Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Chinook Salmon Bycatch Management in the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery, 53026-53074 [2010-20618]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53026-53074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20618]



[[Page 53025]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 679



Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Chinook Salmon 
Bycatch Management in the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 167 / Monday, August 30, 2010 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 53026]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 090511911-0307-02]
RIN 0648-AX89


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Chinook 
Salmon Bycatch Management in the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations to implement Amendment 91 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands Management Area (FMP). Amendment 91 is an innovative approach 
to managing Chinook salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery 
that combines a prohibited species catch (PSC) limit on the amount of 
Chinook salmon that may be caught incidentally with an incentive plan 
agreement and performance standard designed to minimize bycatch to the 
extent practicable in all years. This action is necessary to minimize 
Chinook salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery to the extent 
practicable while maintaining the potential for the full harvest of the 
pollock total allowable catch. Amendment 91 is intended to promote the 
goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

DATES: Effective September 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of Amendment 91, the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS), the Record of Decision (ROD), the Final 
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Biological Opinion prepared for 
this action may be obtained from https://www.regulations.gov or from the 
NMFS Alaska Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
rule may be submitted to NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 
99802, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; in person at NMFS Alaska 
Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK; and by e-mail to 
David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gretchen Harrington or Seanbob Kelly, 
907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Management Area (BSAI) under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish 
of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP). The North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the 
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (Magnuson-Stevens 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.
    This final rule implements Amendment 91 to the FMP. In April 2009, 
the Council unanimously recommended Amendment 91 to the Secretary of 
Commerce. NMFS published a Notice of Availability of this amendment in 
the Federal Register on February 18, 2010 (75 FR 7228) with comments 
invited through April 19, 2010. NMFS published the proposed rule on 
March 23, 2010 (75 FR 14016) with comments invited through May 7, 2010. 
NMFS approved Amendment 91 on May 14, 2010. NMFS received 71 letters of 
public comment on Amendment 91 and the proposed rule. NMFS summarized 
these letters into 102 separate comments, and responds to them under 
Response to Comments, below.

The Bering Sea Pollock Fishery

    This final rule applies to owners and operators of catcher vessels, 
catcher/processors, motherships, inshore processors, and the six 
Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program groups 
participating in the pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) fishery in the 
Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. The Bering Sea pollock fishery is the 
largest single species fishery, by volume, in the United States. The 
first wholesale gross value of this fishery was more than 1.4 billion 
dollars in 2008. In 2010, the Bering Sea pollock total allowable catch 
(TAC) is 813,000 metric tons.
    Currently, pollock in the BSAI is managed as three separate units: 
the Bering Sea subarea, the Aleutian Islands subarea, and the Bogoslof 
District of the Bering Sea subarea. Separate overfishing limits, 
acceptable biological catch limits, and TAC limits are specified 
annually for Bering Sea pollock, Aleutian Islands pollock, and Bogoslof 
pollock. Amendment 91 applies only to management of the Bering Sea 
pollock fishery and will not affect the management of pollock fisheries 
in the Aleutian Islands or the status of pollock fishing in the 
Bogoslof District.
    The Bering Sea pollock fishery is managed under the American 
Fisheries Act (AFA) (16 U.S.C. 1851 note), which ``rationalized'' the 
pollock fishery by identifying the vessels and processors eligible to 
participate in the fishery and allocating pollock among those eligible 
participants. Under the AFA, 10 percent of the Bering Sea pollock TAC 
is allocated to the CDQ Program. After the CDQ Program allocation is 
subtracted, an amount needed for the incidental catch of pollock in 
other Bering Sea groundfish fisheries is subtracted from the TAC. The 
remaining ``directed fishing allowance'' is then allocated among the 
AFA inshore sector (50 percent), the AFA catcher/processor sector (40 
percent), and the AFA mothership sector (10 percent). Pollock 
allocations to the CDQ Program and the other three AFA sectors are 
further allocated annually between two seasons--40 percent to the A 
season (January 20 to June 10) and 60 percent to the B season (June 10 
to November 1).
    The CDQ Program pollock allocation is further allocated among the 
six non-profit corporations (CDQ groups) that represent the 65 
communities eligible for the CDQ Program under section 305(i)(1)(D) of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The CDQ Program also is described in more 
detail in the ``Classification'' section of this final rule. CDQ groups 
typically sell or lease their pollock allocations to harvesting 
partners, including vessels owned, in part, by individual CDQ groups. 
Although CDQ groups are not required to partner with AFA-permitted 
vessels to harvest CDQ pollock, the vessels harvesting CDQ pollock have 
been AFA permitted-vessels. The CDQ pollock allocations have most often 
been harvested by catcher/processors or catcher vessels delivering to a 
mothership. However, some pollock CDQ has been delivered to inshore 
processing plants in past years.
    The AFA allows for the formation of fishery cooperatives within the 
non-CDQ sectors. The purpose of these AFA cooperatives is to further 
subdivide each sector's pollock allocation among participants in the 
sector or cooperative through private contractual agreements. The 
cooperatives manage these allocations to ensure that individual vessels 
and companies do not harvest more than their agreed upon share. The 
cooperatives also facilitate transfers of

[[Page 53027]]

pollock among the cooperative members and enforce contract provisions.
    Each year, catcher vessels eligible to deliver pollock to the seven 
eligible AFA inshore processors may form inshore cooperatives 
associated with a particular inshore processor. NMFS permits the 
inshore cooperatives, allocates pollock to them, and manages these 
allocations through a regulatory prohibition against an inshore 
cooperative exceeding its pollock allocation. The amount of pollock 
allocated to each inshore cooperative is based on the member vessels' 
pollock catch history from 1995 through 1997, as required under section 
210(b) of the AFA (16 U.S.C. 1851 note). These catcher vessels are not 
required to join an inshore cooperative. Those that do not join an 
inshore cooperative are managed by NMFS under the ``inshore open access 
fishery.''
    The AFA catcher/processor sector is made up of the catcher/
processors and catcher vessels eligible under the AFA to deliver 
pollock to catcher/processors. Owners of the catcher/processors that 
are listed by name in the AFA and still active in the pollock fishery 
have formed a cooperative called the Pollock Conservation Cooperative 
(PCC). Owners of the catcher vessels eligible to deliver pollock to the 
catcher/processors have formed a cooperative called the High Seas 
Catchers' Cooperative (HSCC).
    The AFA mothership sector is made up of three motherships and the 
catcher vessels eligible under the AFA to deliver pollock to these 
motherships. These catcher vessels have formed a cooperative called the 
Mothership Fleet Cooperative (MFC). The MFC does not include the owners 
of the three motherships. The primary purpose of the cooperative is to 
sub-allocate the mothership sector pollock allocation among the catcher 
vessels authorized to harvest this pollock and to manage these 
allocations.
    NMFS does not manage the sub-allocations of pollock among members 
of the PCC, HSCC, or MFC. The cooperatives control the harvest by their 
member vessels so that the pollock allocation to the sector is not 
exceeded. NMFS monitors pollock harvest by all members of the catcher/
processor sector and mothership sector. NMFS retains the authority to 
close directed fishing for pollock by a sector if vessels in that 
sector continue to fish once the sector's seasonal allocation of 
pollock has been harvested.

Chinook Salmon Bycatch in the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery

    Chinook salmon are accidently caught in the nets as fishermen 
target pollock. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines bycatch as fish that 
are harvested in a fishery that are not sold or kept for personal use. 
Therefore, Chinook salmon caught in the pollock fishery are considered 
bycatch under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and NMFS regulations 
at 50 CFR part 679. Bycatch of any species, including discard or other 
mortality caused by fishing, is a concern of the Council and NMFS. 
National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to 
select, and NMFS to implement, conservation and management measures 
that, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and bycatch 
mortality.
    Culturally and economically valuable species like Chinook salmon, 
which are fully allocated and, in some cases, facing conservation 
concerns, are classified as prohibited species in the groundfish 
fisheries off Alaska under the FMP. The prohibited species are Chinook 
salmon, all other species of salmon (a category called ``non-Chinook 
salmon''), steelhead trout, Pacific halibut, king crab, Tanner crab, 
and Pacific herring. Bycatch of prohibited species is highly regulated 
and closely managed. The FMP requires that groundfish fishermen avoid 
bycatch of prohibited species. Additionally, any salmon bycatch must 
either be donated to the Prohibited Species Donation (PSD) Program 
under Sec.  679.26, or returned to sea as soon as practicable, with 
minimum injury, after an observer has determined the number of salmon 
and collected any scientific data or biological samples.
    The Bering Sea pollock fishery catches up to 95 percent of the 
Chinook salmon taken incidentally as bycatch in the BSAI groundfish 
fisheries. From 1992 through 2001, the average Chinook salmon bycatch 
in the Bering Sea pollock fishery was 32,482 fish. Bycatch increased 
substantially from 2002 through 2007, to an average of 74,067 Chinook 
salmon per year. A historic high of approximately 122,000 Chinook 
salmon were taken in the Bering Sea pollock fishery in 2007. However, 
Chinook salmon bycatch has declined in recent years to 20,559 in 2008 
and 12,414 in 2009. For the 2010 pollock A season, and the pollock B 
season that opened on June 10, bycatch rates are comparable to the low 
bycatch rates in 2009. The causes of the decline in Chinook salmon 
bycatch in 2008, 2009, and 2010 are unknown. The decline is most likely 
due to a combination of factors, including changes in abundance and 
distribution of Chinook salmon and pollock, and changes in fleet 
behavior to avoid salmon bycatch.
    Chinook salmon bycatch also varies seasonally and by sector. In 
most years, the majority of Chinook salmon bycatch occurs during the A 
season. Since 2002, catcher vessels in the inshore sector typically 
have caught the highest number of Chinook salmon and had the highest 
bycatch rates by sector in both the A and B seasons. As discussed in 
the EIS (see ADDRESSES), the variation in bycatch rates among sectors 
and seasons is due, in part, to the different fishing practices and 
patterns each sector uses to fully harvest their pollock allocations.
    In years of historically high Chinook salmon bycatch in the Bering 
Sea pollock fishery (2003 through 2007), the rate of Chinook salmon 
bycatch averaged 52 Chinook salmon per 1,000 tons of pollock harvested. 
With so few salmon relative to the large amount of pollock harvested, 
Chinook salmon encounters are difficult to predict or avoid. Industry 
agreements that require vessel-level cooperation to share information 
about areas of high Chinook salmon encounter rates probably are the 
best tool that the industry currently has to quickly identify areas of 
high bycatch and to avoid fishing there. However, predicting these 
encounter rates will continue to be difficult, primarily because of the 
current lack of understanding of the biological and oceanographic 
conditions that influence the distribution and abundance of salmon in 
the areas where the pollock fishery occurs.

Chinook Salmon Stocks and Fisheries in Western Alaska

    Chinook salmon taken in the pollock fishery originate from Alaska, 
the Pacific Northwest, Canada, and Asian countries along the Pacific 
Rim. Estimates vary, but more than half of the Chinook salmon bycatch 
in the pollock fishery may be destined for western Alaska. Western 
Alaska includes the Bristol Bay, Kuskokwim, Yukon, and Norton Sound 
areas. In general, western Alaska Chinook salmon stocks declined 
sharply in 2007 and remained depressed in 2008 and 2009. Chapter 5 of 
the EIS provides additional information about Chinook salmon biology, 
distribution, and stock assessments by river system or region (see 
ADDRESSES). NMFS is expanding biological sampling to improve data on 
the origins of salmon caught as bycatch in the pollock fishery.
    Chinook salmon support subsistence, commercial, personal use, and 
sport fisheries in their regions of origin. The

[[Page 53028]]

State of Alaska Board of Fisheries adopts regulations through a public 
process to conserve fisheries resources and allocate them to the 
various users. The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) 
manages the salmon commercial, subsistence, sport, and personal use 
fisheries. The first management priority is to meet spawning escapement 
goals to sustain salmon resources for future generations. The next 
priority is for subsistence use under both State and Federal law. 
Chinook salmon serves as a primary subsistence food in some areas. 
Subsistence fisheries management includes coordination with U.S. 
Federal agencies where Federal rules apply under the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 3101-3233.
    In recent years of low Chinook salmon returns, the in-river harvest 
of western Alaska Chinook salmon has been severely restricted and, in 
some cases, river systems have not met escapement goals. Surplus fish 
beyond escapement needs and subsistence use are made available for 
other uses. Commercial fishing for Chinook salmon may provide the only 
source of income for many people who live in remote villages. Chapter 3 
of the RIR provides an overview of the importance of subsistence 
harvests and commercial harvests (see ADDRESSES).

Current Management of Chinook Salmon Bycatch in the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands

    Over the past 15 years, the Council and NMFS have implemented 
several management measures to limit Chinook salmon bycatch in the BSAI 
trawl fisheries. In 1995, NMFS implemented an annual PSC limit of 
48,000 Chinook salmon and specific seasonal no-trawling zones in the 
Chinook Salmon Savings Area that would close when the limits were 
reached (60 FR 31215; November 29, 1995). In 2000, NMFS reduced the 
Chinook Salmon Savings Area closure limit to 29,000 Chinook salmon, 
redefined the Chinook Salmon Savings Area as two non-contiguous areas 
of the BSAI (Area 1 in the AI subarea and Area 2 in the BS subarea), 
and established new closure periods (65 FR 60587; October 12, 2000).
    Chinook salmon bycatch management measures were most recently 
revised under Amendments 84 to the FMP. The Council adopted Amendment 
84 in October 2005 to address increases in Chinook and non-Chinook 
salmon bycatch that were occurring despite PSC limits that triggered 
closure of the Chinook and Chum Salmon Savings Areas.
    Amendment 84 established in Federal regulations the salmon bycatch 
intercooperative agreement (ICA), which allows vessels participating in 
the Bering Sea pollock fishery to use their internal cooperative 
structure to reduce Chinook and non-Chinook salmon bycatch using a 
method called the voluntary rolling hotspot system (VRHS). Through the 
VRHS, industry members provide each other real-time salmon bycatch 
information so that they can avoid areas of high Chinook or non-Chinook 
salmon bycatch rates. The VRHS was implemented voluntarily by the fleet 
in 2002. Amendment 84 exempts vessels participating in the salmon 
bycatch reduction ICA from salmon savings area closures, and revised 
the Chum Salmon Savings Area closure to apply only to vessels directed 
fishing for pollock, rather than to all vessels using trawl gear. The 
exemptions to savings area closures for participants in the VRHS ICA 
were implemented by NMFS in 2006 and 2007 through an exempted fishing 
permit. Regulations implementing Amendment 84 were approved in 2007 (72 
FR 61070; October 29, 2007), and NMFS approved the salmon bycatch 
reduction VRHS ICA in January 2008. Amendment 84 requires that parties 
to the ICA be AFA cooperatives and CDQ groups. All AFA cooperatives and 
CDQ groups participate in the VRHS ICA.
    Using a system specified in regulations, the VRHS ICA assigns 
vessels in a cooperative to certain tiers, based on bycatch rates of 
vessels in that cooperative relative to a base rate, and implements 
large area closures for vessels in tiers associated with higher bycatch 
rates. The VRHS ICA managers monitor salmon bycatch in the pollock 
fisheries and announce area closures for areas with relatively high 
salmon bycatch rates. Monitoring and enforcement are accomplished 
through private contractual arrangements. The efficacy of voluntary 
closures and bycatch reduction measures must be reported to the Council 
annually.
    While the annual reports suggest that the VRHS ICA has reduced 
Chinook salmon bycatch rates compared to what they would have been 
without the ICA, the highest historical Chinook salmon bycatch occurred 
in 2007, when the ICA was in effect under an exempted fishing permit. 
This high level of bycatch illustrated that, while the management 
measures implemented under Amendment 84 provided the pollock fleet with 
tools to reduce salmon bycatch, these measures contain no effective 
upper limit on the amount of salmon bycatch that could occur in the 
Bering Sea pollock fishery.

Bering Sea Chinook Salmon Bycatch Management

    This final rule implements the provisions of Amendment 91, as 
approved by NMFS. The preamble to the proposed rule (75 FR 14016; March 
23, 2010) provides a full description of the provisions implemented 
with this final rule and the justification for them. In summary, this 
final rule establishes two Chinook salmon PSC limits (60,000 Chinook 
salmon and 47,591 Chinook salmon) for the Bering Sea pollock fishery. 
For each PSC limit, NMFS will issue A season and B season Chinook 
salmon PSC allocations to the catcher/processor sector, the mothership 
sector, the inshore cooperatives, and the CDQ groups. Chinook salmon 
allocations remaining from the A season can be used in the B season 
(``rollover''). Entities can transfer PSC allocations within a season 
and can also receive transfers of Chinook salmon PSC to cover overages 
(``post-delivery transfers'').
    NMFS will issue transferable allocations of the 60,000 Chinook 
salmon PSC limit to those sectors that participate in an incentive plan 
agreement (IPA) and remain in compliance with the performance standard. 
Sector and cooperative allocations would be reduced if members of the 
sector or cooperative decided not to participate in an IPA. Vessels and 
CDQ groups that do not participate in an IPA would fish under a 
restricted opt-out allocation of Chinook salmon. If a whole sector does 
not participate in an IPA, all members of that sector would fish under 
the opt-out allocation.
    The IPA component is an innovative approach for fishery 
participants to design industry agreements with incentives for each 
vessel to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch at all times and thus reduce 
bycatch below the PSC limits. This final rule establishes performance-
based requirements for the IPAs. To ensure participants develop 
effective IPAs, this final rule requires that participants submit 
annual reports to the Council that evaluate whether the IPA is 
effective at providing incentives for vessels to avoid Chinook salmon 
at all times while fishing for pollock.
    The sector-level performance standard ensures that the IPA is 
effective and that sectors cannot fully harvest the Chinook salmon PSC 
allocations under the 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC limit in most years. 
Each year, each sector will be issued an annual threshold amount that 
represents that sector's portion of 47,591 Chinook salmon. For a sector 
to continue to receive Chinook salmon

[[Page 53029]]

PSC allocations under the 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC limit, that sector 
must not exceed its annual threshold amount 3 times within 7 
consecutive years. If a sector fails this performance standard, it will 
permanently be allocated a portion of the 47,591 Chinook salmon PSC 
limit.
    NMFS will issue transferable allocations of the 47,591 Chinook 
salmon PSC limit to all sectors, cooperatives, and CDQ groups if no IPA 
is approved, or to the sectors that exceed the performance standard.
    Transferability of PSC allocations is expected to mitigate the 
variation in the encounter rates of Chinook salmon bycatch among 
sectors, CDQ groups, and cooperatives in a given season by allowing 
eligible participants to obtain a larger portion of the PSC limit in 
order to harvest their pollock allocation or to transfer surplus 
allocation to other entities. When a PSC allocation is reached, the 
affected sector, inshore cooperative, or CDQ group would have to stop 
fishing for pollock for the remainder of the season even if its pollock 
allocation had not been fully harvested.
    This final rule also removes from regulations the 29,000 Chinook 
salmon PSC limit in the Bering Sea, the Chinook Salmon Savings Areas in 
the Bering Sea, exemption from Chinook Salmon Savings Area closures for 
participants in the VRHS ICA, and Chinook salmon as a component of the 
VRHS ICA. This final rule does not change any regulations affecting the 
management of Chinook salmon in the Aleutian Islands or non-Chinook 
salmon in the BSAI. The Council is currently considering a separate 
action to modify the non-Chinook salmon management measures to minimize 
non-Chinook salmon bycatch.

Summary of Regulation Changes in Response to Public Comments

    This section provides a summary of the substantive changes made to 
the final rule in response to public comments. Section 304(b)(3) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to consult with the Council before 
making any revisions to proposed regulations and to publish in the 
Federal Register an explanation of any differences between proposed and 
final regulations. At its June 2010 meeting, NMFS consulted with the 
Council on the revisions to the proposed rule to improve the 
implementing regulations and respond to public comments. All of the 
specific regulation changes, and the reasons for making these changes, 
are contained under Response to Comments, below.

Recordkeeping and Reporting

    NMFS changed the time limit in the final rule for operators of 
catcher/processors, catcher vessels delivering to motherships, and 
motherships to record the CDQ group number in the paper or electronic 
logbooks to within 2 hours after completion of weighing on the scale 
all catch in the haul. NMFS is preparing a separate proposed rule to 
revise and standardize reporting time limits to address the time limit 
for recording scale weights of each haul and other required information 
because these requirements affect more vessels than those regulated 
under Amendment 91. These additional revisions are expected to be 
effective by January, 2011.

Bering Sea Pollock Offload Monitoring

    NMFS modified the final rule to (1) allow a catcher vessel to begin 
a new trip before the salmon census and sampling are complete from the 
vessel's prior trip and (2) clarify that a shoreside or stationary 
processor must give the observer the opportunity to complete the count 
of salmon and collect biological samples before sorting a new pollock 
offload. In 2011, NMFS' observer sampling policy and observer duties 
for the Bering Sea pollock fishery will be modified for monitoring 
offloads at shoreside processors and stationary floating processors. 
The plant observer on duty will be tasked with monitoring each offload 
for proper salmon sorting, verifying the count of salmon, and 
collecting biological samples and scientific data.

Catch Monitoring and Control Plan (CMCP) Requirements

    NMFS has modified the final rule to clarify that the observation 
area and the observer work station may be located in separate areas, 
while also requiring the observer work station be adjacent to the 
location where the observer counts all salmon and collects scientific 
data or biological information. NMFS also modified the final rule to 
require that all salmon be stored in a ``salmon storage container.'' 
The observation area must now provide a clear, unobstructed view of the 
salmon storage container to ensure no salmon of any species are removed 
without the observer's knowledge. NMFS made these changes to the final 
rule to give processors more flexibility to achieve the goals of 
allowing an observer to monitor all the sorting of salmon as well as 
verify the count of the salmon.

Adjustments to the Performance Standard's Annual Threshold Amount

    NMFS changed the final rule to subtract a vessel's opt-out 
allocation from a sector's annual threshold amount in a method similar 
to the Council's recommended method for determining the sector 
allocation under the 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC limit.

Entities for the Catcher/Processor and Mothership Sectors

    To improve the implementation of sector entities, NMFS modified the 
final rule to clarify that: (1) NMFS will authorize only one entity to 
represent the catcher/processor sector and only one entity to represent 
mothership sector; (2) under the 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC limit, the 
entity for each sector has to represent all IPA participating vessel 
owners in that sector; and (3) vessel owners in the catcher/processor 
sector and mothership sector must be a member of the sector entity to 
join an IPA. NMFS changed the deadline for the entity application from 
November 1 to October 1, to coincide with the deadline for the IPA 
application, and added a December 1 deadline for the entity 
representative to make changes to the vessels that are members of the 
entity. NMFS also changed the regulations to clarify that an entity 
representative may sign more than one IPA on behalf of the vessel 
owners participating in that IPA.

Joint and Several Liability

    NMFS removed joint and several liability provisions for 
cooperatives and the entities representing the catcher/processor sector 
and mothership sector. In the proposed rule, these provisions created 
some confusion and they are unnecessary because NOAA has independent 
authority to exercise its discretion to seek to impose joint liability 
if the evidence supports doing so.

Post-Delivery Transfers

    NMFS changed the final rule to clarify that a vessel is prohibited 
from fishing for an entity that has exceeded its Chinook salmon PSC 
allocation.

Incentive Plan Agreements

    NMFS changed the final rule to: (1) Modify the minimum 
participation requirement for an IPA to clarify that parties to an IPA 
must collectively represent at least 9 percent of the Bering Sea 
pollock quota; (2) modify the IPA requirement to better reflect the 
Council motion that says that an IPA must describe incentives for each 
vessel to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch under any condition of pollock 
and Chinook

[[Page 53030]]

salmon abundance in all years; (3) change the deadline for amendments 
to the IPA list of participants from November 1 to December 1 to 
provide vessel owners more time to join an IPA; and (4) clarify the 
regulatory language for an amendment to an IPA.
    To clarify a CDQ group's participation in one or more approved 
IPAs, NMFS added a requirement in the final rule that, for a CDQ group 
to be a member of an IPA, the CDQ group must list each vessel 
harvesting pollock CDQ on behalf of that CDQ group in the IPA.

Electronic Monitoring

    NMFS removed the proposed rule's requirement that the video monitor 
display the ``activities within the tank,'' and clarified in the final 
rule that the purpose of the video monitor is to enable the observer to 
view any area where crew could sort salmon and view the salmon 
contained in the storage container. Also, for clarity and consistency, 
NMFS revised the final rule to allow NMFS staff or other authorized 
personnel, including observers, the ability to view any video footage 
from earlier in the trip.

Tables 47a, 47b, 47c, and 47d to Part 679

    In the final rule, NMFS changed column G in Tables 47a, 47b, and 
47c and column E in Table 47d to show each vessel's annual amount of 
Chinook salmon for the opt-out allocation that will be deducted from 
the sector's annual threshold amount for the performance standard if a 
vessel opts-out of an IPA. NMFS also modified the percent of the 
inshore sector's pollock allocation in column D of Table 47c to include 
four decimal places.
Additional Changes From the Proposed Rule
    NMFS made the following changes from the proposed rule to the final 
rule to clarify regulatory language or correct mistakes in the proposed 
rule.

AFA Preliminary Report

    In the final rule, NMFS corrects the proposed language at Sec.  
679.61(f)(1) to retain the requirement for a preliminary AFA 
cooperative report. The proposed rule anticipated the publication of 
another rule that would have provided notice and an opportunity for 
public comment to remove this AFA reporting requirement. Until such a 
process is completed, NMFS cannot remove the regulations requiring a 
preliminary report at Sec.  679.61(f)(1). Retaining the preliminary 
report does not change the information collection burden on AFA 
cooperatives; however, the final rule still changes the submission 
deadline for the final annual AFA cooperative reports from February 1 
to April 1 to coincide with the deadlines for a new Chinook salmon IPA 
annual report and the non-Chinook salmon ICA annual report. Having the 
same deadline for all three of these reports allows the Council to 
discuss any of these annual reports at one time during its April 
Council meeting. At its June 2010 meeting, the Council recommended that 
NMFS pursue a proposed rule to remove the regulations requiring a 
preliminary AFA report.

AI Chinook Salmon Allocation for the CDQ Program

    NMFS corrected the proposed rule to retain allocations of the trawl 
gear PSC limits to the CDQ Program as a prohibited species quota (PSQ) 
reserve. The proposed rule, at Sec.  679.21(e)(3)(i)(A)(3)(i), 
inadvertently eliminated the 7.5 percent apportionment of the PSC limit 
for AI Chinook salmon set forth in paragraph (e)(1)(viii). This 
correction is necessary to ensure that CDQ participants will be subject 
to the AI salmon area closure based on the PSC limit established for 
the CDQ sector by Amendment 82 to the BSAI FMP (70 FR 9856, March 1, 
2005).

Response to Comments

Observer Issues

    Comment 1: This action proposes two positive management actions: 
increasing observer coverage to 100 percent and implementing the census 
approach to catch accounting.
    Response: NMFS agrees with this comment. This final rule will 
improve the collection of Chinook salmon information by increasing 
observer coverage to 100 percent for all vessels and shoreside 
processing facilities, and by requiring a census of Chinook salmon in 
every haul or fishing trip.
    Comment 2: The majority of Alaskans depend on fish to feed 
themselves. Yet salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery is uncertain and 
unregulated. Solving this mystery starts with observing the pollock 
fishery and international fishing boats.
    Response: Amendment 91 regulates Chinook salmon bycatch in the 
Bering Sea pollock fishery and will minimize Chinook salmon bycatch to 
the extent practicable. Additionally, with the regulations implementing 
Amendment 91, NMFS will increase observer coverage for all vessels and 
shoreside processing facilities, and require a census of Chinook salmon 
in every haul or fishing trip. This will greatly improve our 
information on Chinook salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery.
    International fishing boats are prevented from fishing in the U.S. 
exclusive economic zone, and observing vessels fishing in international 
waters is outside the scope of this action.
    Comment 3: Under Amendment 91, observers on catcher vessels would 
be performing a monitoring and compliance role. While we agree that it 
is not necessary to require an observer with a level-two endorsement 
for catcher vessels delivering to inshore plants, we do not recommend 
specifying observer training level in the regulations. Doing so could 
restrict future flexibility if the observer's role should change to 
accommodate other needs.
    Response: NMFS agrees and does not specify the observer training 
levels for observers on catcher vessels in this final rule. Species 
identification and sampling methodologies for the shoreside observers 
are covered during the three week training course that all certified 
observers receive. Observers with a level-two endorsement, as defined 
at Sec.  679.50(j)(1)(v)(D), are trained in at-sea sample station 
requirements, at-sea motion compensated scale testing, and observer 
duties under the CDQ Program. Training for level-two observers does not 
include new duties for shoreside vessel and plant observers under 
Amendment 91.
    Comment 4: The inshore sector represents approximately 76 percent 
of the pollock catcher vessels, assuming that each mothership services 
eight harvesting vessels. The vast majority of catcher vessels have had 
extremely lax observer coverage for several years. Over a dozen crew 
members of the inshore fleet have commented that over the last decade 
the salmon bycatch is under-reported by an average of 40 percent (range 
of under-reporting was stated as between 20 and 70 percent).
    Response: Under this final rule, every catcher vessel in the 
inshore sector will have an observer onboard at all times. This is an 
increase in observer coverage for catcher vessels less than 125 feet 
length overall (LOA). Additionally, every salmon caught by each vessel 
in the Bering Sea pollock fishery will be counted.
    Comment 5: The monitoring and enforcement measures in the proposed 
rule ensure that the appropriate conservation and management measures 
are adequately applied to Chinook salmon bycatch.
    Response: NMFS agrees. This final rule will improve the collection 
of Chinook salmon information by increasing observer coverage for 
vessels

[[Page 53031]]

and shoreside processing facilities, by requiring a census of Chinook 
salmon in every haul or fishing trip, by requiring video monitoring to 
assist observers aboard catcher/processors and motherships, and by 
implementing electronic reporting by haul or delivery.
    Comment 6: A third plant observer should not be considered as part 
of Amendment 91 and is not necessary because the two full-time 
observers currently available at each inshore plant plus the vessel 
observer provide more than adequate coverage.
    Response: NMFS agrees and neither the proposed rule nor the final 
rule require a third plant observer. Under the final rule, one plant 
observer is on duty for each delivery with the assistance of the vessel 
observer. Together, two observers can meet the assigned duties of 
monitoring proper sorting of salmon, verifying salmon counts, and 
collecting scientific data and biological samples. Shoreside processors 
may voluntarily obtain a third plant observer. However, the duties of a 
third observer would be no different than those currently required of 
plant observers.
    Comment 7: The proposed rule inaccurately assumes that observers 
can add salmon census duties to their other responsibilities and still 
accomplish their other work. Currently, observers are assigned a 
variety of data collection projects that support scientists and 
managers. To accomplish the goals of the proposed census system, an 
additional person dedicated to the oversight of salmon sorting may be 
necessary. Otherwise, the observer is dedicated to Amendment 91 
responsibilities, and other data collection would have to be greatly 
reduced or eliminated altogether.
    Response: NMFS recognizes that observer duties may need to change 
to allow observers to complete salmon monitoring as outlined in this 
final rule. The Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis (FMA) Division of the 
Alaska Fisheries Science Center makes policy decisions about the tasks 
an observer performs, informed by regulation and management necessity. 
As is customary for each new regulation and calendar year, the FMA 
Division may require duties performed in 2010 be added or removed for 
2011. Under the FMA Division observer sampling policy for 2011, 
observer duties will be adjusted to allow for the monitoring of pollock 
offloads at shoreside processors and stationary floating processors. 
The FMA Division determines the specific observer duties necessary to 
ensure the proper data is collected while recognizing the limitations 
on the observer's time and energy.
    Observers aboard catcher/processors and motherships will still 
complete their normal sampling duties. Observers have routinely 
reported the number of salmon collected during a haul. The 
responsibility for ensuring that all salmon are removed from the catch 
and counted will fall upon the vessel with the observer providing third 
party verification. The use of electronic monitoring systems will 
supplement the observer's ability to monitor proper sorting and ensure 
that no salmon are removed from the storage container until an observer 
has had the opportunity to verify the count and collect scientific data 
and biological samples on a haul by haul basis.
    Comment 8: The proposed rule is written such that the burden of 
ensuring that all salmon are collected, enumerated, and identified to 
species appears to fall on the observer. A census can be accomplished, 
but it requires shifting the responsibility for sorting and identifying 
salmon bycatch from the observer to the vessel and processing plant 
crews. The regulations should require the vessel or processing plant 
crew to sort all salmon and separate salmon by species. Observers 
should only be responsible for independently tallying the salmon and 
verifying species, gathering biological samples, and transmitting data 
as directed by NMFS. Furthermore, placing such onus on the vessel or 
processing plant crew would allow for fewer disruptions to fishing 
operations.
    This system already exists under Sec.  679.21(c), prohibited 
species bycatch management, and through the observers sampling 
protocols established by the FMA Division. The regulations at Sec.  
679.21(c) direct vessels to sort all salmon bycatch into bins and 
separate by haul until the number of salmon can be determined by the 
observer. Observers estimate these salmon counts are approximately 95 
percent accurate.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the regulations place the burden on 
the observer to ensure that all salmon are collected, enumerated, and 
identified to species. The observer provides third party verification 
and reports salmon bycatch. The FMA Division has historically tasked 
observers to collect information that sometimes parallels industry 
reporting requirements; this role remains the same under this final 
rule.
    For the inshore sector, the final rule, at Sec.  679.21(c)(2)(i) 
and (iii), is clear that the responsibility for ensuring all salmon are 
sorted, stored, and accounted properly falls upon the vessel operator 
or shoreside processor. Additionally, Sec.  679.5(e)(5)(i)(C)(3) 
requires shoreside processors and stationary floating processors to 
report salmon numbers by species for each landing. The final rule, at 
Sec.  679.5(f)(1)(vii), requires all catcher/processors and motherships 
to report the salmon numbers by species for each haul.
    Comment 9: NMFS should consider the 100 percent observer 
requirement on the previously unobserved segment of the pollock fleet 
as an opportunity to research claims by other unobserved sectors with 
similarly configured vessels regarding cost, practicality, and 
convenience.
    Response: The AFA catcher vessels that will be subject to increased 
observer coverage under this final rule are not members of a previously 
unobserved segment of the pollock fleet. All of the vessels that will 
be subject to 100 percent observer coverage currently are subject to 30 
percent observer coverage, so they already carry observers during part 
of the year. Therefore, NMFS already has information about the costs, 
practicality, and convenience of carrying observers on these vessels. 
NMFS needs information about cost and practicality of carrying 
observers on vessels less than 60 feet LOA that are not required to 
carry any observers under current regulations. However, there are no 
active fishing vessels of this size class in the Bering Sea pollock 
fishery.
    Comment 10: The proposed rule would stop all sorting and processing 
when the observer cannot be present. This inaccurately assumes that the 
observer is present during all sorting periods. Observers on at-sea 
processors must complete a myriad of activities that may require them 
to move to other parts of the vessel. Similarly, on some catcher 
vessels hauls are sorted on a level below the trawl deck; therefore, 
crew can be on deck dumping the bag, while the observer is below 
sorting the catch. Observers are also required to take breaks.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the regulations would stop all 
sorting and processing when the observer cannot be present, and has 
made no changes to the final rule in response to this comment. Although 
the observer must verify that a census of all salmon is conducted, 
observers aboard catcher/processors and motherships are not required to 
conduct the census. Under the final rule, at Sec.  679.21(c)(2)(i), the 
vessel operator is responsible for ensuring that all salmon are sorted, 
stored, and counted by species. Therefore, the regulations do not 
require that sorting and processing must halt if an observer is not 
present or is completing other duties. Instead,

[[Page 53032]]

the final rule, at Sec.  679.28(j), requires an electronic monitoring 
system to enable observers to review sorting they may have not been 
able to witness. Sorting is required to stop only if the salmon storage 
container is full; see Sec.  679.21(c)(2)(i)(B). This will allow the 
observer to clearly delineate salmon that have been sampled from those 
that have not been sampled and counted.
    For catcher vessels, no salmon may be removed or discarded at sea 
and all salmon must be delivered to a shoreside processor; see Sec.  
679.7(d)(7)(E) and Sec.  679.21(c)(2)(ii)(B). Additionally, catcher 
vessels that have the ability to sort below deck do not have many 
opportunities to sort out salmon while the codend is being dumped. NMFS 
acknowledges that there may be a small opportunity to remove salmon 
while the codend is being dumped; however, these vessels would be in 
violation of the requirement to retain all salmon.
    Comment 11: The final rule should require vessels to assign and 
maintain a salmon sorter at the sorting belt throughout the processing 
of a haul. Such a salmon sorter should also be required to identify and 
sort salmon by species into designated bins that can be easily 
monitored by the observer.
    Response: The final rule, at Sec.  679.21(c)(3), requires the 
operators of vessels and the managers of shoreside or stationary 
floating processors to designate, and identify to the observer, a crew 
person or employee responsible for ensuring all sorting, retention, and 
storage of salmon occurs in accordance with the regulations at Sec.  
679.21(c)(2). However, the regulations do not require vessel operators 
and shoreside or stationary floating processor managers to sort salmon 
by species. Due to the variety of vessel and shoreside configurations, 
adding the necessary space required for sorting salmon by species may 
be impractical for some operations. Vessel operators or processors may 
choose to separate salmon by species in order to expedite the 
verification of the salmon count and the collection of biological 
samples or scientific data.
    Comment 12: Vessel operators participating in an IPA are 
responsible to track their own salmon counts throughout each season. 
Therefore, it is unnecessary to structure regulations regarding the 
observation and count of salmon that are directly tied to the vessel 
observer.
    Response: NMFS agrees that vessel operators, cooperative managers, 
and managers of shoreside processing facilities are responsible for 
ensuring proper sorting, counting, and identification of salmon. 
However, NMFS disagrees that it is unnecessary to structure regulations 
regarding the observation and count of salmon that are directly tied to 
the vessel observer. Observations reported by the NMFS observers will 
serve as independent third party information to verify whether the 
counts and identification of salmon reported by industry are correct 
and accurate. Regulations are necessary to ensure the observer has 
unobstructed access to these fish in such a way that the data can be 
reliably collected and reported.
    Comment 13: The proposed rule, at Sec.  679.7(k)(8)(iii), prohibits 
the operator of a catcher vessel from starting a new fishing trip for 
pollock in the Bering Sea if the observer assigned to the catcher 
vessel for the next fishing trip has not completed counting the salmon 
and collecting scientific data or biological samples from the previous 
delivery by that vessel. Similarly, Sec.  679.21(c)(2)(ii)(C) requires 
that before the vessel can begin a new fishing trip, the observer 
assigned to that vessel for the next fishing trip must be given the 
opportunity to complete the count of salmon and collect scientific data 
or biological samples from the previous delivery. These provisions 
contradict language in the preamble (pages 14029 and 14030) that a 
vessel may begin a new trip before the salmon census and sampling are 
complete for the vessel's prior trip so long as the vessel leaves with 
a different observer than it carried on the prior trip.
    These provisions are overly prescriptive, would increase costs to 
participants while reducing flexibility, and would require contractors 
to maintain a large pool of observers onshore to ensure that catcher 
vessels could start a new fishing trip prior to the observer completing 
their duties. And, it should not be the responsibility of the observer 
assigned to the catcher vessel for the next trip to collect the data 
from the previous trip. These responsibilities should be shared by the 
vessel and plant observers. The final rule should require only that no 
catcher vessel may start a new fishing trip unless it has an observer 
onboard. Which observer the vessel carries and whether a vessel or 
plant observer completes the salmon census and all sampling for a prior 
delivery should not matter. In light of additional observer coverage 
and changing duties involved in Chinook salmon bycatch accounting, a 
more flexible approach to duty assignment is necessary.
    Response: NMFS agrees and for the reasons set forth by the 
commenter, it has modified the final rule to (1) allow a catcher vessel 
to begin a new trip before the salmon census and sampling are complete 
from the vessel's prior trip, and (2) clarify that a shoreside or 
stationary processor must give the observer the opportunity to complete 
the count of salmon and collect biological samples before sorting a new 
pollock offload.
    NMFS removed the restriction on a vessel's ability to begin a new 
trip, at Sec.  679.21(c)(2)(ii)(C) of the proposed rule. Instead, NMFS 
revised the prohibition at Sec.  679.7(d)(8)(ii)(C)(6) to clarify that 
a shoreside or stationary floating processor cannot begin sorting a 
pollock CDQ offload before the observer has completed the count of 
salmon and the collection of scientific data or biological samples. 
Similarly, NMFS revised Sec.  679.7(k)(8)(iii) to prohibit shoreside 
processors and stationary floating processors from sorting the next 
pollock offload until the observer has completed duties related to a 
previous pollock offload. Moreover, NMFS added Sec.  
679.21(c)(2)(iii)(F) to the final rule to prevent a shoreside or 
stationary floating processor from beginning the next pollock offload 
until the observer has notified the plant operator that opportunity has 
been provided to complete the count of salmon and collect scientific 
data or biological samples.
    Comment 14: The proposed rule, at Sec.  679.21(c)(2)(iii)(D), 
requires that the vessel offload and sorting must cease in the event 
salmon are too numerous to be contained in the observation area and the 
observer must be given the opportunity to count the salmon in the 
observation area and collect scientific data or biological samples. In 
addition, the proposed rule, at Sec.  679.28(g)(7)(vii)(F), requires 
that the observation area must contain an area designated to store 
salmon. However, there may not be enough room to contain all salmon 
within sight of the observer at all times. The final rule should allow 
the salmon to be removed, in the presence of the observer, once salmon 
have been counted and sampled. Moreover, vessels should be allowed to 
resume offloading and sorting as soon as space becomes available in the 
observation area.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has revised the final rule to clarify 
that, at any point during the offload, if salmon are too numerous to be 
contained in the salmon storage container, the sorting of the offload 
must cease and the observer must be allowed to count all the salmon and 
collect scientific data and biological samples adjacent to the observer 
work station. Once these duties have been completed, the salmon may be 
removed

[[Page 53033]]

in the presence of the observer and the sorting of the offload may 
continue.
    NMFS made the following changes in the final rule to give 
processors more flexibility to achieve the goals of allowing an 
observer to monitor all the sorting of salmon and verify the count of 
salmon. These changes are necessary because processing facilities vary 
greatly in the methods used to sort and weigh fish.
    In response to comments that the observation area may not provide 
enough space to hold the salmon storage area, NMFS revised the final 
rule at Sec.  679.21(c)(2)(iii)(C), (D), and (E) by removing the 
requirement to store and count salmon in the observation area. Instead, 
the final rule requires salmon to be stored in a ``salmon storage 
container.'' No additional revisions are needed because the final rule, 
at Sec.  679.21(c)(2)(iii)(D), allows shoreside processors or 
stationary processors to remove the salmon from the storage container 
if the salmon become too numerous to contain in this location.
    NMFS added a requirement, at Sec.  679.28(g)(7)(vi)(C), that the 
observation area must provide a clear, unobstructed view of the salmon 
storage container to ensure no salmon of any species are removed 
without the observer's knowledge.
    NMFS revised paragraph Sec.  679.28(g)(7)(vii) to allow for the 
observation area and the observer work station to be in separate 
locations, while also requiring the observer work station be adjacent 
to the location where the observer counts all salmon and collects 
scientific data or biological information.
    Last, NMFS revised the regulations at Sec.  679.28(g)(7)(x)(F) to 
clarify that the CMCP requirement to include the location of the salmon 
storage container is only for shoreside or stationary floating 
processors taking pollock deliveries.
    Comment 15: Revise sections Sec.  679.21(c)(2)(iii)(D) and (E) to 
refer to ``an observer'' rather than ``the observer.'' Using ``the 
observer'' implies that the required functions would always be done by 
the catcher vessel observer, which is illogical because an offload 
could take up to 24 hours. Using ``an observer'' would add flexibility 
for program participants and more accurately reflect the current shared 
responsibilities of vessel and plant observers when a catcher vessel 
delivers to a shoreside or stationary floating processor.
    Response: NMFS disagrees and has made no changes to the final rule 
in response to this comment. The final rule, at Sec.  
679.21(c)(2)(iii)(D) and (E), uses the phrase ``the observer'' to refer 
to either the plant or the vessel observer, and does not designate 
which observer will be tasked with monitoring the offload. No changes 
are required to the regulations because either observer may perform 
these duties.
    The FMA Division makes policy decisions about the tasks an observer 
performs. In the past, vessel observers monitored offloads of shoreside 
pollock deliveries. Beginning in 2011, observer program policy will 
place the primary responsibility for monitoring the proper sorting of 
salmon, verifying the count of salmon, and collecting scientific data 
and biological samples upon the observers stationed at the processing 
facility. The vessel observer may provide the plant observer breaks or 
other assistance as needed during the offload.
    Comment 16: The proposed rule, at Sec.  679.21(c)(2)(i)(D) and 
Sec.  679.21(c)(2)(iii)(B), requires that that no salmon pass the 
observer sample collection point, or no salmon pass from the last point 
where sorting of fish occurs into the factory area of a processing 
plant. These requirements are unreasonable as it is inevitable that 
salmon occasionally pass beyond the sorting area because salmon can be 
difficult to identify in the large volume of pollock. This could occur 
even when every effort is made to identify and separate salmon out at 
the observer sample collection point and/or sorting area. Rather than 
penalize a plant operator, the regulations should provide the 
flexibility for salmon identified at any point in the process to be 
counted and sampled without penalty.
    Response: NMFS disagrees and has made no changes to the final rule 
in response to this comment. As identified in the EIS on page 65, 
Chinook salmon PSC allocations may create strong economic incentives to 
misreport salmon bycatch because each salmon counted against Chinook 
salmon PSC allocation could ultimately constrain the full harvest of a 
sector's, cooperative's, or CDQ group's pollock allocation. The factory 
areas of processing plants are large and complex. Preventing observers 
from seeing Chinook salmon that enter the factory would not be 
difficult. In order for PSC limits to be effective, NMFS needs to 
ensure that there is a credible salmon bycatch monitoring system in 
place at shoreside processing plants. This would ensure that observers 
have access to all salmon, prior to the fish being conveyed into the 
factory. NMFS acknowledges that the reduction in the flow of fish 
through the initial catch sorting area could slow pollock processing, 
since fish would enter the factory at a slower rate. Additional sorting 
crew may also be needed in the catch sorting area during times when 
salmon bycatch is high or small salmon are present.

Recordkeeping and Reporting

    Comment 17: Current regulations require operators of trawl catcher/
processors to record the scale weight for the haul and the CDQ group 
number within 2 hours after completion of gear retrieval. However, it 
is unlikely that all of the catch from a haul will be weighed within 2 
hours of gear retrieval. Pollock often are held in tanks before 
weighing and processing for hours after the gear is retrieved. In 
addition, vessel operators and CDQ group representatives want to know 
the weight of the haul and the number of Chinook salmon in the haul 
before deciding whether to assign the haul to the CDQ group. The time 
limit for recording scale weight and CDQ group number should be changed 
to within 2 hours after the completion of weighing of the catch from 
the haul. This solution provides adequate time for the crew to safely 
move the fish across the scale without putting unnecessary pressure on 
the observer to monitor the haul and complete their other duties faster 
than they reasonably can. It also ensures that the vessel operator 
enters the haul data with minimal delay for the benefit of other 
vessels in their sector that depend on that data to avoid hot spots and 
to manage under the PSC allocation and performance standard.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has modified the final rule, at Sec.  
679.5, to change the time limit for recording the CDQ group number in 
the logbooks, for the reasons described in the comment.
    Proper accounting of pollock catch and salmon bycatch to an AFA 
sector, inshore cooperative, or CDQ group requires identification of 
whether a haul by a catcher/processor or a delivery by a catcher vessel 
to either a mothership, shoreside processor, or stationary floating 
processor is assigned to a specific CDQ group. If no CDQ group is 
identified with the haul or delivery, that pollock, associated salmon 
bycatch, and other catch in the haul or delivery is attributed to the 
sector or inshore cooperative to which the vessel or processor belongs. 
For catcher/processors and motherships, observer data is used to 
determine the weight of pollock and number of salmon associated with 
the haul or delivery, and the CDQ group number must be properly 
identified in the observer data at the time the data is transmitted by 
the observer from the vessel to NMFS. The primary and official source 
of the CDQ group number for the observer is the

[[Page 53034]]

vessel logbook. Observers also record and transmit the total weight of 
each haul or delivery from the scale onboard the vessel. Although the 
scale weight of each haul or delivery also is required to be recorded 
in the vessel logbook, observers can obtain this information directly 
from the scale and do not need to rely on the vessel logbooks as the 
only source of data for scale weights.
    Under current regulations, operators of catcher vessels and 
catcher/processors using any gear type and the operators of motherships 
are required to record the CDQ group number in their logbooks within 2 
hours after the completion of gear retrieval. This requirement has 
existed for logbooks for many years so that vessel operators can 
document whether catch in a haul or set is occurring in CDQ or non-CDQ 
fisheries. The primary reasons for requiring the vessel operators to 
indicate in their logbooks that they were fishing on behalf of a CDQ 
group are: (1) To document why a vessel may be directed fishing for a 
groundfish species when the non-CDQ fisheries for that species were 
closed; (2) to record production and retained catch separately in the 
CDQ and non-CDQ fisheries for purposes of calculating maximum 
retainable amounts of groundfish not open for directed fishing; and (3) 
to provide information for proper accounting of catch to allocated 
quotas.
    The requirement to record both the scale weight of the haul and the 
CDQ group number within 2 hours of completion of gear retrieval applies 
to daily cumulative production logbooks (DCPLs) for catcher/processors 
using trawl gear under regulations at Sec.  679.5(c)(4)(ii)(B). 
However, as described in the proposed rule, under Amendment 91 AFA 
catcher/processors or any catcher/processor harvesting pollock CDQ will 
no longer be filling out DCPLs (the paper logbooks). Vessel operators 
are required to record all information previously required in the DCPL 
in an electronic logbook (ELB). This final rule adds text to the 
introductory paragraph of the trawl catcher/processor DCPL requirements 
to clarify that the operators of AFA catcher/processors or any catcher/
processor harvesting pollock CDQ are required to use an ELB and no 
longer report using a DCPL.
    Regulations at Sec.  679.5(f)(2)(iii)(B)(1) require that vessel 
operators using an ELB must ``Record the haul number or set number, 
time and date gear set, time and date gear hauled, begin and end 
position, CDQ group number (if applicable), and hail weight for each 
haul or set within 2 hours after completion of gear retrieval.'' Hail 
weight is the vessel operator's estimate of the total weight of the 
haul. Although current ELB regulations require the vessel operator to 
enter all data currently required for the DCPLs, the ELB time limits 
currently do not include the same requirement that applies to the DCPL 
that operators of catcher/processors required to weigh catch on a scale 
approved by NMFS must record the scale weight of the haul. In addition, 
although the ELB time limits list the information that must be recorded 
within 2 hours after completion of gear retrieval, they do not include 
the additional DCPL time limit to record all other required information 
by noon of the day following completion of production. NMFS revised the 
final rule to require operators of catcher/processors to report, in the 
ELBs, the CDQ group number within 2 hours after completion of weighing 
all of the catch in the haul on the scale.
    NMFS is preparing a separate proposed rule to revise and 
standardize time limits in Sec.  679.5 for daily fishing logbooks 
(DFLs), DCPLs, and ELBs and will address the time limit for recording 
the scale weight of each haul and all other required information in 
this separate rulemaking because these requirements affect more than 
the vessels regulated under Amendment 91. This separate rulemaking is 
expected to be effective by January 1, 2011. However, until these 
revisions are made, operators of catcher/processors fishing under 
Amendment 91 are not required to record scale weights of each haul in 
the ELB within 2 hours of completion of gear retrieval.
    NMFS changed the final rule to add a requirement that the operator 
of the vessel must provide the information recorded in the ELB to the 
observer or an authorized officer upon request at any time after the 
specified deadlines and before the ELB logsheet is printed. This 
requirement is needed because the CDQ group number is required to be 
recorded in the ELB within 2 hours after weighing of the catch, but the 
vessel operator is only required to print a copy of the ELB logsheet 
for the observer's use by noon each day to record the previous day's 
EL