Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Chinook Salmon Bycatch Management in the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery; Economic Data Collection, 42099-42111 [2011-17894]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42099-42111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17894]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 110207103-1113-01]
RIN 0648-BA80


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

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to implement the Chinook Salmon Economic Data 
Report Program to evaluate the effectiveness of Chinook salmon bycatch 
management measures for the Bering Sea pollock fishery that were 
implemented under Amendment 91 to the Fishery Management Plan for 
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area 
(FMP). The data collected for this program would be submitted by 
members of the American Fisheries Act inshore, catcher/processor, and 
mothership sectors, as well as representatives for the six western 
Alaska Community Development Quota organizations that presently receive 
allocations of Bering Sea pollock. The proposed rule is intended to 
promote the goals and objectives of the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law.

DATES: Written comments must be received no later than August 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional 
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, 
Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-
BA80, by any one of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov.
     Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
     Fax: (907) 586-7557.
     Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th 
Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
    All comments received are a part of the public record. Comments 
will generally be posted without change. All Personal Identifying 
Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential 
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required 
fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to 
electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF 
file formats only.
    Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA), Categorical Exclusion, and 
the four Paperwork Reduction Act Analyses (including Chinook salmon 
Economic Data Report forms) 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 
proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address, and by e-
mail to mailto: OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or by fax to 202-395-
7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hartman or Patsy A. Bearden at 
907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries 
of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) in the 
exclusive economic zone under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) 
16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 
CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear 
at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.
    This proposed rule would implement the Chinook Salmon Economic Data 
Report (EDR) program for the Chinook salmon bycatch management measures 
implemented under Amendment 91 to the FMP. The Chinook Salmon EDR 
program applies to owners and operators of catcher vessels, catcher/
processors, motherships, and the six Western Alaska Community 
Development Quota (CDQ) Program groups qualified to participate in the 
pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) fishery in the Bering Sea subarea of 
the BSAI. The proposed rule also applies to the representatives of 
participants in the Bering Sea pollock fishery.

Background

AFA Sectors, Cooperatives, and CDQ Groups

    NMFS manages the Bering Sea pollock fishery under the American 
Fisheries Act (AFA) (16 U.S.C. 1851 note). The AFA ``rationalized'' the 
Bering Sea pollock fishery in part by authorizing the formation and 
management of fishery cooperatives in the three pollock sectors 
(catcher/processor, mothership, and inshore). A portion of the Bering 
Sea pollock fishery is managed by a separate CDQ program. The inshore 
sector's pollock is subdivided among seven inshore cooperatives. The 
purpose of these AFA cooperatives is to further subdivide each sector's 
or inshore cooperative'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 of 
pollock. The cooperatives also facilitate transfers of pollock among 
the cooperative members, enforce contract provisions, and are allowed 
to participate in an intercooperative agreement to reduce salmon 
bycatch. A more detailed description of AFA cooperatives and 
intercooperative agreements may be found in the RIR/IRFA for this 
proposed action (see ADDRESSES).
    The total allowable catch (TAC) for Bering Sea pollock and 
allocations to each of the AFA sectors and CDQ groups participating in 
the Bering Sea pollock fishery are specified annually (see 75 FR 11749, 
March 12, 2010 for 2010/2011 specifications). After the CDQ Program 
allocation and allowance for incidental catch of pollock in other 
fisheries is subtracted, NMFS allocates the remaining TAC to vessels 
harvesting pollock for processing by inshore processors, vessels 
harvesting pollock for processing by catcher/processors, and vessels 
harvesting pollock for processing by motherships. Some

[[Page 42100]]

catcher vessels do not join an inshore cooperative. These CVs 
participate in the inshore open-access fishery and so do not receive an 
allocation of pollock. Each year, catcher vessels eligible to deliver 
pollock to the seven AFA inshore processors may form inshore 
cooperatives associated with a particular inshore processor. The AFA 
catcher/processor sector consists of AFA-eligible vessels in the 
Pollock Conservation Cooperative (PCC) and High Seas Catcher's 
Cooperative (HSCC). The HSCC consists of owners of the catcher vessels 
eligible to deliver pollock to the catcher/processors. NMFS issues an 
annual allocation of pollock to the entire catcher/processor sector, 
based on the aggregate of each vessel's pollock catch history.
    The AFA mothership sector consists of three motherships and the 
AFA-eligible catcher vessels that deliver pollock to these motherships. 
The catcher vessels have formed a cooperative called the Mothership 
Fleet Cooperative (MFC). The MFC sub-allocates the mothership sector 
pollock allocation among the catcher vessels authorized to harvest this 
pollock. 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. However, NMFS monitors pollock harvest by all members of 
the catcher/processor sector and mothership sector. NMFS retains the 
authority to close directed fishing by 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

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines bycatch as fish that are harvested 
in a commercial fishery but neither sold nor kept for personal use. 
Chinook salmon is categorized as bycatch under the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, the BSAI 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 specifically requires the Council to select conservation 
and management measures and that NMFS implement those measures to 
minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. Due 
to the deployment methods used in large-scale trawl operations, Chinook 
salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery is assumed to have 100 
percent mortality.
    Fishing vessels harvest pollock using pelagic (mid-water) trawl 
gear, which consists of large nets towed through the water by the 
vessel. At times, Chinook salmon and pollock occur in the same 
locations in the Bering Sea. Consequently, Chinook salmon are 
accidently caught in the nets as fishermen catch pollock; this 
incidental catch is called bycatch.
    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, with an average of 74,067 Chinook 
salmon per year caught during this period. 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 21,500 fish in 2008, 12,424 fish in 2009, and 12,195 
fish in 2010.
    Chinook salmon bycatch varies seasonally and by sector. In most 
years, the majority of Chinook salmon bycatch occurs during the A 
season of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. The variation in bycatch 
rates among sectors and seasons (A and B season) is due, in part, to 
the different fishing practices, location of Chinook salmon, and 
location of fishing effort for each sector to fully harvest their 
pollock allocations in the A and B seasons.
    As documented in the RIR/IRFA for this action (See ADDRESSES), AFA 
pollock vessel operators and members of AFA sectors and cooperatives 
are often unable to detect the location of Chinook salmon prior to 
intercepting them while fishing for pollock. Some of the challenges to 
minimizing Chinook salmon bycatch include:
     Individual Chinook salmon are difficult to detect in the 
water column with current sonar technology, prior to or during a haul 
and retrieval of pollock trawl gear;
     Chinook salmon migrate throughout many areas frequented by 
pollock trawlers;
     On the pollock fishing grounds, Chinook salmon bycatch 
rates change for multiple reasons, including variation in the Chinook 
salmon population strength and spatial and temporal migration through 
the Bering Sea; and
     Most actions taken to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch are 
likely to be costly to participants in this fishery and difficult for 
individual vessel operators to assess if voluntary efforts to avoid 
Chinook salmon bycatch will result in a future benefit to themselves or 
others.

Amendment 91 to the BSAI FMP

    In January 2011, NMFS implemented Amendment 91 to the BSAI FMP to 
manage Chinook salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. 
Amendment 91 combines limits on the amount of Chinook salmon that may 
be caught incidentally with an Incentive Plan Agreement (IPA) and a 
performance standard. This combination of measures is designed to 
minimize bycatch to the extent practicable in all years and prevent 
bycatch from reaching the limit in most years.
    Under Amendment 91, NMFS allocates transferable Chinook salmon 
prohibited species catch (PSC) to an entity representing the catcher/
processor sector, mothership sector, inshore cooperatives, and CDQ 
groups participating in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. The entity 
representative administers any transfer of Chinook salmon PSC with the 
representative of any other group that received transferable Chinook 
salmon PSC. These transfers could occur between any qualifying sector, 
inshore cooperative, or CDQ group, and must be approved by NMFS. 
Chinook salmon PSC allocations may be further sub-allocated to members 
of the sector or cooperative and may be exchanged among the members of 
that sector or cooperative. NMFS does not monitor or account for these 
sub-allocations and transfers of Chinook salmon PSC within a qualifying 
sector or cooperative.
    The requirements for receiving transferable Chinook salmon PSC, as 
well as the amount of Chinook salmon PSC vary among sectors, inshore 
cooperatives, or CDQ groups. If all members of the catcher/processor or 
mothership sector form a single ``sector-level entity'' and join an IPA 
that is approved by NMFS and meet other qualifications in Amendment 91, 
that sector will receive an allocation of Chinook salmon PSC that is 
based on that sector's proportional amount of 60,000 Chinook salmon. 
The proposed rule for Amendment 91 provides a detailed explanation of 
these requirements (75 FR 14016, March 23, 2010).
    NMFS authorizes inshore cooperatives and the CDQ groups as entities 
eligible to receive annual allocations on behalf of others. The 
representative that receives Chinook salmon PSC for the inshore 
cooperatives would be the same person named on the cooperative's annual 
application for pollock allocations. An inshore cooperative or a CDQ 
group must notify NMFS in writing if its representative for purposes of 
Chinook salmon PSC

[[Page 42101]]

allocations is a different person. The CDQ groups are authorized under 
section 305(i)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to receive fishery 
allocations from NMFS. The representative for a CDQ group would be its 
chief executive officer.
    PSC allocations are based on either a 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC 
limit if some or all of the pollock industry participates in an 
industry-developed IPA, or a lower limit of 47,591 Chinook salmon PSC 
if industry does not form any IPAs.
    Amendment 91 requires that each sector meet the terms of a 
``performance standard,'' including a requirement to not exceed that 
sector's portion of a lower limit for Chinook salmon PSC of 47,591 
Chinook salmon in all but two of any seven consecutive years. The 
Chinook salmon performance standard in Amendment 91 is intended to 
encourage pollock vessels to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch, even in 
years when Chinook salmon bycatch is low.
    A key component of Amendment 91 is the ability for fishery 
participants to form IPAs and work together to avoid Chinook salmon 
bycatch. An IPA is a private contract among vessel owners or CDQ groups 
that establishes incentives for participants to avoid bycatch at all 
levels of Chinook salmon abundance. The parties to an IPA must be 
owners of AFA-eligible catcher vessels, catcher/processors, or 
motherships, or the representatives of CDQ groups, and meet other 
participation requirements.
    Each IPA must have an IPA representative that is responsible for 
submitting the IPA to NMFS for approval and submitting the IPA Annual 
Report to the Council. The IPA representative must manage the bycatch 
of participating vessels to keep total bycatch below the performance 
standard for the sector in which the vessel participates.
    Participation in an IPA is voluntary. Any vessel or CDQ group that 
chooses not to participate in an IPA would be subject to a restrictive 
opt-out cap or backstop that provides a maximum of 28,496 Chinook 
salmon PSC. Any vessel or CDQ group that fishes under the backstop cap 
would not be evaluated in an IPA Annual Report or included in annual 
calculations of a sector's performance standard. These caps are 
described in greater detail in the RIR/IRFA for this proposed action 
(see ADDRESSES).
    For the 2011 pollock fishery, three IPAs have been formed to 
represent catcher/processors, catcher vessels delivering to inshore 
processors, and catcher vessels delivering to motherships. A variety of 
incentives is applied in each IPA and summarized in the RIR/IRFA for 
this proposed action (see ADDRESSES). An IPA plan is required for each 
IPA to describe the structure of the incentives or penalties for 
reducing Chinook salmon PSC at the level of a sector, cooperative, or 
individual vessel. Participants are required to demonstrate through an 
IPA Annual Report that the vessel owners that are signatories to the 
IPA are accomplishing the Council's intent that each vessel does its 
best to avoid Chinook salmon at all times while fishing for pollock and 
that collectively, bycatch is minimized in each year.
    After implementing Amendment 91 and its performance standard, 
allocation of transferable Chinook salmon PSC allocations, and the 
formation of incentives developed in each IPA, the Council anticipates 
the likelihood of the following responses from participants in the 
pollock fishery:
     Substantial changes in sector or cooperative plans and 
agreements for distribution and use of Chinook salmon PSC;
     Creation of a market for trading Chinook salmon PSC 
between sectors and cooperatives and among their members and the joint 
trading of sub-allocations of Chinook salmon PSC and pollock by 
vessels;
     Changes in the location and timing of fishing effort for 
pollock and the bycatch of Chinook salmon;
     Increase in cost of harvesting pollock; and
     Reduction of the annual bycatch of Chinook salmon.

Current Data for Evaluating Amendment 91

IPA and IPA Annual Report

    The IPA and IPA Annual Report were described and implemented in the 
final rule for Amendment 91 (75 FR 53026, August 30, 2010). These two 
required documents, along with other existing data (e.g., catch 
accounting and observer data) provide useful information for evaluating 
some aspects of the effectiveness of Amendment 91.
    The representative of each approved IPA is required to submit a 
written IPA Annual Report to the Council for each year following the 
year in which the IPA is first effective. Each IPA Annual Report is 
intended to provide a qualitative evaluation and some quantitative 
information on the effectiveness of the IPAs. Each IPA Annual Report 
must describe--
     The incentive measures in effect in the previous year;
     How the incentive measures affected individual vessels;
     Whether incentive measures were effective in achieving 
Chinook salmon savings beyond levels that would have been achieved in 
the absence of the incentive measures;
     Any amendments to the terms of the IPA that were approved 
by NMFS since the last annual report; and
     The reasons that any amendments to the IPA plan were made.
    The RIR for this action anticipates that the IPA and IPA Annual 
Reports implemented may provide limited qualitative and quantitative 
industry data on the effects of the Amendment 91 management measures 
including--
     Summaries of temporal and spatial shifts in effort 
undertaken by the fleets;
     Comparisons of Chinook salmon bycatch rates achieved by 
vessels participating in an IPA versus any vessels not participating in 
an IPA;
     An overview of the use of new gear technologies;
     Assessment of the effect of area closures for directed 
pollock fishing or other restrictions required by an IPA; and
     Descriptions of research undertaken to reduce Chinook 
salmon bycatch.

AFA Annual Cooperative Report

    At the beginning of each year, all AFA cooperatives must submit an 
AFA Cooperative Report to the Council by April 1 of the following year, 
detailing the activities of the cooperative for the previous year (50 
CFR 679.61(f)). Each AFA Cooperative Report must include the 
cooperative's allocated catch of pollock and sideboard species, actions 
taken by the cooperative for vessels that exceeded their allowed catch 
and bycatch in pollock and all sideboard fisheries, any sub-allocations 
of pollock and sideboard species made by the cooperative to individual 
vessels, total weight of pollock landed outside the State of Alaska on 
a vessel-by-vessel basis, and the number of salmon taken by species and 
season, including Chinook salmon.
    AFA Cooperative Reports may contain some information for evaluating 
Amendment 91. Specifically, the Council's purpose and need statement 
identifies the need to evaluate how Amendment 91 affects ``where, when, 
and how pollock fishing and salmon bycatch occur.'' The AFA Cooperative 
Reports could provide helpful data for that element of the assessment. 
For example, AFA Cooperative Reports could provide some explanation for 
why fishing effort at the beginning of a pollock season or at some 
other point in a season may have been lower, higher, or similar to a 
previous season (and if

[[Page 42102]]

Amendment 91 caused any of the changes).

Limitations to IPA, IPA Annual Report, and AFA Cooperative Annual 
Report for Evaluating Amendment 91

    While IPAs, IPA Annual Reports, and AFA Cooperative Annual Reports 
may contain information on the response of AFA sectors to Amendment 91, 
the data are limited for evaluating the effectiveness of the incentives 
and performance standards in Amendment 91. Some of the limitations are 
as follows.
     IPAs, IPA Annual Report, or AFA Cooperative Annual Report 
data are not required to be reported in a specific or systematic 
format, so the format may vary by each group submitting a report. As a 
result, it is likely that data will not be sufficiently uniform and 
consistent to provide reliable comparisons between two or more AFA 
sectors, AFA cooperatives, or IPAs.
     Except for the sector-level entity allocation and transfer 
data provided by Amendment 91, the IPA Annual Report and AFA 
Cooperative Annual Reports are not required to include tracking of sub-
allocations or transfers of Chinook salmon PSC that may occur among 
participants in each sector. Additional information on transfers of 
Chinook salmon PSC and pollock between members of a sector or 
cooperative would assist in the evaluation of Amendment 91.
     Prices of pollock and Chinook salmon PSC allocations and 
transactions could be helpful in evaluating Amendment 91. The market 
value of PSC allocations reflects its expected value to the pollock 
fishery. However, neither IPA Annual Reports nor AFA Cooperative Annual 
Reports presently require that each transaction between a person buying 
and selling Chinook salmon PSC be recorded with a corresponding price.
     Amendment 91 does not require reporting information in the 
IPA Annual Report or AFA Cooperative Annual Reports to track how costs 
may vary by vessel under the new program. It would be helpful to have 
data on certain operating costs, such as how the amount of fuel and 
cost of fuel used by AFA vessels operating in the Bering Sea pollock 
fishery would change under the various IPAs.

Catch Accounting and Observer Data

    The two primary sources of information used to account for pollock 
harvests and salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery are 
onboard and shoreside observer information and industry-reported data 
on catch and processed product amounts. Both sources are electronically 
recorded and submitted to NMFS.
    Catch accounting and observer data provide analysts with 
information on the amount, date and location of pollock catch and 
Chinook salmon bycatch. This information would assist with verification 
of qualitative information, submitted by industry in the IPA Annual 
Reports on how Amendment 91 has altered pollock catch and Chinook 
salmon bycatch.
    In 2005, NMFS implemented an interagency electronic reporting 
system with its data entry component, eLandings, for the catch 
accounting system to reduce reporting redundancy and consolidate 
fishery landings reported to three different agencies. All vessels in 
the Bering Sea pollock fishery are required to report all groundfish 
landings, discard, and production through a web-based interface known 
as eLandings. There is also a stand-alone application (SeaLandings) 
available for the vessels fishing and processing catch at sea (the at-
sea fleet). The at-sea fleet submits eLandings files via e-mail. The 
eLandings software provides managers with real-time access to 
individual vessel information, including individual pollock vessel 
catch and bycatch and unused amounts of allocated pollock and Chinook 
salmon PSC. Each industry report submitted via eLandings undergoes 
error checking by NMFS. Data are then stored in a database and are made 
available to management staff at NMFS and the Alaska Department of Fish 
and Game. There are two basic eLandings report types used for catch 
estimation: Production reports and landing reports.
    In addition to electronic catch reporting for the AFA pollock 
fishery, the trawl gear catcher vessel daily fishing log (DFL) is a 
required paper log used to record trawl groundfish discard and 
disposition data by haul and location. A trawl catcher vessel 
delivering groundfish to a shoreside processor, stationary floating 
processor, or mothership, is required to submit a DFL to the shoreside 
processor, stationary floating processor, or mothership. Any discard 
and disposition information submitted by a trawl catcher vessel in the 
DFL to a shoreside processor, stationary floating processor or 
mothership, must also be reported by the shoreside processor, 
stationary floating processor or mothership in eLandings.
    Observer data are also used in the catch accounting system; and a 
multi-stage sampling design is used to sample the species composition 
of the catch, length distribution of select species, and other catch 
components. Observer data collected on vessels in the Bering Sea 
pollock fishery are transmitted electronically to a NMFS database. This 
database contains all data collected by observers at processing plants 
and onboard vessels, including fishing locations, groundfish and non-
target catch, catch composition, length frequencies, age structures, 
and salmon PSC (including Chinook salmon PSC). Observer data are merged 
with industry reports nightly and are available to fishery managers the 
following day.
    For catcher/processors and catcher vessels delivering pollock to 
motherships, observer data combined with each vessel's eLandings 
landing report may be used to analyze a variety of effects, including--
     Comparisons of Chinook salmon bycatch rates of vessels 
fishing in different areas during the same period of time or similar 
areas at different periods of time;
     Comparisons of percentages of the TAC harvested at times 
of relatively high or low Chinook salmon encounter rates; and
     Trends in rates and variation of Chinook salmon bycatch by 
vessel type and location week or season, and across cooperatives, 
sectors, or the entire AFA fleet.

Limitations to the Use of Catch Accounting and Observer Data for 
Evaluating Amendment 91

    While tracking periodic trends in Chinook salmon bycatch may offer 
insights to the effectiveness of Amendment 91, catch and observer data 
would need to be augmented by other supporting data to evaluate whether 
Amendment 91 incentives have caused a given change in Chinook salmon 
bycatch. For example, a decrease in bycatch rates may be the result of 
either a decrease in Chinook salmon abundance on the fishing grounds or 
may be caused by a change in fishing behavior where the fleet is 
intentionally avoiding Chinook salmon bycatch because of a regulatory 
or industry incentive to avoid bycatch. Catch accounting and observer 
data do not provide quantitative or qualitative information to identify 
effects of Amendment 91 incentives.
    For catcher vessels delivering shoreside to a stationary floating 
processor or mothership, all groundfish catch and Chinook salmon PSC is 
accounted for at the time of landing. Because catcher vessels 
delivering shoreside or to a stationary floating processor may trawl in 
several locations before delivering to a processor, it is not possible 
to verify the amount of

[[Page 42103]]

Chinook salmon bycatch in each haul. Attempts to apportion Chinook 
salmon bycatch to a specific trawl catcher vessel haul using vessel 
monitoring system (VMS) or other data are subject to error. This data 
limitation may complicate efforts to attribute a change in Chinook 
salmon bycatch by a trawl catcher vessel to a specific incentive 
designed to reduce Chinook salmon bycatch. For example, the effect of 
an IPA penalty for a catcher vessel that exceeded a predetermined 
Chinook salmon bycatch rate in a specific statistical area may be 
difficult to assess if the catcher vessel is deploying trawl gear on 
consecutive hauls inside and outside that statistical area and during 
the same fishing trip. Because catcher vessels delivering to 
motherships are required to deliver catch from a single unsorted haul 
to a mothership, some accounting of Chinook salmon bycatch by haul and 
location of catch may be possible, thus improving the prospects for 
tracking the effects of some Chinook salmon bycatch incentives.
    Determining the amount of Chinook salmon bycatch in each catcher/
processor haul is more straightforward than is to determine for each 
catcher vessel haul. Each catcher/processor is currently required to 
provide a continuous census accounting of Chinook salmon bycatch at 
sea. For example, each haul must be observed, and all salmon are 
removed and counted at the flow scale. The haul start and end times and 
location of each haul are recorded by the observer and the validated 
with VMS. The combination of this location data and haul-by-haul catch 
accounting allows for Chinook salmon bycatch to be accurately recorded. 
Even for catcher/processors, however, catch accounting and observer 
data alone will not explain which bycatch incentives for each sector or 
cooperative may have affected the amount of bycatch by time and 
location. For example, catch accounting data, by itself, would not 
verify if an operator of a catcher/processor or catcher vessel 
transited to new fishing grounds to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch. 
Various factors such as weather, time, area encounters with Chinook 
salmon, or market prices for pollock could easily have influenced the 
movements and fishing effort by a vessel, and its rate of Chinook 
salmon bycatch.

New Data Collection for Evaluating Amendment 91

Introduction

    In December 2009, the Council recommended revisions of two existing 
recordkeeping and reporting collections and requirements for three new 
data surveys/reports to improve the quality and quantity of data to 
assess the effectiveness of Amendment 91. NMFS proposes to collect 
information on vessel movements on the fishing grounds and information 
on pollock allocations, sub-allocations, and transfers between members 
in an AFA cooperative through revisions to the existing IPA Annual 
Report and AFA Cooperative Annual Report requirements. These new data 
requirements are described below in the section entitled: Revisions to 
Existing Collections for Chinook Salmon EDR Program. The three new EDR 
surveys/reports recommended by the Council are collectively referred to 
as the Chinook Salmon EDR, and are described below in the section 
titled: New Collection of Economic Data.
    The new proposed Reports/Surveys are--
     Chinook Salmon PSC Allocation Compensated Transfer Report 
(CTR);
     Vessel Fuel Survey; and
     Vessel Master Survey.
    NMFS will use the revised and new data to conduct analyses that 
include descriptive analysis and quantitative and qualitative 
comparisons of the annual and seasonal, changes in the pollock fleet 
under Amendment 91. Examples of some of the potential analyses with 
these data are described in the RIR/IRFA for this action (See 
ADDRESSES).

Proposed Revisions to Existing Collections for Chinook Salmon EDR 
Program

    To implement the Chinook salmon EDR program, NMFS would revise 
existing recordkeeping and recording requirements to add data on 
movement of vessels in the Bering Sea pollock fishery to avoid Chinook 
salmon bycatch and data on transfers of Chinook salmon PSC and pollock 
to the IPA Annual Report.
    The following documents would be amended for purposes of 
supplementing information for the Chinook salmon EDR:
     IPA Annual Report;
     AFA Cooperative Report;
     Catcher Vessel Trawl Gear Groundfish Daily Fishing Logbook 
(DFL);
     Catcher/processor Trawl Gear Electronic Logbook (ELB); and
     eLandings landing report.

Revisions to the IPA Annual Report

    The IPA Annual Report would be revised to include requirements to 
submit information on the sub-allocation of Chinook salmon PSC and 
pollock to each participating vessel at the start of each fishing 
season, and the number of Chinook salmon PSC and amount of pollock 
caught at the end of a season. These revisions would also require 
submission of information on transfers of Chinook salmon PSC regardless 
of whether the transfers were ``compensated'' transfers.
    While NMFS currently approves and tracks initial allocation and 
transfers of Chinook salmon PSC among the catcher/processor sector, 
mothership sector, inshore cooperatives, and CDQ groups under Amendment 
91, this proposed action would require each IPA representative to 
report additional sub-allocations or transfers of Chinook salmon PSC 
within a sector-level entity or cooperative. NMFS would require a 
record of these sub-allocations and transfers of pollock between 
members of a sector or an inshore cooperative in the IPA Annual Report. 
NMFS anticipates that the parties to an IPA or the IPA representative 
will be informed of the number and amounts of Chinook salmon PSC 
transferred among parties to each IPA. Though NMFS will maintain a 
record of all initial allocations and transfers from entities 
authorized to receive Chinook salmon PSC, NMFS anticipates that the 
representative for an IPA may report some of those same allocation and 
transfer amounts in the IPA Annual Report to facilitate the accounting 
of sub-allocations to vessels and transfers between the members of an 
IPA.

Proposed Revisions to AFA Cooperative Report

    NMFS would relocate the requirement for submitting some pollock 
catch data from the AFA Cooperative Annual Report to the IPA Annual 
Report, to provide a single location for Chinook salmon and pollock 
data on initial allocation, sub-allocations, NMFS-approved Chinook 
salmon PSC transfers, internal cooperative or sector-level entity 
Chinook salmon PSC transfers, and catch by season and year for each 
catcher vessel, catcher/processor, or mothership participating in an 
IPA. Pollock would be removed from the requirement at Sec.  
679.61(f)(2)(ii) to submit in the AFA Cooperative Annual Report the 
cooperative's actual retained and discarded catch of pollock, sideboard 
species, and PSC on an area-by-area and vessel-by-vessel basis. 
However, if members of an AFA cooperative elected to move all the 
allocations and sub-allocations, and transferred, retained and 
discarded catch of pollock and Chinook salmon PSC listed at Sec.  
679.21(f)(13)(ii)(E) and (f)(13)(ii)(F) to the AFA Cooperative

[[Page 42104]]

Annual Report, they would no longer need to report that data in the IPA 
Annual Report. If the members of an AFA inshore cooperative, mothership 
sector level entity, or catcher/processor sector level entity are not 
the same as the parties to an IPA for each AFA inshore cooperative, 
mothership sector-level entity, or catcher/processor sector level 
entity, then NMFS anticipates that all the data at Sec.  
679.21(f)(13)(ii)(E) would be included in the AFA Cooperative Annual 
Report under Sec.  679.61(f)(2)(vii).

Proposed Revisions to eLandings, Daily Fishing Log, and ELB for 
Reporting Change in Location on Fishing Grounds

    Revisions are proposed to various existing catch and production 
reports to require additional data describing the reasons that AFA 
vessels change locations in the CDQ and non-CDQ pollock fishery to 
avoid Chinook salmon bycatch. The proposed revisions would be:
     Whenever the operator of an AFA catcher vessel chooses to 
move the vessel primarily to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch, the operator 
would indicate each change in location for any haul by checking a 
vessel movement box in the trawl gear DFL.
     Whenever the operator of an AFA catcher/processor chooses 
to move the vessel primarily to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch, the 
operator would indicate each change in location for any haul by 
checking a vessel movement box in the catcher/processor trawl gear ELB.
     Whenever the operator of an AFA mothership receives 
notification that an AFA catcher vessel delivering pollock moved the 
vessel to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch, the operator would indicate 
each change in location for any haul by checking a vessel movement box 
in the eLandings landing report.

Proposed New Economic Data Collections

    Each of the three proposed surveys/reports--the Chinook Salmon CTR, 
the Vessel Fuel Survey, and Vessel Master Survey--would be available in 
a fillable electronic format on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site. 
Persons responsible for submitting each of the three EDR data survey/
reports differ based on the requirements listed in each form, but would 
include vessel owners, vessel leaseholders, or vessel masters of AFA 
vessels. Submitters would also include representatives for or 
participants in an AFA catcher/processor or mothership sector, inshore 
cooperative, the inshore open access fishery, CDQ groups, or parties to 
an IPA. Each of the forms would be submitted annually to NMFS or the 
NMFS-designated data collection agent by June 1, based on fishing 
conducted in the previous fishing year. For example, data from fishing 
in the 2012 Bering Sea pollock season would be submitted to the NMFS-
designated data collection agent in the fillable Chinook salmon EDR 
forms by June 1, 2013.

Chinook Salmon PSC Allocation Compensated Transfer Report (CTR)

    All persons who conducted a Chinook salmon PSC transfer that was 
paid for with an exchange of money (called a compensated transfer) 
would be required to submit an annual CTR detailing the quantity and 
amount paid for each compensated transfer. The persons conducting these 
transfers of Chinook salmon PSC would be an owner or leaseholder of an 
AFA-permitted vessel, or a representative for an AFA cooperative, 
sector-level entity, or CDQ group.
    Each transfer would be identified as either an independent transfer 
of Chinook salmon PSC for monetary compensation or a transfer with a 
portion of the transfer that includes monetary compensation and a 
portion of the transfer that did not include monetary compensation. 
Each transfer would be identified as to type as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Transaction type                  Transaction description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................  Between 2 entities which are
                                     affiliated as defined by AFA.
2.................................  Between 2 entities in the same
                                     cooperative but not affiliated as
                                     defined by AFA.
3.................................  Between 2 entities in the same
                                     sector but not affiliated as
                                     defined by AFA or in the same
                                     cooperative.
4.................................  Between 2 entities not part of the
                                     same sector or cooperative, or
                                     affiliated as defined by AFA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CTR would require each transfer of Chinook salmon PSC to 
include the transferor and transferee names, along with the NMFS 
identifier (NMFS person ID), date of the transfer, the amount 
transferred, and the price of the monetary compensated transfer. A 
Chinook salmon PSC transfer that did not involve monetary compensation, 
but had some form of compensation, would be indicated on the form, but 
without an estimate of transfer prices.
    The purpose of the proposed CTR would be to account for Chinook 
salmon PSC transfers and the amount of money exchanged for transfers 
between AFA vessel owners and other entities transferring Chinook 
salmon PSC. NMFS would examine data reported for each transaction and 
compare the amount of Chinook salmon PSC transferred in each 
transaction, number of transactions by vessel type (sector and AFA 
cooperative), and time intervals of the transfers in a season or year. 
Also, this data would allow for tabulation of the average and variation 
in price paid for transactions by vessel operation type, sector, and 
AFA cooperative.

Vessel Fuel Survey

    After each calendar year, each owner of an AFA-permitted vessel 
catching CDQ or non-CDQ pollock in the Bering Sea would submit to NMFS 
the Vessel Fuel Survey to report annual fuel use and cost in the Bering 
Sea pollock fishery. The owner would include identifying information on 
the certification page of the report, including a NMFS person ID. The 
Vessel Fuel Survey, which would be submitted by June 1 of the following 
year, would include average annual hourly fuel burned while fishing and 
transiting and annual fuel purchases in cost per gallon. Each of these 
values would be combined with other NMFS data (such as VMS and observer 
data reports) to estimate the costs of moving vessels to avoid Chinook 
salmon bycatch (including the fuel use during trawling, transit between 
trawls, and lost fishing time).

Vessel Master Survey

    The proposed new Vessel Master Survey would be a qualitative 
assessment survey that would pose a series of questions to elicit 
vessel operator input on factors that impacted the vessel's performance 
during the year. The Vessel Master Survey would be conducted at the end 
of each fishing year. The owner of each AFA-permitted vessel would be 
responsible for submitting the Vessel Master Survey to NMFS on behalf 
of any person who is an operator, vessel master, or skipper of an AFA-
permitted vessel. The owner of the AFA-permitted vessel would be 
required to verify that each person listed

[[Page 42105]]

on the Certification page for this form is a master of the AFA-
permitted vessel.
    The intent of the Vessel Master Survey would be to identify the 
purpose for decision-making during the pollock season with respect to 
fishing location choices, Chinook salmon bycatch incentives, and 
availability or costs of accessing Chinook salmon PSC allocations. The 
survey would be designed to obtain operator responses to conditions on 
the fishing grounds to gain information regarding the effect of IPAs 
and Chinook salmon bycatch measures on decision-making. The nine 
questions in the Vessel Master Survey would collect operator 
assessments of the past year's fishing performance regarding the causes 
for bycatch avoidance, factors impacting Chinook salmon bycatch rates, 
and the influence of the IPAs and AFA cooperatives on fishing and 
Chinook salmon bycatch avoidance behaviors.

Audit Procedure for Chinook Salmon EDR

    NMFS would develop measures to verify data accuracy of the Chinook 
salmon EDR program. These measures would help NMFS to verify data 
submitted in the CTR, the Vessel Master Survey, and the Vessel Fuel 
Survey. The principal means to verify data and resolve questions would 
be through validation of data submitted in these three surveys against 
supporting records. NMFS staff would contact the EDR submitter and 
request confirmation of data submissions. The person submitting the EDR 
would need to respond within 20 days of the NMFS information request. 
Responses after 20 days would be considered untimely and may result in 
a violation and enforcement action.
    For verification of the CTR form, NMFS could request any person who 
conducted a monetary compensated transfer of Chinook salmon PSC at 
Sec.  679.65(b)(1) and (b)(2) to submit additional data to facilitate 
verification by NMFS and respond to additional questions. This could 
occur in instances where a random audit occurs or an audit is otherwise 
justified for the CTR. To carry out these audits, NMFS may retain under 
contract a designated data collection auditor (DDCA) who would be a 
professional auditor/accounting specialist, and who would review the 
data submitted in the EDR. The DDCA also could request financial 
documents substantiating the data submitted in the EDR. The DDCA would 
be subject to strict confidentiality requirements.

Uses of Data Collected Under This Proposed Rule

    New data required from industry to complete the IPA Annual Report, 
Trawl Catcher Vessel DFL and ELB, and forms for the CTR, Vessel Fuel 
Survey, and Vessel Master Survey would increase the amount and type of 
data that NMFS and the Council use to analyze the effects of Amendment 
91. This analysis of effects with new EDR data is intended to focus on 
the behavioral impacts of Amendment 91 to participants in the Bering 
Sea pollock fishery and potential changes in Chinook salmon bycatch. 
Specifically, applying these multiple data sources along with other 
NMFS data could provide insight into one or more of the following 
elements:
     The effects and impacts of the Amendment 91 IPAs, the PSC 
limits, and the performance standard;
     The effectiveness of the IPA incentives in times of high 
and low levels of Chinook salmon bycatch;
     The effectiveness of the performance standard to reduce 
Chinook salmon bycatch; and
     How Amendment 91 affects where, when, and how pollock 
fishing and Chinook salmon bycatch occur.
    Additional information collected by this proposed action in the IPA 
Annual Report would provide quantitative and qualitative data on 
Chinook salmon and pollock sub-allocations and transfers. If the 
quantitative transfer and allocation data are submitted in a uniform 
and comparable manner for each IPA, analysis in conjunction with IPA 
Annual Report data could include descriptive statistics on the pollock 
and Chinook salmon bycatch, allocations, and transfers between 
participants in each of the above groups. This information could be 
displayed by season or annually, and if useful, data could be pooled 
over multiple years.
    The additional Chinook salmon PSC transfer data in IPA reports may 
provide information about changes in fishing practices or the 
effectiveness of IPAs to reduce bycatch. For example, if IPA Report 
data provide a record of many pollock transfers to vessels with low 
Chinook salmon bycatch rates, this record of transfers may suggest that 
vessels with poor bycatch performance have an incentive to reduce their 
participation in the fishery in years of high bycatch. In addition, 
observations of the number of transfers to vessels that are approaching 
their individual share of the Chinook salmon PSC cap could help verify 
if PSC transferability contributes to a higher yield of pollock. 
Finally, if a portion of the vessels that are party to an IPA are 
prohibited by the agreement from fishing in valuable pollock areas of 
the Bering Sea, Chinook salmon PSC may be transferred to or away from 
vessels that continue to have access to those fishing areas. Some of 
these behavioral responses may be correlated with a particular 
incentive in a manner that could aid in the assessment of the 
effectiveness of Amendment 91.
    NMFS would not require that new data in each IPA Annual Report be 
submitted in a structured format. For example, the proposed allocation 
and transfer data would be provided by each vessel, but could be 
displayed in a table or narrative format, or in a manner that is 
difficult to compare quantities of an allocation or transfer between 
parties in more than one IPA. Therefore, for each IPA Annual Report, 
IPA performance information may not be uniformly comparable, which 
could create consistency issues when comparing information between IPAs 
and could limit any statistical analysis with IPA Annual Report data. 
Thus, there may be analytical limits to the potential usefulness of 
this data for statistical analysis.
    NMFS would use the proposed Bering Sea vessel movement information 
(denoting when a Bering Sea pollock vessel moved to avoid Chinook 
salmon bycatch prior to a haul) to compare Chinook salmon bycatch 
avoidance by vessel, and by vessel characteristics. Chinook salmon 
bycatch rates by vessel could be merged with the movement data by 
vessel to assess how bycatch rates change for each vessel prior to and 
following a change in fishing location. Vessel movement data combined 
with other management data, such as NMFS seasonal opening and closing 
dates or IPA-directed openings and closings of selected pollock fishing 
areas may assist in differentiating a vessel's voluntary movements to 
leave a groundfish statistical area to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch or 
movements that are required by IPA agreements. That information could 
contribute to evaluating how Amendment 91 affects where, when, and how 
pollock fishing and Chinook salmon bycatch occur. The industry-reported 
vessel movement data may be helpful for evaluating assumptions in 
statistical models that combine catch by location, VMS, and other data 
to explain the reasons or tradeoffs for a specific set of moves and 
fishing choices. That information could also assist with assessing 
conclusions drawn by industry in the IPA Annual Reports.
    Differences in the willingness of individual vessels to move from 
areas with high Chinook salmon bycatch and to search for areas with 
lower bycatch

[[Page 42106]]

rates may reflect differences in the incentives created by an IPA. 
Alternatively, upon examination, these data and other information 
provided by cooperatives may reflect the amount of central coordination 
of fishing by area and time a cooperative applies to each member of the 
cooperative. While movement data are subjective, the data is intended 
to provide a better understanding of each vessel operator's perception 
of factors that impacted fishing decisions and are likely to provide 
information for NMFS and the Council to evaluate the effectiveness of 
IPAs and Amendment 91.
    With new data from the CTRs and proposed revisions to the IPA 
Annual Reports, it would be possible to enumerate the number of 
potential trades of Chinook salmon by date and season as well as by 
vessel owner, leaseholder, or another party that did or did not 
participate in compensated Chinook salmon PSC transfers. The timing and 
patterns of the transfer data in comparison with the specific IPAs in 
effect by date, sector, and AFA cooperative, will potentially help to 
assess the value of Chinook salmon PSC in each year and how the IPAs 
may have impacted the value of PSC. Thus, if a large number of accurate 
monetary transfers are observed, NMFS may develop some insights on the 
two elements of the effects of certain incentives included in the IPAs, 
and the performance standard. Potential sources of bias in monetary 
transfers are explained below.
    The proposed CTR data may help to verify some of the industry-
reported information in the contracts and agreements for allocating 
Chinook salmon PSC within and among AFA sectors and cooperatives 
included in IPA Annual Reports and AFA Cooperative Reports. This will 
assist in understanding the overall effects and impacts of Amendment 
91, by permitting transactions reported in other industry-reported 
sources to be compared to and reconciled with the transactions reported 
in the CTR.
    If a sufficient number of Chinook salmon PSC transfers are reported 
in the CTR and if they are considered to be representative of actual 
transfer practices, this data should assist in determining the 
distribution of Chinook salmon PSC allocations and transfers in-season 
and over multiple years. When combined with additional data on entity 
affiliations the CTR could assist in determining if prices exchanged 
represent independent and arms-length transactions or if the prices are 
merely accounting measures within affiliated entities.
    Where quantitative EDR program data is collected at the level of an 
individual vessel, merging data by vessel from multiple data sources 
may assist in estimating the costs associated with bycatch incentives. 
For example, data on the intra-sector or intra-cooperative allocations 
of PSC may be combined with data on Chinook salmon PSC and pollock 
transfers, to show the distribution and amounts of pollock and Chinook 
salmon PSC exchanged among vessels in a season. Travel costs of those 
vessels (see analysis of fuel data below) to avoid Chinook salmon 
bycatch, along with the prices reported for PSC transactions may be 
compared with the specific incentives in place for each vessel to gauge 
some of the costs of specific incentives.
    Because a completed CTR is not expected to include all sources of 
compensation for Chinook salmon PSC transfers (prices are restricted to 
monetary compensated transfers) that is likely to limit the application 
of this data for analysis. For example, it is possible that operators 
of vessels or the representatives submitting the CTR will not use 
unpaired or independent monetary transactions to exchange Chinook 
salmon PSC. If the CTR respondents find it to be more efficient to 
bundle all or nearly all Chinook salmon transactions with pollock or 
other items of value, they may submit very few transactions or prices 
of Chinook salmon PSC. Also, if each independent Chinook salmon PSC 
transfer consists of both a monetary transfer component and a non-
monetary transfer component, these observations may be less useful. 
Further, persons reporting data on Chinook salmon PSC transactions 
could intentionally bundle monetary and non-monetary transfers to 
obscure an observation of a compensated transfer. The possibility 
exists that these reporting constraints and potential reasons for 
biasing data submitted in the CTR would result in a sufficiently low 
number of reported transactions to significantly reduce the value of 
these data for examining Chinook salmon PSC prices. Non-monetary 
compensation is not included in the CTR or elsewhere in the EDR 
program, as the cost of collecting this data with sufficient accuracy 
and detail to allow for estimating an equivalent monetary value would 
be cost prohibitive [see CLASSIFICATION for more information].
    Analyses of data from the Vessel Fuel Survey may range from basic 
comparisons of estimated fuel costs of fishing and transiting by vessel 
operation type or other vessel characteristic, to quantitative or 
statistical estimates of the fuel costs for Chinook salmon bycatch 
avoidance from specific salmon bycatch incentives. The data would allow 
for estimates of fuel used by a vessel when moving to areas with higher 
or lower areas of bycatch. NMFS has no other data on fuel consumption 
or average fuel price on a vessel-by-vessel basis for this fishery to 
address this question. Especially during periods of high Chinook salmon 
bycatch, these data may be used to estimate transit costs when vessels 
move to avoid areas where high Chinook salmon bycatch has been 
reported. The estimation could be accomplished by merging data from the 
Vessel Fuel Survey with other available data, including observer 
reports, VMS data, catch accounting, movement data, and IPA and AFA 
Cooperative Annual Reports to assess changes in fuel consumption when 
vessels move from areas of high or low Chinook salmon bycatch. Thus, 
these data would be useful for understanding the variation in fuel 
usage for some activities, which can aid in assessing fuel costs more 
generally in the fishery.
    Variation in vessel fuel costs among vessels could affect the 
response of certain vessels to incentives or disincentives for avoiding 
Chinook salmon. For example, if it is less expensive for vessels with 
lower travel costs to travel farther to reach clean fishing grounds, 
those vessels may be more likely to engage in increased transiting 
activity between fishing locations. NMFS may examine vessel response to 
Chinook salmon encounter rates to determine whether these operational 
differences are affected by variations in fuel-based travel costs 
between vessels, which in turn may have implications for the 
effectiveness of some incentives developed in an IPA. NMFS could use 
these findings to assess the effects of Chinook salmon bycatch 
incentives and other questions listed in the purpose and need for this 
action, such as how Amendment 91 affects where, when, and how pollock 
fishing and Chinook salmon bycatch occur.
    The proposed new Vessel Master Survey is designed to solicit 
subjective responses to questions on the decision-making process 
applied for avoiding Chinook salmon bycatch when fishing for pollock 
under Amendment 91. Part of the utility of these questions would be to 
allow for comparison of the subjective information in each response 
with other observed changes in fishing behavior and Chinook salmon 
bycatch. Where possible, NMFS will examine the effect of the behavioral 
influences reported in this survey in greater detail and corroborate 
the responses with

[[Page 42107]]

other data sources, such as observer data, VMS data, and catch 
accounting data.
    The response to questions on bycatch avoidance may provide insight 
as to how IPAs affect fishing behavior, when catch accounting and other 
data are limited. For example, because Chinook salmon bycatch data 
cannot be attributed to each trawl catcher vessel's haul, which limits 
the usefulness of bycatch data to assess specific incentives, the 
qualitative responses in the Vessel Master Survey may provide vessel 
master assessments as to how IPA incentives impacted trawl catcher 
vessel avoidance of Chinook salmon bycatch.
    The Chinook salmon EDR program is also intended to assess the 
accuracy of conclusions drawn by industry in the IPA Annual Report. 
Analysis of Vessel Master Survey data may contribute to some 
qualitative comparisons of a vessel master's response to these 
questions and information provided in industry IPA Annual Reports. 
Utilizing a vessel master's self-reported experiences and comparing 
that with current catch and VMS data available to NMFS should improve 
the opportunities for analysts to consider fishermen's experiences in 
formulating assessments of the Amendment 91 program.

Proposed Regulatory Amendments

Definitions

    Section 679.2 would be revised by adding a definition of designated 
data collection auditor (DDCA) to apply to the use of a DDCA under 
Sec.  679.65(e).

Vessel Movement Data

    NMFS proposes to modify existing regulations to collect data 
indicating a change of fishing location primarily to avoid Chinook 
salmon bycatch.
    Section 679.5(c)(4)(vi) describes catch-by-haul information 
required in the trawl gear catcher vessel DFL and the catcher/processor 
trawl Daily Cumulative Production Logbook (DCPL). A new paragraph 
(c)(4)(vi)(I) would be added to request the operator of a trawl gear 
catcher vessel to indicate each time the vessel moved to avoid Chinook 
salmon in the trawl gear catcher vessel DFL.
    Section 679.5(e)(6) describes requirements for a mothership landing 
report. The eLandings mothership landing report would be revised to 
require the operator of a mothership to record vessel movement data 
provided by the trawl catcher vessel directed fishing for pollock in 
the Bering Sea and delivering to the mothership. Section 
679.5(e)(6)(i)(A)(12) would be added to require the operator of a 
mothership to indicate whether prior to a haul, the operator of the 
catcher vessel using trawl gear moved its fishing location primarily to 
avoid Chinook salmon bycatch.
    NMFS created a catcher/processor ELB that interfaces with 
eLandings. The catcher/processor trawl gear ELB will allow NMFS to 
determine any differences between movement related to avoidance of 
Chinook salmon and other vessel movement by identifying any tow prior 
to a move that is due primarily to Chinook salmon avoidance. Section 
679.5(f)(1)(vii) would be revised to require that data on vessel 
movement to avoid Chinook salmon be entered into the catcher/processor 
ELB.
    Section 679.5(f)(2)(ii), which describes the use of a DFL or DCPL 
as backup for the ELB in the event of a computer or ELB failure, would 
be replaced with text that provides general instructions to contact 
NMFS Inseason Management, when the Internet fails. This general 
instruction is necessary to assure a reasonable response to delays in 
transmission of commercial fishery information, including the movement 
of vessels to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch in the ELB.
    Section 679.5(f)(7) describes the transmission of data in the ELB. 
There are two distinct methods and time limits for data transmission 
for the catcher vessel and the catcher/processor using an ELB. This 
introductory text would be removed to avoid duplicating text that 
follows in the distinct paragraphs.
    Paragraph (f)(7)(i) would be corrected by revising the heading to 
read ``Catcher/processors'' because it pertains only to catcher/
processors, not motherships. In addition, the transmission method would 
be corrected to read ``online,'' not ``email attachment.''
    Paragraph (f)(7)(ii) would be corrected by adding a heading to read 
``Catcher vessels'' to maintain format for parallel headings with 
paragraph (f)(7)(i) and replace the word ``export'' with ``transfer'' 
to provide a more exact term.

Prohibited Species Bycatch Management

    Paragraph (f)(12)(vii) in Sec.  679.21 would be redesignated as 
paragraphs (f)(13)(i) through (f)(13)(ii)(F) to reduce the number of 
paragraph-levels used under (f)(12). Paragraph (f)(13)(ii)(E) would 
describe requirements for data submittal on sub-allocations, transfers, 
and catch of pollock and Chinook salmon PSC in the IPA Annual Report.
    Section 679.61(f)(2)(ii) would be revised to remove pollock from 
information required as this requirement is redundant with the 
reporting requirement in paragraph (f)(13)(ii)(E).
    Section 679.61(f)(2)(vii) would be added to provide that AFA 
cooperatives report pollock and Chinook salmon PSC allocation and catch 
in the AFA annual cooperative report or in the IPA Annual Report, as 
also provided in Sec.  679.21(f)(13)(ii)(E).

Chinook Salmon EDR

    Section 679.65 would be added to describe the Chinook salmon EDR 
and the forms used to collect economic data for the Chinook salmon 
bycatch management program. In addition, an audit procedure for the 
Chinook salmon EDR would be added, including the use of a DDCA as 
defined under Sec.  679.2.

Classification

    Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this 
proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further 
consideration after public comment.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this 
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description 
of the action, the reasons why it is being considered, and a statement 
of the objectives of and the legal basis for this action are included 
at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY 
section of the preamble. A summary of the remainder of the IRFA 
follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES).
    The directly regulated entities for this proposed action are those 
members of the commercial fishing industry that participate in the 
directed pollock trawl fishery in the Bering Sea. These entities 
include the AFA-affiliated pollock fleet an