Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; Amendment 16, 72314-72341 [2023-22747]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 201 (Thursday, October 19, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72314-72341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22747]



[[Page 72313]]

Vol. 88

Thursday,

No. 201

October 19, 2023

Part III





Department of Commerce





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





 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





 50 CFR Parts 600 and 679





Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; 
Amendment 16; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 72314]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 600 and 679

[Docket No. 231005-0237]
RIN 0648-BM42


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet 
Salmon; Amendment 16

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of availability of a fishery management 
plan amendment; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes Amendment 16 to the Fishery Management Plan for 
the Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Off Alaska 
(Salmon FMP) and associated implementing regulations. If approved, 
Amendment 16 and this proposed rule would establish Federal fishery 
management for all salmon fishing that occurs in the Cook Inlet EEZ, 
which includes commercial drift gillnet and recreational salmon fishery 
sectors. This action is necessary to comply with rulings from the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Alaska, and to ensure the Salmon FMP is consistent with 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act). This action is intended to promote the goals and 
objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Salmon FMP, and other 
applicable laws.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 18, 2023.

ADDRESSES:  You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2023-0065, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2023-0065 in the Search box. 
Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter 
or attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Gretchen Harrington, 
Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 
Alaska Region NMFS. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-
1668.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period 
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
https://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, 
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender 
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter 
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
    Electronic copies of proposed Amendment 16; the Environmental 
Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Social Impact 
Analysis (contained in a single document and collectively referred to 
as the ``Analysis''); and the draft Finding of No Significant Impact 
prepared for this action may be obtained from https://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and to 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular 
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Duncan, 907-586-7228 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for Action

    NMFS manages U.S. salmon fisheries off of Alaska under the Salmon 
FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, 
and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) approved, the Salmon FMP 
under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 
Regulations implementing the Salmon FMP are located at 50 CFR part 679. 
General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 
600. NMFS is authorized to prepare an FMP amendment necessary for the 
conservation and management of a fishery managed under the FMP if the 
Council fails to develop and submit such an amendment after a 
reasonable period of time (section 304(c)(1)(A); 16 U.S.C 
1854(c)(1)(A)). Because the Council failed to take action to recommend 
a required FMP amendment in time for NMFS to implement it by a court-
ordered deadline, NMFS developed a Secretarial FMP amendment and this 
proposed rule.
    NMFS has determined that it is necessary and appropriate, under 
section 304(c)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to develop a 
Secretarial amendment--Amendment 16 to the Salmon FMP--and proposed 
regulations in order to comply with rulings from the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Alaska, and to ensure the Salmon FMP is consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendment 16 would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area (defined as the EEZ waters of Cook Inlet north of a line at 
59[deg]46.15' N) into the Salmon FMP's Fishery Management Unit. This 
proposed rule would implement Amendment 16. Amendment 16 adds another 
management area to the Salmon FMP in addition to the existing West Area 
and East Area. This action would not modify management of the West Area 
and East Area.
    NMFS is soliciting public comments on Amendment 16 and this 
proposed rule. All relevant written comments received by the end of the 
comment period for this action (See DATES), whether specifically 
directed to the proposed FMP amendment or the implementing regulations, 
will be considered by NMFS in deciding whether to adopt and implement 
Amendment 16.

Amendment 16 Overview

    This action, if approved, would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ into 
the Salmon FMP as the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, thereby bringing the salmon 
fishery that occurs within it under Federal management by the Council 
and NMFS.
    Two different sectors participate in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon 
fishery: the commercial drift gillnet sector and the recreational 
sector. The commercial drift gillnet fleet harvests over 99.99 percent 
of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Currently, both drift gillnet and 
recreational salmon fishing occur in the State and EEZ waters of Cook 
Inlet under State management without regard to the boundary between 
State and Federal waters. Under this action, the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon 
fishery will be managed by NMFS and the Council separately from 
adjacent State water salmon fisheries.
    Amendment 16 would revise the Salmon FMP, beginning with an updated 
history of the FMP and introduction in Chapter 1, as well as a revised 
description of the fishery management unit in Chapter 2 that would 
include the Cook Inlet EEZ Area as a separate and distinctly managed

[[Page 72315]]

area. The management and policy objectives in Chapter 2 would also be 
revised to include consideration of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Current 
chapters describing management of the Salmon FMP's East Area and West 
Area would be consolidated into Chapter 3. No substantive changes would 
be made to Salmon FMP content related to the East Area and West Area.
    A new Chapter 4 would include a comprehensive description of 
Federal management for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. This chapter would 
describe management measures and the roles and responsibilities of NMFS 
and the Council in managing the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery. 
Centrally, Chapter 4 would include descriptions of all conservation and 
management measures, including maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum 
yield (OY), status determination criteria, and an outline of the 
harvest specifications process. Chapter 4 would also describe 
authorized fishery management measures and authorities including 
required Federal permits; fishing gear restrictions; fishing time and 
area restrictions; NMFS inseason management provisions; and monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, as well as information about 
ongoing Council review of the FMP.
    Chapter 5 would contain all content related to domestic annual 
harvesting and processing capacity, which indicates that all salmon 
fisheries off Alaska can be fully utilized by U.S. harvesters and 
processors, which is unchanged by this action.
    Chapter 6 contains information on Essential Fish Habitat and 
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern and would not be modified by this 
action. Amendment 16 would remove the outdated Fishery Impact Statement 
in the Salmon FMP. The Analysis prepared for Amendment 16 contains the 
Fishery Impact Statement for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery and this 
action.

History of the Salmon FMP

    The Council's Salmon FMP manages the Pacific salmon fisheries in 
the EEZ from 3 nautical miles (nmi) to 200 nmi off Alaska. The Council 
developed the Salmon FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and it first 
became effective in 1979. The Salmon FMP was comprehensively revised by 
Amendment 3 in 1990 (55 FR 47773, November 15, 1990) and again by 
Amendment 12 in 2012 (77 FR 75570, December 21, 2012).
    Since 1979, the Council has divided the Salmon FMP's coverage into 
the West Area and the East Area, with the boundary between the two 
areas at Cape Suckling, at 143[deg]53.6' W longitude. Prior to 
Amendment 12, the Salmon FMP authorized commercial fishing in the East 
Area, recreational salmon fishing in both areas, and prohibited 
commercial salmon fishing in the West Area. However, the commercial 
salmon fishing prohibition in the West Area was not applied to three 
adjacent areas of the EEZ where commercial salmon fishing with nets was 
originally authorized by the International Convention for the High Seas 
Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean, as implemented by the North 
Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954 (1954 Act). The Salmon FMP referred to 
the three areas of the EEZ where commercial net fishing for salmon 
occurs as the ``Cook Inlet EEZ,'' the ``Alaska Peninsula EEZ,'' and the 
``Prince William Sound EEZ,'' and collectively as the ``traditional net 
fishing areas.'' Under the authority of the 1954 Act, NMFS issued 
regulations that set the outside fishing boundaries for the traditional 
net fishing areas as those set forth under State of Alaska (State) 
regulations and stated that any fishing in these areas was to be 
conducted pursuant to State regulations.
    In 1990, the Council amended the Salmon FMP, continuing to prohibit 
commercial salmon fishing with nets in the EEZ, with the exception of 
the traditional net fishing areas managed by the State. The next major 
modification to the Salmon FMP occurred when the Council recommended 
Amendment 12 in December 2011. In developing Amendment 12, the Council 
recognized that the law governing the three traditional net fishing 
areas (the 1954 Act) had changed and the Salmon FMP was vague with 
respect to Federal management of the traditional net fishing areas. 
After considering various alternatives, the Council recommended and 
NMFS approved Amendment 12, which removed the three traditional net 
fishing areas from the Salmon FMP's Fishery Management Unit.
    By removing the traditional net fishing areas from the Salmon FMP's 
West Area, the Council intended for the State to continue managing 
these areas, which the State has done since before the inception of the 
Salmon FMP in 1979. In developing Amendment 12, the Council considered 
recommending Federal management of salmon fishing in the three 
traditional net fishing areas, but determined that (1) the State was 
managing the salmon fisheries within these three areas consistent with 
the policies and standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, (2) the Council 
and NMFS did not have the expertise or infrastructure (such as 
personnel, monitoring and reporting systems, and processes for salmon 
stock assessments) to manage Alaska salmon fisheries, and (3) Federal 
management of these areas would not serve a useful purpose or provide 
additional benefits and protections to the salmon fisheries within 
these areas. The Council recognized that salmon are best managed as a 
unit throughout their range and determined that dividing management 
into two separate salmon fishery jurisdictions--State and Federal--
would not be optimal. The Council also recognized the State's expertise 
and well-developed management infrastructure from managing the salmon 
fisheries in Alaska since Statehood. The Council determined that 
Amendment 12 was consistent with the management approach established in 
the original Salmon FMP in 1979.
    The final rule implementing Amendment 12 was published in the 
Federal Register on December 21, 2012 (77 FR 75570). On January 18, 
2013, Cook Inlet commercial salmon fishermen and seafood processors 
filed a lawsuit challenging Amendment 12 and its implementing 
regulations. In United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. NMFS, 2014 WL 10988279 
(D. Alaska 2014), the district court held that Amendment 12's removal 
of the Cook Inlet EEZ from the Salmon FMP was lawful. On appeal, the 
Ninth Circuit held that section 302(h)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1852(h)(1)) clearly and unambiguously requires a Council to 
prepare and submit FMPs for each fishery under its authority that 
requires conservation and management. United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. 
NMFS, 837 F.3d 1055, 1065 (9th Cir. 2016). Because NMFS determined that 
the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery requires conservation and management 
by some entity, the Ninth Circuit ruled that it must be included in the 
Salmon FMP.

Developing Management Alternatives for Amendment 14

    In response to the Ninth Circuit's ruling, the Council began work 
on Amendment 14. Because the history of Amendment 14 is integral to the 
need for and development of this action, a brief history is provided 
here. The Council worked from 2017 to 2020 developing and evaluating 
management alternatives for Amendment 14. The Council broadly 
identified two management approaches to amend the FMP to include the 
Cook Inlet EEZ: one that would delegate authority over specific 
management measures to the State with review and oversight by the 
Council, and one that would retain all management within the Federal 
process.

[[Page 72316]]

    The Council also formed the Cook Inlet Salmon Committee 
(Committee), consisting of Cook Inlet salmon fishery stakeholders 
tasked with developing recommendations for management of the fishery. 
The Committee proposed delegating management to the State, but with 
expanded Federal oversight and a management scope that included State 
marine and fresh waters in addition to the EEZ waters of Cook Inlet. 
This recommendation was not carried forward for further consideration 
because NMFS does not have jurisdiction over State waters.
    Generally, information in the analysis prepared for Amendment 14 
indicated that Federal management would be unlikely to appreciably 
change salmon conservation metrics and thresholds established in Cook 
Inlet, but would increase costs, complexity, and management uncertainty 
without corresponding benefits. While the Council identified some 
flexibility with the specific management measures that could be 
implemented under either Federal management approach, neither the 
Council, NMFS, the State, nor stakeholders identified a fundamentally 
different management approach that could satisfy the Ninth Circuit 
ruling, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
    After the State announced it would not accept delegated management 
authority for Cook Inlet, the Council ultimately recommended expanding 
the existing adjacent West Area to include the Cook Inlet EEZ, thereby 
incorporating the Cook Inlet EEZ into the Salmon FMP and closing the 
area to commercial salmon fishing. In short, the rationale was that 
closure was a precautionary management approach, consistent with 
management throughout the West Area, avoided significantly increased 
costs and uncertainty, and drift gillnet fishing could continue 
entirely within State waters. On November 3, 2021, NMFS published a 
final rule to implement Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP (86 FR 60568, 
November 3, 2021).
    Amendment 14 was challenged by Cook Inlet commercial salmon 
fishermen before the first fishing season. On June 21, 2022, the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Alaska vacated the implementing 
regulations for Amendment 14. United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. NMFS, 
2022 WL 2222879 (D. Alaska 2022). The Court found that the final rule 
was arbitrary and capricious, in part because NMFS failed to include 
management measures for the Cook Inlet EEZ recreational fishery in the 
FMP and because the Court determined the rule still implicitly deferred 
too much management authority to the State of Alaska without formally 
delegating such authority. Id. at *8-*9, *13-*15. The Court later 
ordered NMFS to promulgate a new FMP amendment to federally manage the 
Cook Inlet EEZ in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act by May 1, 
2024. The 2022 and 2023 Cook Inlet EEZ fishing seasons were managed by 
the State under pre-Amendment 14 conditions.
    Now, NMFS proposes Amendment 16 and implementing regulations that 
would federally manage all Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishing, consistent 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the decisions of the Ninth Circuit 
and the District Court.

Developing Management Alternatives for Amendment 16

    In response to the District Court's ruling, at its first meeting 
since the ruling (October 2022), the Council initiated an analysis for 
a new amendment to the Salmon FMP for initial review at its December 
2022 meeting. The Amendment 14 analysis was used as a basis for 
developing Amendment 16 because it contained the reasonable range of 
potential management alternatives. NMFS informed the Council that it 
would need to make a recommendation at its April 2023 meeting to allow 
NMFS sufficient time to implement a new FMP amendment by the Court's 
deadline.
    The Council reviewed the updated analysis at its December 2022 
meeting, and after considering public comment tasked staff with 
analyzing four alternatives for final action: Alternative 1 (status 
quo), Alternative 2 (delegated Federal management), Alternative 3 
(Federal management), and Alternative 4 (Federal closure). NMFS, the 
Council, and the public did not identify any fundamentally new 
alternatives. The Council requested staff analyze Alternative 2 and 
Alternative 3, include management measures for the recreational salmon 
fishery sector, and identify any possible variations in management 
approaches under either alternative. Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 
were not viable options because of the courts' rulings, but were 
retained for analytical comparison.
    Prior to the scheduled Council final action in April 2023, staff 
worked to improve Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. For Alternative 2, 
this included work to identify any added flexibilities under delegated 
management that might make delegation more appealing to the State while 
still complying with all Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. Previously, 
the State has expressed concerns over (1) the resources needed to 
manage fishing in the EEZ through the Council process (in addition to 
its Board of Fisheries process), and (2) Council review of State 
management targets that would be used to manage both the EEZ and State 
water fisheries that are not subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. A 
fundamental constraint for delegated management under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act is that neither the Council nor the Secretary can force the 
State to accept delegated management authority. Though some additional 
flexibilities were identified in the analysis, ultimately the State 
still declined to accept a delegation of management authority for the 
fishery.
    Alternative 3 was further refined to address concerns expressed by 
fishery stakeholders and the Council. The proposed management policy 
and objectives were updated to more closely reflect and balance the 
Council's approach to salmon management with the proposed Federal 
responsibilities under Alternative 3. Options for NMFS to prepare the 
fishery stock assessments and a multi-year harvest specification 
process were also evaluated in an effort to increase efficiency. 
Generally, the description of management measures was refined and 
improved to describe the most practicable management regime. This 
included the addition of a potential season closure date, expected 
Federal regulatory prohibitions, and proposed legal drift gillnet gear 
configurations.
    During the Council process, Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery 
stakeholders generally expressed their perspective that this action, 
and all Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, must be applied to both the 
Federal and State waters of Cook Inlet. However, under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, there is only one narrow authority for NMFS to extend 
Federal jurisdiction into State waters. In order for a Federal FMP to 
govern fisheries occurring within State marine waters, both of the 
following conditions must be met under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 
306(b) (16 U.S.C. 1856(b)): (1) the fishery must occur predominantly 
within the EEZ, and (2) State management must substantially and 
adversely affect the carrying out of the FMP. As approximately 75 
percent of the total annual upper Cook Inlet salmon harvest occurs 
within State waters, there is no authority for NMFS to assert 
management authority over the State water salmon fisheries in Cook 
Inlet. In addition, even when the two conditions above are met, under 
no circumstance does NMFS or the Council have authority to manage 
fishing within State internal waters where salmon spawning

[[Page 72317]]

takes place (i.e., landward of the coastline).
    Further, NMFS interprets Magnuson-Stevens Act language conferring 
``exclusive fishery management authority beyond the exclusive economic 
zone over such anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery 
resources'' as granting NMFS jurisdiction to manage salmon further than 
200 nmi from shore--i.e., beyond sovereign jurisdictional limits--
rather than within 3nmi. The Magnuson-Stevens Act acknowledges that 
marine waters from the Alaskan coastline out to 3 nmi are under State 
jurisdiction (16 U.S.C. 1801(b)(1)) and provides for Federal management 
of those waters only when specific requirements described above are 
met, as they are not here. Therefore, Federal authority to manage Cook 
Inlet salmon fishing is limited to EEZ waters. Of course, to manage the 
EEZ NMFS must and would, pursuant to Amendment 16, consider the 
condition of salmon stocks as a whole and the impacts that State salmon 
fisheries have on management of the EEZ. But NMFS lacks statutory 
authority to establish harvest limits or implement a harvest strategy 
that applies in State waters.
    As most public commenters during the Council process emphasized, 
the jurisdictional issues in Cook Inlet are challenging because salmon 
are harvested in both State and Federal waters but originate from the 
same stocks that spawn entirely in State freshwaters. This makes 
separately managed State and Federal fisheries complex. Stakeholders 
and the Council noted with near unanimity that the State has 
significantly better tools, data, flexibility, and experience for 
inseason management of Cook Inlet salmon fisheries. NMFS agrees with 
this assessment. NMFS would have preferred delegated management under 
Alternative 2 so that State expertise and flexibility could be directly 
utilized for management of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. The State has more 
than 60 years of experience managing salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet 
while NMFS has no prior experience managing these fisheries. However, 
because, pursuant to court order, the Cook Inlet EEZ must be managed 
under the FMP and the State declined to accept delegated management, 
the only remaining option was to create a new fishery in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ managed by the Council and NMFS.
    Another concern of stakeholders was transitioning from a management 
system that could most quickly open and close an EEZ fishery based on 
real-time escapement data to one with established annual catch limits 
(ACLs). Federal salmon management challenges are compounded by various 
constraints on NMFS's management flexibility: Magnuson-Stevens Act 
requirements that FMPs include a mechanism to establish ACLs; and 
notice and publication requirements for in-season actions under the 
Administrative Procedure Act that NMFS must abide by for all fishery 
management, including management of the Cook Inlet EEZ. These 
requirements make it infeasible for NMFS to implement an escapement-
based salmon management approach in the Cook Inlet EEZ that is 
identical to that currently used by the State and familiar to 
stakeholders.
    Another consistent concern voiced by stakeholders and the Council 
was about the impacts and difficulty of coordinating management of 
salmon stocks across separate State and Federal jurisdictions. 
Management measures under Alternative 3 were designed, within the 
limits of Federal authority, to address the impacts of managing salmon 
fisheries across jurisdictions. Because Federal managers have less 
administrative flexibility and less salmon management expertise than 
State managers, NMFS expects initial management of the Cook Inlet EEZ 
to be conservative to account for the significant uncertainty and 
minimize the risk of overfishing. For example, all existing data on 
harvests in the EEZ are estimates because management and catch 
reporting have never differentiated between State and EEZ waters. After 
the implementation of Federal management, NMFS can begin collecting the 
data needed to address some of these uncertainties. Eventually, with 
better data NMFS may be able to more accurately project harvestable 
surpluses of salmon and liberalize future Cook Inlet EEZ Area harvests 
on stocks that can support additional harvest. However, NMFS does not 
see a way to immediately increase salmon harvests with less 
information, less flexibility, less expertise, more management 
uncertainty, and more scientific uncertainty at a time when salmon runs 
are experiencing significant volatility across most of Alaska and the 
Pacific coast. Further, no data can entirely eliminate the uncertainty 
associated with setting preseason catch limits--as required under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act--based on run forecasts that are never perfectly 
accurate. Over time, management measures may be refined as Federal 
managers gain experience and better data is available to assess harvest 
and stock composition within the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    Another central contention of drift gillnet fishery stakeholders is 
that NMFS must manage to achieve MSY under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
and that appropriate management targets for Cook Inlet salmon stocks 
are not being used. Under any management alternative, NMFS's mandate is 
to achieve OY and prevent overfishing, not to achieve MSY. National 
Standard 1 states that conservation and management measures shall 
prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY from 
each fishery. Magnuson-Stevens Act section 3(33) defines ``optimum,'' 
with respect to the yield from a fishery, as the amount of fish that 
will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly 
with respect to food production and recreational opportunities and 
taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems; that is 
prescribed on the basis of the MSY from the fishery, as reduced by any 
relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and, in the case of an 
overfished fishery, that provides for rebuilding to a level consistent 
with producing the MSY in such fishery (16 U.S.C. 1802(33)). Simply 
put, MSY must be considered in establishing OY, but the actual 
management targets established for the fishery can vary considerably 
depending on the balancing of factors identified above. The catch 
limits established for federally-managed crab, groundfish, and scallop 
fisheries off Alaska are regularly set significantly below their 
respective MSY values in consideration of these factors.
    Drift gillnet fishery stakeholders have also opined that because 
overfishing has been so rarely observed, there are no conservation 
concerns in Cook Inlet and therefore harvests may be increased. NMFS 
agrees that the State has successfully avoided overfishing over the 
long term. However, this is a result of proactive management that 
continually assesses conditions of the various stocks in Cook Inlet and 
implements restrictions in real time to avoid overfishing, rather than 
an indication that all salmon stocks are healthy and can support 
significant additional harvest in all instances. Additional discussion 
of the specific factors that may constrain harvest on healthy salmon 
stocks in Cook Inlet is provided below in Cook Inlet EEZ Commercial 
Salmon Fishing Management Measures.
    When evaluating management alternatives, the Council also noted 
that Alternative 3 would have increased

[[Page 72318]]

costs, increased burdens on all participants, and overall decreased 
efficiencies relative to Alternatives 1 or 2. However, the Council did 
not identify any alternative solutions consistent with the applicable 
court decisions and did not convince the State to accept delegated 
management under Alternative 2. The Council failed to take necessary 
action to recommend management measures for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon 
fishery in April 2023 and thus, to comply with the governing court 
order, NMFS began developing Amendment 16 and this proposed rule.
    When the Secretary develops an FMP Amendment, according to section 
304(c)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Secretary must ``conduct 
public hearings, at appropriate times and locations in the geographical 
areas concerned, so as to allow interested parties an opportunity to be 
heard in the preparation and amendment of the plan and any regulations 
implementing the plan.'' In addition to the opportunities for public 
input provided at two Council meetings in Anchorage, AK, NMFS published 
a notice of a public hearing (88 FR 25382) on April 26, 2023 and held a 
public hearing on May 18, 2023. This public hearing was held virtually 
to maximize accessibility, and written public comments were accepted 
through May 25, 2023. Approximately 40 people attended the public 
hearing and NMFS received 12 written comments. Nearly all commenters 
were drift gillnet fishery stakeholders.
    In general, drift gillnet fishery stakeholders that participated in 
the hearing expressed concerns about management that would establish 
preseason harvest limits rather than open and close the fishery 
throughout the fishing season based on real-time escapement data. In 
addition, they objected to any commercial fishery season closure date 
earlier than August or September, and any management that did not 
increase the number of weekly fishing periods over status quo, citing 
concerns about the economic viability of the drift gillnet fishery 
under conservative management, including existing State management. 
Participants emphasized that certain sockeye, chum, and pink salmon 
stocks have not been fully utilized in some years under the State 
management regime. NMFS took these comments into consideration during 
the development of Amendment 16 and this proposed rule. A more detailed 
description of comments received can be found in Section 1.5 of the 
Analysis.
    NMFS also received multiple requests from tribal entities in the 
region for engagement meetings and consultations on the issue. NMFS 
held 3 tribal consultations and 3 tribal engagement sessions from 
February 2023 to June 2023 to provide information, receive input, and 
fulfill NMFS's responsibilities to conduct government to government 
consultations with tribes. Tribal members throughout Cook Inlet 
participate in all Cook Inlet salmon fisheries, including the drift 
gillnet, as well as other commercial, recreational, subsistence, 
tribal, ceremonial, educational, and personal use salmon fisheries. 
Participants were universally concerned about the health of Cook Inlet 
salmon stocks. There were discussions about the complexity of salmon 
management throughout Cook Inlet, including information noting that 
Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon stocks are healthy and can support 
additional harvest while others are severely depressed or otherwise 
require careful consideration. Many tribal groups expressed a 
particular concern about the health of Cook Inlet Chinook salmon 
stocks.
    Throughout all of the tribal meetings, there was support for 
Alternatives 3 and 4, but not for Alternative 2. There was general 
concern about State management. Several tribal groups reported the 
challenges they had getting tribal priorities addressed by the State, 
with one group specifically citing the difficulty of getting the 
Ninilchik subsistence salmon fishery recognized and implemented. There 
was broad support for the establishment of new Federal tribal and 
subsistence fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Some also expressed 
the sentiment that under the existing State management regime, and 
likely Alternative 2, the Federal trust responsibility would be impeded 
by the State's involvement. Many felt that this would improve under 
either Alternative 3 or 4 with direct Federal management. There were 
divergent perspectives on possible management measures for the 
commercial fisheries, with some groups advocating for additional 
restrictions that would provide more salmon to subsistence harvesters 
and others requesting that current EEZ drift gillnet commercial salmon 
harvests be maintained or expanded. Finally, there was a general 
acknowledgement of the limitations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the 
context of salmon management, but tribes expressed the view that this 
did not absolve the Federal responsibility to work to improve the 
health of Cook Inlet salmon stocks.
    Several tribes indicated that the window of time available was too 
short and did not allow sufficient time for meaningful tribal 
consultations, and that this action should be delayed to allow for it. 
NMFS noted it was unable to delay action due to the Court deadline. A 
more detailed summary of feedback received at meetings with tribal 
groups is provided in Section 1.6 of the Analysis.

Action Summary and Rationale

    This action would amend the Salmon FMP and revise Federal 
regulations. Amendment 16 would add the Cook Inlet EEZ Area to the 
Salmon FMP's fishery management unit. The FMP would also be amended to 
include all status determination criteria required by the Magnuson-
Stevens Act for determining whether a stock is overfished (in terms of 
biomass) or subject to overfishing (in terms of the rate of removal). 
Amendment 16 would describe annual management processes, including the 
framework approach for establishing harvest specifications. The FMP 
would describe management measures related to fishing time, area, gear, 
and permits for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    This proposed rule would modify Federal regulations to implement 
Amendment 16 by revising the definition of Salmon Management Area at 50 
CFR 679.2 to redefine the Cook Inlet Area as the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
and incorporate it into the Federal Salmon Management Area. This 
proposed rule would also create Figure 22 to 50 CFR part 679 to depict 
the location of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Regulations at 50 CFR 600.725 
would be modified to authorize the use of drift gillnet gear for the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial salmon fishery. Existing regulations 
related to salmon fisheries under the Salmon FMP throughout 50 CFR 679 
would be moved to Subpart J--Salmon Fishery Management beginning at 50 
CFR 679.110. Management measures necessary for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
would be added to Subpart J. The following sections provide a summary 
of management measures that would be implemented by this proposed rule.

Maximum Sustainable Yield and Optimum Yield

    Amendment 16 would amend the Salmon FMP to include definitions of 
MSY and OY. All FMPs must be consistent with the 10 National Standards 
for fishery conservation and management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
National Standard 1 requires that fishery management measures prevent 
overfishing while achieving OY on a continuing basis. OY is the amount 
of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation

[[Page 72319]]

in terms of food production and recreational opportunities, while 
taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems. Establishing 
the biological reference points used to prevent overfishing and achieve 
OY is a key component of Federal management. One of the required 
foundational reference points is MSY, which is the largest long-term 
average catch that can be taken from a stock or stock complex under 
prevailing conditions. OY is prescribed on the basis of MSY, and MSY 
informs the status determination criteria that are used to determine 
whether a stock is overfished or subject to overfishing. MSY therefore 
also informs the harvest limits set to achieve OY and prevent 
overfishing. As further explained below, MSY is a reference point, 
informed by the best available scientific information, related to 
maximum possible sustainable removals of a stock or stock complex 
throughout its range. Therefore, MSY must be defined at the stock or 
stock complex level without reference to management jurisdictions. In 
contrast, OY is a long term average amount of desired yield from a 
particular stock or fishery and is generally set below MSY. Under 
Amendment 16, OY would be defined at the EEZ fishery level to both 
account for the interactions between salmon stocks in the ecosystem and 
provide Federal managers with a target that is within their control to 
achieve.
    To have a sustainable salmon fishery, sufficient numbers of salmon 
from each stock must avoid harvest and reproduce (spawn) in freshwater. 
The number of spawning salmon is termed ``escapement'' because they 
have escaped capture by all fisheries and predators to spawn. Estimates 
of how many salmon are expected to return from a given number of 
spawning salmon can be developed through the long term process of 
comparing escapement numbers to subsequent return numbers. For most 
stocks, the long term management objective is to allow a range of 
spawners that is likely to result in the highest potential for future 
yield (harvest in excess of spawning escapement). There is always 
uncertainty in what number of spawners will result in the highest 
future yield because the percentage of salmon that survive is different 
each year due to environmental conditions, the quality of the spawning 
population, and other factors. As such, the same numbers of spawning 
salmon could produce different numbers of returning offspring in 
different years. Because of this, the target number of spawning salmon 
(escapement goal) is generally defined as a range that is likely to 
achieve high yields over a broad range of expected conditions.
    For example, if an escapement goal range for a stock is established 
as 750,000 to 1,000,000 fish based on the best available scientific 
information, then management is adjusted to try and achieve escapement 
within that range each year. The escapement target is fixed regardless 
of any other factor, unless or until better information becomes 
available that would cause fishery managers to revise an escapement 
goal. However, because of both changes to actual escapement and the 
survival of salmon, the management measures required to achieve the 
escapement goal can be very different across years. If the survival 
rate of offspring is poor in any given year--perhaps due to prevailing 
ocean conditions that year--then it is possible that few or no 
returning salmon could be harvested by fisheries while still allowing 
sufficient numbers to spawn and achieve the escapement goal. In 
contrast, when the survival rate is high, then fishing opportunities 
can be liberalized while still meeting the escapement goal. Escapement 
goals are often fixed for multiple years, and are only changed when 
multiple additional years of spawning and returning salmon show that a 
different number of spawning salmon is likely to optimize yields due to 
changing environmental conditions, better data, or other 
considerations. As described in the Salmon FMP, escapement goals for 
each stock will be vetted through the Federal management process. 
Harvest specifications established under Federal management would set 
ACLs to achieve at least the lower bound of spawning escapement goals 
for each stock to provide as much harvest opportunity as possible while 
avoiding overfishing on all stocks.
    Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, MSY is defined as the largest long-
term average catch that can be taken by the fishery under prevailing 
ecological, environmental conditions and fishery technological 
characteristics (e.g., gear selectivity), and the distribution of catch 
among fishery sectors (50 CFR 600.310(e)(1)(i)). Under Amendment 16, 
MSY would be specified for salmon stocks and stock complexes in Cook 
Inlet, consistent with the National Standard Guidelines. MSY would be 
defined as the maximum potential yield, which is calculated by 
subtracting the lower bound of the escapement goal (or another value as 
recommended by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) 
based on the best scientific information available) from the total run 
size for stocks where data are available. Any fish in excess of that 
necessary to achieve the escapement goal for each stock or stock 
complex are theoretically available for harvest under this definition 
of MSY. For stocks where escapement is not known, historical catch 
would be used as a proxy for MSY.
    This definition of MSY is based on escapement goals established for 
salmon stocks in Cook Inlet, as informed by salmon stock assessments 
that use the best scientific information available, and undergo peer 
review by the Council's SSC. Escapement goals account for biological 
productivity and other ecological factors. Representative indicator 
stocks are used to determine a suitable MSY proxy for stock complexes 
where escapement is not directly known for each component stock. 
Currently, the best scientific information available to determine 
escapement goals for stocks in Cook Inlet are contained in the 
escapement goal analysis reports developed by the State of Alaska, 
which have been vetted by the SSC (Sections 3.1 and 12 of the 
Analysis). The escapement goals and catch history used to establish MSY 
for each stock and stock complex would continue be evaluated by the SSC 
during the annual stock assessment and harvest specification process 
and changed if necessary as new scientific information becomes 
available.
    As discussed in Section 14 of the Analysis, prior to endorsing this 
definition of MSY, the SSC reviewed an independent analysis of the 
primary sockeye salmon stocks harvested by the fishery (Late-Run Kenai 
and Kasilof) that found that estimates of spawning abundance expected 
to maximize yield were in agreement with the State escapement goal 
ranges established for these stocks. Further, the SSC considered 
alternate analyses submitted through public comment at the Council and 
did not find that they provided a better estimate of MSY.
    OY is another critical reference point because it defines the long-
term management target for the fishery. Magnuson-Stevens Act section 
(3)(33) defines ``optimum,'' with respect to the yield from a fishery, 
as the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to 
the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and 
recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of 
marine ecosystems; that is prescribed on the basis of the MSY from the 
fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological 
factor; and, in the case of an overfished fishery, that provides for 
rebuilding to a level

[[Page 72320]]

consistent with producing the MSY in such fishery. Achieving, on a 
continuing basis, the OY from each fishery means producing, from each 
stock, stock complex, or fishery, an amount of catch that is, on 
average, equal to the Council's specified OY; prevents overfishing; 
maintains the long term average biomass near or above the level 
expected to produce MSY; and rebuilds overfished stocks and stock 
complexes consistent with timing and other requirements of section 
304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 1.
    Because OY must be defined on the basis of MSY, the potential upper 
bound would be all excess yield above the lower bound of the escapement 
goal for each stock in the EEZ. However, because it is not possible to 
harvest one stock at a time in this mixed stock fishery, because there 
are weak stocks intermingled with stocks that regularly exceed their 
escapement goal, and because harvest of all Cook Inlet stocks also 
occurs in State marine and fresh waters, OY must be reduced from MSY to 
account for these various ecological, economic, and social factors. For 
this reason, OY would be defined at the fishery level to account for 
mixed stock harvest and variabilities in run strength.
    Defining OY for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery is particularly 
challenging. Scientific information critical to defining OY for the 
Cook Inlet EEZ includes estimates of stock-specific historical harvests 
by fishery sector and escapements, as well as salmon stock assessments. 
All of these elements have varied substantially over time as a result 
of changes in salmon productivity, the relative abundance of salmon 
stocks, management measures intended to protect weak stocks, and 
management measures that have changed the allocations among salmon 
harvesters in Cook Inlet as the regional population has grown and 
fisheries have further developed.
    Amendment 16 would define the OY range for the Cook Inlet EEZ 
salmon fisheries in the Salmon FMP as the range between the averages of 
the three lowest years of total estimated EEZ salmon harvest and the 
three highest years of total estimated EEZ salmon harvest from 1999 to 
2021. The intent of using averages of the years with lowest and highest 
years of harvests is to temper the influence of extreme events in 
defining OY (e.g., fishery disasters at the low end, or extremely large 
harvests at the high end), thereby resulting in a range of harvests 
that are likely to be sustainable and provide the greatest net benefit 
to the Nation into the future. The period of time under consideration 
(1999-2021) represents the full range of years for which reliable 
estimates of Cook Inlet EEZ harvest are currently available, and 
represents a broad range of recent conditions in the fishery that may 
also be reasonably foreseeable in the future. This includes periods 
when State regulations allowed additional drift gillnet harvest in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ, as well as periods when time and area restrictions have 
limited harvest in the area. Harvests by the recreational sector in the 
area have averaged under 100 salmon per year, but are also included in 
the OY range. This results in a proposed OY range of approximately 
291,631 to 1,551,464 salmon of all species.
    This OY also reflects a range of harvests that have provided for 
viable fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ in both high and low salmon 
abundance years across a wide range of ecological conditions while also 
avoiding overfishing and achieving escapement goals for most stocks in 
most years. Looking at average total EEZ salmon harvest in years of 
high and low abundance accounts for the fact that the different stocks 
and species of salmon will have varying total and relative abundances 
each year--a high abundance year for one species may be a low abundance 
year for another. It also acknowledges that the Cook Inlet EEZ 
commercial salmon fishery sector, which harvests over 99.99 percent of 
salmon in the EEZ (the remaining harvest being recreational), cannot 
individually target strong stocks of salmon without also harvesting 
other stocks that may not be able to support as much harvest and still 
meet their escapement goal. OY would therefore be defined as the 
average range of target EEZ harvest across all species that maximizes 
fishing opportunities while preventing overfishing on any one stock. 
This OY range provides the greatest overall net benefits to the Nation 
because it would ensure sustainable stock levels throughout the 
ecosystem, preserve a viable commercial fishery sector that ensures 
continued food production, maintain a viable recreational fishing 
sector that attracts participants from throughout the Nation, and 
protect subsistence harvest opportunities.

Status Determination Criteria and Annual Catch Limits

    Amendment 16 would specify objective and measurable criteria for 
determining when a stock or stock complex is subject to overfishing or 
overfished. These are referred to as status determination criteria, and 
are established during the harvest specification process and evaluated 
each year after fishing is complete.
    Amendment 16 would establish a tier system to assess salmon stocks 
based on the amount of available information for each stock. NMFS would 
annually assign each salmon stock into a tier based on the best 
available scientific information during the harvest specifications 
process as follows:

 Tier 1: salmon stocks with escapement goals and stock-specific 
estimates of harvests
 Tier 2: salmon stocks managed as a complex, with specific 
salmon stocks as indicator stocks
 Tier 3: salmon stocks or stock complexes with no reliable 
estimates of escapement

    The tier system uses a multi-year approach for calculating the 
status determination criteria. This accounts for high uncertainty in 
the estimate of fishery mortality in the most recent year, high stock 
abundance fluctuations, assessments that are not timely enough to 
forecast such changes, and the fact that a cohort of salmon spawned in 
a single year may return at different ages to be harvested or spawn.
    For stocks and stock complexes where escapement is known (e.g., 
Tier 1), or is thought to be a reliable index for the number of 
spawners in a stock complex (Tier 2), overfishing is defined as 
occurring when the fishing mortality rate in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
(FEEZ) exceeds the maximum fishery mortality threshold 
(MFMT). The MFMT for a stock or stock complex is calculated as the sum 
of maximum potential yield for that stock in the EEZ for the most 
recent generation (e.g., the most recent 5 years for sockeye salmon), 
divided by the sum of total run size of that stock for the most recent 
generation. This calculation would be used to evaluate whether 
overfishing occurred each year. For this definition, maximum potential 
yield in the EEZ means harvest in excess of the spawning escapement 
goal (e.g., lower bound of the spawning escapement goal) when 
accounting for harvests in other fisheries. Escapement goals used in 
calculating the status determination criteria for each stock would be 
recommended by NMFS and adopted by the SSC based on the best scientific 
information available.
    For Tier 3 stocks, which have no reliable estimates of escapement, 
overfishing would occur when harvest exceeds the overfishing limit 
(OFL). The OFL for Tier 3 stocks would be set as the maximum EEZ catch 
of the stock multiplied by the generation time (years). The result of 
this calculation would be compared against the

[[Page 72321]]

cumulative EEZ catch of the stock for the most recent generation. The 
SSC may recommend an alternative catch value for OFL on the basis of 
the best scientific information available.
    Under National Standard 1, a stock or stock complex is considered 
``overfished'' when its biomass declines below a minimum stock size 
threshold (MSST). MSST means the level of biomass below which the 
capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing 
basis has been jeopardized. Escapement is used to evaluate a salmon 
stock's capacity to produce MSY. For Cook Inlet salmon, the MSST will 
be calculated for stocks in Tier 1 and 2 as follows: a stock or stock 
complex is overfished when summed escapements over a generation fall 
below one half of summed spawning escapement goals over that 
generation. Escapement goals used in establishing Federal status 
determination criteria would be recommended by NMFS and adopted by the 
SSC.
    For Tier 1 and Tier 2 stocks, the Salmon FMP would specify OFL as 
the amount of salmon harvest in the EEZ for the coming year that would 
correspond with the MFMT, based on information available preseason. 
Acceptable biological catch (ABC) would then be established based on 
OFL. As an ABC control rule, ABC must be less than or equal to OFL, and 
the SSC may recommend reducing ABC from OFL to account for scientific 
uncertainty, including uncertainty associated with the assessment of 
spawning escapement goals, forecasts, harvests, and other sources of 
uncertainty. The annual catch limit (ACL) for each stock would then be 
set equal to ABC.
    For Tier 3 stocks there is not information to determine MSST. ABC 
for these stocks would be based on the OFL with an additional buffer 
for scientific uncertainty. As an ABC control rule, ABC could be set 
lower by applying a more conservative buffer to the OFL to account for 
greater scientific uncertainty regarding the stock. ACL would then be 
set at ABC.
    While ABC and ACL would be calculated based on the best scientific 
information available preseason when harvest specifications must be 
established, realized harvest and escapement data would be used 
postseason to determine whether ACLs were exceeded, whether overfishing 
occurred, and if any stocks were overfished. Accountability measures 
would be applied to prevent the recurrence of any ACL overages.

De Minimis Fishing Provision

    There are significant concerns about some Cook Inlet salmon stocks 
that are at low levels of abundance and productivity. For example, 
despite extensive fishery restrictions, there have been several recent 
years in which Chinook salmon escapements for some stocks did not meet 
their escapement goals and drift gillnet fishing was still allowed. As 
discussed later in Mixed Stock Management Considerations, the drift 
gillnet fleet harvests only small quantities of Chinook salmon, and 
they are not a primary target species for the fishery.
    De minimis fishing provisions would allow small amounts of 
incidental catch of stocks that are at low levels of abundance and for 
which there is minimal or no available projected yield, so long as de 
minimis harvest would not result in overfishing or the stock becoming 
overfished. De minimis fishing provisions give flexibility to the 
process of setting status determination criteria when the escapement 
goals for limiting stocks are projected to not be met, but harvest by 
the fishery is not expected to have significant impacts to the stock or 
result in a conservation concern. This can provide opportunity to 
harvest salmon stocks that are more abundant and reduce the risk of 
fishery restrictions that impose severe economic consequences on 
fishing communities without substantive management or conservation 
benefits. While de minimis provisions would be intended to provide 
management flexibility, there is an overriding mandate to prevent 
overfishing on and preserve the long-term productive capacity of all 
stocks to ensure meaningful contributions to all fisheries in the 
future.
    Under Amendment 16, if a preseason forecast suggests that the lower 
bound of the escapement goal will not be achieved for a given stock, de 
minimis harvest on the stock may be allowed if the SSC determines that 
the de minimis harvest will not result in overfishing. Thus, the 
maximum allowable de minimis harvest amount would be established to 
keep the post-season fishing mortality rate below MFMT.
    The SSC may recommend limiting allowable de minimis catch as needed 
to address uncertainties or year-specific circumstances. When 
recommending a de minimis catch limit in a given year, the SSC may also 
consider recent and projected abundance levels; the predicted magnitude 
of harvest in the EEZ; the status of other stocks in the mixed-stock 
fishery; indicators of marine and freshwater environmental conditions; 
impacts from other fisheries; whether the stock is currently subject to 
overfishing or approaching an overfished condition; whether the stock 
is currently overfished; and any other scientific considerations as 
appropriate.
    Management measures and any required accountability measures 
necessary to implement a de minimis harvest provision and prevent 
overfishing or any stock becoming overfished would be considered during 
the harvest specifications process.

Harvest Specifications and Annual Processes

    Amendment 16 would establish the annual harvest specification 
process for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, along with specific definitions of 
required status determination criteria using the tier system described 
in the previous section.
    The Federal fishery management cycle begins with the preparation of 
a Stock Assessment and Fisheries Evaluation (SAFE) report. The SAFE 
report would provide the SSC and Council with a summary of the most 
recent biological condition of the salmon stocks, including all status 
determination criteria, and the social and economic condition of the 
fishing and processing industries. NMFS would develop the SAFE for the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area and public review would occur through the SSC and 
Council process. The Council could choose to establish a plan team 
through subsequent action.
    The SAFE report would summarize the best available scientific 
information concerning the past, present, and possible future condition 
of Cook Inlet salmon stocks and fisheries, along with ecosystem 
considerations. This would include recommendations of OFL, ABC, ACL, 
and MSST that are calculated following the tier system in the FMP and 
described in Section 2.5.2 of the Analysis. The SAFE report would 
include a final post-season evaluation of the previous fishing year 
based on realized catches and escapement with all information needed to 
make ``overfishing'' and ``overfished'' determinations, as well as 
recommendations to develop harvest specifications for the upcoming 
fishing year. All recommendations would be based on the best scientific 
information available and would take into account any applicable 
uncertainty. In providing this information, the Salmon SAFE would use a 
time series of historical catch for each salmon stock, including 
estimates of retained and discarded catch taken in the salmon fishery; 
bycatch taken in other fisheries; catch in

[[Page 72322]]

State commercial, recreational, personal use, and subsistence 
fisheries; and catches taken during scientific research (e.g., test 
fisheries).
    The Salmon SAFE report would also provide information to the 
Council for documenting significant trends or changes in the stocks, 
marine ecosystem, and fisheries over time, as well as the impacts of 
management. The Cook Inlet EEZ Area Salmon SAFE would be structured 
like other Council SAFEs such that stock assessments, economic 
analyses, and ecosystem considerations comprise the three major themes 
of the SAFE document. The SAFE could contain economic, social, 
community, essential fish habitat, and ecological information pertinent 
to the success of salmon management or the achievement of Salmon FMP 
objectives.
    The SSC would review the SAFE and recommend the OFL, ABC, ACL, 
MFMT, and MSST, which are cumulatively used to determine the maximum 
allowable harvest for each stock based on biology and scientific 
uncertainty in the assessments. This SSC review would constitute the 
official, peer review of scientific information used to manage the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery for the purposes of the Information 
Quality Act. Upon review and acceptance by the SSC, the Salmon SAFE and 
any associated SSC comments would constitute the best scientific 
information available for purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    The Council would then recommend total allowable catches (TACs) for 
each salmon species in the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery to the 
Secretary. The TAC is referred to as an ``Annual Catch Target'' in the 
National Standard 1 guidelines, but hereafter referred to as a TAC 
given common usage of the term by the Council. Closing a fishery when 
TACs are met is a recommended form of an accountability measure (AM) 
used to ensure an ACL is not exceeded. A TAC is an amount of annual 
catch of a stock, stock complex, or species that is the management 
target of the fishery, accounts for management uncertainty in 
controlling the catch at or below the ACL, and must be set equal to or 
less than ABC. The TACs would be set at the species level because 
estimates of stock contribution to EEZ fishery harvests cannot 
currently be made until after the fishing season. As such, in setting 
the TAC for each species, the Council would consider the estimated 
proportional contribution of each stock to total harvest of a species 
such that ACLs are not expected to be exceeded for any component stock 
if the TAC is fully achieved. If inseason genetic information becomes 
available, it may be possible to establish and manage for TACs for 
individual stocks within the same species (e.g., Kenai River sockeye 
and Kasilof River sockeye). Because NMFS and the Council have never 
previously managed a drift gillnet salmon fishery in Alaska, and as 
described in Section 2.5.2.6 of the Analysis, there are significant new 
management uncertainties that are introduced by this action, TACs will 
be a crucial management tool.
    To establish these Magnuson-Stevens Act required ACLs and their 
implementing TACs, NMFS would publish proposed and final salmon harvest 
specifications in the Federal Register. Under the Federal rulemaking 
process, the public is informed through the Federal Register of Federal 
actions and can comment on them and provide additional information to 
the agency. A final rule is then issued with modifications, as needed, 
and includes the agency responses to issues raised by public comments. 
This is a lengthy process: it takes a significant amount of time to 
conduct the stock assessments, review them through the SSC and Council, 
make any overfishing or overfished determinations, recommend TACs, and 
then conduct notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative 
Procedure Act.
    Because harvest specifications must be in place before the fishery 
begins, this process must rely on salmon forecasts. NMFS would use 
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) pre-season salmon forecasts 
(subject to NMFS and SSC review) or develop suitable alternate 
forecasts. Fundamentally, status determination criteria and harvest 
specifications would be calculated in terms of potential yield for the 
Cook Inlet EEZ and would be based, in part, on the forecasted run size 
minus the minimum number of salmon required for spawning and the 
expected mortality in other fisheries. If no forecasts are available, 
NMFS would use fishery catch in prior years to inform harvest 
specification, as it does for other data-limited fisheries.

Cook Inlet EEZ Commercial Salmon Fishing Management Measures

    Salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet are complex and must take into 
account many different factors when establishing management measures 
for each component sector. The drift gillnet fleet generally harvests 
the largest proportion of salmon in Cook Inlet of any fishery sector 
and has significant harvest power. The State has historically managed 
the drift gillnet fishery through the combination of time and areas 
open to fishing. This section provides a discussion of key 
considerations related to status quo management of the Cook Inlet drift 
gillnet fleet and proposed Cook Inlet EEZ management measures under 
this action.

Seasonal Fishery Progression

    Commercial salmon fishing in Cook Inlet is bounded by when salmon 
return to the Cook Inlet en route to natal freshwater locations to 
spawn. Commercial salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet begin in June under 
State regulations. Around this time, Chinook salmon are already present 
in Cook Inlet and sockeye salmon begin migrating into Cook Inlet from 
the Gulf of Alaska. As salmon begin to move into Cook Inlet, with the 
exception of Chinook, they typically group in large tide rips in the 
middle of Cook Inlet (i.e., the EEZ) to start moving north up the inlet 
toward their spawning streams, rivers, and lakes. The first commercial 
fishery that salmon typically encounter when moving up Cook Inlet is 
the upper Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery. Commercial salmon fisheries 
south of this area occur entirely in State waters.
    In the Cook Inlet EEZ, salmon stocks originating from throughout 
Cook Inlet are mixed together. As they move northward up farther into 
Cook Inlet, individual salmon stocks will eventually move shoreward 
into State waters to reach their spawning streams. Stocks returning to 
freshwater systems farther north in Cook Inlet tend to stay close to 
the middle of the inlet when they move through the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. 
The Upper Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery occurs entirely within the 
State's ``Central District,'' which are waters north of the Anchor 
Point line at 59[deg]46.15' N to approximately Boulder Point at 
60[deg]46.39' N. Commercial, subsistence, recreational, and personal 
use salmon fisheries also occur northward of Boulder Point, which 
includes the waters of Turnagain Arm and Knik Arm, and this area is 
generally referred to as the State's ``Northern District.'' All salmon 
returning to the Northern District must first past through fisheries in 
the Central District before reaching fisheries and spawning grounds in 
the Northern District.

Mixed Stock Management Considerations

    In recent years, the State's management of Cook Inlet salmon has 
been complicated by the relative abundance of salmon stocks, and the 
characteristics of the different user groups and gear types. Central 
District

[[Page 72323]]

drift gillnet, set gillnet, recreational, and personal use fishermen 
all target valuable Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon, which in recent 
years have been in relatively high abundance. As described in Section 
4.5 of the Analysis, sockeye salmon accounted for more than 80 percent 
of the salmon caught in the drift gillnet fishery, and an even greater 
percentage of fishery value from 1990-2021. Over this same time, the 
drift gillnet fishery has harvested approximately 42 percent of the 
sockeye salmon in Cook Inlet, while the set gillnet fishery harvested 
around 40 percent, and non-commercial harvests accounted for the 
remainder.
    The amount and proportion of harvest by each fishery is 
significantly impacted by which salmon stocks it targets, or cannot 
avoid, and whether unintended catch can be released alive. Gillnet gear 
generally catch all species of salmon in the area and cannot target 
individual stocks. It is assumed that salmon that become entangled in 
commercial gillnet gear generally do not survive being released. 
Therefore, management must consider all stocks that would be harvested 
by each drift gillnet fishery opening, the conservation status of each 
stock, and their relative abundance. While Kenai and Kasilof sockeye 
salmon stocks have been abundant in recent years, salmon abundance can 
be highly variable over time and management plans must be able to 
account for a wide variety of absolute and relative salmon stock 
abundance scenarios.
    The drift gillnet fishery harvests only approximately 1 percent of 
upper Cook Inlet Chinook salmon, on average. This is because Chinook 
salmon generally migrate in State waters near the shore outside of EEZ 
and State waters open to drift gillnet fishing, or at depths below 
drift gillnet gear. However, the drift gillnet fishery, particularly in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ, can catch significant quantities of Cook Inlet 
sockeye and coho salmon stocks bound for the Northern District. These 
are smaller and less productive stocks that cannot support as much 
harvest as co-occurring Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon stocks. The 
Cook Inlet EEZ is a productive fishing area for all Cook Inlet sockeye 
salmon and coho stocks, as they are aggregated in tide rips within the 
Cook Inlet EEZ.
    Fishing at a rate to fully harvest the most abundant stocks would 
likely result in overfishing on these weaker or less abundant salmon 
stocks. Therefore, to support conservation of these Northern District 
stocks, and to ensure at least some harvestable surplus for Northern 
District salmon fisheries, the State has reduced the number of drift 
gillnet fishing periods in Cook Inlet EEZ waters after July 15 to 
minimize mixed stock harvests. After this date, State management 
measures in the last decade generally reduced fishing time in the EEZ 
and provided additional fishing time in State waters on the east side 
of Cook Inlet, adjacent to the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers to focus 
harvests on Kenai and Kasilof salmon stocks during the peak of the run. 
This management approach was in response to significant declines in 
coho salmon stocks and long term yield concerns for Northern District 
sockeye salmon, as well as an increasing populations in the Anchorage 
and Kenai Peninsula areas utilizing Cook Inlet salmon resources. This 
has also limited the drift gillnet fleet's harvests of pink and chum 
salmon stocks.
    Additionally, reducing Cook Inlet EEZ harvests after July 15 allows 
for the collection of more data on escapement and realized salmon 
abundance in order to either avoid overharvesting a given stock or 
increase harvest to more fully utilize abundant runs. After July 15, 
the amount of fishing time available to the drift gillnet fleet under 
State management has varied widely depending on run strength. For Kenai 
and Kasilof sockeye salmon stocks, managers get robust information on 
run strength from an inseason abundance model around July 25. Prior to 
July 25, there is significant uncertainty from the inseason model about 
run strength for these stocks, which increases management uncertainty. 
A major concern is harvesting too many fish and not meeting spawning 
escapement goals, potentially resulting in overfishing. This issue is 
exacerbated for Northern District stocks, for which there is 
significant time lag (relative to Kenai and Kasilof stocks) between 
harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ and information on escapement becoming 
available.
    The State has adjusted management within State waters, where stocks 
are more distinctly separated, to focus on harvests on Kenai or Kasilof 
stocks while minimizing drift gillnet harvests of Northern District 
salmon stocks. Fishery managers must also account for harvest in 
freshwater fisheries upstream of escapement monitoring when making 
management decisions to reach final escapement goal targets (e.g., 1.4 
million salmon may be counted at the monitoring station, but if 200,000 
are subsequently caught in freshwater fisheries, than only 1.2 million 
salmon would actually spawn).

Proposed Federal Commercial Fishing Season and Fishing Periods

    Under this proposed rule, the Cook Inlet EEZ Area would open to 
commercial drift gillnet fishing on a Monday, either the third Monday 
in June or the Monday on or after June 19, whichever is later. Prior to 
this time, salmon stocks harvested by the drift gillnet fleet are not 
present in commercially viable quantities. Historically, estimated 
harvests in the EEZ have been relatively small during the initial 
openings as sockeye salmon are just beginning to move into the area and 
the bulk of the fish do not arrive until July. Opening after mid-June 
helps avoid potential additional impacts to early-run Cook Inlet 
Chinook salmon stocks. These stocks migrate through upper Cook Inlet in 
May and early June. Opening the drift gillnet fishery after mid-June 
would also continue to provide consistent data to inform State and 
Federal managers about preliminary estimates of run strength compared 
to historical averages. The scientific test fishery carried out by the 
State, which also helps provide information about salmon run strength 
in Cook Inlet, would not be affected by this action and could continue 
to occur.
    After the season start date, this proposed rule would open the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area for drift gillnet fishing for two,12-hour periods each 
week, from 7 a.m. Monday until 7 p.m. Monday, and from 7 a.m. Thursday 
until 7 p.m. Thursday until either (1) the TAC is reached, or (2) 
August 15, whichever comes first. This schedule would align possible 
drift gillnet fishing periods in the Cook Inlet EEZ with current State 
drift gillnet periods, thereby maintaining a similar number of regular 
drift gillnet fishing periods per week. If the State and Federal 
fisheries were open on separate days, there could be additional drift 
gillnet openings that could result in significantly increased harvest 
(the drift gillnet fleet has the potential to harvest over 300,000 
salmon per opening), and there are not existing data to inform managers 
about the potential impacts of additional openings on spawning 
escapement and other salmon users.
    Some drift gillnet fishery stakeholders requested that NMFS open 
the drift gillnet fishery for three, 12-hour periods per week from June 
through October. If NMFS were to allow that amount of fishing 
opportunity, overfishing on some Cook Inlet salmon stocks--particularly 
Northern District stocks of low abundance--would be more likely. Under 
such a management approach, it is possible that even a complete closure

[[Page 72324]]

of State fisheries would be insufficient to prevent overfishing on low 
abundance stocks.
    NMFS received input from other Northern District salmon users and 
tribes in Northern Cook Inlet requesting that Federal management 
measures limit EEZ harvests during the middle of the season to allow 
for a harvestable surplus of salmon for Northern District salmon 
fisheries.
    As a result of this conflicting feedback, NMFS carefully considered 
when the commercial drift gillnet fishery in the EEZ should be closed. 
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ACLs must be established for each 
fishery, along with accountability measures to prevent ACLs from being 
exceeded. Because there is both scientific and management uncertainty 
surrounding the ACLs set for each stock or stock complex, TACs are set 
as the management target for the fishery to prevent exceeding ACLs. The 
fishery would be closed when the TAC for a single species is reached. 
Because of the mixed-stock nature of the fishery, the drift gillnet 
fleet could not avoid continuing to harvest stocks for which the TAC 
had been reached and target only those stocks for which there was still 
TAC remaining.
    In addition to closing the fishery when a TAC is reached, NMFS 
considered whether a fixed commercial fishery season closure date may 
be required. Season closure dates are commonly used to end fisheries 
when a TAC is not reached, and to achieve other conservation and 
management objectives. To describe how these management measures would 
interact, the fishery would close before the closure date if the TAC is 
reached prior to that date. NMFS may also close the fishery before a 
TAC or the closure date is reached in the event it has information 
showing further fishery openings could result in overfishing of any 
stock. One potential example of this is if actual salmon returns were 
significantly below the salmon forecasts. In this instance, fishing to 
fully achieve a TAC based on a forecast that is much higher than 
realized abundance could result in not meeting at least the lower bound 
of the escapement goal, overfishing occurring, or both.
    In developing this proposed rule NMFS evaluated a range of 
potential options, including no closure date and a closure date as 
early as July 9. After receiving input from drift gillnet stakeholders 
that a fixed July closure could severely restrict fishing opportunities 
and would not account for delayed run timing that has been observed in 
recent years, NMFS is proposing an August 15 closure date. In years 
when there is sufficient TAC and salmon abundance to support a longer 
fishing season, this could result in additional EEZ fishing days in 
mid-July and greater harvest of one or more stocks in the EEZ relative 
to status quo management. However, due to mixed stock management 
considerations, total annual removals in the Cook Inlet EEZ and 
throughout Cook Inlet would generally be expected to remain consistent 
with historical averages that, when accounting for run size, have 
prevented overfishing. NMFS would still manage to protect weak stocks 
in Northern Cook Inlet in years of low abundance. As under existing 
management, the number of EEZ fishing days is expected to vary based on 
the abundance of salmon (i.e., amount of fishing time required to 
achieve the target harvest when accounting for all stocks that are 
being harvested before the fishery is closed). NMFS also received input 
from other Cook Inlet stakeholders concerned about the potential 
negative impacts of an extended EEZ drift gillnet fishery on salmon 
stocks and later occurring fisheries in Cook Inlet, particularly 
without restrictions in mid-July that have been occurring under State 
management. These stakeholders raised concerns about reduced 
harvestable surplus for other fisheries outside of the EEZ and concerns 
about achieving spawning escapement goals. NMFS anticipates addressing 
these concerns through the annual harvest specification process, which 
would account for total removals of each stock and scientific 
uncertainty.
    NMFS is particularly interested in feedback from the public about 
the implications of an August 15 closure date--or an earlier or later 
closure date--on fishery resources and participants, or impacts on any 
other part of the ecosystem. NMFS will take all public comments into 
consideration and may modify the closure date in the final rule.
    NMFS has significant concerns about management measures that would 
significantly increase salmon harvests above the status quo, 
particularly of Northern District salmon stocks, because that may 
decrease prey availability for endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales. 
Reduced availability of salmon prey in the Northern District, where 
Cook Inlet beluga whales are concentrated during the summer, has been 
identified in the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Recovery Plan as a threat for 
Cook Inlet beluga whales. If this proposed action results in reduced 
prey availability, take of belugas would need to be authorized under 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) assuming such take could be authorized 
and would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. NMFS 
Sustainable Fisheries Division is consulting under ESA section 7 with 
NMFS Protected Resources Division to evaluate the potential impacts of 
these proposed management measures to all ESA listed species that may 
be affected.

Inseason Management

    NMFS would carry out inseason management of the commercial salmon 
fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Fishing would occur during the 
regularly scheduled fishing periods described above. As the fishing 
season progresses, NMFS would project the additional harvest expected 
from each additional opening of the fishery based on the number of 
participating vessels, catch rates, and any other available 
information. NMFS would carry out an inseason action to close the 
fishery if projections indicate that an additional fishery opening 
would be expected to exceed the TAC specified for one or more salmon 
stocks or species. Inseason actions also may be necessary to ensure 
that overfishing of salmon stocks or species does not occur. NMFS would 
publish every inseason action in the Federal Register to notify the 
public of the effectiveness.
    NMFS would monitor all available sources of information during the 
fishery to evaluate whether the TAC was specified correctly. If 
information indicates that the number of salmon returning to Cook Inlet 
is significantly different than what was forecasted, NMFS may make 
adjustments to management of the fishery. If information indicates that 
run strength is significantly below what was forecasted, then fishing 
to fully achieve that TAC would likely result in overfishing. 
Therefore, NMFS may close the fishery before the season closure date to 
prevent overfishing if information indicates that abundance is 
significantly lower than expected. This may be determined based on 
fishery catches, test-fishery catches, escapement, or any other 
scientific information.
    NMFS may consider an inseason adjustment to modify the TAC if 
scientific information indicates that salmon abundance is significantly 
higher than forecasted. To implement an inseason adjustment, NMFS must 
publish a temporary rule in the Federal Register and consider all 
public comments on the action. Any such action must not result in 
overfishing on any other co-occurring fish stocks and

[[Page 72325]]

would also consider the potential impacts of such an action to all Cook 
Inlet salmon harvesters. Depending on the specifics of the situation, 
it may take up to 30 days to implement an inseason adjustment to the 
TAC. NMFS could not adjust the TAC above any ABC or allowable de 
minimis amounts set forth in the harvest specifications established for 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in that fishing year without engaging in notice 
and comment rulemaking to amend the specifications.
    This proposed rule also considers the potential for adjustments to 
fishing time and area, as well as reopening the fishery within the 
fishing season defined in regulation to achieve conservation and 
management goals. These tools may be used to either increase or 
decrease harvests in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area drift gillnet fishery as 
appropriate based on the specified TAC amounts, the amount already 
harvested, and other available information. NMFS expects to refine 
application of these management tools as it develops management 
expertise and collects data over time.

Proposed Federal Management Area

    The proposed management area is all Federal waters of upper Cook 
Inlet (EEZ waters of Cook Inlet north of a line at 59[deg]46.15' N). 
This is analogous to previous State management of the area under ``Area 
1'' openings, excluding the State water portion of the area off the 
Southeast corner of Kalgin Island. The State's ``Districtwide'' 
openings included all of the Federal waters in ``Area 1'' and also 
allowed fishing in all State waters of the Central District. The 
State's openings of these areas include approximately all Federal 
waters of upper Cook Inlet.

Retention of Bycatch

    Drift gillnet vessels fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area would be 
able to retain and sell non-salmon bycatch including groundfish (e.g., 
Pacific cod, pollock, flounders, etc.). These are referred to as 
incidental catch species and this proposed rule allows fishermen to 
retain these species up to a specified maximum retainable amount (MRA). 
Drift gillnet vessels retaining non-salmon incidental catch species 
would be required to have a groundfish Federal fisheries permit (FFP) 
as well as comply with all State requirements when landing these fish 
in Alaska. The MRA of an incidental catch species is determined as a 
proportion of the weight of salmon on board the vessel.
    Table 10 to 50 CFR part 679 is used to calculate MRA amounts in the 
Gulf of Alaska, and would also be used to calculate MRA amounts for the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area. For commercial salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area, the basis species would be salmon, which would be classified 
as ``Aggregated amount of non-groundfish species'' for the purposes of 
the calculation. To obtain the MRAs for each incidental catch species, 
multiply the retainable percentage for the incidental catch species by 
the round weight of salmon (Basis Species--Aggregated amount of non-
groundfish species) on board. For example, if there were 100 pounds 
(45.36 kg) of salmon aboard the vessel, then 20 pounds (9.07 kg) of 
pollock could be retained, 5 pounds (2.27 kg) of aggregated rockfish, 
20 pounds (9.07 kg) of sculpins. Pacific halibut are not defined as a 
groundfish and could not be retained by drift gillnet vessels.
    Vessels landing bycatch species in Alaska would have to comply with 
all State requirements, including any applicable State permits.

Cook Inlet EEZ Commercial Salmon Fishery Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 
Reporting Requirements

    This action would manage the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery 
separately from the adjacent State waters salmon fisheries. To manage 
the fishery successfully and avoid overfishing, Federal managers need 
accurate and rapidly reported catch data from the EEZ. The eLandings 
system is an electronic system for reporting commercial fishery 
landings in Alaska used to manage both State and Federal fisheries. 
Landings submitted through eLandings are transmitted to NMFS multiple 
times per day which would allow managers to have the most up to date 
information possible. This proposed rule would require processors to 
report all landings of Cook Inlet salmon harvested in the EEZ through 
eLandings by noon of the day following completion of the delivery. In 
order to implement this reporting requirement and other monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting measures, fishing vessels (harvesters), 
processors, and other entities receiving deliveries of Cook Inlet EEZ 
salmon (i.e., fish transporters, catcher sellers, and direct markets) 
would have to obtain Federal permits and comply with Federal 
recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements.

Requirements for Catcher Vessels

    Harvesting vessel owners would be required to obtain a Salmon 
Federal Fisheries Permit (SFFP). NMFS would issue SFFPs at no charge to 
the owner or authorized representative of a vessel. An SFFP would 
authorize a vessel of the United States to conduct commercial salmon 
fishing operations in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, subject to all other 
Federal requirements. An SFFP applicant must be a citizen of the United 
States. NMFS would issue SFFPs after receipt, review, and approval of a 
complete SFFP application. SFFPs would have a 3-year application cycle. 
Once a vessel owner or authorized representative obtains an SFFP, it 
would be valid for 3 years. Participants must maintain a physical or 
electronic copy of their valid SFFP aboard the named vessel. As with 
other Federal fisheries, if a vessel owner or authorized representative 
surrenders an SFFP, they could not obtain a new SFFP for that vessel 
until the start of the next 3-year permit cycle. This prevents vessels 
from regularly surrendering and reobtaining SFFPs to avoid Federal 
monitoring requirements.
    The SFFP is associated with a specific vessel and not transferable 
to another vessel. If the vessel is sold, the new owner would need to 
apply for an SFFP amendment from NMFS to reflect the new owner or 
authorized representative of the vessel. A vessel could not operate in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area fishery until the SFFP amendment was complete 
and the amended SFFP issued. The SFFP number would be required to be 
displayed on the vessel's hull and buoys attached to the vessel's drift 
gillnet.
    For a vessel being leased, the vessel operator would be considered 
the authorized representative of the SFFP holder and no amendments to 
the permit would be required. The vessel operator would be subject to 
all SFFP requirements and limitations and liable for any violations.
    To monitor participation in the fishery and help Federal managers 
estimate expected removals from each opening, as well as to ensure that 
participants remain within EEZ waters open to fishing, the proposed 
rule would require commercial salmon fishing vessels to operate a 
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). VMS transmits the real-time GPS 
location of fishing vessels to NMFS. This would also help ensure that 
vessels are not fishing in both State and EEZ waters during the same 
fishing trip, which would be prohibited under this proposed rule to 
improve the accuracy of catch accounting for Federal managers. VMS 
would also aid in verifying when a vessel may be lawfully transiting 
through Cook Inlet EEZ Area waters after participating in a State 
fishery. A vessel with an SFFP would be required to keep their VMS 
active within State waters to ensure that entire fishing trips are 
monitored and to help verify that no fishing occurred within

[[Page 72326]]

State waters during a fishing trip that included salmon harvest in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ.
    During fishing operations, a drift gillnet is not always attached 
to the vessel. Therefore, the position of the vessel as determined by 
VMS may be different than the exact location of the net it deployed. 
However, because drift gillnet vessels in Cook Inlet remain relatively 
close to their nets due to the significant tidal currents in the area, 
VMS data, when combined with logbook information and vessel or aircraft 
enforcement patrols, provides robust information to determine 
compliance with Federal fishing area, time, and catch accounting 
regulations. This approach is also more practicable and cost-efficient 
to fishery participants than the alternatives of comprehensive 
electronic monitoring systems or human fishery observers.
    To collect catch and bycatch information, this proposed rule would 
require a Federal fishing logbook. Commercial salmon fishing vessels 
would record the start and end time and GPS position of each set, as 
well as a count of the catch and bycatch. In addition, any interactions 
or entanglements with marine mammals would be required to be recorded 
in the logbook. Logbook sheets would be submitted electronically to 
NMFS by the vessel operator when the fish are delivered to a processor. 
There is currently no quantitative information available on discards of 
salmon and groundfish in the Cook Inlet drift gillnet salmon fisheries 
or other closely analogous fisheries to estimate bycatch amounts and 
mortality. The data provided by the logbooks would provide this 
information and satisfy the Magnuson-Stevens Act Standardized Bycatch 
Reporting Methodology (SBRM) requirement (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(11)). 
Information from logbooks would also be used to corroborate VMS data in 
the event of a suspected Federal fishery violation.
    State requirements, including an appropriate State Commercial 
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) permit(s), would still apply for 
drift gillnet vessels to land salmon or other species caught in the EEZ 
within the State or enter State waters.
    This proposed rule would prohibit commercial salmon harvesting 
vessels from landing or otherwise transferring salmon caught within the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area in the EEZ. Harvesting vessels delivering to 
tenders would have to do so within State waters. This proposed rule 
would also prohibit processing salmon (as defined by Federal 
regulations) in the EEZ aboard either the harvesting vessel or another 
vessel. Harvesting vessels would be permitted to gut, gill, and bleed 
salmon prior to landing, but could not freeze or further process salmon 
prior to landing their catch.

Requirements for Processors and Other Entities Receiving Deliveries of 
Commercially Caught Cook Inlet EEZ Salmon

    The proposed rule would require processors that receive and process 
landings of salmon caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area by a vessel 
authorized by an SFFP to obtain a Salmon Federal Processor Permit 
(SFPP). This includes any person, facility, vessel, or stationary 
floating processor that receives, purchases, or arranges to purchase 
and processes unprocessed salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, 
except registered salmon receivers. Persons or businesses that receive 
landings (deliveries) of Cook Inlet EEZ salmon from harvesting vessels 
but do not immediately process it, or transport it to another location 
for processing, would be required to obtain a Registered Salmon 
Receiver Permit (RSRP).
    SFPP and RSRP holders would be required to be report all salmon 
landings through eLandings by noon of the day following completion of 
the delivery. This would ensure that Federal fishery managers would 
receive timely catch information from all Federal landings to inform 
Federal management actions. Landings would be reported using existing 
Cook Inlet drift gillnet statistical areas, with the addition of an EEZ 
identifier and a requirement to identify the Federal permit associated 
with each landing. This approach would maintain the continuity of long-
term datasets for fishery managers and scientists while clearly 
delineating EEZ harvests.
    NMFS would issue SFPPs and RSRPs on a 1-year cycle. The shorter 
timeframe reflects the need to maintain a current and comprehensive 
inventory of all Federal salmon landings in Cook Inlet given frequent 
business or ownership changes for Cook Inlet salmon processing and 
buying operations. If the ownership of an entity holding a SFPP or RSRP 
changes, the new owner would need to submit an application for an 
amended permit. The amended permit would be issued with a new permit 
number to reflect the change.
    Because SFPPs would be facility-specific, one SFPP would be 
required for every processing facility, even if a facility was 
controlled by a company already holding an SFPP at another processing 
facility. An RSRP would be required for each entity receiving but not 
processing landings of Cook Inlet EEZ salmon at the location of the 
delivery. This includes fish transporters or buying stations that 
receive deliveries directly from harvesting vessels. The RSRP would 
ensure that there is not a significant time lag between a landing 
occurring across all entities that receive deliveries of Cook Inlet 
salmon and that information being reported to Federal managers.
    These proposed regulations are intended to accommodate vessels that 
catch and then sell unprocessed or processed fish directly to 
consumers. For direct-marketing operations where the owner or operator 
of a harvesting vessel catches and processes their catch, both an SFFP 
and an SFPP would be required. For catcher-seller operations where the 
owner or operator of a harvesting vessel catches and sells unprocessed 
salmon (e.g., whole fish or headed and gutted) themselves, both an SFFP 
and an RSRP would be required.
    The proposed rule would prohibit processing Cook Inlet EEZ salmon 
in EEZ waters in order to ensure historical participants and operation 
types are not displaced. Viscera and gills may be removed at sea. 
Freezing is considered processing per Federal regulations and therefore 
would be prohibited in Cook Inlet EEZ waters.

Other Commercial Fishery Management Measures and Prohibitions

    This proposed rule would define the legal gear for the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area drift gillnet fishery consistent with existing State gear to 
the extent practicable. Legal drift gillnet gear would be no longer 
than 200 fathoms (365.76 m) in length, 45 meshes deep, and have a mesh 
size no greater than 6 inches (15.24 cm). Maintaining gear definitions 
consistent with State regulations would prevent participants from 
having to acquire new gear to participate in the Federal fishery, and 
is expected to help maintain existing gear selectivity for 
comparability with historical data that would help Federal managers 
estimate expected catches. Buoys at each end of the drift gillnet would 
have to be marked with the participants' SFFP number.
    Gillnets would be measured, either wet or dry, by determining the 
maximum or minimum distance between the first and last hanging of the 
net when the net is fully extended with traction applied at one end 
only. It would be illegal to stake or otherwise fix a drift gillnet to 
the seafloor. The float line and floats of drift gillnets would be 
required to float on the surface of the water while the net is fishing, 
unless

[[Page 72327]]

natural conditions cause the net to temporarily sink.
    This proposed rule includes the following prohibitions for drift 
gillnet fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
     Vessels would be prohibited from fishing in both State and 
Federal waters on the same day, or otherwise have on board or deliver 
fish harvested in both EEZ and State waters, to ensure accurate catch 
accounting for Federal managers.
     Vessels could not have salmon harvested in any other 
fishery on board.
     Vessels would be prohibited from having gear in excess of 
the allowable configuration or deploying multiple nets.
     Vessels would be prohibited from participating in other 
fisheries while drift gillnetting for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
and would not be allowed to have other fishing gear on board capable of 
catching salmon while commercial fishing (e.g., drift gillnetting) for 
salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
     Because vessels legally participating in adjacent salmon 
fisheries transit across the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, vessels could have 
other fishing gear on board while moving through the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area, but would be prohibited from commercial fishing for salmon within 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
     Manned or unmanned aircraft could not be used to locate 
salmon or otherwise direct fishing.
     Vessels would be prohibited from discarding any salmon 
caught while drift gillnetting for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.

Cook Inlet EEZ Recreational Salmon Fishing

    The saltwater recreational fishery sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ is 
extremely small relative to the drift gillnet sector, harvesting an 
estimated annual average of 66 salmon of all species, or less than 0.01 
percent of all salmon harvests in the Cook Inlet EEZ. This includes 
harvests by both guided (charter) anglers and unguided anglers. Over 
the course of a year, the limits historically established by the State 
are not constraining, and nearly all recreational salmon fishing occurs 
within State waters. Therefore, relatively limited management of Cook 
Inlet EEZ recreational salmon fishing is required at this time.
    Recreational fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area primarily targets 
Chinook and coho salmon. Pink and chum salmon are sometimes also caught 
and retained for personal consumption and bait. Sockeye salmon are 
rarely caught in the saltwater recreational fishery as recreational 
fishing gear does not target them effectively.
    A small portion of recreational salmon fishing occurs during the 
winter, targeting immature Chinook salmon originating from stocks 
outside of Cook Inlet from October to the end of March. Other salmon 
species are not generally available and are not harvested by the 
recreational salmon fishery during this period.
    The primary salmon species of potential conservation concern are 
Chinook salmon. Cook Inlet origin Chinook salmon generally migrate 
through Cook Inlet close to shore and are almost exclusively caught 
within State waters. Declines in Cook Inlet Chinook salmon stocks have 
resulted in significant restrictions and closures of this early season 
recreational fishery. In some years, restrictions on recreational 
anglers retaining coho salmon may also be required.

Cook Inlet EEZ Recreational Salmon Fishery Management Measures

    This proposed rule includes management measures for recreational 
salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. NMFS would establish bag and 
possession limits in Federal regulations consistent with current State 
regulations. For Chinook salmon, from April 1 to August 31, the bag 
limit would be one Chinook salmon per day including a total limit of 
one in possession of any size. From September 1 to March 31, the bag 
limit would be two Chinook salmon per day including a total limit of 
two in possession of any size. For coho (silver) salmon, sockeye 
salmon, pink salmon, and chum salmon there would be a combined six fish 
bag limit per day, including a total limit of six in possession of any 
size. However, only 3 per day, including a total limit of three in 
possession, may be coho salmon.
    In addition to these proposed Federal limits, recreational anglers 
would also be constrained by State bag and possession limits if landing 
fish in Alaska. Because of this, an angler could not exceed State 
limits when landing fish in Alaska, or otherwise have both an EEZ limit 
and a State limit on board at the same time in either area.
    Recreational fishing would be open for the entire calendar year. 
Because recreational anglers can release fish with limited mortality, 
NMFS could prohibit retention of individual salmon species while still 
allowing harvest of other salmon stocks if necessary. Inseason 
management actions for the recreational sector would be published in 
the Federal Register for effectiveness and subject to the same process 
and timing limitations outlined for the commercial sector in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ. Given the limited Cook Inlet EEZ recreational salmon harvest 
and slow pace of the fishery, these notice and publication requirements 
are expected to be less problematic for managing the recreational 
sector.
    Recreational fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area could 
only be done using hook and line gear with a single line per angler 
with a maximum of two hooks. Salmon harvested could not be filleted or 
otherwise mutilated in a way that could prevent determining how may 
fish had been retained prior to landing. Gills and guts could be 
removed from retained fish prior to landing. Any salmon that is not 
returned to the water with a minimum of injury would count toward an 
angler's bag limit.
    There is little or no inseason catch information available for the 
recreational salmon sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. However, Federal 
managers would review any available developing inseason information, 
including escapement data, and may prohibit retention of one or more 
salmon species if additional harvest could not be supported. This 
proposed rule would not establish a TAC specific to the recreational 
sector, but estimated removals in combination with commercial harvests 
would still be evaluated against the ABC and ACL to ensure they are not 
exceeded, and to implement accountability measures, if required, for 
future seasons. This is analogous to the process used to account for 
recreational harvests in Federal groundfish and halibut fisheries.
    Information provided by the State's existing Saltwater Charter 
Logbook, the Statewide Harvest Survey, and creel surveys provide 
information to account for recreational harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area, as well as satisfy the Magnuson-Stevens Act SBRM requirement. 
This is consistent with the measures established for recreational 
salmon fishing in the East Area.
    If the recreational sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area significantly 
increases its harvests of salmon, additional management measures may be 
required and implemented through subsequent actions.

Consistency of Proposed Action With the National Standards

    In developing Amendment 16 and this proposed rule, NMFS considered 
whether the proposed action is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act's 10 National Standards (16 U.S.C. 1851) and designed this proposed 
action

[[Page 72328]]

to balance their competing demands. While all of the National Standards 
were considered in Section 5.1 of the Analysis, five National Standards 
figured prominently in the NMFS's recommendation for Amendment 16 and 
this proposed rule: National Standard 1, National Standard 2, National 
Standard 3, National Standard 7, and National Standard 8.

National Standard 1

    National Standard 1 states that conservation and management 
measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing 
basis, the OY from each fishery for the United States fishing industry. 
OY is the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit 
to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and 
recreational opportunities and taking into account the protection of 
marine ecosystems, that is prescribed on the basis of the MSY from the 
fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological 
factor. As described above, this action specifies MSY on the basis of 
escapement goals and proxies that were evaluated through the analytical 
process for this action and determined to be consistent with the goals 
and objectives of the Salmon FMP and the conservation objectives of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The escapement goal values that inform OY will be 
regularly assessed and updated as new information becomes available.
    For the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery, as further discussed above, 
OY is prescribed on the basis of MSY in that it represents a range of 
total fishery removals in the EEZ that target harvesting as much of the 
EEZ potential yield in excess of escapement goals as possible for each 
stock without causing any stock to miss the lower bound of its 
escapement goal or result in overfishing. Because the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area fishery is a mixed-stock fishery and involves harvest of co-
occurring stocks of varying abundance, OY is based on a range of 
harvest levels that have provided for a viable fisheries and avoided 
overfishing over the long-term. This OY ensures the Cook Inlet salmon 
fishery produces the greatest net benefit to the Nation by maintaining 
an economically viable commercial fishery while still providing 
recreational and subsistence opportunities for people dependent on 
these same salmon stocks, accounting for consumption of salmon by a 
variety of marine predators, and protecting weaker stocks. NMFS finds 
that the proposed OY for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery would be 
achieved on a continuing basis under Amendment 16.

National Standard 2

    National Standard 2 states that conservation and management 
measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available. 
Among other things, NMFS considered the relevance, inclusiveness, 
objectivity, transparency, timeliness, and peer review of available 
information when evaluating the available biological, ecological, 
environmental, economic, and sociological scientific information to 
determine how to most effectively conserve and manage Cook Inlet 
salmon. This process included SSC review of proposed fishery management 
policies and reference points, evaluation of uncertainty in the 
development of salmon escapement goals used to initially inform Federal 
reference points (Section 12 of the Analysis), a comprehensive 
description of social and economic conditions in the Cook Inlet salmon 
fishery (Section 4 of the Analysis), and consideration of alternative 
scientific points of view regarding the potential for overcompensation 
in Cook Inlet salmon stocks (Section 14 of the Analysis). From this 
analysis, NMFS determined that escapement goals established by the 
State currently rely on the best scientific information available to 
manage Cook Inlet salmon fisheries. It is on the basis of this 
information that Federal status determination criteria are initially 
established. Each year, NMFS will rely on the best scientific 
information available to assess the status of the stocks and calculate 
the status determination criteria--the best scientific information 
available is not static and may change with developments in data 
collection and processing. NMFS will collect data from the fisheries, 
routinely evaluate the best scientific information available, and may 
modify the escapement goals used in Federal management as scientific 
information related to Cook Inlet salmon stocks is improved. In 
addition, the SSC will provide objective, ongoing scientific advice to 
the Council regarding appropriate harvest specifications for the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area based on information the SSC determines to meet the 
guidelines for the best scientific information available.

National Standard 3

    Management of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area is highly complex, 
requiring consideration of other management jurisdictions in order to 
achieve sustainable harvest of Cook Inlet salmon stocks that benefits 
all user groups. National Standard 3 states that to the extent 
practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit 
throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed 
as a unit or in close coordination. Given the significant degree of 
interaction among salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet, management of salmon 
stocks as a unit or in close coordination throughout all Cook Inlet 
salmon fisheries is particularly important. Management action in one 
Cook Inlet salmon fishery often has direct relationships with harvest 
rates and harvest composition (by stock) in other regional salmon 
fisheries. Federal management of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area under 
Amendment 16 achieves National Standard 3 objectives through 
coordination with the State before, during, and after each fishing 
season, as described in Harvest Specifications and Annual Processes. 
NMFS and the Council will evaluate both where harvest of salmon stocks 
may be constrained by the presence of weak stocks and where there may 
be opportunities to harvest additional salmon that would not otherwise 
be utilized. NMFS will provide data on early EEZ catches to the State 
to inform run-strength forecasts for management of all other upper Cook 
Inlet salmon fisheries. As stated above, because NMFS has no 
jurisdiction over State marine or fresh water salmon fisheries, it is 
impossible for NMFS to unilaterally manage Cook Inlet salmon as a unit 
throughout their range, and the State of Alaska declined to accept 
delegated management authority for the EEZ. Thus, two separate 
management jurisdictions are unavoidable in Cook Inlet. Still, under 
Amendment 16 NMFS anticipates close coordination with the State and 
Cook Inlet salmon stocks would be managed as a unit throughout their 
range to the extent practicable.

National Standard 7

    National Standard 7 states that conservation and management 
measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary 
duplication. Though some Federal management measures for the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area may duplicate similar requirements in adjacent State waters, 
any such duplication is necessary to implement a new Federal management 
regime and incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Area into the Salmon FMP 
consistent with the applicable court decisions. Amendment 16 would 
include no unnecessary duplication of any State or Federal management 
measures. Further, the management measures proposed under Amendment 16 
impose only those costs necessary to ensure accurate catch accounting 
and reporting. As explained in Cook Inlet EEZ

[[Page 72329]]

Commercial Salmon Fishery Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements, the management infrastructure and resulting costs are 
required by NMFS for successful management of the fishery. Therefore 
Amendment 16 is consistent with National Standard 7.

National Standard 8

    National Standard 8 requires that conservation and management 
measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, take into account the importance of fishery 
resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data 
that are based upon the best scientific information available, in order 
to (a) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and 
(b) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on 
such communities. This action is expected to result in Cook Inlet EEZ 
salmon harvests near existing levels. In some years, EEZ harvests may 
fall below the status quo (as a percentage of total Cook Inlet salmon 
harvest) to account for increased uncertainty. If EEZ harvests are 
reduced, additional salmon would be available for harvest in State 
waters by the drift gillnet fishery sector and all other salmon users. 
Therefore, any such reductions are not anticipated to result in 
community level impacts. Some adjustments to EEZ harvest totals are 
unavoidable as NMFS takes over a management of a new fishery, as NMFS 
will have less data, experience, and expertise than State managers upon 
implementation. However, by coordinating with State managers and 
carefully vetting stock assessments through the SSC, NMFS will be able 
to continue managing a viable commercial salmon fishery that minimizes 
adverse impacts on fishing communities to the extent practicable. 
Providing for the sustained participation of fishing communities by 
protecting the long-term health of the fishery depends on conserving 
stocks with low abundance and ensuring no stock becomes overfished, 
which could result in further restrictions on harvest in some years. 
The Analysis considered the social and economic importance of the Cook 
Inlet salmon fisheries to fishing communities, and recognized these 
communities participate in a variety of salmon fisheries apart from the 
drift gillnet fishery. In general, total removals of salmon in Cook 
Inlet are expected to remain consistent with the status quo--harvests 
will vary from year to year depending on run size and the abundance of 
any constraining stocks, but all participating fishing communities will 
continue to have the same access to fishery resources (as constrained 
by stock status). Community level distributive impacts under this 
action are not anticipated to substantially affect net benefits to the 
nation (Section 4.10 of the Analysis). Therefore, the Analysis supports 
a finding that this action would provide for the sustained 
participation of fishing communities in Cook Inlet salmon fisheries and 
minimize any adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable, 
consistent with National Standard 8.

Potential Impacts of the Action

    The entire active salmon drift gillnet fleet likely fishes in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area at some time during each fishing season, but over 
the entire season, each vessel differs with respect to its level of 
economic dependency on fishing in this area. Section 4.7.1.4 of the 
Analysis describes that from 2009 through 2021 an estimated average of 
46.9 percent of gross revenue ($13.9 million) for the drift gillnet 
fleet was generated from salmon caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. In 
the last 5 years, an estimated average of approximately 41.3 percent of 
gross revenue ($7.3 million) was generated in the EEZ for the drift 
gillnet fishery. This action would likely allow drift gillnet fishery 
participants to continue a significant portion of their EEZ fishing 
activities. Some reduction in EEZ harvest may occur to account for the 
uncertainty inherent in creating a new management jurisdiction and 
establishing pre-season catch limits consistent with Magnuson-Stevens 
Act requirements, but drift gillnet vessels may also have the 
opportunity to increase harvests within State waters. This action would 
also impose some additional costs on fishery participants (such as 
installing and operating VMS) and involves additional recordkeeping, 
reporting, and permit requirements compared to the status quo (though 
at no additional cost beyond the labor needed to comply).
    This rule will largely preserve existing EEZ fishing opportunities 
in terms of time and location, and may result in additional openers 
compared to the status quo in years with strong runs and a high TAC. 
Vessels will be able to continue fishing in the same EEZ areas they 
have historically fished so long as they comply with new Federal 
permitting, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the EEZ. While 
the uncertainty associated with a new management jurisdiction will 
require conservative management as NMFS builds expertise and collects 
data, the goal of this rule is to preserve or facilitate as much 
fishing opportunity in the EEZ as possible without causing overfishing 
and creating adverse impacts on stocks of low abundance or any other 
part of the ecosystem. This action would not directly modify management 
of salmon fishing in State waters. The drift gillnet fleet is expected 
to continue to operate in State waters under Amendment 16. Though EEZ 
harvest levels are expected to remain close to historic averages, the 
State, in its discretion, could modify management measures in State 
waters to account for any changes to EEZ harvest levels. In all, total 
harvests throughout Cook Inlet are expected to remain close to the 
status quo. As described in Section 3.1.3 of the Analysis, total 
harvest of Cook Inlet salmon stocks is expected to remain near existing 
levels resulting in salmon escapements near existing levels. NMFS finds 
these harvest levels have consistently prevented overfishing and 
ensured the majority of stocks in Cook Inlet meet their escapement 
goals, thus ensuring sustainable salmon stocks for future generations. 
This action is not expected to have significant impacts on salmon 
stocks or other affected parts of the environment.
    This action would also directly regulate salmon processors and 
buyers. It would impose additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting burden on processors receiving deliveries from the Cook Inlet 
EEZ. To the extent that this action results in slight decreases in 
catch by the drift gillnet fleet in the Cook Inlet EEZ that are not 
offset by increased catch in State waters by the drift gillnet fleet or 
by other commercial salmon fishing sectors, deliveries of Cook Inlet 
salmon and associated revenues to processors could be reduced. The 
impacts to individual processors would be influenced by the dependency 
on Cook Inlet salmon harvested in the EEZ as described in Section 
4.5.1.4 of the Analysis. Because minimal reductions in harvest are 
anticipated, no significant impacts on processors are expected under 
this proposed rule compared to the status quo.
    While no significant impacts on Cook Inlet salmon stocks are 
expected, any reductions of salmon harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
could improve the density of salmon prey available to endangered Cook 
Inlet belugas present in northern Cook Inlet during the summer months 
as noted in Section 3.3.1.1 of the Analysis. As noted above, NMFS is 
undertaking consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA regarding 
this proposed action. While increased escapement may not be

[[Page 72330]]

desirable for all stocks in all years, conservative management of 
commercial harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area will prevent overfishing 
and would be expected to allow utilization to be maximized over the 
long term as management measures are developed and refined.

Classification

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this action is 
consistent with the Salmon FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration 
after public comment.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess costs and 
benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis 
is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). NMFS proposes Amendment 16 and 
these regulations based on those measures that maximize net benefits to 
the Nation when considering the viable management alternatives. 
Specific aspects of the economic analysis are discussed below in the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    This Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared 
for this action, as required by Section 603 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603), to describe the economic impact 
this action, if adopted, would have on small entities. The IRFA 
describes the action; the reasons why this action is proposed; the 
objectives and legal basis for this action; the number and description 
of directly regulated small entities to which this action would apply; 
the recordkeeping, reporting, and other compliance requirements of this 
action; and the relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with this action. The IRFA also describes significant 
alternatives to this action that would accomplish the stated objectives 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and any other applicable statutes, and 
that would minimize any significant economic impact of this action on 
small entities. The description of the action, its purpose, and the 
legal basis are explained in the preamble and are not repeated here.
    For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established small business size 
standards for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary 
industries are commercial fishing, charter fishing, seafood processing, 
and seafood buying (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in 
commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business 
if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field 
of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual 
receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations 
worldwide. For charter fishing vessels (NAICS code 713990), this 
threshold is combined annual receipts not in excess of $9 million. For 
shoreside processors (NAICS code 311710), the small business size is 
defined in terms of number of employees, with the threshold set at not 
greater than 750 employees. For entities that purchase seafood but do 
not process it (NAICS code 424460), the small business threshold is not 
greater than 100 employees.

Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Action

    This action would directly regulate holders of State of Alaska S03H 
CFEC Limited Entry salmon permits (S03H permits) fishing in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area, charter guides and charter businesses fishing for 
salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, and entities receiving deliveries of 
salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. From 2019 to 2021, there 
was an average of 567 S03H permits in circulation, with an average of 
361 active permit holders, all of which are considered small entities 
based on the $11 million threshold. From 2019 to 2021, there was an 
average of 11 shoreside processors and 6 direct marketers, all of which 
are considered small entities based on the 750 employee threshold. From 
2019 to 2021, there was an average of 4 catcher-sellers, all of which 
are considered small entities based on the 100 employee threshold. From 
2019 to 2021, there was an average of 58 charter guides that fished for 
salmon at least once in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, all of which are 
considered small entities based on the $9 million threshold. Additional 
detail is included in Sections 4.5 and 4.9 in the Analysis prepared for 
this action (see ADDRESSES).

Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts 
on Small Entities

    NMFS considered, but did not select three other alternatives. The 
alternatives, and their impacts to small entities, are described below.
    Alternative 1 would take no action and would maintain existing 
management measures and conditions in the fishery within recently 
observed ranges, resulting in no change to impacts on small entities. 
This is not a viable alternative because it would be inconsistent with 
the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the Cook Inlet EEZ must be included 
within the Salmon FMP and managed according to the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act.
    Alternative 2 would delegate management to the State. If fully 
implemented, Alternative 2 would maintain many existing conditions 
within the fishery. Fishery participants would have the added burdens 
of obtaining a Salmon Federal Fisheries Permit, maintaining a Federal 
fishing logbook, and monitoring their fishing position with respect to 
EEZ and State waters as described in Sections 2.4.8 and 4.7.2.2 of the 
Analysis. However, section 306(a)(3)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
provides that NMFS cannot delegate management to the State without a 
three-quarter majority vote by the Council, which did not occur. 
Therefore, Alternative 2 cannot be implemented and is not a viable 
alternative.
    Alternative 4 would close the Cook Inlet EEZ but not impose any 
additional direct regulatory costs on participants and would allow 
directly regulated entities to possibly recoup lost EEZ harvest inside 
State waters. However, the District Court ruled that Alternative 4 was 
contrary to law. Therefore, Alternative 4 is not a viable alternative.
    This action (Alternative 3) would result in a Cook Inlet EEZ drift 
gillnet salmon fishery managed directly by NMFS and the Council. 
Alternative 3 would increase direct costs and burdens to S03H permit 
holders due to requirements including obtaining a SFFP, installing and 
operating a VMS, and maintaining a Federal logbook as described in 
Sections 2.5.6 and 4.7.2.2 of the Analysis. This action would also 
require that TACs be set before each fishing season. The TAC would 
likely be set conservatively to reduce the risk of overfishing without 
the benefit of inseason harvest data, but is likely to remain near 
existing levels. As is possible under the status quo, salmon harvest in 
the EEZ could be reduced or prohibited in years when a harvestable 
surplus is not certain, with an appropriate buffer to account for 
scientific and management uncertainty.
    Processors receiving deliveries of salmon commercially harvested in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area would be required to obtain a SFPP. Entities 
receiving deliveries of salmon commercially harvested in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ but not processing the fish would be required to have a RSRP. All 
of these permits would be available at no cost from NMFS. However, 
entities with these permits

[[Page 72331]]

would be required to use eLandings with its associated requirements and 
report landings with all associated information by noon of the day 
following the completion of each delivery, which would increase direct 
costs and burden.
    While these measures do increase costs to commercial fishery 
participants, all of these elements are required by NMFS to manage the 
fishery and prevent overfishing. Specific consideration was given in 
their development to minimize burden to the extent practicable while 
also providing required information to Federal fishery managers in a 
timely manner. All entities that would be directly regulated by this 
action could also choose to continue participating in only the State 
waters fisheries to avoid being subject to these Federal requirements.
    Charter fishing vessels would not have any additional Federal 
recordkeeping, reporting, or monitoring requirements, but would be 
subject to Federal bag, possession, and gear regulations. These 
proposed measures would be the same as existing State requirements and 
not add additional burdens.
    Based upon the best available scientific data, it appears that 
there are no significant alternatives to the action that have the 
potential to comply with applicable court rulings, accomplish the 
stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and any other statutes, 
and minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the action on 
small entities while preventing overfishing. After public process, NMFS 
concluded that of the viable alternatives, Alternative 3, the proposed 
Amendment 16, would best accomplish the stated objectives articulated 
in the preamble for this action, and in applicable statutes, and would 
minimize to the extent practicable adverse economic impacts on the 
universe of directly regulated small entities.

Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    NMFS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict 
between this action and existing Federal rules.

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements

    This action would implement new recordkeeping, reporting, and 
compliance requirements. These requirements are necessary for the 
management and monitoring of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fisheries.
    All Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial salmon fishery participants 
would be required to provide additional information to NMFS for 
management purposes. As in other North Pacific fisheries, processors 
would provide catch recording data to managers to monitor harvest. 
Processors would be required to record deliveries and processing 
activities to aid in fishery administration.
    To participate in the fishery, persons are required to complete 
application forms, reporting requirements, and monitoring requirements. 
These requirements impose costs on small entities in gathering the 
required information and completing the information collections.
    NMFS has estimated the costs of complying with the requirements 
based on information such as the burden hours per response, number of 
responses per year, and wage rate estimates from industry or the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics. Persons are required to complete many of the 
requirements prior to fishing, such as obtaining permits. Persons are 
required to complete some requirements every year, such as the SFPP and 
RSRP applications. Other requirements are more periodic, such as the 
SFFP which is applied for every 3 years. The impacts of these changes 
are described in more detail in Sections 2.5.6 and 4.7.2 of the 
Analysis prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).
    Vessels commercially fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ area 
would be required to obtain a SFFP, complete a Federal fishing logbook, 
and install and maintain an operational VMS. The vessel would also be 
required to mark buoys at each end of their drift gillnet with their 
SFFP number. While commercially fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area, participants must remain within Federal waters and cannot 
also fish in State waters on the same calendar day or conduct any other 
types of fishing while in Federal waters.
    Processors and other entities receiving landings of commercially 
caught Cook Inlet salmon from the Cook Inlet EEZ Area would be required 
to obtain a SFPP, a RSRP, and report landings through eLandings by noon 
of the day following completion of the delivery. NMFS would issue SFPPs 
and RSRPs at no cost.
    For recreational salmon fishing, no additional Federal 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are established. The existing 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements implemented by the State are 
expected to be sufficient to inform management and satisfy Magnuson-
Stevens Act requirements given the small scale and limited removals of 
the recreational sector. These include creel sampling, the ADF&G's 
Statewide Harvest Survey, harvest records for annual limits, and the 
Saltwater Guide Logbooks.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action contains collection of information requirements subject 
to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This action would add a new 
collection of information for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery under a 
new OMB control number and revise and extend for 3 years existing 
collection-of-information requirements for OMB Control Number 0648-0445 
(NMFS Alaska Region VMS Program). The public reporting burden estimates 
provided below for these collections of information include the time 
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
OMB Control Number 0648-NEW
    A new collection of information would be created for reporting, 
recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements implemented by this action 
that are necessary to federally manage the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon 
fishery. This new collection would contain the applications and 
processes used by harvesters, processors, and other entities receiving 
deliveries of Cook Inlet EEZ salmon to apply for and manage their 
permits; provide catch, landings, and processing data; and mark drift 
gillnet buoys. The data would be used to ensure that the fishery 
participants adhere to harvesting, processing, and other requirements 
for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery.
    The public reporting burden per individual response is estimated to 
average 15 minutes for the SFFP application, 25 minutes for the SFPP 
application, 20 minutes for the RSRP application, 15 minutes to 
register for eLandings, 10 minutes for landing reports, 15 minutes for 
the daily fishing logbook, and 30 minutes to mark drift gillnet buoys.
OMB Control Number 0648-0445
    NMFS proposes to revise and extend by 3 years the existing 
requirements for OMB Control Number 0648-0445. This collection contains 
the VMS requirements for the federally managed groundfish and crab 
fisheries off Alaska. This collection would be revised because this 
action would require vessels commercially fishing for salmon in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area to install and

[[Page 72332]]

maintain an operational VMS. The public reporting burden per individual 
response is estimated to average 6 hours for installation of a VMS 
unit, 4 hours for VMS maintenance, and 2 hours for VMS failure 
troubleshooting. VMS transmissions are not assigned a reporting burden 
because the transmissions are automatic.
Public Comment
    Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Submit comments on 
these or any other aspects of the collection of information at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is 
required to respond or, nor shall any person by subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 600

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign 
relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.

50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 10, 2023.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 
CFR parts 600 and 679 as follows:

TITLE 50--WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

PART 600--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

0
2. Amend Sec.  600.725, in the table in paragraph (v), under the 
heading ``VII. North Pacific Fishery Management Council'' by revising 
entry ``8'' to read as follows:


Sec.  600.725  General prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (v) * * *

              VII--North Pacific Fishery Management Council
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
8. Alaska Salmon Fishery (FMP):
    A. East Area.......................  A. Hook and line.
B. Cook Inlet EEZ Area.................  B. Drift gillnet, handline, rod
                                          and reel, hook and line.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

0
3. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq., 3631 et seq.; 
Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.

0
4. Amend Sec.  679.1 by revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.1  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) Regulations in this part govern commercial fishing for salmon 
by fishing vessels of the United States in the West Area and commercial 
and recreational fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area of the 
Salmon Management Area.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  679.2 by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order the definition for ``Daily bag limit'';
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Federally permitted vessel'';
0
c. Adding paragraph (7) to the definition of ``Fishing trip'';
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Possession limit'' 
and ``Registered Salmon Receiver'';
0
e. Revising the definition of ``Salmon Management Area''; and
0
f. Adding in alphabetical order the definition for ``Salmon shoreside 
processor''.
    The additions and revision reads as follows:


Sec.  679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Daily bag limit means the maximum number of salmon a person may 
retain in any calendar day from the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
* * * * *
    Federally permitted vessel means a vessel that is named on a 
Federal fisheries permit issued pursuant to Sec.  679.4(b), a Salmon 
Federal Fisheries Permit issued pursuant to Sec.  679.114(b), or a 
Federal crab vessel permit issued pursuant to Sec.  680.4(k) of this 
chapter. Federally permitted vessels must conform to regulatory 
requirements for purposes of fishing restrictions in habitat 
conservation areas, habitat conservation zones, habitat protection 
areas, and the Modified Gear Trawl Zone; for purposes of anchoring 
prohibitions in habitat protection areas; for purposes of requirements 
for the BS and GOA nonpelagic trawl fishery pursuant to Sec.  
679.7(b)(9), Sec.  679.7(c)(5), and Sec.  679.24(f); and for purposes 
of VMS requirements.
* * * * *
    Fishing trip means:
* * * * *
    (7) For purposes of subpart J of this part, the period beginning 
when a vessel operator commences commercial fishing for any salmon 
species in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and ending when the vessel operator 
offloads or transfers any unprocessed salmon species from that vessel.
* * * * *
    Possession limit means the maximum number of unprocessed salmon a 
person may possess.
* * * * *
    Registered Salmon Receiver means a person holding a Registered 
Salmon Receiver Permit issued by NMFS.
* * * * *

[[Page 72333]]

    Salmon Management Area means those waters of the EEZ off Alaska 
(see Figure 22 and Figure 23 to part 679) under the authority of the 
Salmon FMP. The Salmon Management Area is divided into three areas: the 
East Area, the West Area, and the Cook Inlet EEZ Area:
    (1) The East Area means the area of the EEZ in the Gulf of Alaska 
east of the longitude of Cape Suckling (143[deg]53.6' W).
    (2) The West Area means the area of the EEZ off Alaska in the 
Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, and the Gulf of Alaska west of 
the longitude of Cape Suckling (143[deg]53.6' W), but excludes the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area, Prince William Sound Area, and the Alaska Peninsula 
Area. The Prince William Sound Area and the Alaska Peninsula Area are 
shown in Figure 23 to this part and described as:
    (i) the Prince William Sound Area means the EEZ shoreward of a line 
that starts at 60[deg]16.8' N and 146[deg]15.24' W and extends 
southeast to 59[deg]42.66' N and 144[deg]36.20' W and a line that 
starts at 59[deg]43.28' N and 144[deg]31.50' W and extends northeast to 
59[deg]56.4' N and 143[deg]53.6' W.
    (ii) the Alaska Peninsula Area means the EEZ shoreward of a line at 
54[deg]22.5' N from 164[deg]27.1' W to 163[deg]1.2' W and a line at 
162[deg]24.05' W from 54[deg]30.1' N to 54[deg]27.75' N.
    (3) The Cook Inlet EEZ Area, shown in Figure 22 to this part, means 
the EEZ of Cook Inlet north of a line at 59[deg]46.15' N.
* * * * *
    Salmon shoreside processor means any person or vessel that 
receives, purchases, or arranges to purchase, and processes unprocessed 
salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, except a Registered Salmon 
Receiver.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  679.3 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.3  Relation to other laws.

* * * * *
    (f) Domestic fishing for salmon. Management of the salmon 
commercial troll fishery and recreational fishery in the East Area of 
the Salmon Management Area, defined at Sec.  679.2, is delegated to the 
State of Alaska. Regulations governing the commercial drift gillnet 
salmon fishery and recreational salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area, defined at Sec.  679.2, are set forth in subpart J of this 
Section.
* * * * *


Sec.  679.7  Prohibitions [Amended]

0
7. Amend Sec.  679.7 by removing and reserving paragraph (h).
0
8. Amend Sec.  679.25 by
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(1)(vi), (a)(2)(vi) and (vii); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text, (b)(3), and (b)(8).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  679.25  Inseason adjustments.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Types of adjustments. Inseason adjustments for directed fishing 
for groundfish, fishing for IFQ or CDQ halibut, or fishing for Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area salmon issued by NMFS under this section include:
* * * * *
    (vi) Adjustment of TAC for any salmon species or stock and closure 
or opening of a season in all or part of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    (2) * * *
    (vi) Any inseason adjustment taken under paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of 
this section must be based on a determination that such adjustments are 
necessary to prevent:
    (A) Overfishing of any species or stock of fish or shellfish;
    (B) Harvest of a TAC for any salmon species or stock that, on the 
basis of the best available scientific information, is found by NMFS to 
be incorrectly specified; or
    (C) Underharvest of a TAC for any salmon species or stock when 
catch information indicates that the TAC has not been reached, and 
there is not a conservation or management concern for any species or 
stock that would also be harvested with additional fishing effort.
    (vii) The selection of the appropriate inseason management 
adjustments under paragraphs (a)(1)(vi) of this section must be from 
the following authorized management measures and must be based on a 
determination by the Regional Administrator that the management 
adjustment selected is the least restrictive necessary to achieve the 
purpose of the adjustment:
    (A) Closure of a management area or portion thereof, or gear type, 
or season to all salmon fishing; or
    (B) Reopening of a management area or season to achieve the TAC for 
any of the salmon species or stock without exceeding the TAC of any 
other salmon species or stock.
    (viii) The adjustment of a TAC for any salmon species or stock 
under paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of this section must be based upon a 
determination by the Regional Administrator that the adjustment is 
based upon the best scientific information available concerning the 
biological stock status of the species in question and that the 
currently specified TAC is incorrect. Any adjustment to a TAC must be 
reasonably related to the change in biological stock status.
    (b) Data. Information relevant to one or more of the following 
factors may be considered in making the determinations required under 
paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (ii), (vi) and (vii) of this section:
* * * * *
    (3) Relative distribution and abundance of stocks of groundfish 
species, salmon species or stocks, and prohibited species within all or 
part of a statistical area;
* * * * *
    (8) Any other factor relevant to the conservation and management of 
groundfish species, salmon species or stocks, or any incidentally 
caught species that are designated as prohibited species or for which a 
PSC limit has been specified.
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec.  679.28 by adding paragraph (f)(6)(x) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.28  Equipment and operational requirements

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (x) You operate a vessel named, or required to be named, on an SFFP 
issued under Sec.  679.114 in the waters of Cook Inlet and have drift 
gillnet gear on board.
* * * * *
0
10. Add subpart J, consisting of Sec. Sec.  679.110 through 679.119, to 
read as follows:
Subpart J--Salmon Fishery Management
Sec.
679.110 Applicability.
679.111 [Reserved]
679.112 [Reserved]
679.113 [Reserved]
679.114 Permits.
679.115 Recordkeeping and Reporting.
679.116 [Reserved]
679.117 Salmon Fisheries Prohibitions.
679.118 Management Measures.
679.119 Recreational Salmon Fisheries.

Subpart J--Salmon Fishery Management


Sec.  679.110  Applicability.

    This subpart contains regulations governing the commercial and 
recreational harvest of salmon in the Salmon Management Area (See Sec.  
679.2).

[[Page 72334]]

Sec.  679.111  [Reserved]


Sec.  679.112  [Reserved]


Sec.  679.113  [Reserved]


Sec.  679.114  Permits.

    (a) Requirements--
    (1) What permits are available? The following table describes the 
permits available under this subpart that authorize the retention, 
processing, and receipt of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, 
respectively, along with date of effectiveness for each permit and 
reference paragraphs for further information:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Permit is in effect        For more
     If permit type is:          from issue date    information, see . .
                               through the end of:            .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Salmon Federal Fisheries  3 years or until      Paragraph (b) of
 Permit (SFFP).                expiration date       this section.
                               shown on permit.
(ii) Salmon Federal           Until expiration      Paragraph (c) of
 Processor Permit (SFPP).      date shown on         this section.
                               permit.
(iii) Registered Salmon       1 year..............  Paragraph (d) of
 Receiver Permit (RSRP).                             this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Permit and logbook required by participant and fishery. For the 
various types of permits issued pursuant to this subpart, refer to 
Sec.  679.115 for recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
    (3) Permit application.
    (i) A person may obtain an application for a new permit, or for 
renewal or revision of an existing permit, from NMFS for any of the 
permits under this section and must submit forms to NMFS as instructed 
in application instructions. All permit applications may be completed 
online and printed from the NMFS Alaska Region website (See Sec.  
679.2);
    (ii) Upon receipt of an incomplete or improperly completed permit 
application, NMFS will notify the applicant of the deficiency in the 
permit application. If the applicant fails to correct the deficiency, 
the permit will not be issued. NMFS will not approve a permit 
application that is untimely or incomplete;
    (iii) The owner or authorized representative of a vessel, owner or 
authorized representative of a processor, and Registered Salmon 
Receiver must obtain a separate permit for each vessel, entity, 
operation, or facility, as appropriate to each Federal permit in this 
section;
    (iv) All permits are issued free of charge;
    (v) NMFS will consider objective written evidence in determining 
whether an application is timely. The responsibility remains with the 
sender to provide objective written evidence of when an application to 
obtain, amend, or to surrender a permit was received by NMFS (e.g., 
certified mail or other method that provides written evidence that NMFS 
Alaska Region received it); and
    (vi) For applications delivered by hand delivery or carrier, the 
date the application was received by NMFS is the date NMFS staff signs 
for it upon receipt. If the application is submitted by fax or mail, 
the receiving date of the application is the date stamped received by 
NMFS.
    (4) Disclosure. NMFS will maintain a list of permit holders that 
may be disclosed for public inspection.
    (5) Sanctions and denials. Procedures governing permit sanctions 
and permit denials for enforcement purposes are found at subpart D of 
15 CFR part 904. Such procedures are not required for any other 
purposes under this part.
    (6) Harvesting privilege. Permits issued pursuant to this subpart, 
are neither a right to the resource nor any interest that is subject to 
the ``Takings Clause'' provision of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution. Rather, such permits represent only a harvesting 
privilege that may be revoked or amended subject to the requirements of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.
    (7) Permit surrender.
    (i) NMFS will recognize the voluntary surrender of a permit issued 
under this subpart, if a permit is authorized to be surrendered and if 
an application is submitted by the permit holder or authorized 
representative and approved by NMFS; and
    (ii) For surrender of an SFFP and SFPP, refer to paragraphs 
(b)(3)(ii) and (c)(3)(ii) of this section, respectively.
    (b) Salmon Federal Fisheries Permit (SFFP)--
    (1) Requirements.
    (i) No vessel of the United States may be used to commercially fish 
for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area unless the owner or authorized 
representative first obtains an SFFP for the vessel issued under this 
part. Only persons who are U.S. citizens are authorized to obtain an 
SFFP; and
    (ii) Each vessel used to commercially fish for salmon within the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area must have a legible copy of a valid SFFP on board 
at all times. The vessel operator must present the valid SFFP for 
inspection upon the request of any authorized officer.
    (2) Vessel operation. An SFFP authorizes a vessel to conduct 
operations in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    (3) Duration.
    (i) Length of permit effectiveness. NMFS issues SFFPs on a three-
year cycle, and an SFFP is in effect from the effective date through 
the expiration date, as indicated on the SFFP, unless the SFFP is 
revoked, suspended, or modified under Sec.  600.735 or Sec.  600.740 of 
this chapter, or surrendered in accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of 
this section.
    (ii) Surrendered permit.
    (A) An SFFP may be voluntarily surrendered in accordance with 
paragraph (a)(7) of this section. NMFS will not reissue a surrendered 
SFFP to the owner or authorized representative of a vessel named on an 
SFFP until after the expiration date of the surrendered SFFP as 
initially issued.
    (B) An owner or authorized representative who applied for and 
received an SFFP must notify NMFS of the intention to surrender the 
SFFP by submitting an SFFP application found at the NMFS Alaska Region 
website and indicating on the application that surrender of the permit 
is requested. Upon receipt and approval of an SFFP surrender 
application, NMFS will withdraw the SFFP from active status.
    (4) Amended permit. An owner or authorized representative who 
applied for and received an SFFP must notify NMFS of any change in the 
permit information by submitting an SFFP application found at the NMFS 
Alaska Region website. The owner or authorized representative must 
submit the application form as instructed on the form. Except as 
provided under paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, upon receipt 
and approval of an application form for permit amendment, NMFS will 
issue an amended SFFP.
    (5) SFFP application. To obtain, amend, renew, or surrender an 
SFFP, the vessel owner or authorized representative must complete an 
SFFP

[[Page 72335]]

application form per the instructions from the NMFS Alaska Region 
website. The owner or authorized representative of the vessel must sign 
and date the application form, certifying that all information is true, 
correct, and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief. If the 
application form is completed by an authorized representative, proof of 
authorization must accompany the application form.
    (6) Issuance.
    (i) Except as provided in subpart D of 15 CFR part 904, upon 
receipt and approval of a properly completed permit application, NMFS 
will issue an SFFP required by this section (Sec.  679.114(b)).
    (ii) NMFS will send an SFFP with the appropriate logbooks to the 
owner or authorized representative, as provided under Sec.  679.115.
    (7) Transfer. An SFFP issued under this this section (Sec.  
679.114(b)) is not transferable or assignable and is valid only for the 
vessel for which it is issued.
    (c) Salmon Federal Processor Permit (SFPP)--
    (1) Requirements. No salmon shoreside processor, as defined at 
Sec.  679.2, may process salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, 
unless the owner or authorized representative first obtains an SFPP 
issued under this subpart. A salmon shoreside processor may not be 
operated in a category other than as specified on the SFPP. A legible 
copy of a valid SFPP must be on site at the salmon shoreside processor 
at all times and must be presented for inspection upon the request of 
any authorized officer.
    (2) SFPP application. To obtain, amend, renew, or surrender an 
SFPP, the owner or authorized representative of the salmon shoreside 
processor must complete an SFPP application form per the instructions 
from the NMFS Alaska Region website. The owner or authorized 
representative of the salmon shoreside processor must sign and date the 
application form, certifying that all information is true, correct, and 
complete to the best of their knowledge and belief. If the application 
form is completed by an authorized representative, proof of 
authorization must accompany the application form.
    (3) Issuance. Except as provided in subpart D of 15 CFR part 904, 
upon receipt and approval of a properly completed permit application, 
NMFS will issue an SFFP required by this section (Sec.  679.114(c)).
    (4) Duration--
    (i) Length of effectiveness. An SFPP is in effect from the 
effective date through the date of permit expiration, unless it is 
revoked, suspended, or modified under Sec.  600.735 or Sec.  600.740 of 
this chapter, or surrendered in accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of 
this section.
    (ii) Surrendered permit.
    (A) An SFPP may be voluntarily surrendered in accordance with 
paragraph (a)(7) of this section. NMFS may reissue an SFPP to the 
person to whom the SFPP was initially issued in the same fishing year 
in which it was surrendered.
    (B) An owner or authorized representative who applied for and 
received an SFPP must notify NMFS of the intention to surrender the 
SFPP by submitting an SFPP surrender application form found at the NMFS 
Alaska Region website and indicating on the application form that 
surrender of the SFPP is requested. Upon receipt and approval of an 
SFPP surrender application form, NMFS will withdraw the SFPP from 
active status.
    (5) Amended permit. An owner or authorized representative who 
applied for and received an SFPP must notify NMFS of any change in the 
permit information by submitting an SFPP amendment application form 
found at the NMFS Alaska Region website. The owner or authorized 
representative must submit the application form as instructed on the 
form. Upon receipt and approval of an SFPP amendment application form, 
NMFS will issue an amended SFPP.
    (6) Transfer. An SFPP issued under this paragraph (c) is not 
transferable or assignable and is valid only for the salmon shoreside 
processor for which it is issued.
    (d) Registered Salmon Receiver Permit (RSRP)--
    (1) Requirements. An RSRP authorizes the person identified on the 
permit to receive a landing of salmon from an SFFP holder at any time 
during the fishing year for which it is issued until the RSRP expires, 
as indicated on the RSRP, or is revoked, suspended, or modified under 
Sec.  600.735 or Sec.  600.740 of this chapter, or surrendered in 
accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of this section. An RSRP is required 
for any person, other than an SFPP holder, to receive salmon 
commercially harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area from the person(s) 
who harvested the fish. A legible copy of the RSRP must be present at 
the time and location of a landing. The RSRP holder or their authorized 
representative must make the RSRP available for inspection upon the 
request of any authorized officer.
    (2) Application. To obtain, renew, or surrender an RSRP, the owner 
or authorized representative must complete an RSRP application form per 
the instructions from the NMFS Alaska Region website. The owner or 
authorized representative of a Registered Salmon Receiver must sign and 
date the application form, certifying that all information is true, 
correct, and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief. If the 
application form is completed by an authorized representative, proof of 
authorization must accompany the application form.
    (3) Issuance. Except as provided in subpart D of 15 CFR part 904, 
upon receipt and approval of a properly completed permit application, 
NMFS will issue an SFFP required by this section (Sec.  679.114(d)).
    (4) Duration. An RSRP is issued on an annual cycle defined as May 
through the end of April of the next calendar year, to persons who 
submit a Registered Salmon Receiver Permit application that NMFS 
approves.
    (i) An RSRP is in effect from the first day of May in the year for 
which it is issued or from the date of issuance, whichever is later, 
through the end of the current annual cycle, unless it is revoked, 
suspended, or modified under Sec.  600.735 or Sec.  600.740 of this 
chapter, or surrendered in accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of this 
section.
    (ii) An RSRP may be voluntarily surrendered in accordance with 
paragraph (a)(7) of this section. An RSRP may be reissued to the permit 
holder of record in the same fishing year in which it was surrendered.
    (5) Amended permit. An owner or authorized representative who 
applied for and received an RSRP must notify NMFS of any change in the 
permit information by submitting an RSRP application form found at the 
NMFS Alaska Region website. The owner or authorized representative must 
submit the application form as instructed on the form. Upon receipt and 
approval of an RSRP amendment application form, NMFS will issue an 
amended RSRP.


Sec.  679.115  Recordkeeping and Reporting.

    (a) General Recordkeeping and Reporting (R&R) requirement--R&R 
requirements include, but are not limited to, paper and electronic 
documentation, logbooks, forms, reports, and receipts.
    (1) Salmon logbooks and forms.
    (i) The Regional Administrator will prescribe and provide logbooks 
required under this section. All forms required under this section are 
available from the NMFS Alaska Region website or may be requested by 
calling the Sustainable Fisheries Division at 907-586-7228. These forms 
may be completed online, or submitted according to the instructions 
shown on the form.
    (ii) The operator must use the current edition of the logbooks and 
current

[[Page 72336]]

format of the forms, unless they obtain prior written approval from 
NMFS to use logbooks from the previous year. Upon approval from NMFS, 
electronic versions of the forms may be used.
    (iii) Commercial salmon harvest that occurred in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area must be recorded in eLandings by an SFPP or RSRP holder. See 
paragraph (b) of this section for more information.
    (2) Responsibility. (i) The operator of a vessel, the manager of a 
salmon shoreside processor (hereafter referred to as the manager), and 
a Registered Salmon Receiver are responsible for complying with 
applicable R&R requirements in this section.
    (ii) The owner of a vessel, the owner of a salmon shoreside 
processor, and the owner of a Registered Salmon Receiver are 
responsible for ensuring their employees and agents comply with 
applicable R&R requirements in this section.
    (3) Fish to be recorded and reported. The operator of a vessel or 
manager must record and report the following information (see 
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section) for all salmon, 
groundfish (see Table 2a to this part), halibut and crab, forage fish 
(see Table 2c to this part), and sculpins (see Table 2c to this part). 
The operator of a vessel or manager may record and report the following 
information (see paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section) for 
other species (see Table 2d to this part):
    (i) Harvest information from vessels;
    (ii) Receipt information from vessels, buying stations, and tender 
vessels, including fish received from vessels not required to have an 
SFFP or FFP, and fish received under contract for handling or 
processing for another processor;
    (iii) Discard or disposition information, including fish reported 
but not delivered to the operator or manager (e.g., fish used on board 
a vessel, retained for personal use, discarded at sea), when receiving 
catch from a vessel, buying station, or tender vessel; and
    (iv) Transfer information, including fish transferred off the 
vessel or out of the facility.
    (4) Inspection and retention of records--
    (i) Inspection of records. The operator of a vessel, a manager, and 
a Registered Salmon Receiver must make available for inspection R&R 
documentation they are required to retain under this section upon the 
request of an authorized officer; and
    (ii) Retention of records. The operator of a vessel, a manager, and 
a Registered Salmon Receiver must retain the R&R documentation they are 
required to make under this section as follows:
    (A) Retain these records on board a vessel, on site at the salmon 
shoreside processor or stationary floating processor (see Sec.  679.2), 
or at the Registered Salmon Receiver's place of business, as 
applicable, until the end of the fishing year during which the records 
were made and for as long thereafter as fish or fish products recorded 
in the R&R documentation are retained on site.
    (B) Retain these records for three years after the end of the 
fishing year during which the records were made.
    (5) Maintenance of records. The operator of a vessel, a manager, 
and a Registered Salmon Receiver must maintain all records described in 
this section in English and in a legible, timely, and accurate manner, 
based on Alaska local time (A.l.t.); if handwritten, in indelible ink; 
if computer-generated, as a readable file or a legible printed paper 
copy;
    (6) Custom processing. The manager or Registered Salmon Receiver 
must record products that result from custom processing for another 
person in eLandings consistently throughout a fishing year using one of 
the following two methods:
    (i) For combined records, record landings, discards or 
dispositions, and products of custom-processed salmon routinely in 
eLandings using processor name, any applicable RSRP number or SFPP 
number, and ADF&G processor code; or
    (ii) For separate records, record landings, discards or 
dispositions, and products of custom-processed salmon in eLandings 
identified by the name, SFPP number or RSRP number, and ADF&G processor 
code of the associated business entity.
    (7) Representative. The operator of a vessel, manager, and RSRP 
holder may identify one contact person to complete the logbook and 
forms and to respond to inquiries from NMFS.
    (b) Interagency Electronic Reporting System (IERS) and eLandings--
    (1) Responsibility.
    (i) An eLandings User must obtain at his or her own expense 
hardware, software, and internet connectivity to support internet 
submissions of commercial fishery landings for which participants 
report to NMFS: landing data, production data, and discard or 
disposition data. The User must enter this information via the internet 
by logging on to the eLandings system at https://elandings.alaska.gov or 
other NMFS-approved software or by using the desktop client software.
    (ii) If the User is unable to submit commercial fishery landings of 
Cook Inlet EEZ salmon due to hardware, software, or internet failure 
for a period longer than the required reporting time, the User must 
contact NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division at 907-586-7228 for 
instructions. When the hardware, software, or internet is restored, the 
User must enter this same information into eLandings or other NMFS-
approved software.
    (2) eLandings processor registration. (i) Before a User can use the 
eLandings system to report landings, production, discard, or 
disposition data, he or she must request authorization to use the 
system, reserve a unique UserID, and obtain a password by using the 
internet to complete the eLandings processor registration at https://elandings.alaska.gov/elandings/Register;
    (ii) Upon registration acceptance, the User must print, sign, and 
mail or fax the User Agreement Form to NMFS at the address or fax 
number shown on the form. Confirmation will be emailed to indicate that 
the User is registered, authorized to use eLandings, and that the 
UserID and User's account are enabled; and
    (iii) The User's signature on the registration form means that the 
User agrees to the following terms:
    (A) To use eLandings access privileges only for submitting 
legitimate fishery landing reports;
    (B) To safeguard the UserID and password to prevent their use by 
unauthorized persons; and
    (C) To ensure that the User is authorized to submit landing reports 
for the processor permit number(s) listed.
    (3) Information required for eLandings processor registration form. 
The User must enter the following information (see paragraphs (b)(3)(i) 
through (ix) of this section) to obtain operation registration and 
UserID registration:
    (i) Select the operation type from the dropdown list;
    (ii) Enter a name that will refer to the specific operation. For 
example, if the plant is in Kodiak and the company is East Pacific 
Seafoods, the operation name might read ``East Pacific Seafoods--
Kodiak;''
    (iii) Enter ADF&G processor code;
    (iv) Enter all the Federal permits associated with the operation;
    (A) If a processor for Cook Inlet EEZ salmon, enter the SFPP 
number; and
    (B) If a Registered Salmon Receiver, enter the RSRP number;
    (v) Enter the home port code (see Tables 14a, 14b, and 14c to this 
part) for the operation;

[[Page 72337]]

    (vi) If a tender operation, the operator must enter the ADF&G 
vessel identification number of the vessel;
    (vii) If a buying station or Registered Salmon Receiver operation 
is a vehicle, enter vehicle license number and the state of license 
issuance;
    (viii) If a buying station, tender vessel, or custom processor, 
enter the following information to identify the associated processor 
where the processing will take place: operation type, ADF&G processor 
code, and applicable SFPP number, and RSRP number; and
    (ix) Each operation requires a primary User. Enter the following 
information for the primary User for the new operation: create and 
enter a UserID, initial password, company name, User name (name of the 
person who will use the UserID), city and state where the operation is 
located, business telephone number, business fax number, business email 
address, security question, and security answer.
    (4) Information entered automatically for eLandings landing report. 
eLandings autofills the following fields from processor registration 
records (see paragraph (b)(2) of this section): UserID, processor 
company name, business telephone number, email address, port of 
landing, operation type (for catcher/processors, motherships, or 
stationary floating processors), ADF&G processor code, and Federal 
permit number. The User must review the autofilled cells to ensure that 
they are accurate for the landing that is taking place. eLandings 
assigns a unique landing report number and an ADF&G electronic fish 
ticket number upon completion of data entry.
    (5) Registered Salmon Receiver landing report. The manager and a 
Registered Salmon Receiver that receives salmon from a vessel issued an 
SFFP under Sec.  679.114 and that is required to have an SFPP or RSRP 
under Sec.  679.114(c) or (d) must use eLandings or other NMFS-approved 
software to submit a daily landing report during the fishing year to 
report processor identification information and the following 
information under paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section:
    (i) Information entered for each salmon delivery to a salmon 
shoreside processor or Registered Salmon Receiver. The User for a 
shoreside processor, stationary floating processor, or Registered 
Salmon Receiver must enter the information specified at (b)(5)(i)(A) 
through (C) of this section for each salmon delivery provided by the 
operator of a vessel, the operator or manager of an associated buying 
station or tender vessel, and from processors for reprocessing or 
rehandling product into eLandings or other NMFS-approved software:
    (A) Delivery information--The User must:
    (1) For crew size, enter the number of licensed crew aboard the 
vessel, including the operator;
    (2) Enter the management program name in which harvest occurred 
(see paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section);
    (3) Enter the ADF&G salmon statistical area of harvest;
    (4) For date of landing, enter date (mm/dd/yyyy) that the delivery 
was completed;
    (5) Indicate (YES or NO) whether delivery is from a buying station 
or tender vessel;
    (6) If the delivery is received from a buying station, indicate the 
name of the buying station;
    (7) If the delivery is received from a tender vessel, enter the 
ADF&G vessel registration number;
    (8) If delivery is received from a vessel, indicate the ADF&G 
vessel registration number of the vessel; and
    (9) Mark whether the vessel logsheet has been received.
    (B) Catch information--The User must record the number and landed 
scale weight in pounds of salmon, including any applicable weight 
modifier such as delivery condition code, and disposition code of fish 
by species.
    (C) Discard or disposition information--
    (i) The User must record discard or disposition of fish: that 
occurred on and was reported by a vessel; that occurred on and was 
reported by a salmon shoreside processor or Registered Salmon Receiver; 
and that occurred prior to, during, and/or after production at the 
salmon shoreside processor.
    (ii) The User for a salmon shoreside processor or Registered Salmon 
Receiver must submit a landing report containing the information 
described in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section for each salmon 
delivery from a specific vessel by 1,200 hours, A.l.t., of the day 
following completion of the delivery. If the landed scale weight 
required in paragraph (b)(5)(i)(B) of this section is not available by 
this deadline, the User must transmit an estimated weight and count for 
each species by 1,200 hours, A.l.t., of the day following completion of 
the delivery, and must submit a revised landing report with the landed 
scale weight for each species by 1,200 hours, A.l.t., of the third day 
following completion of the delivery.
    (iii) By using eLandings, the User for a salmon shoreside processor 
or a Registered Salmon Receiver and the operator of the vessel 
providing information to the User for the salmon shoreside processor or 
Registered Salmon Receiver accept the responsibility of and acknowledge 
compliance with Sec.  679.117(b)(5).
    (c) Logbooks--
    (1) Requirements.
    (i) All Cook Inlet EEZ Area logbook pages must be sequentially 
numbered.
    (ii) Except as described in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) or (iv) of this 
section, no person may alter or change any entry or record in a 
logbook;
    (iii) An inaccurate or incorrect entry or record in printed data 
must be corrected by lining out the original and inserting the 
correction, provided that the original entry or record remains legible. 
All corrections must be made in ink; and
    (iv) If after an electronic logsheet is signed, an error is found 
in the data, the operator must make any necessary changes to the data, 
sign the new logsheet, and export the revised file to NMFS. The 
operator must retain both the original and revised logsheet reports.
    (2) Logsheet distribution and submittal. The operator of a vessel 
must distribute and submit accurate copies of logsheets to the salmon 
shoreside processor or Registered Salmon Receiver and to NOAA Fisheries 
Office of Law Enforcement Alaska Region according to the logsheet 
instructions.
    (3) Salmon drift gillnet vessel daily fishing log. The operator of 
a vessel that is required to have an SFFP under Sec.  679.114(b), and 
that is using drift gillnet gear to harvest salmon in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area, must maintain a salmon drift gillnet vessel daily fishing 
log.
    (4) Reporting time limits. The operator of a vessel using drift 
gillnet gear must record in the daily fishing log the information from 
the following table for each set within the specified time limit:

[[Page 72338]]



        Reporting Time Limits, Catcher Vessel Drift Gillnet Gear
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Required information               Time limit for recording
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) SFFP number, set number, date and time     Within 2 hours after
 gear set, date and time gear hauled,           completion of gear
 beginning and end positions of set, length     retrieval.
 of net deployed, total number of salmon,
 marine mammal interaction code, and
 estimated hail weight of groundfish for each
 set.
(ii) Discard and disposition information.....  Prior to landing.
(iii) Submit an accurate copy of the           At the time of catch
 groundfish discards reported on the daily      delivery.
 fishing log to shoreside processor or
 Registered Salmon Receiver receiving catch.
(iv) All other required information..........  At the time of catch
                                                delivery.
(v) Operator sign the completed logsheets....  At the time of catch
                                                delivery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  679.116  [Reserved]


Sec.  679.117  Salmon Fisheries Prohibitions.

    In addition to the general prohibitions specified in Sec.  600.725 
of this chapter and Sec.  679.7, it is unlawful for any person to do 
any of the following:
    (a) The East Area and the West Area.
    (1) Engage in commercial fishing for salmon using any gear except 
troll gear, defined at Sec.  679.2, in the East Area of the Salmon 
Management Area, defined at Sec.  679.2 and Figure 23 to this part.
    (2) Engage in commercial fishing for salmon in the West Area of the 
Salmon Management Area, defined at Sec.  679.2 and Figure 23 to this 
part.
    (b) Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    (1) Commercial fishery participants.
    (i) Engage in commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area with a vessel of the United States that does not have on board a 
legible copy of a valid SFFP issued to the vessel under Sec.  679.114;
    (ii) Engage in commercial fishing for salmon using any gear except 
drift gillnet gear, described at Sec.  679.118, in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area of the Salmon Management Area, defined at Sec.  679.2 and Figure 
22 to this part;
    (iii) Have on board, retrieve, or deploy any gear, except a drift 
gillnet legally configured for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial 
salmon fishery while commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area;
    (iv) Deploy more than one drift gillnet while commercial fishing 
for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
    (v) Set drift gillnet gear within, or allow any portion of drift 
gillnet gear to enter, Alaska State waters on the same calendar day 
that drift gillnet gear is also deployed in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
while commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
    (vi) Deploy drift gillnet gear in excess of the allowable 
configuration for total length and mesh size specified at Sec.  
679.118(f) while commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area;
    (vii) Use a vessel named, or required to be named, on an SFFP to 
fish for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area if that vessel fishes for 
salmon in Alaska State waters on the same calendar day;
    (viii) Possess salmon, harvested in Alaska State waters, on board a 
vessel commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
    (ix) Have salmon on board a vessel at the time a fishing trip 
commences in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
    (x) Conduct recreational fishing for salmon, or have recreational 
or subsistence salmon on board, while commercial fishing for salmon in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
    (xi) Use or employ aircraft (manned or unmanned) to locate salmon 
or to direct commercial fishing while commercial fishing for salmon in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area one hour before, during, and one hour after a 
commercial salmon fishing period;
    (xii) Land salmon harvested in Alaska State waters concurrently 
with salmon harvested commercially in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
    (xiii) Land or transfer salmon harvested while commercial fishing 
for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, within the EEZ off Alaska;
    (xiv) Operate a vessel named, or required to be named, on an SFFP 
to commercially fish for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area without a 
functioning VMS as described in Sec.  679.28(f).
    (xv) Discard any salmon harvested while commercial fishing for 
salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    (2) Recreational fishery participants.
    (i) Engage in recreational fishing for salmon using any gear except 
for handline, rod and reel, or hook and line gear, defined at Sec.  
600.10, in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area of the Salmon Management Area, 
defined at Sec.  679.2 and Figure 22 to this part;
    (ii) Use more than a single line, with more than two hooks 
attached, per angler;
    (iii) No person shall possess on board a vessel, including charter 
vessels and pleasure craft used for fishing, salmon that have been 
filleted, mutilated, or otherwise disfigured in any manner, except that 
each salmon may be cut into no more than 2 pieces with a patch of skin 
on each piece, naturally attached. One piece from one salmon on board 
may be consumed.
    (iv) Exceed the daily bag limits and possession limits established 
under Sec.  679.119.
    (3) Processors and Registered Salmon Receivers.
    (i) Receive, purchase or arrange for purchase, discard, or process 
salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area without having on site a 
legible copy of a valid SFPP or valid RSRP issued under Sec.  679.114;
    (ii) Process or receive salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
without submitting a timely and complete landing report as required 
under Sec.  679.115;
    (iii) Process salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in the 
EEZ off Alaska; and
    (iv) Receive or transport salmon caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
without an SFPP or RSRP issued under Sec.  679.114.
    (4) Recordkeeping and reporting.
    (i) Fail to comply with or fail to ensure compliance with 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  679.114 or 679.115.
    (ii) Alter or forge any permit or document issued under Sec. Sec.  
679.114 or 679.115;
    (iii) Fail to submit or submit inaccurate information on any 
report, application, or statement required under this part; and
    (iv) Intentionally submit false information on any report, 
application, or statement required under this part.
    (5) Fail to comply with any other requirement or restriction 
specified in this part or violate any provision under this part.


Sec.  679.118  Management Measures.

    This section applies to vessels engaged in commercial fishing and 
recreational fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    (a) Harvest limits--(1) TAC. NMFS, after consultation with the 
Council, will specify the annual TAC amounts for commercial fishing for 
each salmon

[[Page 72339]]

stock or species after accounting for projected recreational fishing 
removals.
    (2) Annual TAC determination. The annual determinations of TAC for 
each salmon species or stock may be based on a review of the following:
    (i) Resource assessment documents prepared regularly for the 
Council that provide information on historical catch trends; updated 
estimates of the MSY of the salmon stocks or stock complexes; 
assessments of the stock condition of each salmon stock or stock 
complex; SSC recommendations on reference points established for salmon 
stocks; management uncertainty; assessments of the multispecies and 
ecosystem impacts of harvesting the salmon stocks at current levels, 
given the assessed condition of stocks, including consideration of 
rebuilding depressed stocks; and alternative harvesting strategies and 
related effects on the salmon species;
    (ii) Social and economic considerations that are consistent with 
Salmon FMP goals for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, including the need to 
promote efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources, including 
minimizing costs; the desire to conserve, protect, and rebuild depleted 
salmon stocks; the importance of a salmon fishery to harvesters, 
processors, local communities, and other salmon users in Cook Inlet; 
and the need to promote utilization of certain species.
    (b) Annual specifications--
    (1) Proposed specifications.
    (i) As soon as practicable after consultation with the Council, 
NMFS will publish proposed specifications for the salmon fishery in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area; and
    (ii) NMFS will accept public comment on the proposed specifications 
established by this section for a period specified in the notice of 
proposed specifications published in the Federal Register.
    (2) Final specifications. NMFS will consider comments received on 
the proposed specifications and will publish a notice of final 
specifications in the Federal Register unless NMFS determines that the 
final specifications would not be a logical outgrowth of the notice of 
proposed specifications. If the final specifications would not be a 
logical outgrowth of the notice of proposed specifications, NMFS will 
either:
    (i) Publish a revised notice of proposed specifications in the 
Federal Register for public comment, and after considering comments 
received on the revised proposed specifications, publish a notice of 
final specifications in the Federal Register; or
    (ii) Publish a notice of final specifications in the Federal 
Register without an additional opportunity for public comment based on 
a finding that good cause pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act 
justifies waiver of the requirement for a revised notice of proposed 
specifications and opportunity for public comment thereon.
    (c) Management Authority--
    (1) Fishery closures. (i) For commercial fishing, if NMFS 
determines that any salmon TAC for commercial fishing as specified 
under paragraph (b) of this section has been or may be reached for any 
salmon species or stock, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal 
Register prohibiting commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area.
    (ii) For recreational fishing, if NMFS determines that any salmon 
ABC as specified under paragraph (b) of this section has been or may be 
reached, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal Register 
prohibiting retention for that salmon species when recreational fishing 
in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    (d) Commercial Fishery maximum retainable amounts (MRA)--
    (1) Proportion of basis species. The MRA of an incidental catch 
species is calculated as a proportion of the basis species retained on 
board the vessel using the retainable percentages in Table 10 to this 
part for the GOA species categories.
    (2) Calculation. (i) To calculate the MRA for a specific incidental 
catch species, an individual retainable amount must be calculated with 
respect to each basis species that is retained on board that vessel.
    (ii) To obtain these individual retainable amounts, multiply the 
appropriate retainable percentage for the incidental catch species/
basis species combination, set forth in Table 10 to this part for the 
GOA species categories, by the amount of the relevant basis species on 
board, in round-weight equivalents.
    (iii) The MRA for that specific incidental catch species is the sum 
of the individual retainable amounts for each basis species.
    (e) Seasons--
    (1) Fishing Season. Directed fishing for salmon using drift gillnet 
gear in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area may be conducted from 0700 hours, 
A.l.t., from the third Monday in June or June 19, whichever is later, 
through 1900 hours, A.l.t., August 15.
    (2) Fishing Periods. Notwithstanding other provisions of this part, 
fishing for salmon with drift gillnet gear in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
is authorized during the fishing season only from 0700 hours, A.l.t., 
until 1900 hours, A.l.t., Mondays and from 0700 hours, A.l.t., until 
1900 hours, A.l.t., Thursdays. Fishing for salmon using drift gillnet 
gear at times other than during the specified fishing periods is not 
authorized.
    (f) Legal gear--
    (1) Size. Drift gillnet gear must be no longer than 200 fathoms 
(1.1 kilometer) in length, 45 meshes deep, and have a mesh size of no 
greater than 6 inches (15.24 cm).
    (2) Marking. Drift gillnet gear must be marked at both ends with 
buoys that legibly display the vessel's SFFP number.
    (3) Floating. The float line and floats of gillnets must be 
floating on the surface of the water while the net is fishing, unless 
natural conditions cause the net to temporarily sink. Staking or 
otherwise fixing a drift gillnet to the seafloor is not authorized.
    (4) Measurement. For purposes of paragraph (f)(1), nets must be 
measured, either wet or dry, by determining the maximum or minimum 
distance between the first and last hanging of the net when the net is 
fully extended with traction applied at one end only.


Sec.  679.119  Recreational Salmon Fisheries.

    (a) Daily bag limits and possession limits--For each person 
recreational fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, the 
following daily bag and possession limits apply:
    (1) Chinook salmon. From April 1 to August 31, the daily bag limit 
is one Chinook salmon of any size and the possession limit is one daily 
bag limit (one Chinook salmon). From September 1 to March 31, the daily 
bag limit is two Chinook salmon of any size and the possession limit is 
one daily bag limit (two Chinook salmon).
    (2) Coho salmon, sockeye salmon, pink salmon, and chum salmon. For 
coho salmon, sockeye salmon, pink salmon, and chum salmon, the daily 
bag limit is a total of six fish combined, of any size, of which a 
maximum of three may be coho salmon. The possession limit for coho 
salmon, sockeye salmon, pink salmon, and chum salmon is one daily bag 
limit (six fish total).
    (3) Combination of bag/possession limits. A person who fishes for 
or possesses salmon in or from the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section, may not combine such bag or possession 
limits with any bag or possession limit applicable to Alaska State 
waters.
    (4) Responsibility for bag/possession limits. The operator of a 
vessel that

[[Page 72340]]

fishes for or possesses salmon in or from the Cook Inlet EEZ Area is 
responsible for the cumulative bag or possession limit specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section that apply to that vessel, based on the 
number of persons aboard.
    (5) Transfer at sea. A person who fishes for or possesses salmon in 
or from the Cook Inlet EEZ Area under a bag or possession limit 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section may not transfer a salmon at 
sea from a fishing vessel to any other vessel, and no person may 
receive at sea such salmon.
    (b) Careful release--Any salmon brought aboard a vessel and not 
immediately returned to the sea with a minimum of injury will be 
included in the daily bag limit of the person catching the salmon.
0
11. Add figure 22 to part 679 to read as follows:

Figure 22 to Part 679--Cook Inlet EEZ Area (see Sec.  679.2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC23.012

0
12. Amend table 15 to part 679 by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order the entry ``Gillnet, drift'' under the 
heading ``NMFS AND ADF&G GEAR CODES''; and
0
b. Removing the entry ``Gillnet, drift'' under the heading ``ADF&G GEAR 
CODES''.
    The addition reads as follows:

[[Page 72341]]



                             Table 15 to Part 679--Gear Codes, Descriptions, and Use
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS and ADF&G Gear Codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Gillnet, drift.................  ......................                 03                  X                  X
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-22747 Filed 10-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P