Pacific salmon, steelhead trout, king 

crab, and Tanner crab. The FMP and 

regulations at § 679.21 require that catch 

of prohibited species, more commonly 

known as prohibited species catch, or 

PSC, must be minimized to the extent 

practicable while fishing for groundfish; 

and, when incidentally caught, these 

prohibited species must be immediately 

returned to the sea with a minimum of 

injury. 

PSC must be either (1) not sold or 

kept for personal use and discarded (see 

regulations at § 679.21), or (2) retained 

but not sold under the Prohibited 

Species Donation (PSD) Program (see 

regulations at § 679.26). In an effort to 

minimize waste of salmon incidentally 

caught and killed, NMFS established the 

PSD Program for the donation of 

incidentally caught salmon. The PSD 

Program reduces the amount of edible 

protein discarded under PSC regulatory 

requirements (see regulations at 

§ 679.21). The PSD Program allows 

permitted participants to retain salmon 

for distribution to economically 

disadvantaged individuals through taxexempt hunger relief organizations. 

One of the prohibited species of great 

concern to the Council and NMFS is 

Chinook salmon. Chinook salmon is a 

prohibited species in the groundfish 

fisheries because of its value in salmon 

fisheries. Chinook salmon is a culturally 

and economically valuable species that 

is fully allocated and for which State 

and Federal managers seek to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71351 

conservatively manage harvests. The 

scarcity of Chinook salmon in some 

regions of the Pacific Northwest, 

including Washington, Oregon, and 

Idaho, has led to an endangered or 

threatened listing for a number of stocks 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). Small amounts of a few ESAlisted Chinook salmon are caught in 

GOA non-pollock trawl fisheries. The 

November 30, 2000, Biological Opinion 

on the effects of the Alaska groundfish 

fisheries on ESA-listed salmon of the 

Pacific Northwest established an 

incidental take statement (ITS) for an 

annual threshold amount of 40,000 

Chinook salmon for the GOA groundfish 

fisheries. Exceeding the ITS for Chinook 

salmon triggers reinitiation of section 7 

consultation under the ESA (see Section 

3 of the Analysis) (see ADDRESSES). 

The Council and NMFS have 

established a range of management 

measures to constrain the impact of 

groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(BSAI) and the GOA on Chinook 

salmon. These management measures 

are intended to minimize Chinook 

salmon bycatch to the extent 

practicable. Section 1.5 of the Analysis 

summarizes the measures implemented 

in the GOA groundfish fisheries. 

After reviewing the information in the 

Analysis and after consideration of 

public comment during the 

development of Amendment 97, the 

Council and NMFS developed three 

goals for this action (see Section 1 of the 

Analysis). The first goal is to avoid 

exceeding the annual Chinook salmon 

threshold of 40,000 Chinook salmon 

identified in the ITS. The second goal is 

to minimize Chinook salmon bycatch to 

the extent practicable, consistent with 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National 

Standard 9. The third goal is to increase 

the amount of Chinook salmon stock of 

origin information available to NMFS 

and the Council. 

Regulations Implemented by This 

Action 

This action amends regulations at 

§§ 679.7 and 679.21 to implement 

Chinook salmon PSC limits in the 

Western and Central GOA non-pollock 

groundfish trawl fisheries and meet the 

three goals of this action. Specifically, 

this action (1) establishes annual 

Chinook salmon PSC limits for the 

Trawl C/P, Rockfish Program CV, and 

Non-Rockfish Program CV Sectors; (2) 

establishes an ‘‘incentive buffer’’ that 

allows the annual Chinook salmon PSC 

limit for the Trawl C/P and NonRockfish Program CV Sectors to vary 

depending on the amount of Chinook 

salmon PSC taken by those sectors in 

the previous year; (3) establishes a 

seasonal limit on the amount of Chinook 

salmon PSC that can be taken in the 

Trawl C/P Sector prior to June 1 of each 

year; (4) allows the reallocation of 

unused Chinook salmon PSC from the 

Rockfish Program CV Sector to the NonRockfish Program CV Sector on October 

1 and November 15 of each year; and (5) 

establishes salmon retention 

requirements to improve the collection 

of biological samples that could aid in 

the determination of stock of origin of 

Chinook salmon PSC in the non-pollock 

trawl fisheries. 

Of particular importance is the fact 

that this rule implements a long-term 

average annual Chinook salmon PSC 

limit of 7,500 Chinook salmon to nonpollock trawl fisheries in the Western 

and Central GOA. This rule does this by 

establishing separate, sector-level 

Chinook salmon PSC limits for GOA 

non-pollock Trawl C/Ps, Rockfish 

Program CVs, and Non-Rockfish 

Program CVs. A description of and 

rationale for these regulatory provisions 

is provided in the preamble to the 

proposed rule and is not repeated here 

(79 FR 35971, June 25, 2014). 

Implementation 

During the first year of 

implementation, (i.e., 2015), this rule 

establishes an annual Chinook salmon 

PSC limit of 3,600 Chinook salmon for 

the Trawl C/P Sector, 1,200 Chinook 

salmon for the Rockfish Program CV 

Sector, and 2,700 Chinook salmon for 

the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. 

The total Chinook salmon PSC limit in 

the first year of implementation for all 

three sectors is 7,500 Chinook salmon. 

If a sector reaches or is projected to 

reach its Chinook salmon PSC limit, 

NMFS will close directed fishing for all 

non-pollock groundfish species by 

vessels in that sector for the remainder 

of the calendar year. Each sector is 

subject to its own annual Chinook 

salmon PSC limit, and NMFS will 

manage each sector separately. 

Beginning in 2016 and for each 

subsequent year, NMFS will publish the 

annual Chinook salmon PSC limits for 

the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector 

and Trawl C/P Sector in the proposed 

groundfish harvest specifications for the 

GOA after determining the amounts of 

Chinook salmon PSC used and whether 

the incentive buffer applies. Under the 

incentive buffer, if either Sector uses 

less than or equal to its proportional 

share of 6,500 Chinook salmon in one 

year, it will be able to access its base 

Chinook salmon PSC limit plus its 

proportional share of 1,000 additional 

Chinook salmon in the following year. 

The incentive buffer does not apply to 

the Chinook salmon PSC limit of 1,200 

salmon for the Rockfish Program CV 

Sector for reasons described in the 

preamble to the proposed rule that are 

not repeated here (79 FR 35971, June 25, 

2014). 

To illustrate the implementation of 

the incentive buffer, the base Chinook 

salmon PSC limit for the Trawl C/P 

Sector is 3,600 (48 percent of the 

average annual Chinook salmon PSC 

limit of 7,500), and this limit will be 

available to the Trawl C/P Sector during 

the first year of implementation of 

Amendment 97. If, during the first year, 

the Trawl C/P Sector is able to maintain 

its use of Chinook salmon PSC to no 

more than 3,120 salmon (48 percent of 

6,500 Chinook salmon), the incentive 

buffer will apply to the sector in the 

following year. In the following year, 

the Trawl C/P Sector will receive a 

Chinook salmon PSC limit of 4,080 

Chinook salmon, which represents the 

sum of the sector’s base PSC limit 

(3,600) and its proportional share (48 

percent) of 1,000 Chinook salmon (480). 

If, during the first year, the Trawl C/P 

Sector’s Chinook salmon use exceeds 

3,120 Chinook salmon, then the 

incentive buffer will not apply to the 

sector and its Chinook salmon PSC limit 

in the following year will be set at its 

base PSC limit of 3,600 Chinook salmon. 

Similarly, the proposed base PSC 

limit for the Non-Rockfish Program CV 

Sector is 2,700 (36 percent of the 

proposed Chinook salmon limit of 

7,500) and this limit will be available to 

the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector 

during the first year of implementation. 

If, during the first year, the NonRockfish Program CV Sector is able to 

maintain its use of Chinook salmon PSC 

to no more than 2,340 salmon (36 

percent of 6,500 Chinook salmon), the 

incentive buffer will apply to the sector 

in the following year. In the following 

year, the Non-Rockfish Program CV 

Sector will receive a Chinook salmon 

PSC limit of 3,060 salmon, which 

represents the sum of the sector’s base 

PSC limit (2,700) and its proportional 

share (36 percent) of 1,000 Chinook 

salmon (360). If, during the first year, 

the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector’s 

Chinook salmon use exceeds 2,340 

Chinook salmon, then the incentive 

buffer will not apply to the sector and 

its Chinook salmon PSC limit in the 

following year will be set at its base PSC 

limit of 2,700 Chinook salmon. 

Additional detail on implementation of 

this rule and the specific Chinook 

salmon PSC limit applicable to each 

sector is provided in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (79 FR 35971, June 25, 

2014). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71352 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

This section explains the four 

editorial changes in the regulatory text 

from the proposed rule to the final rule. 

The changes make minor technical 

clarifications in the regulatory text. Each 

of these revisions are made to be 

consistent with the uses of each of these 

terms in the regulatory text and do not 

change the intent of the rule. 

The first change revises the proposed 

regulatory text at § 679.21(i)(3)(i) by 

replacing the phrase ‘‘Central and 

Western’’ with ‘‘Western and Central.’’ 

This change mirrors the order in which 

these regulatory areas are referenced in 

other paragraphs in § 679.21(i). The 

second change adds the word ‘‘limit’’ 

and ‘‘PSC’’ to § 679.21(i)(3)(ii)(B); the 

third change adds the word ‘‘limit’’ to 

§ 679.21(i)(4) and to § 679.21(i)(7)(ii); 

and the fourth change adds the word 

‘‘salmon’’ to § 679.21(i)(4)(i) and 

(i)(4)(ii). These changes provide greater 

clarity to the regulations through a 

consistent use of terms. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received five comment letters 

on Amendment 97 and the proposed 

rule—three letters from conservation 

organizations and two letters from 

fishing industry representatives 

associated with GOA trawl fisheries. 

These letters included a total of 16 

relevant comments on Amendment 97 

and the proposed rule. A summary of 

the relevant comments, grouped by 

subject matter, and NMFS’ responses, 

follows. 

Comment 1: Three commenters stated 

that Chinook salmon PSC limits are 

necessary in these fisheries, the 

amounts selected are appropriate, and 

they generally support the action. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment and agrees that the Chinook 

salmon PSC limits implemented under 

Amendment 97 are necessary and 

appropriate conservation and 

management measures. 

Comment 2: One commenter 

recommended that the final rule be 

implemented as described in the 

proposed rule, but also identified the 

need to revisit Chinook salmon PSC 

limits that are more restrictive than the 

aggregate Chinook salmon PSC limit of 

7,500 salmon. 

Response: Based on a review of past 

fishery performance provided in 

Sections 4.7 and 4.9 of the Analysis, a 

Chinook salmon PSC limit of less than 

7,500 salmon would result in 

considerable amounts of foregone 

harvest in the non-pollock trawl 

fisheries, and relatively high costs (in 

terms of foregone revenue) per salmon 

saved. In selecting the long-term average 

annual Chinook salmon PSC limit of 

7,500 salmon, the Council and NMFS 

considered a range of alternative 

Chinook salmon PSC limits, and 

selected the alternative that minimizes 

Chinook salmon PSC to the extent 

practicable. The Council and NMFS 

considered the management measures 

currently available to the GOA 

groundfish fleet, existing fishing 

patterns, the uncertainty about the 

extent to which the use of Chinook 

salmon PSC in the groundfish fisheries 

has an adverse effect on the Chinook 

salmon resource, the need to ensure that 

catch in the trawl fisheries contributes 

to the achievement of optimum yield in 

the groundfish fisheries, and the 

economic consequences of this action 

on Chinook salmon target fisheries and 

groundfish fisheries. 

The Council reviews the status of 

Chinook salmon PSC on an annual 

basis, at a minimum. In addition, the 

Council and NMFS regularly receive 

information on the status of Chinook 

salmon stocks. The Council and NMFS 

will continue to review data on Chinook 

salmon PSC in the GOA and BSAI 

groundfish fisheries and the status of 

Chinook salmon stocks. This action 

does not preclude the Council and 

NMFS from considering new 

information and implementing revisions 

to Chinook salmon PSC limits to 

minimize Chinook salmon PSC in future 

years as necessary and appropriate. 

Comment 3: One commenter noted 

that in the preamble to the proposed 

rule NMFS stated that harvests of nonpollock groundfish by trawl C/Ps in the 

Western and Central GOA are governed 

primarily by two management programs, 

the Amendment 80 Program and the 

Central GOA Rockfish Program. The 

commenter believed that this statement 

implies that trawl C/P fisheries in the 

GOA are managed under the cooperative 

management system implemented under 

the Amendment 80 Program. The 

commenter noted that trawl C/Ps 

operating in the GOA are subject to 

specific constraints, commonly known 

as sideboard limits, implemented by the 

Amendment 80 Program, but not under 

the cooperative management provisions 

implemented for the BSAI as part of the 

Amendment 80 Program. The 

commenter requested that NMFS clarify 

that trawl C/Ps operating in the GOA are 

impacted by sideboard limits 

established under the Amendment 80 

Program, but are not directly managed 

by the cooperative provisions of the 

Amendment 80 Program that apply in 

the BSAI. 

Response: In the proposed rule, 

NMFS provided extensive descriptions 

of how sideboard limits apply in GOA 

trawl fisheries for participants subject to 

the Amendment 80 Program, the 

American Fisheries Act (AFA), and the 

Rockfish Program. These descriptions 

are provided on pages 35973, 35974, 

35975, and 35978 of the proposed rule. 

NMFS agrees that the sideboard limits 

in the GOA implemented by the 

Amendment 80 Program are but one of 

several management measures 

applicable to trawl C/Ps in the Western 

and Central GOA groundfish fisheries. 

NMFS also agrees that the trawl C/Ps 

operating in the GOA are not operating 

under the cooperative management 

provisions established by the 

Amendment 80 Program for groundfish 

fishing in the BSAI. While NMFS did 

not intend to imply that trawl C/P 

fisheries in the GOA are managed under 

the cooperative management system 

implemented under the Amendment 80 

Program, NMFS intended to convey the 

point that in practice, many of the trawl 

C/Ps in the Western and Central GOA 

can or do operate in a coordinated 

manner similar to their operations in the 

BSAI. This response and the 

information in the Analysis correctly 

clarify the role of Amendment 80 and 

AFA sideboards in the GOA trawl 

fisheries, and the potential for 

coordination of activities in the GOA for 

vessels that also operate under the 

authority of the Amendment 80 Program 

in the BSAI. 

Comment 4: Two commenters stated 

that there were several errors in the 

preamble to the proposed rule. These 

errors are: 

(1) Page 35972 of the preamble states 

that ‘‘The FMP and regulations at 

§ 679.21 require that catch of prohibited 

species must be avoided while fishing 

for groundfish . . .’’ The commenter 

states that, in fact, both the FMP 

(Section 2.1) and the regulations 

(§ 679.21(b)(2)(i)) state that prohibited 

species catch must be ‘‘minimized.’’ 

(2) Page 35973 of the preamble states 

that there is no directed Pacific cod 

fishery by trawl C/Ps in the GOA. The 

commenter suggests that while the 

amount of the Pacific cod allocation 

available to the Trawl C/P Sector is 

small, a small allocation does not 

preclude a Pacific cod directed fishery. 

(3) Page 35974 of the preamble 

provides a list of Central GOA flatfish 

fisheries in which trawl CVs participate. 

The commenter states that this list is 

incomplete, and should include rex sole 

and deep-water flatfish. The commenter 

explains that trawl CVs retain a 

substantial proportion of the total 

retained catch of rex sole and deepwater flatfish. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71353 

(4) Page 35974 of the preamble 

incorrectly references specific 

groundfish species that are allocated to 

the CV sector under the Central GOA 

Rockfish Program. The commenter 

states that rougheye rockfish is not 

allocated to the Rockfish Program CV 

Sector and should not be listed, but 

thornyhead rockfish is allocated to the 

Rockfish Program CV Sector and should 

be listed. 

(5) Page 35974 of the preamble 

incorrectly states that under the Central 

GOA Rockfish Program, directed 

rockfish fishing is permitted from May 

1 to December 31. Directed rockfish 

fishing is permitted from May 1 to 

November 15. 

(6) Page 35985 of the preamble 

incorrectly references the ‘‘Alaska PSD 

Program’’ as the ‘‘Alaska PSC Program.’’ 

Response: Each of these comments is 

addressed in order. 

(1) While the commenter is correct 

that regulations at § 679.21(b)(2)(i) state 

that prohibited species catch must be 

‘‘minimized to the extent practicable,’’ 

other regulations within § 679.21 state 

that Chinook salmon PSC should be 

avoided. For example, 

§ 679.21(f)(12)(ii)(B)(3)(i) requires 

approval of an Incentive Plan 

Agreement ‘‘to avoid Chinook salmon 

bycatch under any condition of pollock 

and Chinook salmon abundance in all 

years.’’ The Executive Summary of the 

Analysis and section 3.3.8 highlight that 

the Council’s intent for Amendment 97 

is to provide incentives for Trawl CV 

and C/P sectors to avoid Chinook 

salmon PSC. This is because the 

primary method currently available for 

vessels to minimize Chinook salmon 

PSC is to avoid catching these species 

where possible. Amendment 97 is 

structured to be consistent with 

National Standard 9, which provides 

that ‘‘. . . measures shall, to the extent 

practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and 

(B) to the extent bycatch cannot be 

avoided, minimize the mortality of such 

bycatch.’’ Additionally, the regulatory 

guidelines for National Standard 9 at 50 

CFR 600.350(d) state that: ‘‘The priority 

under this standard is first to avoid 

catching bycatch species where 

practicable.’’ 

(2) One commenter wrote that the 

preamble to the proposed rule states 

‘‘Trawl C/Ps do not fish for Pacific cod 

in the Central or Western GOA.’’ NMFS 

has opened Pacific cod directed 

fisheries for the Trawl C/P Sector in the 

Central GOA A and B seasons only a 

few times and for a limited duration of 

time since 2012. Typically, NMFS 

prohibits directed fishing for Pacific cod 

in the Central and Western GOA by the 

Trawl C/P Sector due to the small 

amount of Pacific cod available for 

harvest by the Trawl C/P Sector and the 

high potential for fishing effort by trawl 

C/Ps. While the commenter is generally 

correct that small allocations do not 

always preclude directed fishing and 

that NMFS may permit the Trawl C/P 

Sector to conduct a directed fishery for 

Pacific cod in the future, it is unlikely 

that the number of GOA Pacific cod 

directed fishery openings will increase 

in future years given the sector’s small 

Pacific cod harvest limits and the 

potential for substantial fishing effort 

within the Trawl C/P Sector. 

(3) The preamble to the proposed rule 

states that ‘‘Trawl CVs primarily fish for 

Pacific cod in the Central and Western 

GOA.’’ The preamble also lists other 

major fisheries that CVs participate in, 

but this list was not intended to list 

every directed Trawl CV Sector fishery 

in the GOA. NMFS agrees that rex sole 

and deep-water flatfish are caught and 

retained by trawl CVs. 

(4) NMFS agrees that rougheye 

rockfish was incorrectly identified as a 

species allocated to the Rockfish 

Program CV Sector. NMFS also agrees 

that thornyhead rockfish is allocated to 

the Rockfish Program CV Sector, and 

should have been listed instead of 

rougheye rockfish. 

(5) NMFS agrees. Directed rockfish 

fishing under the Central GOA Rockfish 

Program is permitted from May 1 

through November 15. While NMFS 

acknowledges the error made on page 

35974, NMFS correctly identified 

November 15 as the last date fishing is 

permitted under the Central GOA 

Rockfish Program several other places in 

the preamble and specifically on pages 

35982 and 35984. 

(6) NMFS agrees that the reference to 

the ‘‘Alaska PSC Program’’ on page 

35985 should have been to the ‘‘Alaska 

PSD Program.’’ 

Comment 5: One commenter stated 

that the implementation of Amendment 

97 should be postponed until the 

Council and NMFS finish developing 

the GOA trawl bycatch management 

action. The proposed Amendment 97 

regulations are not practicable under the 

present ‘‘race for fish’’ management 

structure, especially in the NonRockfish Program CV Sector. In lieu of 

postponing implementation of 

Amendment 97, another option would 

be to partially approve Amendment 97 

by disapproving the portion of the 

action that applies a Chinook salmon 

PSC limit on the Non-Rockfish Program 

CV Sector. 

Response: NMFS approved 

Amendment 97 to the FMP on 

September 3, 2014. Section 304(a)(3) of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that 

NMFS, acting on behalf of the Secretary 

of Commerce, disapprove a plan 

amendment only after specifying the 

applicable law with which the plan 

amendment is inconsistent; the nature 

of such inconsistencies; and 

recommendations concerning the 

actions that could be taken by the 

Council to conform such plan 

amendment to the requirements of 

applicable law. Before approving 

Amendment 97, NMFS considered these 

factors and concluded that Amendment 

97, including the Chinook salmon PSC 

limit established for the Non-Rockfish 

Program CV Sector, is consistent with 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable law. 

NMFS determined that Amendment 

97 minimizes Chinook salmon PSC to 

the extent practicable. In making this 

determination, NMFS considered the 

management measures currently 

applicable to the GOA groundfish fleet, 

including the ‘‘race for fish’’ that can 

occur in those portions of the fishery 

that are not managed under a form of 

catch share program with exclusive 

harvest privileges for specific 

participants. NMFS identified the 

potential impacts of this action in the 

Notice of Availability for Amendment 

97 (79 FR 32525, June 5, 2014), the 

preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 

35971, June 25, 2014), and in detail in 

Sections 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 of the Analysis 

prepared for this action. NMFS 

articulated its reasons for approval of 

Amendment 97 in the proposed rule, 

and provided the Council’s and the 

agency’s explanations for why it is 

consistent with the Magnuson Stevens 

Act and other applicable law. NMFS 

considered the public comments 

received on the proposed rule and 

Amendment 97 prior to its approval of 

Amendment 97, and none of these 

comments caused NMFS to change the 

conclusions reached in the proposed 

rule. NMFS approved Amendment 97 

because there is a rational basis for the 

Chinook salmon PSC limits for each 

Sector, the limits achieve the goals of 

the action by minimizing bycatch to the 

extent practicable, each Sector has the 

ability to comply with that Sector’s PSC 

limit, and that new tools developed for 

this action would assist in achieving the 

PSC limits. The Council and NMFS 

recognized that Chinook salmon PSC 

limits may result in groundfish closures 

earlier in the season, attendant 

reductions in target groundfish catches 

when the seasonal PSC limit is reached, 

and foregone groundfish revenue for 

sectors that are unable to fully prosecute 

TAC limits. Participants in the 

groundfish fisheries could also incur 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71354 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

additional costs associated with actions 

taken to avoid catch of Chinook salmon 

PSC. 

The Council and NMFS considered 

that although the proposed Chinook 

salmon PSC limits may result in 

closures earlier in the season and an 

attendant reduction in target groundfish 

catches if a Chinook salmon PSC limit 

is reached prior to the harvest of the 

TAC, the frequency and extent of early 

season closures and the effects of such 

closures will vary across the three 

sectors of the fleet. For example, 

participants in the Trawl C/P and 

Rockfish Program CV Sectors have 

experience in coordinating some of their 

activities through private cooperative 

agreements and may be willing to 

change fishing behavior in response to 

the imposition of Chinook salmon PSC 

limits. If sector participants are 

successful in taking action to control 

Chinook salmon PSC to avoid a closure, 

gross revenues may not be negatively 

impacted. NMFS’ management 

experience in the trawl fisheries that 

operate under catch share programs, or 

under informal cooperation agreements 

developed without a regulated catch 

share program, indicates that PSC use in 

the groundfish trawl fisheries has been 

reduced through increased 

communication among industry 

participants and coordination of fishing 

activities and effort. Section 4.4 of the 

Analysis reviewed potential measures 

that could be adopted by participants to 

reduce Chinook salmon PSC and the 

factors that are likely to affect the 

willingness of participants to adopt 

these measures. 

The Analysis in Sections 4.7 and 4.9 

considered potential changes in trawl 

sector revenues, and changes in costs 

resulting from the fleets’ altered fishing 

behavior to minimize Chinook salmon 

PSC. However, it is not possible to 

directly quantify these effects with 

available information. The effects on 

communities are summarized in Section 

4.7.5 of the Analysis. The Chinook 

salmon PSC limits implemented by this 

final rule balance the potential financial 

effects of reduced groundfish harvests 

and increased costs to groundfish fleets, 

the benefits of minimizing Chinook 

salmon PSC to the extent practicable, 

the potential benefits that may occur 

from reducing a known source of 

mortality to the Chinook salmon stocks, 

and the potential additional harvest 

opportunities that may accrue to other 

users of the Chinook salmon resource. 

As described in the preamble to the 

proposed rule and in Sections 4.7 and 

4.9 of the Analysis, the Council and 

NMFS considered the potential impact 

to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector, 

and determined that the Chinook 

salmon PSC limit for this sector is 

practicable. The base Chinook salmon 

PSC limit for this sector is slightly 

higher than the Sector’s average 

Chinook salmon PSC between 2007 and 

2013. Additionally, it is likely that in 

most years, the Non-Rockfish Program 

CV Sector will receive a roll over of 

Chinook salmon PSC from the Rockfish 

Program CV Sector. Also, this action 

includes two measures that may 

increase the annual amount of Chinook 

salmon PSC available for this sector, 

thereby improving the practicability of 

the Chinook salmon PCS limit for the 

Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. First, 

this action establishes an incentive 

buffer. This acts as an incentive for the 

Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector to 

keep Chinook salmon bycatch well 

below its base PSC limit in order to 

provide it with a slightly higher 

Chinook salmon PSC limit that may be 

needed in an unusual year of Chinook 

salmon migration patterns or 

unanticipated higher abundance that 

may make it difficult to avoid Chinook 

salmon PSC. Second, this action 

provides for a reallocation of unused 

Chinook salmon PSC from the Rockfish 

Program CV Sector to the Non-Rockfish 

Program CV Sector. This reallocation 

recognizes that the Rockfish Program CV 

Sector will likely have unused Chinook 

salmon PSC available by October 1 in 

most years. Therefore, in most years, the 

reallocation of some Chinook salmon 

PSC limit from the Rockfish Program CV 

Sector to the Non-Rockfish Program CV 

Sector is expected to provide additional 

harvest opportunities. The Council and 

NMFS also recognized that most of the 

vessels in the Non-Rockfish Program 

Sector are in cooperatives formed under 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program, 

which mutually benefit from these 

potential reallocations. Many 

participants in the Non-Rockfish 

Program CV sector also participate in 

the Rockfish Program CV Sector, and 

routinely cooperate to manage 

allocations or minimize Chinook salmon 

bycatch. Recognizing that not all CVs 

making landings in the GOA participate 

in the Rockfish Program, NMFS believes 

it may be in the interest of the 

operations that are in the Rockfish 

Program CV Sector to continue some 

level of cooperation to minimize 

Chinook salmon bycatch even after 

checking out of the Rockfish Program. 

Thus, these sector reallocations enhance 

the practicability of Amendment 97 for 

the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. 

The reallocations between the Rockfish 

and Non-Rockfish Program CV Sectors 

are expected to reduce the possibility of 

idling seafood processing capacity, 

which could have negative implications 

for harvesters, processors, and fisherydependent communities. 

For the foregoing reasons, NMFS 

approved Amendment 97 and found no 

basis for full or partial disapproval of 

the Amendment. The MSA does not 

provide NMFS with the authority to 

postpone implementation of an 

approved FMP amendment and 

postponing the implementation of 

Amendment 97 is not warranted given 

its consistency with the MSA. The 

Council considered delaying the 

implementation of Amendment 97 until 

the implementation of a GOA trawl 

bycatch management action currently 

under consideration by the Council. The 

GOA trawl bycatch management action 

under development by the Council 

could include the components of a catch 

share program. Based on past 

experience with trawl catch share 

programs (e.g., the Central GOA 

Rockfish Program), a catch share 

program could provide additional 

flexibility to the GOA trawl fleet, 

including vessels in the Western and 

Central GOA non-pollock trawl fishery, 

to adapt their operations to minimize 

the use of Chinook salmon PSC. (For an 

example of the ability for catch share 

programs to minimize PSC use, see 

Sections 4.7.1 and 4.9 of the Analysis.) 

The Council decided to not delay the 

implementation of Amendment 97 for 

several reasons. First, the Council 

determined that a catch share program 

is not necessary for the Sectors to 

harvest groundfish TACs under the 

Chinook salmon PSC limits. Second, the 

purpose and need for this action is to 

implement an annual Chinook salmon 

PSC limit for the non-pollock trawl 

fisheries, not to implement broader 

catch share management in the GOA 

trawl fisheries. Delaying this action to 

await another action with a separate and 

distinct purpose and need is contrary to 

the purpose and need for this action. 

Third, the GOA trawl catch share 

program currently under consideration 

by the Council may not be 

recommended by the Council or 

implemented by NMFS. Delaying this 

action in anticipation of another future 

action is inconsistent with the purpose 

and need for this action. Finally, even 

if a GOA trawl catch share program is 

recommended by the Council and 

approved and implemented by NMFS, it 

would not be effective until 2017 at the 

earliest. This action will be 

implemented in 2015, substantially 

sooner than if implementation were 

delayed until a GOA trawl catch share 

program became effective. This action 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71355 

results in a more timely implementation 

of an annual Chinook salmon PSC limit 

for the non-pollock fisheries that is 

responsive to the purpose and need of 

this action. Overall, the Council 

considered and rejected delaying the 

implementation of this action because 

the analysis indicates that Chinook 

salmon PSC can be controlled and 

potentially reduced without the 

implementation of a GOA trawl catch 

share program. 

Comment 6: One commenter stated 

that the goal of avoiding exceedance of 

the annual Chinook salmon ITS of 

40,000 salmon has already been 

achieved without Amendment 97 due to 

the combination of the Chinook salmon 

PSC limit of 25,000 in place for the GOA 

pollock fishery under Amendment 93 

and likely Chinook salmon PSC use in 

the non-pollock trawl fishery. When the 

highest recent use of Chinook salmon 

PSC of 10,877 salmon (in 2010) from the 

non-pollock trawl fishery is added to 

the Chinook salmon PSC limit of 25,000 

for the GOA pollock fishery, the total 

Chinook salmon PSC could be as high 

as approximately 36,000 salmon. That 

amount is below the Chinook salmon 

ITS level of 40,000 Chinook salmon. 

Because Chinook salmon PSC is 

unlikely to exceed 40,000, the stringent 

Chinook salmon PSC limits established 

by this action are not necessary. 

Response: As stated earlier in this 

preamble, and in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, this action has three 

goals. The first of these goals is to avoid 

exceeding the annual threshold of 

40,000 Chinook salmon identified in the 

ITS. With implementation of this action, 

NMFS expects that the combined 

annual Chinook salmon PSC for nonpollock and pollock trawl fisheries in 

the Western and Central GOA together 

with Chinook salmon PSC in other areas 

of the GOA will not substantially exceed 

32,500 Chinook salmon on a long-term 

average annual basis. The Western and 

Central GOA Chinook salmon PSC 

limits established for the pollock trawl 

fishery under Amendment 93 (77 FR 

42629, July 20, 2012) and for the nonpollock trawl fisheries under this action 

will effectively limit Chinook salmon 

PSC to a long-term average annual 

amount of 32,500 Chinook salmon. An 

additional de minimus amount of 

Chinook salmon PSC occurs in trawl 

fisheries in the Eastern GOA and nontrawl fisheries in the GOA that are not 

subject to a Chinook salmon PSC limit 

(see Section 1.2 of the Analysis for 

additional detail). Therefore, upon 

implementation of this rule, the 

combined Chinook salmon PSC from all 

sources will be below 40,000 Chinook 

salmon in all future years and the first 

goal of Amemdment 97 will be 

achieved. 

The Council and NMFS recognize that 

the Chinook salmon PSC limits 

established by Amendments 93 and 97 

are below the ITS of 40,000 Chinook 

salmon and that Chinook salmon PSC 

may be less than 40,000 in most years, 

even if there were no Chinook salmon 

PSC limits established in the nonpollock trawl fisheries. However, 

without Chinook salmon PSC limits in 

the non-pollock trawl fisheries, NMFS 

could not ensure that the first goal of 

Amendment 97 would be met in all 

years, particularly during years of 

unusually high Chinook salmon PSC 

use in the non-pollock trawl fisheries. 

NMFS agrees that other Chinook salmon 

PSC caps could have been chosen, such 

as a long-term average annual Chinook 

salmon PSC limit of 10,000 salmon, 

which would maintain total Chinook 

salmon PSC in the GOA below 40,000 

salmon. However, the Council did not 

recommend these alternative Chinook 

salmon PSC limits because the second 

goal of this action is ‘‘to minimize 

Chinook salmon bycatch to the extent 

practicable, consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and National 

Standard 9.’’ This second goal of the 

action is intended to establish Chinook 

salmon PSC limits that are as low as 

practicable, not to implement 

regulations that allow up to 40,000 

Chinook salmon to be used as PSC even 

if a lower Chinook salmon PSC limit is 

practicable. For the reasons explained in 

the response to Comment 5, the Council 

and NMFS have determined that the 

Chinook salmon PSC limits 

implemented by this action are 

practicable. 

Comment 7: One commenter stated 

that unlike Bering Sea Chinook salmon 

bycatch, most of the Chinook salmon 

PSC in the Western and Central GOA 

non-pollock trawl fisheries originate 

outside the State of Alaska, are 

exploited at the juvenile life stage (not 

at the stage that they would be 

harvested by other users), and may be 

produced in hatcheries and are not from 

wild spawning systems. The commenter 

cited research that indicates that less 

than a third of the Chinook salmon 

taken as bycatch in GOA non-pollock 

fisheries are Alaskan, from Northwest 

GOA or Southeast Alaska coastal 

streams. The best available science 

suggests that there is no link between 

Chinook salmon PSC use in the nonpollock trawl fisheries in the GOA and 

the status of Alaskan Chinook salmon 

stocks. 

Response: Genetic data from samples 

of Chinook salmon PSC taken in the 

GOA trawl fisheries reveal that this PSC 

may include Chinook salmon that 

originate from British Columbia, the 

U.S. West Coast (i.e., California, Idaho, 

Oregon, and Washington), Alaska, and 

Asia. Overall, the amount of Chinook 

salmon PSC used in the GOA non-trawl 

fisheries represents a small proportion 

of the known removals from the 

Chinook salmon populations in Alaska, 

British Columbia, and the U.S. West 

Coast, as described in Section 3.3 of the 

Analysis. Section 3.3 of the Analysis 

also indicates that there is uncertainty 

in the potential link between reductions 

in Chinook salmon mortality from the 

trawl fishery and potential beneficial 

impacts to spawning populations and 

recruitment of adult Chinook salmon 

originating in Alaska. Therefore, 

reductions in the amount of Chinook 

salmon PSC taken in the non-pollock 

groundfish trawl fisheries are not 

expected to result in substantial 

beneficial changes in the Chinook 

salmon populations or the amount 

available to other Chinook salmon 

resource users. Given the information 

available at this time, the Chinook 

salmon PSC limits imposed under this 

action may not have a quantifiable 

direct positive impact on Chinook 

salmon returns to river systems in 

Alaska. Additionally, the available data 

indicate that Chinook salmon PSC in the 

non-pollock fishery includes Chinook 

salmon from hatchery enhanced stocks 

from river systems in Alaska and 

outside of Alaska. 

The presence of Chinook salmon 

originating from British Columbia and 

the U.S. West Coast, in addition to 

Alaska, does not alleviate the need for 

PSC limits in the GOA trawl groundfish 

fisheries. Alaska groundfish fisheries 

must comply with ITS requirements for 

ESA-listed Chinook salmon species and 

minimize Chinook salmon PSC in the 

non-pollock trawl fisheries to the extent 

practicable under the MagnusonStevens Act. The goal of Amendment 97 

is not to have specific impacts on 

specific fishery stocks, but to meet the 

three goals described in the purpose and 

need for this action and earlier in this 

preamble. These goals are without 

regard for the origin of the stock. While 

the Chinook salmon PSC limits imposed 

by Amendment 97 may not have a 

significant beneficial impact on Chinook 

salmon stocks or spawning escapement, 

the Council and NMFS determined that 

these PSC limits will not have negative 

impacts on Chinook salmon populations 

or the amount of spawning escapement. 

Comment 8: One commenter stated 

that the PSC limit of 7,500 Chinook 

salmon does not address the subdivision 

of the cap between the three sectors and 

its effect. Between 2007 and 2013, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71356 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed limit of 2,700 salmon for the 

Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector has 

been exceeded three times in the last 7 

years and the three times that the limit 

has been exceeded occurred in the last 

4 years (2010, 2011, 2013). These higher 

years of PSC coincide with increased 

abundances of British Columbia and 

Pacific Northwest Chinook salmon. The 

limit for the Non-Rockfish Program CV 

Sector is too low and not responsive to 

changing conditions of Chinook salmon 

abundance. 

Response: NMFS acknowledged in the 

proposed rule that in some years, the 

annual Chinook salmon PSC limits for 

the three Sectors could constrain 

groundfish harvests and impose costs on 

participants in the non-pollock trawl 

fisheries. However, the proposed rule 

also explained why the PSC limits for 

each Sector were reasonable and 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. For example, on page 35983, the 

proposed rule explains that the NonRockfish Program CV Sector allocation 

of 2,700 Chinook salmon is set at an 

amount that is 8 percent greater than the 

7-year average from 2007 to 2013 for 

that sector. In addition to an allocation 

that exceeds the 7-year average, this 

action establishes an incentive buffer 

and provides for a reallocation of 

unused Chinook salmon PSC from the 

Rockfish Program CV Sector to the NonRockfish Program CV Sector as 

described in response to Comment 5. 

Furthermore, the PSC limits imposed by 

the action were derived from annual 

average Chinook salmon PSC usage 

during a period when there were no 

regulatory incentives for the Sectors to 

minimize their catch of Chinook 

salmon. 

Although the commenter draws a 

connection between the current high 

abundance of British Columbia and U.S. 

West Coast Chinook salmon and high 

Chinook salmon PSC use in the NonRockfish Program CV Sector, Section 

3.3.2.2 of the Analysis indicates that a 

relatively high abundance of a specific 

stock or group of stocks does not 

necessarily result in higher Chinook 

salmon PSC. Therefore, the comment 

that the Chinook salmon PSC limit does 

not consider the abundance of Chinook 

salmon is not correct. The Council and 

NMFS considered Chinook salmon 

abundance when considering the 

Chinook salmon PSC limit, but the best 

available information does not indicate 

that establishing a higher Chinook 

salmon PSC limit based on abundance 

is necessary or appropriate. 

Comment 9: One commenter stated 

that the proposed rule does not add any 

new tools for members of the fishing 

industry to achieve the new PSC limits. 

Response: This action does provide 

additional tools for members of the 

industry to achieve the new PSC limits. 

This action includes regulatory 

provisions that establish an incentive 

buffer and allow reallocations of the 

unused portion of a Chinook salmon 

PSC limit to the Non-Rockfish Program 

CV Sector from the Rockfish Program 

CV Sector to provide flexibility for 

utilizing available PSC limits within or 

between these sectors. As previously 

discussed in this final rule, the Council 

and NMFS have determined that these 

tools, in addition to the other features of 

Amendment 97, are sufficient to 

minimize the catch of Chinook salmon 

to the extent practicable in the GOA 

non-pollock trawl fisheries. The ability 

of the three sectors to adapt to the PSC 

limits with the available tools and those 

tools that would be provided under this 

program are discussed further in the 

response to Comment 11. 

Comment 10: One commenter noted 

that this action provides incentives for 

reducing PSC of Chinook salmon, 

particularly through application of an 

incentive buffer. Another commenter 

noted that the incentive buffer helps 

provide some means for adjusting to 

Chinook salmon PSC limits but provides 

limited relief. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

incentive buffer incorporated as part of 

this action will provide incentives to 

minimize Chinook salmon PSC during 

all years. The incentive buffer is 

designed to provide some additional 

flexibility for dealing with variability in 

Chinook salmon PSC in certain years, 

but NMFS agrees that the incentive 

buffer has limitations and may not offset 

all potential costs of compliance with 

the Chinook salmon PSC limits 

established by this rule during years of 

high Chinook salmon encounters. For 

the reasons stated in the responses to 

Comments 5 and 11, not all costs of PSC 

limits were practicable to offset while 

achieving the desired PSC reductions. 

Comment 11: One commenter stated 

that the amount of revenue loss for nonpollock groundfish trawl fisheries could 

be as much as $14 million, as expressed 

at the wholesale level, and would have 

indirect impacts on the community of 

Kodiak. The amount of revenue loss for 

the C/P sector could be as much as $28 

million. 

Response: Section 4.7 of the Analysis 

concludes that the potential economic 

impact on a sector, processor, or 

community that may result from this 

action will vary depending on the 

specific sector, time of closure, and 

other factors. The Analysis also 

provides a range of estimates for the 

maximum amount of revenue that may 

be forgone from the Non-Rockfish 

Program CV and Trawl C/P Sectors 

under this action, and a discussion of 

the reasons that actual forgone revenues 

and costs under this alternative are 

likely to be less than these maximum 

amounts of forgone revenue. These 

forgone revenue estimates are based on 

retrospective amounts of groundfish 

harvest reduction for the Chinook 

salmon PSC limits as applied to fishery 

performance in each year from 2007 

through 2011. The estimates of $14 

million for the Non-Rockfish Program 

CV Sector and $28 million for the Trawl 

C/P Sector in wholesale value, as cited 

in public comment, are based on a 

single year where the difference 

between the PSC limit and observed 

catch (converted to average ex-vessel 

revenues) for the year is at the 

maximum that would have been 

observed during that time interval. The 

lower end of the range of maximum 

foregone wholesale revenue from the 

action for the Non-Rockfish Program CV 

Sector was $5.9 million. The lower end 

of the range of maximum foregone 

wholesale revenue from the action for 

the Trawl C/P Sector was $5 million. 

The Analysis also includes a qualitative 

discussion of how the lowest estimate of 

maximum forgone revenue for that year 

may be mitigated by actions that the 

Non-Rockfish Program CV, Rockfish 

Program CV, and Trawl C/P Sectors may 

take to avoid fishing locations with high 

Chinook salmon PSC and reduce 

potential losses in wholesale revenue. 

The Council and NMFS recognized 

that, in some years, the PSC limits 

implemented by Amendment 97 could 

constrain non-pollock groundfish 

fishing opportunities, resulting in 

foregone harvest and revenue, but 

determined that the action also 

mitigates these costs to participants in 

the fishery to some extent. As described 

in the preamble to the proposed rule, 

this action implements Chinook salmon 

PSC limits that consider the historic use 

of Chinook salmon PSC by the three 

sectors during a period of time when no 

Chinook salmon PSC limits were in 

effect and no regulatory incentives 

existed for the sectors to minimize their 

Chinook salmon PSC. The Chinook 

salmon PSC limits established for all 

three sectors are larger than each 

sector’s historic average Chinook 

salmon PSC, as explained in the 

preamble to the proposed rule on page 

35979. The Council and NMFS 

determined that these higher-thanaverage Chinook salmon PSC limits, 

coupled with regulatory incentives to 

keep Chinook salmon PSC as low as 

possible so that the limits are not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71357 

reached before harvest of non-pollock 

groundfish allocations has occurred, 

should result in Chinook salmon PSC at 

levels below average historic use in 

most years. 

Section 4.7 concludes that the 

potential impact of the Chinook salmon 

PSC limits can be mitigated by specific 

actions taken by participants in the 

sectors. For example, the Trawl C/P 

Sector and Rockfish Program CV Sector 

participants have experience in 

coordinating some of their activities 

through private cooperative agreements 

and may be willing to change fishing 

behavior in response to PSC limits. If 

sector participants are successful in 

taking action to control Chinook salmon 

PSC use to avoid a closure, gross 

revenues may not be negatively 

impacted. NMFS’ management 

experience in the trawl fisheries that 

operate under catch share programs and 

voluntary agreements indicates that PSC 

use in the groundfish fisheries has been 

reduced through increased 

communication among industry 

participants and coordination of fishing 

activities and effort. 

While participants in the NonRockfish Program CV Sector are not 

currently operating under cooperative 

agreements, participants in this sector 

are not precluded by regulation from 

forming voluntary agreements to 

minimize Chinook salmon or other PSC. 

Although voluntary agreements among 

all participants in a sector can be more 

difficult to establish than voluntary 

agreements among some participants in 

a sector under a catch share program, 

the Council and NMFS expect that 

vessels in the Non-Rockfish Program CV 

Sector will be able to modify fishing 

practices to minimize Chinook salmon 

PSC and mitigate the potential adverse 

economic impacts. As explained in the 

preamble to the proposed rule on page 

35974 and in the Analysis at section 

4.4.10, in 2014, 56 percent of the 

participants in the Non-Rockfish 

Program CV Sector who operate in the 

Central GOA are participants in the 

Rockfish Program CV Sector and have 

formed cooperative agreements under 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program. 

Comment 12: One commenter stated 

that in the GOA pollock trawl fishery, 

Chinook salmon PSC estimates are 

derived from a census from observed 

vessels whereas in the non-pollock 

trawl fisheries, Chinook salmon PSC 

estimates will be based on samples 

taken by observers at sea. Due to the 

sampling design applied to the nonpollock fisheries, small samples from a 

small number of vessels could result in 

Chinook salmon PSC estimates for a 

sector that are derived from a single 

vessel’s Chinook salmon PSC which 

may not be representative of the 

Chinook salmon PSC by other vessels in 

that sector. The commenter asserted that 

NMFS should modify observer sampling 

protocols in the non-pollock trawl 

fisheries and employ a census method 

on all observed vessels. 

Response: As explained in Section 5 

of the Analysis, there are operational 

differences between the pollock and 

non-pollock fisheries that prevent the 

use of a census onboard observed 

vessels in the GOA non-pollock trawl 

fisheries. Currently, NMFS does not 

have the monitoring infrastructure 

needed to use a census for Chinook 

salmon PSC onboard observed CVs in 

the GOA non-pollock trawl fisheries. A 

census should account for all salmon 

caught by CVs in the non-pollock trawl 

fisheries and would require changes to 

observer coverage on GOA non-pollock 

trawl CVs, and additional infrastructure 

at processors receiving deliveries from 

these vessels. Without these 

infrastructure changes, using a census of 

Chinook salmon PSC for the GOA nonpollock trawl CV sectors is likely to 

produce biased counts of salmon PSC, 

including Chinook salmon PSC. 

Therefore, NMFS will use basket 

sampling at sea from a random selection 

of fishing trips to account for Chinook 

salmon PSC by GOA non-pollock trawl 

CVs. 

NMFS acknowledges that Chinook 

salmon is a relatively uncommon 

species to be observed in trawl fisheries 

and is characterized by many small and 

zero counts encountered in at-sea 

samples with occasional large counts 

encountered in at-sea samples. NMFS 

has documented the possibility that 

small sample sizes could impact the 

estimates of the sector-level PSC used in 

a given season or year. This is discussed 

in detail in Section 5 of the Analysis 

and in the preamble to the proposed 

rule. NMFS agrees that there is a 

possibility that a Chinook salmon PSC 

limit could be reached based on an 

estimate derived from a few at-sea 

samples from a small number of vessels. 

The Council and NMFS considered all 

reasonable alternatives for producing inseason estimates of Chinook salmon 

PSC in non-pollock trawl fisheries for 

Amendment 97. The Analysis addresses 

each of these PSC accounting 

alternatives at Section 5.2.2. Each 

alternative included trade-offs in 

administrative and industry cost, 

practicality, and data quality. For 

example, increasing observer coverage 

in the Non-Rockfish CV Sector so that 

each trip is observed was considered to 

be impracticable at this time and 

without a catch share program that 

included Chinook salmon PSC. It would 

also impose significant costs that could 

negatively impact a number of these 

operations. The analysis also considered 

accounting for retained catch at the 

point of delivery, but this approach may 

provide additional incentives for vessels 

to discard salmon PSC at sea. The 

selected approach of basket sampling at 

sea, from a random selection of fishing 

trips, represented the optimum balance 

of cost and data reliability for the CV 

sectors in the GOA trawl fishery. 

Comment 13: Section 4.8 of the 

Analysis states that NMFS would not 

have in place the requisite capacity to 

take systematic genetic samples of 

retained salmon in accordance with 

sampling protocols that have been 

implemented in the Bering Sea pollock 

fishery, and that while a different 

sampling method could be considered 

for the non-pollock trawl fisheries in the 

GOA, such an approach has yet to be 

investigated. NMFS has revised the 

genetic sampling methods for the 

pollock fishery in the GOA since the 

Council recommended Amendment 97 

in June 2013. A genetic sampling 

approach similar to that currently used 

in the GOA pollock fishery should be 

investigated and, if appropriate, adopted 

for the non-pollock trawl fisheries in the 

GOA. 

Response: In the Bering Sea, all 

salmon caught by CVs are sampled 

through a census of each salmon 

delivered to a processor. For each 

Chinook salmon in the census, 

observers collect genetic samples from 

every 1 in 10 of those Chinook salmon. 

Section 5.3.1 of the Analysis describes 

the Bering Sea genetic sampling 

protocol in greater detail, and explains 

that is not feasible to apply that censusbased sampling to the non-pollock trawl 

fisheries in the GOA given the specific 

operational characteristics of the GOA 

non-pollock fishery, vessel layouts, and 

the lack of other monitoring 

requirements necessary to verify that a 

complete census of salmon PSC has 

occurred on these vessels. The same 

feasibility problems for use of a census 

for salmon PSC accounting in the GOA 

non-pollock groundfish fishery would 

also apply if the census data were to be 

used as a basis for collecting genetic 

data samples from the census. Any bias 

created in the salmon census data 

would also transfer to, and create 

accuracy issues with, the genetic data. 

These lessons have been applied to 

GOA pollock fishery. 

The Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

has assessed biological samples from 

Chinook salmon collected by observers 

in the GOA trawl fisheries for several 

years, and the resolution of that data by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71358 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

region of stock origin is steadily 

improving. In 2014, NMFS improved 

the sampling protocol in the GOA 

pollock fishery to address concerns 

about NMFS’s ability to verify that 

salmon were retained on unobserved 

trips. One approach for accounting of all 

salmon caught on a trip is to conduct a 

census. A census for salmon in the trawl 

fishery would count each individual 

salmon caught by a vessel. NMFS 

replaced the method used in the GOA 

pollock fishery, which attempted to 

census salmon from all pollock 

deliveries, to a method that samples 

salmon only on deliveries from 

observed trips. This change is 

anticipated to improve data quality by 

reducing the risk of bias on unobserved 

trips and substantially increasing the 

number of genetic samples that can be 

collected. Section 5.3.1 of the Analysis 

describes the operational differences 

between the pollock and non-pollock 

fisheries that make the translation of 

sampling protocols from the pollock 

fishery to the non-pollock fishery 

challenging. However, NMFS will 

continue to investigate optimal methods 

for sampling Chinook salmon PSC in the 

non-pollock fishery and apply the best 

available techniques as practicable. 

Comment 14: One commenter wrote 

that Section 5 of the Analysis states that 

if a sector’s Chinook salmon PSC limit 

is less than approximately 1,500 

Chinook salmon per week, it is difficult 

to adequately manage the Chinook 

salmon PSC limit. Given this, NMFS 

will not be able to effectively manage 

the Chinook salmon PSC limits, 

particularly for the Non-Rockfish 

Program CV Sector, or the small amount 

of Chinook salmon that may be 

reallocated to the Non-Rockfish Program 

CV Sector from the Rockfish Program 

CV Sector. Management is not 

adequately precise to manage the NonRockfish Program CV Sector to allow the 

sector to fully harvest its target species. 

Response: Section 5.2.1.1 of the 

Analysis concludes that for some 

sectors, the timeliness and quality of the 

data available to detect small changes in 

the amount of Chinook salmon PSC 

during a weekly period constrain 

precision and accuracy for inseason PSC 

accounting. For the GOA non-pollock 

trawl fisheries, NMFS considers 

Chinook salmon PSC limits that are less 

than the historically highest weekly rate 

for the managed fishery to be too small 

to manage inseason because a PSC limit 

similar to that rate could be reached in 

one week. The Analysis states that for 

the GOA non-pollock trawl CV and 

C/P sectors, these amounts are about 

1,500 Chinook salmon PSC a week for 

each sector in the Central GOA, and 

1,000 Chinook salmon PSC a week for 

the C/P sector and 100 Chinook salmon 

PSC a week for the CV sector in the 

Western GOA. However, this action 

separates the CV sector into the NonRockfish Program CV Sector and the 

Rockfish Program CV Sector. Separate 

Chinook salmon PSC limits for these CV 

sectors decreases the weekly rate that 

NMFS would consider too small to 

manage. The Non-Rockfish Program CV 

Sector’s annual Chinook salmon PSC 

limit is 2,700 salmon. From 2003 

through 2013, the Non-Rockfish 

Program CV Sector has not reached a 

rate of 1,500 Chinook salmon PSC per 

week in the combined Western and 

Central GOA and the highest weekly 

Chinook salmon PSC use rate is 1,223 

Chinook salmon in the combined 

Western and Central GOA. This highest 

weekly rate for the Non-Rockfish 

Program CV Sector is lower than the 

weekly rate for this sector in the 

combined Western and Central GOA. 

This rate is less than half of the 2,700 

Chinook salmon limit and would allow 

time for NMFS management to respond 

with a closure notice if required. Also, 

from 2003 through 2012, this rate has 

only been reached once during 346 

weeks of fishing by this sector. The next 

highest weekly rate is considerably 

lower at 824 Chinook salmon. The 

Amendment 97 PSC limits established 

for the three sectors are sufficient 

amounts for effective inseason 

management. NMFS also can effectively 

manage the PSC amounts that may be 

available to the Non-Rockfish Program 

CV Sector under the incentive buffer 

and the reallocation provisions. 

Comment 15: One commenter stated 

that salmon retention requirements are 

useful, but could go further by requiring 

100 percent observer coverage to avoid 

inaccurate estimates of Chinook salmon 

based on extrapolations from observed 

trips. 

Response: Salmon retention 

requirements implemented by this 

action are not intended to and will not 

be used to estimate Chinook salmon 

PSC by NMFS, and therefore have no 

impact on how NMFS will manage the 

fishery. The salmon retention 

requirements are intended to assist 

industry efforts to track salmon 

delivered to shore, potentially for 

decision making within a sector, and for 

opportunistic collection of biological 

data for genetic analysis. One hundred 

percent, or full observer coverage for 

each haul or trip, is not necessary to 

obtain accurate PSC estimates of 

Chinook salmon within the non-pollock 

trawl sectors. As explained in Section 

5.2 of the Analysis, NMFS has 

implemented 100 percent observer 

coverage in catch share programs that 

include transferable PSC limits 

allocated to a specific entity such a 

cooperative. Under these catch share 

programs, increased monitoring has 

been necessary to monitor the use of 

PSC and to enforce the regulatory 

provision that prohibits a specific entity 

with a transferrable Chinook PSC limit 

from exceeding its limit. The Council 

and NMFS did consider an option to 

allocate Chinook salmon PSC limits to 

Rockfish Program entities, which would 

have resulted in NMFS recommending 

increased monitoring requirements. 

However, that alternative was rejected 

for reasons described in Section 2.6 of 

the Analysis. 

Under this action, Chinook salmon 

PSC limits will not be allocated to a 

specific entity. Therefore, NMFS will 

monitor PSC limits using observer data 

collected under the restructured 

Observer Program (77 FR 70062, 

November 21, 2012). One of the primary 

goals of the restructured Observer 

Program was to reduce the potential for 

bias in observer data and therefore 

improve catch estimates of groundfish 

and PSC, including salmon PSC. The 

restructured Observer Program deploys 

observers through a scientific sampling 

plan and has resulted in observer data 

that is representative of the GOA 

groundfish fisheries, including the trawl 

fisheries. 

Comment 16: One commenter stated 

that the preamble suggests that 

improvements in salmon reporting 

through the eLandings reporting system 

may assist in tracking and cooperatively 

managing Chinook salmon PSC limits 

for the trawl CV sectors delivering to 

shoreside processors or SFPs. This 

improved tracking and cooperative 

management is practicable only in the 

Rockfish Program CV Sector. The NonRockfish Program CV Sector is not likely 

to be able to voluntarily control or 

organize fleet behavior to adjust fishing 

patterns for avoiding Chinook salmon 

PSC, so improved eLanding data is 

irrelevant for this sector. 

Response: While NMFS agrees that 

the Rockfish Program CV Sector is more 

likely than the Non-Rockfish Program 

CV Sector to be able to take advantage 

of information on Chinook salmon PSC 

from the eLandings reporting system to 

cooperatively manage its Chinook 

salmon PSC limit, the information 

provided by the eLandings reporting 

system also may have utility for the 

participants in the Non-Rockfish 

Program CV Sector regardless of 

whether all participants in that sector 

are fishing cooperatively under 

voluntary agreements. Many 

participants in the Non-Rockfish 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71359 

Program CV Sector are also participnts 

in the Rockfish Program CV Sector and 

participants in the Non-Rockfish 

Program CV Sector are not precluded 

from forming voluntary agreements to 

coordinate fishing patterns and use the 

data from the eLandings reporting 

system to minimize Chinook salmon or 

other PSC. 

Classification 

The Administrator, Alaska Region, 

NMFS, determined that this final rule is 

consistent with the FMP, including 

Amendment 97, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, the AFA, and other applicable 

laws. After considering the comments 

received on the amendment and the 

proposed rule, the Secretary of 

Commerce approved Amendment 97 on 

September 3, 2014. 

Small Entity Compliance Guide 

Section 212 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 states that, for each rule or group 

of related rules for which an agency is 

required to prepare a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, the agency shall 

publish one or more guides to assist 

small entities in complying with the 

rule, and shall designate such 

publications as ‘‘small entity 

compliance guides.’’ The preamble to 

the proposed rule and this final rule 

serve as the small entity compliance 

guide. This action does not require any 

additional compliance from small 

entities that is not described in the 

preambles. Copies of the proposed rule 

and this final rule are available from 

NMFS at the following Web site: 

http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule has been determined to be 

not significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Section 604 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act requires that, when an 

agency promulgates a final rule under 

section 553 of Title 5 of the United 

States Code, after being required by that 

section, or any other law, to publish a 

general notice of proposed rulemaking, 

the agency shall prepare a final 

regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA). 

Section 604 describes the required 

contents of a FRFA: (1) A statement of 

the need for, and objectives of, the rule; 

(2) a statement of the significant issues 

raised by the public comments in 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, a statement of the 

assessment of the agency of such issues, 

and a statement of any changes made in 

the proposed rule as a result of such 

comments; (3) the response of the 

agency to any comments filed by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration in response to 

the proposed rule, and a detailed 

statement of any change made to the 

proposed rule in the final rule as a 

result of the comments; (4) a description 

of and an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the rule will 

apply or an explanation of why no such 

estimate is available; (5) a description of 

the projected reporting, recordkeeping 

and other compliance requirements of 

the rule, including an estimate of the 

classes of small entities which will be 

subject to the requirement and the type 

of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; (6) 

a description of the steps the agency has 

taken to minimize the significant 

economic impact on small entities 

consistent with the stated objectives of 

applicable statutes, including a 

statement of the factual, policy, and 

legal reasons for selecting the alternative 

adopted in the final rule and why each 

one of the other significant alternatives 

to the rule considered by the agency 

which affect the impact on small 

entities was rejected. 

Need for and Objectives of the Rule 

A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule is contained in the 

preamble to this final rule and is not 

repeated here. 

Public and Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

Comments on the Proposed Rule 

NMFS published a proposed rule on 

June 25, 2014 (79 FR 35971). An initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) 

was prepared and summarized in the 

‘‘Classification’’ section of the preamble 

to the proposed rule. The comment 

period closed on July 25, 2014. NMFS 

received five public comment letters, 

containing 16 separate comments on 

Amendment 97 and the proposed rule. 

These comments did not address the 

IRFA or the economic impacts of the 

rule upon small entities. The Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration did not file 

any comments on the proposed rule. 

Number and Description of Small 

Entities Regulated by the Action 

This analysis considers the 

participants in the Western and Central 

GOA non-pollock trawl fisheries in 

2012, which is the most recent year for 

which size, revenue, and affiliation data 

were available. The Small Business 

Administration (SBA) has defined a 

small entity in the finfish harvesting 

sector as an entity with annual gross 

receipts less than $20.5 million. 

In 2012, 19 trawl C/Ps participated in 

the Trawl C/P Sector. Only one of the 

C/Ps in the Trawl C/P Sector is 

classified as a small entity. All other 

members of the Trawl C/P Sector are 

affiliated through Amendment 80 and/

or Central GOA Rockfish Program 

cooperatives. The combined annual 

gross receipts of these cooperatives total 

more than $20.5 million. Therefore, the 

remaining participants in the Trawl C/ 

P Sector are not classified as small 

entities due to their affiliations in 

cooperatives with annual gross receipts 

exceeding the small entity threshold of 

$20.5 million. 

In 2012, the Trawl CV Sector was 

composed of 70 active vessels. These 70 

vessels include all participants in the 

Rockfish Program CV Sector and the 

Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. Fiftyfour of these trawl CVs are classified as 

small entities. These 54 vessels 

classified as small entities include 31 

vessels that were not affiliated with any 

cooperative, and 23 vessels that were 

affiliated with cooperatives (i.e., AFA, 

Amendment 80, Central GOA Rockfish 

Program) that generated less than $20.5 

million in combined annual gross 

revenues. 

A total of 64 shoreside processors and 

SFPs may receive landings of 

groundfish from the GOA non-pollock 

trawl fisheries. Of these 64 processing 

operations, as many as 53 may be small 

entities. Seafood processors are 

categorized as small or large entities 

based upon estimated seafood 

employees by company. NMFS does not 

maintain records on seafood processing 

employment for each firm or company, 

thus, these estimates of small entities 

are based on the best commercially 

available data. 

The estimate in the number of small 

entities reported in this FRFA have been 

updated from those in the IRFA to 

reflect recent revisions to SBA 

thresholds for identifying small entities 

businesses primarily involved in finfish 

harvesting from $19 million to $20.5 

million (79 FR 33647, June 12, 2014). 

These revisions to SBA thresholds 

increased the estimated number of small 

entities by four compared to the 

estimate provided in the IRFA. The four 

additional small entities are trawl CVs. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements 

No new recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements have been identified for 

this action. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71360 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Description of Significant Alternatives 

to the Final Action That Minimize 

Adverse Impacts on Small Entities 

A FRFA must describe the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency that affect the 

impact on small entities was rejected. 

This action is the Council’s final 

preferred alternative, as defined in 

Section 2.4 of the Analysis. 

No alternatives or options that were 

omitted from the preferred alternative, 

or alternatives that were considered but 

not advanced, would have 

accomplished the action’s objectives 

while reducing the potential economic 

impact on small entities relative to the 

preferred alternative. These other 

alternatives considered included 

defining the GOA trawl sectors 

differently, applying a different historic 

time period for establishing Chinook 

salmon PSC limits instead of the time 

interval selected, establishing a different 

long-term average Chinook salmon PSC, 

and allocating the Chinook salmon PSC 

to the GOA trawl sectors by smaller 

management areas or in different 

proportions than hose selected. The 

Council did not adopt a separate 

Chinook salmon PSC apportionment for 

small entities because a shared hard cap 

across all entities within each 

operational type sector promotes 

information sharing and collective 

action in avoiding Chinook salmon PSC, 

which is beneficial to all entities. 

The economic impact on directly 

regulated small entities is the extent to 

which entities incur additional costs in 

the avoidance of Chinook salmon PSC, 

or are limited in their groundfish 

harvest by a closure due to the Chinook 

salmon PSC limit being reached. 

Operational costs could arise from 

changing the location of fishing or from 

suspending fishing when relatively high 

Chinook salmon PSC occurs. In 

addition, it is possible that some costs 

may be incurred in attempting to 

determine Chinook salmon PSC rates in 

order to decide whether Chinook 

salmon avoidance measures are needed. 

These potential impacts are not 

expected to more significantly and 

adversely impact small entities relative 

to non-small entities. It may be the case 

that entities with cooperative affiliations 

have access to a broader array of 

information where spatial salmon 

avoidance is concerned, but many of the 

directly regulated small entities are also 

members of cooperatives. Moreover, 

under a shared Chinook salmon PSC 

limit, information sharing across the 

entire fleet is in the best interest of each 

entity, if the limit appears to be 

constraining. Finally, while non-small 

entities may have greater access to funds 

to invest in salmon excluding 

technologies—should they be developed 

and widely adopted—the small entities 

would benefit from the PSC reductions 

achieved by other vessels, as they would 

decrease the probability of fishery 

closure. 

Tribal Consultation 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13175 of 

November 6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), 

the Executive Memorandum of April 29, 

1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), and the 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

Policy of the U.S. Department of 

Commerce (March 30, 1995) outline the 

responsibilities of NMFS in matters 

affecting tribal interests. Section 161 of 

Public Law 108–199 (188 Stat. 452), as 

amended by section 518 of Public Law 

109–447 (118 Stat. 3267), extends the 

consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 

to Alaska Native corporations. 

NMFS is obligated to consult and 

coordinate with federally recognized 

tribal governments and Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 

regional and village corporations on a 

government-to-government basis 

pursuant to E.O. 13175, which 

establishes several requirements for 

NMFS, including (1) to provide regular 

and meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with Indian tribal 

governments and Alaska Native 

corporations in the development of 

Federal regulatory practices that 

significantly or uniquely affect their 

communities, (2) to reduce the 

imposition of unfunded mandates on 

Indian tribal governments, and (3) to 

streamline the applications process for 

and increase the availability of waivers 

to Indian tribal governments. This 

Executive Order requires Federal 

agencies to have an effective process to 

involve and consult with 

representatives of Indian tribal 

governments in developing regulatory 

policies and prohibits regulations that 

impose substantial, direct compliance 

costs on Indian tribal communities. 

Section 5(b)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 

requires NMFS to prepare a tribal 

summary impact statement as part of the 

final rule. This statement must contain 

(1) a description of the extent of the 

agency’s prior consultation with tribal 

officials, (2) a summary of the nature of 

their concerns, (3) the agency’s position 

supporting the need to issue the 

regulation, and (4) a statement of the 

extent to which the concerns of tribal 

officials have been met. 

Tribal Summary Impact Statement 

Pursuant to E.O. 13175 NMFS mailed 

letters to approximately 640 Alaska 

tribal governments, ANCSA 

corporations, and related organizations 

providing information about 

Amendment 97 and the proposed rule. 

The letter invited comments and 

requests for consultation on this action. 

One letter was received from Ahtna, 

Incorporated, an ANCSA corporation, 

expressing support for the action. NMFS 

received no requests for consultation. 

This final rule is needed to implement 

Amendment 97 to establish Chinook 

salmon PSC limits in the Western and 

Central GOA non-pollock trawl 

fisheries. Implementing Amendment 97 

is consistent with the general support 

for this action expressed by tribal 

officials during testimony provided at 

the Council meeting in June 2013. 

Collection-of-Information Requirements 

This final rule contains references to 

collection-of-information requirements 

that have been reviewed and approved 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. The collections are 

listed below by OMB control number. 

OMB 0648–0316 

The Alaska PSD Program is 

mentioned in this rule; however, the 

public reporting burden for this 

collection-of-information is not directly 

affected by this final rule. 

OMB 0648–0515 

The Alaska Interagency Electronic 

Report System is mentioned in this rule; 

however, the public reporting burden 

for this collection-of-information is not 

directly affected by this final rule. 

In the proposed rule, NMFS requested 

public comments on the collection-ofinformation that are mentioned in this 

rule. No comments were received. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 

Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: November 21, 2014. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended 

as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71361 

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 

ALASKA 

■ 1. 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.; and Pub. L. 108–447. 

■ 2. In § 679.7, revise paragraph (b)(8) to 

read as follows: 

§ 679.7 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(8) Prohibitions specific to salmon 

discard in the Western and Central 

Reporting Areas of the GOA directed 

fisheries for groundfish. Fail to comply 

with any requirements of § 679.21(h) 

and § 679.21(i). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 679.21: 

■ a. Revise paragraphs (b)(2)(ii), 

paragraph (h) heading, and paragraphs 

(h)(1), (h)(4), and (h)(5); and 

■ b. Add paragraph (i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 679.21 Prohibited species bycatch 

management. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) After allowing for sampling by an 

observer, if an observer is aboard, sort 

its catch immediately after retrieval of 

the gear and, except for salmon 

prohibited species catch in the BS 

pollock fisheries and GOA groundfish 

fisheries under paragraphs (c), (h), or (i) 

of this section, or any prohibited species 

catch as provided (in permits issued) 

under the PSD program at § 679.26, 

return all prohibited species, or parts 

thereof, to the sea immediately, with a 

minimum of injury, regardless of its 

condition. 

* * * * * 

(h) GOA Chinook Salmon PSC 

Management for pollock fisheries—(1) 

Applicability. Regulations in this 

paragraph apply to vessels directed 

fishing for pollock with trawl gear in the 

Western and Central reporting areas of 

the GOA and processors receiving 

deliveries from these vessels. 

* * * * * 

(4) Salmon retention. (i) The operator 

of a vessel, including but not limited to 

a catcher vessel or tender, must retain 

all salmon until offload to a processing 

facility that takes the delivery. 

(ii) The owner and the manager of a 

shoreside processor or SFP receiving 

pollock deliveries must retain all 

salmon until: 

(A) The manager of a shoreside 

processor or SFP has accurately 

recorded the number of salmon by 

species in the eLandings groundfish 

landing report; and 

(B) If an observer is present, the 

observer is provided the opportunity to 

count the number of salmon and to 

collect any scientific data or biological 

samples from the salmon. 

(5) Salmon discard. Except for salmon 

under the PSD program at § 679.26, all 

salmon must be discarded after the 

requirements at paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of 

this section have been met. 

* * * * * 

(i) GOA Chinook Salmon PSC 

Management for non-pollock trawl 

fisheries—(1) Applicability. Regulations 

in this paragraph apply to vessels 

directed fishing for groundfish species, 

other than pollock, with trawl gear in 

the Western and Central reporting areas 

of the GOA and processors receiving 

deliveries of groundfish, other than 

pollock, from catcher vessels. 

(2) Non-pollock trawl sectors. The 

sectors identified in this paragraph (i) 

are: 

(i) Rockfish Program catcher vessel 

Sector. For the purpose of accounting 

for the Chinook salmon PSC limit at 

paragraph (i)(3)(i)(B) of this section, the 

Rockfish Program catcher vessel Sector 

is any catcher vessel fishing for 

groundfish, other than pollock, with 

trawl gear in the Western or Central 

reporting areas of the GOA and 

operating under the authority of a 

Central GOA Rockfish Program CQ 

permit assigned to the catcher vessel 

sector; 

(ii) Trawl catcher/processor Sector. 

For the purpose of accounting for the 

Chinook salmon PSC limits at 

paragraphs (i)(3)(i)(A) and (i)(3)(ii) of 

this section, the Trawl catcher/processor 

Sector is any catcher processor vessel 

fishing for groundfish, other than 

pollock, with trawl gear in the Western 

or Central GOA reporting areas and 

processing that groundfish at sea; and 

(iii) Non-Rockfish Program catcher 

vessel Sector. For the purpose of 

accounting for the Chinook salmon PSC 

limit at paragraph (i)(3)(i)(C) of this 

section, the Non-Rockfish Program 

catcher vessel Sector is any catcher 

vessel fishing for groundfish, other than 

pollock, with trawl gear in the Western 

or Central reporting areas of the GOA 

and not operating under the authority of 

a Central GOA Rockfish Program CQ 

permit assigned to the catcher vessel 

sector. 

(3) GOA non-pollock trawl Chinook 

salmon PSC limits. (i) NMFS establishes 

annual Chinook salmon PSC limits in 

the Western and Central reporting areas 

of the GOA for the sectors defined in 

paragraph (i)(2) of this section as 

follows: 

For the following sectors defined at § 679.21(i)(2) . . . 

The total 

Chinook salmon 

PSC limit in each 

calendar year 

is . . . 

Unless, the use 

of the Chinook 

salmon PSC limit 

for that sector in 

a calendar year 

does not 

exceed . . . 

If so, in the 

following 

calendar year, 

the Chinook 

salmon PSC limit 

for that sector 

will be . . . 

(A) Trawl catcher/processor sector ................................................................................. 3,600 3,120 4,080 

(B) Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector ................................................................... 1,200 N/A 

(C) Non-Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector ........................................................... 2,700 2,340 3,060 

(ii) For the Trawl catcher/processor 

Sector defined at § 679.21(i)(2)(ii): 

(A) NMFS establishes a seasonal limit 

within the sector’s annual Chinook 

salmon PSC limit that is available to the 

sector prior to June 1. If the Trawl 

catcher/processor Sector defined at 

§ 679.21(i)(2)(ii) has an annual Chinook 

salmon PSC limit of 3,600 Chinook 

salmon, then the sector’s seasonal limit 

prior to June 1 is 2,376 Chinook salmon. 

If the Trawl catcher/processor Sector 

defined at § 679.21(i)(2)(ii) has an 

annual Chinook salmon PSC limit of 

4,080 Chinook salmon, then the sector’s 

seasonal limit prior to June 1 is 2,693 

Chinook salmon. 

(B) The amount of Chinook salmon 

PSC limit available to the Trawl catcher/ 

processor Sector defined at 

§ 679.21(i)(2) on June 1 through the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71362 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

remainder of the calendar year will be 

the annual Chinook salmon PSC limit 

specified for the Trawl catcher/

processor Sector minus the number of 

Chinook salmon PSC used by that sector 

prior to June 1. 

(4) Rockfish Program catcher vessel 

Sector reallocation of Chinook salmon 

PSC limit. (i) If, on October 1 of each 

year, the Regional Administrator 

determines that more than 150 Chinook 

salmon are available in the Rockfish 

Program catcher vessel Sector Chinook 

salmon PSC limit specified at paragraph 

(i)(3)(i)(B) of this section, the Regional 

Administrator will reallocate all 

Chinook salmon PSC available to the 

Rockfish Program catcher vessel Sector 

except for 150 Chinook salmon to the 

Non-Rockfish Program catcher vessel 

Sector Chinook salmon PSC limit 

specified at paragraph (i)(3)(i)(C) of this 

section. 

(ii) On November 15 of each year, the 

Regional Administrator will reallocate 

all of the remaining Chinook salmon 

available in the Rockfish Program 

catcher vessel Sector Chinook salmon 

PSC limit specified at paragraph 

(i)(3)(i)(B) of this section to the NonRockfish Program catcher vessel Sector 

Chinook salmon PSC limit specified at 

paragraph (i)(3)(i)(C) of this section. 

(5) Salmon retention. (i) The operator 

of a catcher vessel or tender must retain 

all salmon until offload to a processing 

facility that takes the delivery. 

(ii) The owner and manager of a 

shoreside processor or SFP receiving 

non-pollock fishery deliveries must 

retain all salmon until the number of 

salmon by species has been accurately 

recorded in the eLandings groundfish 

landing report. 

(iii) The operator of a catcher/

processor must retain all salmon until 

an observer is provided the opportunity 

to collect scientific data or biological 

samples, and the number of salmon by 

species has been accurately recorded in 

the eLandings At-sea production report. 

(6) Salmon discard. Except for salmon 

under the PSD program defined at 

§ 679.26, all salmon must be discarded 

after the requirements at paragraph 

(i)(5)(ii) or (i)(5)(iii) of this section have 

been met. 

(7) Chinook salmon PSC closures in 

non-pollock trawl gear fisheries. If, 

during the fishing year, the Regional 

Administrator determines that: 

(i) Vessels in a sector defined at 

§ 679.21(i)(2) will catch the applicable 

Chinook salmon PSC limit specified at 

paragraph (i)(3)(i) of this section for that 

sector, NMFS will publish notification 

in the Federal Register closing directed 

fishing for all groundfish species, other 

than pollock, with trawl gear in the 

Western and Central reporting areas of 

the GOA for that sector; or 

(ii) Vessels in the Trawl catcher/

processor Sector defined at 

§ 679.21(i)(2) will catch the seasonal 

Chinook salmon PSC limit specified 

under paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(A) of this 

section prior to June 1, NMFS will 

publish notification in the Federal 

Register closing directed fishing for 

groundfish species, other than pollock, 

with trawl gear in the Western and 

Central reporting areas of the GOA for 

all vessels in the Trawl catcher/

processor Sector defined at 

§ 679.21(i)(2) until June 1. Directed 

fishing for groundfish species, other 

than pollock, with trawl gear in the 

Western and Central reporting areas of 

the GOA for vessels in the Trawl 

catcher/processor Sector defined at 

§ 679.21(i)(2) will reopen on June 1 with 

the Chinook salmon PSC limit 

determined under paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(B) 

of this section unless NMFS determines 

that the amount of Chinook salmon PSC 

limit available to the sector is 

insufficient to allow the sector to fish 

and not exceed its annual Chinook 

salmon PSC limit. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28096 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES