[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71350-71362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28096]



[[Page 71350]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 130710606-4972-02]
RIN 0648-BD48


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Chinook 
Salmon Bycatch Management in the Gulf of Alaska Non-Pollock Trawl 
Fisheries; Amendment 97

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS adopts a final rule to implement Amendment 97 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). 
Amendment 97 limits Chinook salmon prohibited species catch (PSC) in 
Western and Central Gulf of Alaska (GOA) non-pollock trawl catcher/
processor (C/P) and catcher vessel (CV) fisheries. This action 
establishes separate annual Chinook salmon PSC limits for three sectors 
fishing for groundfish species other than pollock: trawl C/Ps, trawl 
CVs participating in the Central GOA Rockfish Program, and trawl CVs 
not participating in the Central GOA Rockfish Program. If a sector 
reaches its Chinook salmon PSC limit, NMFS will prohibit further 
fishing for non-pollock groundfish by vessels in that sector. This 
action also establishes and clarifies Chinook salmon retention and 
discard requirements for vessels and processors participating in both 
the GOA pollock and non-pollock groundfish trawl fisheries. This action 
is necessary to minimize the catch of Chinook salmon to the extent 
practicable in the GOA non-pollock trawl fisheries. Amendment 97 is 
intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the 
FMP, and other applicable laws.

DATES: Effective January 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the Environmental Assessment/
Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/
RIR/FRFA or Analysis) prepared for this action may be obtained from 
http://www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska Region Web site at 
https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/cm/analyses/.
    An electronic copy of the Biological Opinion on the effects of the 
Alaska groundfish fisheries on Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed 
species is available at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/stellers/plb/default.htm.
    An electronic copy of the proposed rule (79 FR 35971, June 25, 
2014) may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the 
Alaska Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/regs/summary.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hartman, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the 
U.S. exclusive economic zone of the GOA under the FMP. The North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS 
approved, the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 
U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and 
implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
    NMFS published the Notice of Availability for Amendment 97 in the 
Federal Register on June 5, 2014 (79 FR 32525), with a 60-day comment 
period that ended on August 4, 2014. The Secretary of Commerce approved 
Amendment 97 on September 3, 2014, after taking into account public 
comments received on Amendment 97 and the proposed rule that would 
implement Amendment 97, and determining that Amendment 97 is consistent 
with the national standards in section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable 
laws.
    NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendment 97 on June 
25, 2014 (79 FR 35971). The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule 
ended July 25, 2014. A brief summary of this action is provided in the 
following paragraphs. A detailed description of this action is provided 
in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

Background

    This final rule implements Amendment 97 to the FMP. Under this 
rule, NMFS establishes separate annual Chinook salmon PSC limits for 
trawl catcher/processors (Trawl C/P Sector), trawl CVs participating in 
the Central GOA Rockfish Program (Rockfish Program CV Sector), and 
trawl CVs not participating in the Central GOA Rockfish Program (Non-
Rockfish Program CV Sector). These Chinook salmon PSC limits will apply 
to these three sectors when they are directed fishing for groundfish 
species other than pollock in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas 
of the GOA. Existing regulations at Sec.  679.2 define the term 
``directed fishing.'' If a sector reaches its Chinook salmon PSC limit, 
NMFS will prohibit further directed fishing for non-pollock groundfish 
by vessels in that sector. This action also establishes and clarifies 
Chinook salmon retention and discard requirements for vessels, 
shoreside processors, and stationary floating processors (SFPs) 
participating in both the GOA pollock and non-pollock groundfish trawl 
fisheries. In the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS provided a 
detailed review of Amendment 97 and its implementing regulations (79 FR 
35971, June 25, 2014). The key components of Amendment 97 and its 
implementing regulations are briefly described in this preamble.
    The Council and NMFS have adopted various measures intended to 
control the catch of species taken incidentally in groundfish 
fisheries. Certain species are designated as ``prohibited species'' in 
the FMP because they are the target of other, fully utilized domestic 
fisheries. The prohibited species include Pacific halibut, Pacific 
herring, Pacific salmon, steelhead trout, king crab, and Tanner crab. 
The FMP and regulations at Sec.  679.21 require that catch of 
prohibited species, more commonly known as prohibited species catch, or 
PSC, must be minimized to the extent practicable while fishing for 
groundfish; and, when incidentally caught, these prohibited species 
must be immediately returned to the sea with a minimum of injury.
    PSC must be either (1) not sold or kept for personal use and 
discarded (see regulations at Sec.  679.21), or (2) retained but not 
sold under the Prohibited Species Donation (PSD) Program (see 
regulations at Sec.  679.26). In an effort to minimize waste of salmon 
incidentally caught and killed, NMFS established the PSD Program for 
the donation of incidentally caught salmon. The PSD Program reduces the 
amount of edible protein discarded under PSC regulatory requirements 
(see regulations at Sec.  679.21). The PSD Program allows permitted 
participants to retain salmon for distribution to economically 
disadvantaged individuals through tax-exempt hunger relief 
organizations.
    One of the prohibited species of great concern to the Council and 
NMFS is Chinook salmon. Chinook salmon is a prohibited species in the 
groundfish fisheries because of its value in salmon fisheries. Chinook 
salmon is a culturally and economically valuable species that is fully 
allocated and for which State and Federal managers seek to

[[Page 71351]]

conservatively manage harvests. The scarcity of Chinook salmon in some 
regions of the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, and 
Idaho, has led to an endangered or threatened listing for a number of 
stocks under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Small amounts of a few 
ESA-listed Chinook salmon are caught in GOA non-pollock trawl 
fisheries. The November 30, 2000, Biological Opinion on the effects of 
the Alaska groundfish fisheries on ESA-listed salmon of the Pacific 
Northwest established an incidental take statement (ITS) for an annual 
threshold amount of 40,000 Chinook salmon for the GOA groundfish 
fisheries. Exceeding the ITS for Chinook salmon triggers reinitiation 
of section 7 consultation under the ESA (see Section 3 of the Analysis) 
(see ADDRESSES).
    The Council and NMFS have established a range of management 
measures to constrain the impact of groundfish fisheries in the Bering 
Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) and the GOA on Chinook 
salmon. These management measures are intended to minimize Chinook 
salmon bycatch to the extent practicable. Section 1.5 of the Analysis 
summarizes the measures implemented in the GOA groundfish fisheries.
    After reviewing the information in the Analysis and after 
consideration of public comment during the development of Amendment 97, 
the Council and NMFS developed three goals for this action (see Section 
1 of the Analysis). The first goal is to avoid exceeding the annual 
Chinook salmon threshold of 40,000 Chinook salmon identified in the 
ITS. The second goal is to minimize Chinook salmon bycatch to the 
extent practicable, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
National Standard 9. The third goal is to increase the amount of 
Chinook salmon stock of origin information available to NMFS and the 
Council.

Regulations Implemented by This Action

    This action amends regulations at Sec. Sec.  679.7 and 679.21 to 
implement Chinook salmon PSC limits in the Western and Central GOA non-
pollock groundfish trawl fisheries and meet the three goals of this 
action. Specifically, this action (1) establishes annual Chinook salmon 
PSC limits for the Trawl C/P, Rockfish Program CV, and Non-Rockfish 
Program CV Sectors; (2) establishes an ``incentive buffer'' that allows 
the annual Chinook salmon PSC limit for the Trawl C/P and Non-Rockfish 
Program CV Sectors to vary depending on the amount of Chinook salmon 
PSC taken by those sectors in the previous year; (3) establishes a 
seasonal limit on the amount of Chinook salmon PSC that can be taken in 
the Trawl C/P Sector prior to June 1 of each year; (4) allows the 
reallocation of unused Chinook salmon PSC from the Rockfish Program CV 
Sector to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector on October 1 and November 
15 of each year; and (5) establishes salmon retention requirements to 
improve the collection of biological samples that could aid in the 
determination of stock of origin of Chinook salmon PSC in the non-
pollock trawl fisheries.
    Of particular importance is the fact that this rule implements a 
long-term average annual Chinook salmon PSC limit of 7,500 Chinook 
salmon to non-pollock trawl fisheries in the Western and Central GOA. 
This rule does this by establishing separate, sector-level Chinook 
salmon PSC limits for GOA non-pollock Trawl C/Ps, Rockfish Program CVs, 
and Non-Rockfish Program CVs. A description of and rationale for these 
regulatory provisions is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule 
and is not repeated here (79 FR 35971, June 25, 2014).

Implementation

    During the first year of implementation, (i.e., 2015), this rule 
establishes an annual Chinook salmon PSC limit of 3,600 Chinook salmon 
for the Trawl C/P Sector, 1,200 Chinook salmon for the Rockfish Program 
CV Sector, and 2,700 Chinook salmon for the Non-Rockfish Program CV 
Sector. The total Chinook salmon PSC limit in the first year of 
implementation for all three sectors is 7,500 Chinook salmon. If a 
sector reaches or is projected to reach its Chinook salmon PSC limit, 
NMFS will close directed fishing for all non-pollock groundfish species 
by vessels in that sector for the remainder of the calendar year. Each 
sector is subject to its own annual Chinook salmon PSC limit, and NMFS 
will manage each sector separately.
    Beginning in 2016 and for each subsequent year, NMFS will publish 
the annual Chinook salmon PSC limits for the Non-Rockfish Program CV 
Sector and Trawl C/P Sector in the proposed groundfish harvest 
specifications for the GOA after determining the amounts of Chinook 
salmon PSC used and whether the incentive buffer applies. Under the 
incentive buffer, if either Sector uses less than or equal to its 
proportional share of 6,500 Chinook salmon in one year, it will be able 
to access its base Chinook salmon PSC limit plus its proportional share 
of 1,000 additional Chinook salmon in the following year. The incentive 
buffer does not apply to the Chinook salmon PSC limit of 1,200 salmon 
for the Rockfish Program CV Sector for reasons described in the 
preamble to the proposed rule that are not repeated here (79 FR 35971, 
June 25, 2014).
    To illustrate the implementation of the incentive buffer, the base 
Chinook salmon PSC limit for the Trawl C/P Sector is 3,600 (48 percent 
of the average annual Chinook salmon PSC limit of 7,500), and this 
limit will be available to the Trawl C/P Sector during the first year 
of implementation of Amendment 97. If, during the first year, the Trawl 
C/P Sector is able to maintain its use of Chinook salmon PSC to no more 
than 3,120 salmon (48 percent of 6,500 Chinook salmon), the incentive 
buffer will apply to the sector in the following year. In the following 
year, the Trawl C/P Sector will receive a Chinook salmon PSC limit of 
4,080 Chinook salmon, which represents the sum of the sector's base PSC 
limit (3,600) and its proportional share (48 percent) of 1,000 Chinook 
salmon (480). If, during the first year, the Trawl C/P Sector's Chinook 
salmon use exceeds 3,120 Chinook salmon, then the incentive buffer will 
not apply to the sector and its Chinook salmon PSC limit in the 
following year will be set at its base PSC limit of 3,600 Chinook 
salmon.
    Similarly, the proposed base PSC limit for the Non-Rockfish Program 
CV Sector is 2,700 (36 percent of the proposed Chinook salmon limit of 
7,500) and this limit will be available to the Non-Rockfish Program CV 
Sector during the first year of implementation. If, during the first 
year, the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector is able to maintain its use of 
Chinook salmon PSC to no more than 2,340 salmon (36 percent of 6,500 
Chinook salmon), the incentive buffer will apply to the sector in the 
following year. In the following year, the Non-Rockfish Program CV 
Sector will receive a Chinook salmon PSC limit of 3,060 salmon, which 
represents the sum of the sector's base PSC limit (2,700) and its 
proportional share (36 percent) of 1,000 Chinook salmon (360). If, 
during the first year, the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector's Chinook 
salmon use exceeds 2,340 Chinook salmon, then the incentive buffer will 
not apply to the sector and its Chinook salmon PSC limit in the 
following year will be set at its base PSC limit of 2,700 Chinook 
salmon. Additional detail on implementation of this rule and the 
specific Chinook salmon PSC limit applicable to each sector is provided 
in the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 35971, June 25, 2014).

[[Page 71352]]

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    This section explains the four editorial changes in the regulatory 
text from the proposed rule to the final rule. The changes make minor 
technical clarifications in the regulatory text. Each of these 
revisions are made to be consistent with the uses of each of these 
terms in the regulatory text and do not change the intent of the rule.
    The first change revises the proposed regulatory text at Sec.  
679.21(i)(3)(i) by replacing the phrase ``Central and Western'' with 
``Western and Central.'' This change mirrors the order in which these 
regulatory areas are referenced in other paragraphs in Sec.  679.21(i). 
The second change adds the word ``limit'' and ``PSC'' to Sec.  
679.21(i)(3)(ii)(B); the third change adds the word ``limit'' to Sec.  
679.21(i)(4) and to Sec.  679.21(i)(7)(ii); and the fourth change adds 
the word ``salmon'' to Sec.  679.21(i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii). These 
changes provide greater clarity to the regulations through a consistent 
use of terms.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received five comment letters on Amendment 97 and the proposed 
rule--three letters from conservation organizations and two letters 
from fishing industry representatives associated with GOA trawl 
fisheries. These letters included a total of 16 relevant comments on 
Amendment 97 and the proposed rule. A summary of the relevant comments, 
grouped by subject matter, and NMFS' responses, follows.
    Comment 1: Three commenters stated that Chinook salmon PSC limits 
are necessary in these fisheries, the amounts selected are appropriate, 
and they generally support the action.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment and agrees that the Chinook 
salmon PSC limits implemented under Amendment 97 are necessary and 
appropriate conservation and management measures.
    Comment 2: One commenter recommended that the final rule be 
implemented as described in the proposed rule, but also identified the 
need to revisit Chinook salmon PSC limits that are more restrictive 
than the aggregate Chinook salmon PSC limit of 7,500 salmon.
    Response: Based on a review of past fishery performance provided in 
Sections 4.7 and 4.9 of the Analysis, a Chinook salmon PSC limit of 
less than 7,500 salmon would result in considerable amounts of foregone 
harvest in the non-pollock trawl fisheries, and relatively high costs 
(in terms of foregone revenue) per salmon saved. In selecting the long-
term average annual Chinook salmon PSC limit of 7,500 salmon, the 
Council and NMFS considered a range of alternative Chinook salmon PSC 
limits, and selected the alternative that minimizes Chinook salmon PSC 
to the extent practicable. The Council and NMFS considered the 
management measures currently available to the GOA groundfish fleet, 
existing fishing patterns, the uncertainty about the extent to which 
the use of Chinook salmon PSC in the groundfish fisheries has an 
adverse effect on the Chinook salmon resource, the need to ensure that 
catch in the trawl fisheries contributes to the achievement of optimum 
yield in the groundfish fisheries, and the economic consequences of 
this action on Chinook salmon target fisheries and groundfish 
fisheries.
    The Council reviews the status of Chinook salmon PSC on an annual 
basis, at a minimum. In addition, the Council and NMFS regularly 
receive information on the status of Chinook salmon stocks. The Council 
and NMFS will continue to review data on Chinook salmon PSC in the GOA 
and BSAI groundfish fisheries and the status of Chinook salmon stocks. 
This action does not preclude the Council and NMFS from considering new 
information and implementing revisions to Chinook salmon PSC limits to 
minimize Chinook salmon PSC in future years as necessary and 
appropriate.
    Comment 3: One commenter noted that in the preamble to the proposed 
rule NMFS stated that harvests of non-pollock groundfish by trawl C/Ps 
in the Western and Central GOA are governed primarily by two management 
programs, the Amendment 80 Program and the Central GOA Rockfish 
Program. The commenter believed that this statement implies that trawl 
C/P fisheries in the GOA are managed under the cooperative management 
system implemented under the Amendment 80 Program. The commenter noted 
that trawl C/Ps operating in the GOA are subject to specific 
constraints, commonly known as sideboard limits, implemented by the 
Amendment 80 Program, but not under the cooperative management 
provisions implemented for the BSAI as part of the Amendment 80 
Program. The commenter requested that NMFS clarify that trawl C/Ps 
operating in the GOA are impacted by sideboard limits established under 
the Amendment 80 Program, but are not directly managed by the 
cooperative provisions of the Amendment 80 Program that apply in the 
BSAI.
    Response: In the proposed rule, NMFS provided extensive 
descriptions of how sideboard limits apply in GOA trawl fisheries for 
participants subject to the Amendment 80 Program, the American 
Fisheries Act (AFA), and the Rockfish Program. These descriptions are 
provided on pages 35973, 35974, 35975, and 35978 of the proposed rule. 
NMFS agrees that the sideboard limits in the GOA implemented by the 
Amendment 80 Program are but one of several management measures 
applicable to trawl C/Ps in the Western and Central GOA groundfish 
fisheries. NMFS also agrees that the trawl C/Ps operating in the GOA 
are not operating under the cooperative management provisions 
established by the Amendment 80 Program for groundfish fishing in the 
BSAI. While NMFS did not intend to imply that trawl C/P fisheries in 
the GOA are managed under the cooperative management system implemented 
under the Amendment 80 Program, NMFS intended to convey the point that 
in practice, many of the trawl C/Ps in the Western and Central GOA can 
or do operate in a coordinated manner similar to their operations in 
the BSAI. This response and the information in the Analysis correctly 
clarify the role of Amendment 80 and AFA sideboards in the GOA trawl 
fisheries, and the potential for coordination of activities in the GOA 
for vessels that also operate under the authority of the Amendment 80 
Program in the BSAI.
    Comment 4: Two commenters stated that there were several errors in 
the preamble to the proposed rule. These errors are:
    (1) Page 35972 of the preamble states that ``The FMP and 
regulations at Sec.  679.21 require that catch of prohibited species 
must be avoided while fishing for groundfish . . .'' The commenter 
states that, in fact, both the FMP (Section 2.1) and the regulations 
(Sec.  679.21(b)(2)(i)) state that prohibited species catch must be 
``minimized.''
    (2) Page 35973 of the preamble states that there is no directed 
Pacific cod fishery by trawl C/Ps in the GOA. The commenter suggests 
that while the amount of the Pacific cod allocation available to the 
Trawl C/P Sector is small, a small allocation does not preclude a 
Pacific cod directed fishery.
    (3) Page 35974 of the preamble provides a list of Central GOA 
flatfish fisheries in which trawl CVs participate. The commenter states 
that this list is incomplete, and should include rex sole and deep-
water flatfish. The commenter explains that trawl CVs retain a 
substantial proportion of the total retained catch of rex sole and 
deep-water flatfish.

[[Page 71353]]

    (4) Page 35974 of the preamble incorrectly references specific 
groundfish species that are allocated to the CV sector under the 
Central GOA Rockfish Program. The commenter states that rougheye 
rockfish is not allocated to the Rockfish Program CV Sector and should 
not be listed, but thornyhead rockfish is allocated to the Rockfish 
Program CV Sector and should be listed.
    (5) Page 35974 of the preamble incorrectly states that under the 
Central GOA Rockfish Program, directed rockfish fishing is permitted 
from May 1 to December 31. Directed rockfish fishing is permitted from 
May 1 to November 15.
    (6) Page 35985 of the preamble incorrectly references the ``Alaska 
PSD Program'' as the ``Alaska PSC Program.''
    Response: Each of these comments is addressed in order.
    (1) While the commenter is correct that regulations at Sec.  
679.21(b)(2)(i) state that prohibited species catch must be ``minimized 
to the extent practicable,'' other regulations within Sec.  679.21 
state that Chinook salmon PSC should be avoided. For example, Sec.  
679.21(f)(12)(ii)(B)(3)(i) requires approval of an Incentive Plan 
Agreement ``to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch under any condition of 
pollock and Chinook salmon abundance in all years.'' The Executive 
Summary of the Analysis and section 3.3.8 highlight that the Council's 
intent for Amendment 97 is to provide incentives for Trawl CV and C/P 
sectors to avoid Chinook salmon PSC. This is because the primary method 
currently available for vessels to minimize Chinook salmon PSC is to 
avoid catching these species where possible. Amendment 97 is structured 
to be consistent with National Standard 9, which provides that ``. . . 
measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) 
to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such 
bycatch.'' Additionally, the regulatory guidelines for National 
Standard 9 at 50 CFR 600.350(d) state that: ``The priority under this 
standard is first to avoid catching bycatch species where 
practicable.''
    (2) One commenter wrote that the preamble to the proposed rule 
states ``Trawl C/Ps do not fish for Pacific cod in the Central or 
Western GOA.'' NMFS has opened Pacific cod directed fisheries for the 
Trawl C/P Sector in the Central GOA A and B seasons only a few times 
and for a limited duration of time since 2012. Typically, NMFS 
prohibits directed fishing for Pacific cod in the Central and Western 
GOA by the Trawl C/P Sector due to the small amount of Pacific cod 
available for harvest by the Trawl C/P Sector and the high potential 
for fishing effort by trawl C/Ps. While the commenter is generally 
correct that small allocations do not always preclude directed fishing 
and that NMFS may permit the Trawl C/P Sector to conduct a directed 
fishery for Pacific cod in the future, it is unlikely that the number 
of GOA Pacific cod directed fishery openings will increase in future 
years given the sector's small Pacific cod harvest limits and the 
potential for substantial fishing effort within the Trawl C/P Sector.
    (3) The preamble to the proposed rule states that ``Trawl CVs 
primarily fish for Pacific cod in the Central and Western GOA.'' The 
preamble also lists other major fisheries that CVs participate in, but 
this list was not intended to list every directed Trawl CV Sector 
fishery in the GOA. NMFS agrees that rex sole and deep-water flatfish 
are caught and retained by trawl CVs.
    (4) NMFS agrees that rougheye rockfish was incorrectly identified 
as a species allocated to the Rockfish Program CV Sector. NMFS also 
agrees that thornyhead rockfish is allocated to the Rockfish Program CV 
Sector, and should have been listed instead of rougheye rockfish.
    (5) NMFS agrees. Directed rockfish fishing under the Central GOA 
Rockfish Program is permitted from May 1 through November 15. While 
NMFS acknowledges the error made on page 35974, NMFS correctly 
identified November 15 as the last date fishing is permitted under the 
Central GOA Rockfish Program several other places in the preamble and 
specifically on pages 35982 and 35984.
    (6) NMFS agrees that the reference to the ``Alaska PSC Program'' on 
page 35985 should have been to the ``Alaska PSD Program.''
    Comment 5: One commenter stated that the implementation of 
Amendment 97 should be postponed until the Council and NMFS finish 
developing the GOA trawl bycatch management action. The proposed 
Amendment 97 regulations are not practicable under the present ``race 
for fish'' management structure, especially in the Non-Rockfish Program 
CV Sector. In lieu of postponing implementation of Amendment 97, 
another option would be to partially approve Amendment 97 by 
disapproving the portion of the action that applies a Chinook salmon 
PSC limit on the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector.
    Response: NMFS approved Amendment 97 to the FMP on September 3, 
2014. Section 304(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS, 
acting on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, disapprove a plan 
amendment only after specifying the applicable law with which the plan 
amendment is inconsistent; the nature of such inconsistencies; and 
recommendations concerning the actions that could be taken by the 
Council to conform such plan amendment to the requirements of 
applicable law. Before approving Amendment 97, NMFS considered these 
factors and concluded that Amendment 97, including the Chinook salmon 
PSC limit established for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector, is 
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.
    NMFS determined that Amendment 97 minimizes Chinook salmon PSC to 
the extent practicable. In making this determination, NMFS considered 
the management measures currently applicable to the GOA groundfish 
fleet, including the ``race for fish'' that can occur in those portions 
of the fishery that are not managed under a form of catch share program 
with exclusive harvest privileges for specific participants. NMFS 
identified the potential impacts of this action in the Notice of 
Availability for Amendment 97 (79 FR 32525, June 5, 2014), the preamble 
to the proposed rule (79 FR 35971, June 25, 2014), and in detail in 
Sections 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 of the Analysis prepared for this action. 
NMFS articulated its reasons for approval of Amendment 97 in the 
proposed rule, and provided the Council's and the agency's explanations 
for why it is consistent with the Magnuson Stevens Act and other 
applicable law. NMFS considered the public comments received on the 
proposed rule and Amendment 97 prior to its approval of Amendment 97, 
and none of these comments caused NMFS to change the conclusions 
reached in the proposed rule. NMFS approved Amendment 97 because there 
is a rational basis for the Chinook salmon PSC limits for each Sector, 
the limits achieve the goals of the action by minimizing bycatch to the 
extent practicable, each Sector has the ability to comply with that 
Sector's PSC limit, and that new tools developed for this action would 
assist in achieving the PSC limits. The Council and NMFS recognized 
that Chinook salmon PSC limits may result in groundfish closures 
earlier in the season, attendant reductions in target groundfish 
catches when the seasonal PSC limit is reached, and foregone groundfish 
revenue for sectors that are unable to fully prosecute TAC limits. 
Participants in the groundfish fisheries could also incur

[[Page 71354]]

additional costs associated with actions taken to avoid catch of 
Chinook salmon PSC.
    The Council and NMFS considered that although the proposed Chinook 
salmon PSC limits may result in closures earlier in the season and an 
attendant reduction in target groundfish catches if a Chinook salmon 
PSC limit is reached prior to the harvest of the TAC, the frequency and 
extent of early season closures and the effects of such closures will 
vary across the three sectors of the fleet. For example, participants 
in the Trawl C/P and Rockfish Program CV Sectors have experience in 
coordinating some of their activities through private cooperative 
agreements and may be willing to change fishing behavior in response to 
the imposition of Chinook salmon PSC limits. If sector participants are 
successful in taking action to control Chinook salmon PSC to avoid a 
closure, gross revenues may not be negatively impacted. NMFS' 
management experience in the trawl fisheries that operate under catch 
share programs, or under informal cooperation agreements developed 
without a regulated catch share program, indicates that PSC use in the 
groundfish trawl fisheries has been reduced through increased 
communication among industry participants and coordination of fishing 
activities and effort. Section 4.4 of the Analysis reviewed potential 
measures that could be adopted by participants to reduce Chinook salmon 
PSC and the factors that are likely to affect the willingness of 
participants to adopt these measures.
    The Analysis in Sections 4.7 and 4.9 considered potential changes 
in trawl sector revenues, and changes in costs resulting from the 
fleets' altered fishing behavior to minimize Chinook salmon PSC. 
However, it is not possible to directly quantify these effects with 
available information. The effects on communities are summarized in 
Section 4.7.5 of the Analysis. The Chinook salmon PSC limits 
implemented by this final rule balance the potential financial effects 
of reduced groundfish harvests and increased costs to groundfish 
fleets, the benefits of minimizing Chinook salmon PSC to the extent 
practicable, the potential benefits that may occur from reducing a 
known source of mortality to the Chinook salmon stocks, and the 
potential additional harvest opportunities that may accrue to other 
users of the Chinook salmon resource.
    As described in the preamble to the proposed rule and in Sections 
4.7 and 4.9 of the Analysis, the Council and NMFS considered the 
potential impact to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector, and determined 
that the Chinook salmon PSC limit for this sector is practicable. The 
base Chinook salmon PSC limit for this sector is slightly higher than 
the Sector's average Chinook salmon PSC between 2007 and 2013. 
Additionally, it is likely that in most years, the Non-Rockfish Program 
CV Sector will receive a roll over of Chinook salmon PSC from the 
Rockfish Program CV Sector. Also, this action includes two measures 
that may increase the annual amount of Chinook salmon PSC available for 
this sector, thereby improving the practicability of the Chinook salmon 
PCS limit for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. First, this action 
establishes an incentive buffer. This acts as an incentive for the Non-
Rockfish Program CV Sector to keep Chinook salmon bycatch well below 
its base PSC limit in order to provide it with a slightly higher 
Chinook salmon PSC limit that may be needed in an unusual year of 
Chinook salmon migration patterns or unanticipated higher abundance 
that may make it difficult to avoid Chinook salmon PSC. Second, this 
action provides for a reallocation of unused Chinook salmon PSC from 
the Rockfish Program CV Sector to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. 
This reallocation recognizes that the Rockfish Program CV Sector will 
likely have unused Chinook salmon PSC available by October 1 in most 
years. Therefore, in most years, the reallocation of some Chinook 
salmon PSC limit from the Rockfish Program CV Sector to the Non-
Rockfish Program CV Sector is expected to provide additional harvest 
opportunities. The Council and NMFS also recognized that most of the 
vessels in the Non-Rockfish Program Sector are in cooperatives formed 
under the Central GOA Rockfish Program, which mutually benefit from 
these potential reallocations. Many participants in the Non-Rockfish 
Program CV sector also participate in the Rockfish Program CV Sector, 
and routinely cooperate to manage allocations or minimize Chinook 
salmon bycatch. Recognizing that not all CVs making landings in the GOA 
participate in the Rockfish Program, NMFS believes it may be in the 
interest of the operations that are in the Rockfish Program CV Sector 
to continue some level of cooperation to minimize Chinook salmon 
bycatch even after checking out of the Rockfish Program. Thus, these 
sector reallocations enhance the practicability of Amendment 97 for the 
Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. The reallocations between the Rockfish 
and Non-Rockfish Program CV Sectors are expected to reduce the 
possibility of idling seafood processing capacity, which could have 
negative implications for harvesters, processors, and fishery-dependent 
communities.
    For the foregoing reasons, NMFS approved Amendment 97 and found no 
basis for full or partial disapproval of the Amendment. The MSA does 
not provide NMFS with the authority to postpone implementation of an 
approved FMP amendment and postponing the implementation of Amendment 
97 is not warranted given its consistency with the MSA. The Council 
considered delaying the implementation of Amendment 97 until the 
implementation of a GOA trawl bycatch management action currently under 
consideration by the Council. The GOA trawl bycatch management action 
under development by the Council could include the components of a 
catch share program. Based on past experience with trawl catch share 
programs (e.g., the Central GOA Rockfish Program), a catch share 
program could provide additional flexibility to the GOA trawl fleet, 
including vessels in the Western and Central GOA non-pollock trawl 
fishery, to adapt their operations to minimize the use of Chinook 
salmon PSC. (For an example of the ability for catch share programs to 
minimize PSC use, see Sections 4.7.1 and 4.9 of the Analysis.) The 
Council decided to not delay the implementation of Amendment 97 for 
several reasons. First, the Council determined that a catch share 
program is not necessary for the Sectors to harvest groundfish TACs 
under the Chinook salmon PSC limits. Second, the purpose and need for 
this action is to implement an annual Chinook salmon PSC limit for the 
non-pollock trawl fisheries, not to implement broader catch share 
management in the GOA trawl fisheries. Delaying this action to await 
another action with a separate and distinct purpose and need is 
contrary to the purpose and need for this action. Third, the GOA trawl 
catch share program currently under consideration by the Council may 
not be recommended by the Council or implemented by NMFS. Delaying this 
action in anticipation of another future action is inconsistent with 
the purpose and need for this action. Finally, even if a GOA trawl 
catch share program is recommended by the Council and approved and 
implemented by NMFS, it would not be effective until 2017 at the 
earliest. This action will be implemented in 2015, substantially sooner 
than if implementation were delayed until a GOA trawl catch share 
program became effective. This action

[[Page 71355]]

results in a more timely implementation of an annual Chinook salmon PSC 
limit for the non-pollock fisheries that is responsive to the purpose 
and need of this action. Overall, the Council considered and rejected 
delaying the implementation of this action because the analysis 
indicates that Chinook salmon PSC can be controlled and potentially 
reduced without the implementation of a GOA trawl catch share program.
    Comment 6: One commenter stated that the goal of avoiding 
exceedance of the annual Chinook salmon ITS of 40,000 salmon has 
already been achieved without Amendment 97 due to the combination of 
the Chinook salmon PSC limit of 25,000 in place for the GOA pollock 
fishery under Amendment 93 and likely Chinook salmon PSC use in the 
non-pollock trawl fishery. When the highest recent use of Chinook 
salmon PSC of 10,877 salmon (in 2010) from the non-pollock trawl 
fishery is added to the Chinook salmon PSC limit of 25,000 for the GOA 
pollock fishery, the total Chinook salmon PSC could be as high as 
approximately 36,000 salmon. That amount is below the Chinook salmon 
ITS level of 40,000 Chinook salmon. Because Chinook salmon PSC is 
unlikely to exceed 40,000, the stringent Chinook salmon PSC limits 
established by this action are not necessary.
    Response: As stated earlier in this preamble, and in the preamble 
to the proposed rule, this action has three goals. The first of these 
goals is to avoid exceeding the annual threshold of 40,000 Chinook 
salmon identified in the ITS. With implementation of this action, NMFS 
expects that the combined annual Chinook salmon PSC for non-pollock and 
pollock trawl fisheries in the Western and Central GOA together with 
Chinook salmon PSC in other areas of the GOA will not substantially 
exceed 32,500 Chinook salmon on a long-term average annual basis. The 
Western and Central GOA Chinook salmon PSC limits established for the 
pollock trawl fishery under Amendment 93 (77 FR 42629, July 20, 2012) 
and for the non-pollock trawl fisheries under this action will 
effectively limit Chinook salmon PSC to a long-term average annual 
amount of 32,500 Chinook salmon. An additional de minimus amount of 
Chinook salmon PSC occurs in trawl fisheries in the Eastern GOA and 
non-trawl fisheries in the GOA that are not subject to a Chinook salmon 
PSC limit (see Section 1.2 of the Analysis for additional detail). 
Therefore, upon implementation of this rule, the combined Chinook 
salmon PSC from all sources will be below 40,000 Chinook salmon in all 
future years and the first goal of Amemdment 97 will be achieved.
    The Council and NMFS recognize that the Chinook salmon PSC limits 
established by Amendments 93 and 97 are below the ITS of 40,000 Chinook 
salmon and that Chinook salmon PSC may be less than 40,000 in most 
years, even if there were no Chinook salmon PSC limits established in 
the non-pollock trawl fisheries. However, without Chinook salmon PSC 
limits in the non-pollock trawl fisheries, NMFS could not ensure that 
the first goal of Amendment 97 would be met in all years, particularly 
during years of unusually high Chinook salmon PSC use in the non-
pollock trawl fisheries. NMFS agrees that other Chinook salmon PSC caps 
could have been chosen, such as a long-term average annual Chinook 
salmon PSC limit of 10,000 salmon, which would maintain total Chinook 
salmon PSC in the GOA below 40,000 salmon. However, the Council did not 
recommend these alternative Chinook salmon PSC limits because the 
second goal of this action is ``to minimize Chinook salmon bycatch to 
the extent practicable, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
National Standard 9.'' This second goal of the action is intended to 
establish Chinook salmon PSC limits that are as low as practicable, not 
to implement regulations that allow up to 40,000 Chinook salmon to be 
used as PSC even if a lower Chinook salmon PSC limit is practicable. 
For the reasons explained in the response to Comment 5, the Council and 
NMFS have determined that the Chinook salmon PSC limits implemented by 
this action are practicable.
    Comment 7: One commenter stated that unlike Bering Sea Chinook 
salmon bycatch, most of the Chinook salmon PSC in the Western and 
Central GOA non-pollock trawl fisheries originate outside the State of 
Alaska, are exploited at the juvenile life stage (not at the stage that 
they would be harvested by other users), and may be produced in 
hatcheries and are not from wild spawning systems. The commenter cited 
research that indicates that less than a third of the Chinook salmon 
taken as bycatch in GOA non-pollock fisheries are Alaskan, from 
Northwest GOA or Southeast Alaska coastal streams. The best available 
science suggests that there is no link between Chinook salmon PSC use 
in the non-pollock trawl fisheries in the GOA and the status of Alaskan 
Chinook salmon stocks.
    Response: Genetic data from samples of Chinook salmon PSC taken in 
the GOA trawl fisheries reveal that this PSC may include Chinook salmon 
that originate from British Columbia, the U.S. West Coast (i.e., 
California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington), Alaska, and Asia. Overall, 
the amount of Chinook salmon PSC used in the GOA non-trawl fisheries 
represents a small proportion of the known removals from the Chinook 
salmon populations in Alaska, British Columbia, and the U.S. West 
Coast, as described in Section 3.3 of the Analysis. Section 3.3 of the 
Analysis also indicates that there is uncertainty in the potential link 
between reductions in Chinook salmon mortality from the trawl fishery 
and potential beneficial impacts to spawning populations and 
recruitment of adult Chinook salmon originating in Alaska. Therefore, 
reductions in the amount of Chinook salmon PSC taken in the non-pollock 
groundfish trawl fisheries are not expected to result in substantial 
beneficial changes in the Chinook salmon populations or the amount 
available to other Chinook salmon resource users. Given the information 
available at this time, the Chinook salmon PSC limits imposed under 
this action may not have a quantifiable direct positive impact on 
Chinook salmon returns to river systems in Alaska. Additionally, the 
available data indicate that Chinook salmon PSC in the non-pollock 
fishery includes Chinook salmon from hatchery enhanced stocks from 
river systems in Alaska and outside of Alaska.
    The presence of Chinook salmon originating from British Columbia 
and the U.S. West Coast, in addition to Alaska, does not alleviate the 
need for PSC limits in the GOA trawl groundfish fisheries. Alaska 
groundfish fisheries must comply with ITS requirements for ESA-listed 
Chinook salmon species and minimize Chinook salmon PSC in the non-
pollock trawl fisheries to the extent practicable under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. The goal of Amendment 97 is not to have specific impacts 
on specific fishery stocks, but to meet the three goals described in 
the purpose and need for this action and earlier in this preamble. 
These goals are without regard for the origin of the stock. While the 
Chinook salmon PSC limits imposed by Amendment 97 may not have a 
significant beneficial impact on Chinook salmon stocks or spawning 
escapement, the Council and NMFS determined that these PSC limits will 
not have negative impacts on Chinook salmon populations or the amount 
of spawning escapement.
    Comment 8: One commenter stated that the PSC limit of 7,500 Chinook 
salmon does not address the subdivision of the cap between the three 
sectors and its effect. Between 2007 and 2013, the

[[Page 71356]]

proposed limit of 2,700 salmon for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector 
has been exceeded three times in the last 7 years and the three times 
that the limit has been exceeded occurred in the last 4 years (2010, 
2011, 2013). These higher years of PSC coincide with increased 
abundances of British Columbia and Pacific Northwest Chinook salmon. 
The limit for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector is too low and not 
responsive to changing conditions of Chinook salmon abundance.
    Response: NMFS acknowledged in the proposed rule that in some 
years, the annual Chinook salmon PSC limits for the three Sectors could 
constrain groundfish harvests and impose costs on participants in the 
non-pollock trawl fisheries. However, the proposed rule also explained 
why the PSC limits for each Sector were reasonable and consistent with 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. For example, on page 35983, the proposed rule 
explains that the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector allocation of 2,700 
Chinook salmon is set at an amount that is 8 percent greater than the 
7-year average from 2007 to 2013 for that sector. In addition to an 
allocation that exceeds the 7-year average, this action establishes an 
incentive buffer and provides for a reallocation of unused Chinook 
salmon PSC from the Rockfish Program CV Sector to the Non-Rockfish 
Program CV Sector as described in response to Comment 5. Furthermore, 
the PSC limits imposed by the action were derived from annual average 
Chinook salmon PSC usage during a period when there were no regulatory 
incentives for the Sectors to minimize their catch of Chinook salmon.
    Although the commenter draws a connection between the current high 
abundance of British Columbia and U.S. West Coast Chinook salmon and 
high Chinook salmon PSC use in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector, 
Section 3.3.2.2 of the Analysis indicates that a relatively high 
abundance of a specific stock or group of stocks does not necessarily 
result in higher Chinook salmon PSC. Therefore, the comment that the 
Chinook salmon PSC limit does not consider the abundance of Chinook 
salmon is not correct. The Council and NMFS considered Chinook salmon 
abundance when considering the Chinook salmon PSC limit, but the best 
available information does not indicate that establishing a higher 
Chinook salmon PSC limit based on abundance is necessary or 
appropriate.
    Comment 9: One commenter stated that the proposed rule does not add 
any new tools for members of the fishing industry to achieve the new 
PSC limits.
    Response: This action does provide additional tools for members of 
the industry to achieve the new PSC limits. This action includes 
regulatory provisions that establish an incentive buffer and allow 
reallocations of the unused portion of a Chinook salmon PSC limit to 
the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector from the Rockfish Program CV Sector 
to provide flexibility for utilizing available PSC limits within or 
between these sectors. As previously discussed in this final rule, the 
Council and NMFS have determined that these tools, in addition to the 
other features of Amendment 97, are sufficient to minimize the catch of 
Chinook salmon to the extent practicable in the GOA non-pollock trawl 
fisheries. The ability of the three sectors to adapt to the PSC limits 
with the available tools and those tools that would be provided under 
this program are discussed further in the response to Comment 11.
    Comment 10: One commenter noted that this action provides 
incentives for reducing PSC of Chinook salmon, particularly through 
application of an incentive buffer. Another commenter noted that the 
incentive buffer helps provide some means for adjusting to Chinook 
salmon PSC limits but provides limited relief.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the incentive buffer incorporated as 
part of this action will provide incentives to minimize Chinook salmon 
PSC during all years. The incentive buffer is designed to provide some 
additional flexibility for dealing with variability in Chinook salmon 
PSC in certain years, but NMFS agrees that the incentive buffer has 
limitations and may not offset all potential costs of compliance with 
the Chinook salmon PSC limits established by this rule during years of 
high Chinook salmon encounters. For the reasons stated in the responses 
to Comments 5 and 11, not all costs of PSC limits were practicable to 
offset while achieving the desired PSC reductions.
    Comment 11: One commenter stated that the amount of revenue loss 
for non-pollock groundfish trawl fisheries could be as much as $14 
million, as expressed at the wholesale level, and would have indirect 
impacts on the community of Kodiak. The amount of revenue loss for the 
C/P sector could be as much as $28 million.
    Response: Section 4.7 of the Analysis concludes that the potential 
economic impact on a sector, processor, or community that may result 
from this action will vary depending on the specific sector, time of 
closure, and other factors. The Analysis also provides a range of 
estimates for the maximum amount of revenue that may be forgone from 
the Non-Rockfish Program CV and Trawl C/P Sectors under this action, 
and a discussion of the reasons that actual forgone revenues and costs 
under this alternative are likely to be less than these maximum amounts 
of forgone revenue. These forgone revenue estimates are based on 
retrospective amounts of groundfish harvest reduction for the Chinook 
salmon PSC limits as applied to fishery performance in each year from 
2007 through 2011. The estimates of $14 million for the Non-Rockfish 
Program CV Sector and $28 million for the Trawl C/P Sector in wholesale 
value, as cited in public comment, are based on a single year where the 
difference between the PSC limit and observed catch (converted to 
average ex-vessel revenues) for the year is at the maximum that would 
have been observed during that time interval. The lower end of the 
range of maximum foregone wholesale revenue from the action for the 
Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector was $5.9 million. The lower end of the 
range of maximum foregone wholesale revenue from the action for the 
Trawl C/P Sector was $5 million. The Analysis also includes a 
qualitative discussion of how the lowest estimate of maximum forgone 
revenue for that year may be mitigated by actions that the Non-Rockfish 
Program CV, Rockfish Program CV, and Trawl C/P Sectors may take to 
avoid fishing locations with high Chinook salmon PSC and reduce 
potential losses in wholesale revenue.
    The Council and NMFS recognized that, in some years, the PSC limits 
implemented by Amendment 97 could constrain non-pollock groundfish 
fishing opportunities, resulting in foregone harvest and revenue, but 
determined that the action also mitigates these costs to participants 
in the fishery to some extent. As described in the preamble to the 
proposed rule, this action implements Chinook salmon PSC limits that 
consider the historic use of Chinook salmon PSC by the three sectors 
during a period of time when no Chinook salmon PSC limits were in 
effect and no regulatory incentives existed for the sectors to minimize 
their Chinook salmon PSC. The Chinook salmon PSC limits established for 
all three sectors are larger than each sector's historic average 
Chinook salmon PSC, as explained in the preamble to the proposed rule 
on page 35979. The Council and NMFS determined that these higher-than-
average Chinook salmon PSC limits, coupled with regulatory incentives 
to keep Chinook salmon PSC as low as possible so that the limits are 
not

[[Page 71357]]

reached before harvest of non-pollock groundfish allocations has 
occurred, should result in Chinook salmon PSC at levels below average 
historic use in most years.
    Section 4.7 concludes that the potential impact of the Chinook 
salmon PSC limits can be mitigated by specific actions taken by 
participants in the sectors. For example, the Trawl C/P Sector and 
Rockfish Program CV Sector participants have experience in coordinating 
some of their activities through private cooperative agreements and may 
be willing to change fishing behavior in response to PSC limits. If 
sector participants are successful in taking action to control Chinook 
salmon PSC use to avoid a closure, gross revenues may not be negatively 
impacted. NMFS' management experience in the trawl fisheries that 
operate under catch share programs and voluntary agreements indicates 
that PSC use in the groundfish fisheries has been reduced through 
increased communication among industry participants and coordination of 
fishing activities and effort.
    While participants in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector are not 
currently operating under cooperative agreements, participants in this 
sector are not precluded by regulation from forming voluntary 
agreements to minimize Chinook salmon or other PSC. Although voluntary 
agreements among all participants in a sector can be more difficult to 
establish than voluntary agreements among some participants in a sector 
under a catch share program, the Council and NMFS expect that vessels 
in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector will be able to modify fishing 
practices to minimize Chinook salmon PSC and mitigate the potential 
adverse economic impacts. As explained in the preamble to the proposed 
rule on page 35974 and in the Analysis at section 4.4.10, in 2014, 56 
percent of the participants in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector who 
operate in the Central GOA are participants in the Rockfish Program CV 
Sector and have formed cooperative agreements under the Central GOA 
Rockfish Program.
    Comment 12: One commenter stated that in the GOA pollock trawl 
fishery, Chinook salmon PSC estimates are derived from a census from 
observed vessels whereas in the non-pollock trawl fisheries, Chinook 
salmon PSC estimates will be based on samples taken by observers at 
sea. Due to the sampling design applied to the non-pollock fisheries, 
small samples from a small number of vessels could result in Chinook 
salmon PSC estimates for a sector that are derived from a single 
vessel's Chinook salmon PSC which may not be representative of the 
Chinook salmon PSC by other vessels in that sector. The commenter 
asserted that NMFS should modify observer sampling protocols in the 
non-pollock trawl fisheries and employ a census method on all observed 
vessels.
    Response: As explained in Section 5 of the Analysis, there are 
operational differences between the pollock and non-pollock fisheries 
that prevent the use of a census onboard observed vessels in the GOA 
non-pollock trawl fisheries. Currently, NMFS does not have the 
monitoring infrastructure needed to use a census for Chinook salmon PSC 
onboard observed CVs in the GOA non-pollock trawl fisheries. A census 
should account for all salmon caught by CVs in the non-pollock trawl 
fisheries and would require changes to observer coverage on GOA non-
pollock trawl CVs, and additional infrastructure at processors 
receiving deliveries from these vessels. Without these infrastructure 
changes, using a census of Chinook salmon PSC for the GOA non-pollock 
trawl CV sectors is likely to produce biased counts of salmon PSC, 
including Chinook salmon PSC. Therefore, NMFS will use basket sampling 
at sea from a random selection of fishing trips to account for Chinook 
salmon PSC by GOA non-pollock trawl CVs.
    NMFS acknowledges that Chinook salmon is a relatively uncommon 
species to be observed in trawl fisheries and is characterized by many 
small and zero counts encountered in at-sea samples with occasional 
large counts encountered in at-sea samples. NMFS has documented the 
possibility that small sample sizes could impact the estimates of the 
sector-level PSC used in a given season or year. This is discussed in 
detail in Section 5 of the Analysis and in the preamble to the proposed 
rule. NMFS agrees that there is a possibility that a Chinook salmon PSC 
limit could be reached based on an estimate derived from a few at-sea 
samples from a small number of vessels. The Council and NMFS considered 
all reasonable alternatives for producing in-season estimates of 
Chinook salmon PSC in non-pollock trawl fisheries for Amendment 97. The 
Analysis addresses each of these PSC accounting alternatives at Section 
5.2.2. Each alternative included trade-offs in administrative and 
industry cost, practicality, and data quality. For example, increasing 
observer coverage in the Non-Rockfish CV Sector so that each trip is 
observed was considered to be impracticable at this time and without a 
catch share program that included Chinook salmon PSC. It would also 
impose significant costs that could negatively impact a number of these 
operations. The analysis also considered accounting for retained catch 
at the point of delivery, but this approach may provide additional 
incentives for vessels to discard salmon PSC at sea. The selected 
approach of basket sampling at sea, from a random selection of fishing 
trips, represented the optimum balance of cost and data reliability for 
the CV sectors in the GOA trawl fishery.
    Comment 13: Section 4.8 of the Analysis states that NMFS would not 
have in place the requisite capacity to take systematic genetic samples 
of retained salmon in accordance with sampling protocols that have been 
implemented in the Bering Sea pollock fishery, and that while a 
different sampling method could be considered for the non-pollock trawl 
fisheries in the GOA, such an approach has yet to be investigated. NMFS 
has revised the genetic sampling methods for the pollock fishery in the 
GOA since the Council recommended Amendment 97 in June 2013. A genetic 
sampling approach similar to that currently used in the GOA pollock 
fishery should be investigated and, if appropriate, adopted for the 
non-pollock trawl fisheries in the GOA.
    Response: In the Bering Sea, all salmon caught by CVs are sampled 
through a census of each salmon delivered to a processor. For each 
Chinook salmon in the census, observers collect genetic samples from 
every 1 in 10 of those Chinook salmon. Section 5.3.1 of the Analysis 
describes the Bering Sea genetic sampling protocol in greater detail, 
and explains that is not feasible to apply that census-based sampling 
to the non-pollock trawl fisheries in the GOA given the specific 
operational characteristics of the GOA non-pollock fishery, vessel 
layouts, and the lack of other monitoring requirements necessary to 
verify that a complete census of salmon PSC has occurred on these 
vessels. The same feasibility problems for use of a census for salmon 
PSC accounting in the GOA non-pollock groundfish fishery would also 
apply if the census data were to be used as a basis for collecting 
genetic data samples from the census. Any bias created in the salmon 
census data would also transfer to, and create accuracy issues with, 
the genetic data. These lessons have been applied to GOA pollock 
fishery.
    The Alaska Fisheries Science Center has assessed biological samples 
from Chinook salmon collected by observers in the GOA trawl fisheries 
for several years, and the resolution of that data by

[[Page 71358]]

region of stock origin is steadily improving. In 2014, NMFS improved 
the sampling protocol in the GOA pollock fishery to address concerns 
about NMFS's ability to verify that salmon were retained on unobserved 
trips. One approach for accounting of all salmon caught on a trip is to 
conduct a census. A census for salmon in the trawl fishery would count 
each individual salmon caught by a vessel. NMFS replaced the method 
used in the GOA pollock fishery, which attempted to census salmon from 
all pollock deliveries, to a method that samples salmon only on 
deliveries from observed trips. This change is anticipated to improve 
data quality by reducing the risk of bias on unobserved trips and 
substantially increasing the number of genetic samples that can be 
collected. Section 5.3.1 of the Analysis describes the operational 
differences between the pollock and non-pollock fisheries that make the 
translation of sampling protocols from the pollock fishery to the non-
pollock fishery challenging. However, NMFS will continue to investigate 
optimal methods for sampling Chinook salmon PSC in the non-pollock 
fishery and apply the best available techniques as practicable.
    Comment 14: One commenter wrote that Section 5 of the Analysis 
states that if a sector's Chinook salmon PSC limit is less than 
approximately 1,500 Chinook salmon per week, it is difficult to 
adequately manage the Chinook salmon PSC limit. Given this, NMFS will 
not be able to effectively manage the Chinook salmon PSC limits, 
particularly for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector, or the small 
amount of Chinook salmon that may be reallocated to the Non-Rockfish 
Program CV Sector from the Rockfish Program CV Sector. Management is 
not adequately precise to manage the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector to 
allow the sector to fully harvest its target species.
    Response: Section 5.2.1.1 of the Analysis concludes that for some 
sectors, the timeliness and quality of the data available to detect 
small changes in the amount of Chinook salmon PSC during a weekly 
period constrain precision and accuracy for inseason PSC accounting. 
For the GOA non-pollock trawl fisheries, NMFS considers Chinook salmon 
PSC limits that are less than the historically highest weekly rate for 
the managed fishery to be too small to manage inseason because a PSC 
limit similar to that rate could be reached in one week. The Analysis 
states that for the GOA non-pollock trawl CV and C/P sectors, these 
amounts are about 1,500 Chinook salmon PSC a week for each sector in 
the Central GOA, and 1,000 Chinook salmon PSC a week for the C/P sector 
and 100 Chinook salmon PSC a week for the CV sector in the Western GOA. 
However, this action separates the CV sector into the Non-Rockfish 
Program CV Sector and the Rockfish Program CV Sector. Separate Chinook 
salmon PSC limits for these CV sectors decreases the weekly rate that 
NMFS would consider too small to manage. The Non-Rockfish Program CV 
Sector's annual Chinook salmon PSC limit is 2,700 salmon. From 2003 
through 2013, the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector has not reached a rate 
of 1,500 Chinook salmon PSC per week in the combined Western and 
Central GOA and the highest weekly Chinook salmon PSC use rate is 1,223 
Chinook salmon in the combined Western and Central GOA. This highest 
weekly rate for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector is lower than the 
weekly rate for this sector in the combined Western and Central GOA. 
This rate is less than half of the 2,700 Chinook salmon limit and would 
allow time for NMFS management to respond with a closure notice if 
required. Also, from 2003 through 2012, this rate has only been reached 
once during 346 weeks of fishing by this sector. The next highest 
weekly rate is considerably lower at 824 Chinook salmon. The Amendment 
97 PSC limits established for the three sectors are sufficient amounts 
for effective inseason management. NMFS also can effectively manage the 
PSC amounts that may be available to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector 
under the incentive buffer and the reallocation provisions.
    Comment 15: One commenter stated that salmon retention requirements 
are useful, but could go further by requiring 100 percent observer 
coverage to avoid inaccurate estimates of Chinook salmon based on 
extrapolations from observed trips.
    Response: Salmon retention requirements implemented by this action 
are not intended to and will not be used to estimate Chinook salmon PSC 
by NMFS, and therefore have no impact on how NMFS will manage the 
fishery. The salmon retention requirements are intended to assist 
industry efforts to track salmon delivered to shore, potentially for 
decision making within a sector, and for opportunistic collection of 
biological data for genetic analysis. One hundred percent, or full 
observer coverage for each haul or trip, is not necessary to obtain 
accurate PSC estimates of Chinook salmon within the non-pollock trawl 
sectors. As explained in Section 5.2 of the Analysis, NMFS has 
implemented 100 percent observer coverage in catch share programs that 
include transferable PSC limits allocated to a specific entity such a 
cooperative. Under these catch share programs, increased monitoring has 
been necessary to monitor the use of PSC and to enforce the regulatory 
provision that prohibits a specific entity with a transferrable Chinook 
PSC limit from exceeding its limit. The Council and NMFS did consider 
an option to allocate Chinook salmon PSC limits to Rockfish Program 
entities, which would have resulted in NMFS recommending increased 
monitoring requirements. However, that alternative was rejected for 
reasons described in Section 2.6 of the Analysis.
    Under this action, Chinook salmon PSC limits will not be allocated 
to a specific entity. Therefore, NMFS will monitor PSC limits using 
observer data collected under the restructured Observer Program (77 FR 
70062, November 21, 2012). One of the primary goals of the restructured 
Observer Program was to reduce the potential for bias in observer data 
and therefore improve catch estimates of groundfish and PSC, including 
salmon PSC. The restructured Observer Program deploys observers through 
a scientific sampling plan and has resulted in observer data that is 
representative of the GOA groundfish fisheries, including the trawl 
fisheries.
    Comment 16: One commenter stated that the preamble suggests that 
improvements in salmon reporting through the eLandings reporting system 
may assist in tracking and cooperatively managing Chinook salmon PSC 
limits for the trawl CV sectors delivering to shoreside processors or 
SFPs. This improved tracking and cooperative management is practicable 
only in the Rockfish Program CV Sector. The Non-Rockfish Program CV 
Sector is not likely to be able to voluntarily control or organize 
fleet behavior to adjust fishing patterns for avoiding Chinook salmon 
PSC, so improved eLanding data is irrelevant for this sector.
    Response: While NMFS agrees that the Rockfish Program CV Sector is 
more likely than the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector to be able to take 
advantage of information on Chinook salmon PSC from the eLandings 
reporting system to cooperatively manage its Chinook salmon PSC limit, 
the information provided by the eLandings reporting system also may 
have utility for the participants in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector 
regardless of whether all participants in that sector are fishing 
cooperatively under voluntary agreements. Many participants in the Non-
Rockfish

[[Page 71359]]

Program CV Sector are also participnts in the Rockfish Program CV 
Sector and participants in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector are not 
precluded from forming voluntary agreements to coordinate fishing 
patterns and use the data from the eLandings reporting system to 
minimize Chinook salmon or other PSC.

Classification

    The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that this final 
rule is consistent with the FMP, including Amendment 97, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, the AFA, and other applicable laws. After considering the 
comments received on the amendment and the proposed rule, the Secretary 
of Commerce approved Amendment 97 on September 3, 2014.

Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small 
entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such 
publications as ``small entity compliance guides.'' The preamble to the 
proposed rule and this final rule serve as the small entity compliance 
guide. This action does not require any additional compliance from 
small entities that is not described in the preambles. Copies of the 
proposed rule and this final rule are available from NMFS at the 
following Web site: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

Executive Order 12866

    This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of 
Executive Order 12866.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that, when 
an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the 
United States Code, after being required by that section, or any other 
law, to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency 
shall prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA). Section 
604 describes the required contents of a FRFA: (1) A statement of the 
need for, and objectives of, the rule; (2) a statement of the 
significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a statement of the assessment 
of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in 
the proposed rule as a result of such comments; (3) the response of the 
agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule, and a 
detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final 
rule as a result of the comments; (4) a description of and an estimate 
of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an 
explanation of why no such estimate is available; (5) a description of 
the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance 
requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small 
entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of 
professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; 
(6) a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the 
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the 
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the 
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative 
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant 
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the 
impact on small entities was rejected.

Need for and Objectives of the Rule

    A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule is 
contained in the preamble to this final rule and is not repeated here.

Public and Chief Counsel for Advocacy Comments on the Proposed Rule

    NMFS published a proposed rule on June 25, 2014 (79 FR 35971). An 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared and 
summarized in the ``Classification'' section of the preamble to the 
proposed rule. The comment period closed on July 25, 2014. NMFS 
received five public comment letters, containing 16 separate comments 
on Amendment 97 and the proposed rule. These comments did not address 
the IRFA or the economic impacts of the rule upon small entities. The 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not 
file any comments on the proposed rule.

Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by the Action

    This analysis considers the participants in the Western and Central 
GOA non-pollock trawl fisheries in 2012, which is the most recent year 
for which size, revenue, and affiliation data were available. The Small 
Business Administration (SBA) has defined a small entity in the finfish 
harvesting sector as an entity with annual gross receipts less than 
$20.5 million.
    In 2012, 19 trawl C/Ps participated in the Trawl C/P Sector. Only 
one of the C/Ps in the Trawl C/P Sector is classified as a small 
entity. All other members of the Trawl C/P Sector are affiliated 
through Amendment 80 and/or Central GOA Rockfish Program cooperatives. 
The combined annual gross receipts of these cooperatives total more 
than $20.5 million. Therefore, the remaining participants in the Trawl 
C/P Sector are not classified as small entities due to their 
affiliations in cooperatives with annual gross receipts exceeding the 
small entity threshold of $20.5 million.
    In 2012, the Trawl CV Sector was composed of 70 active vessels. 
These 70 vessels include all participants in the Rockfish Program CV 
Sector and the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. Fifty-four of these 
trawl CVs are classified as small entities. These 54 vessels classified 
as small entities include 31 vessels that were not affiliated with any 
cooperative, and 23 vessels that were affiliated with cooperatives 
(i.e., AFA, Amendment 80, Central GOA Rockfish Program) that generated 
less than $20.5 million in combined annual gross revenues.
    A total of 64 shoreside processors and SFPs may receive landings of 
groundfish from the GOA non-pollock trawl fisheries. Of these 64 
processing operations, as many as 53 may be small entities. Seafood 
processors are categorized as small or large entities based upon 
estimated seafood employees by company. NMFS does not maintain records 
on seafood processing employment for each firm or company, thus, these 
estimates of small entities are based on the best commercially 
available data.
    The estimate in the number of small entities reported in this FRFA 
have been updated from those in the IRFA to reflect recent revisions to 
SBA thresholds for identifying small entities businesses primarily 
involved in finfish harvesting from $19 million to $20.5 million (79 FR 
33647, June 12, 2014). These revisions to SBA thresholds increased the 
estimated number of small entities by four compared to the estimate 
provided in the IRFA. The four additional small entities are trawl CVs.

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    No new recordkeeping and reporting requirements have been 
identified for this action.

[[Page 71360]]

Description of Significant Alternatives to the Final Action That 
Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small Entities

    A FRFA must describe the steps the agency has taken to minimize the 
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the 
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the 
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative 
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant 
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency that affect the 
impact on small entities was rejected. This action is the Council's 
final preferred alternative, as defined in Section 2.4 of the Analysis.
    No alternatives or options that were omitted from the preferred 
alternative, or alternatives that were considered but not advanced, 
would have accomplished the action's objectives while reducing the 
potential economic impact on small entities relative to the preferred 
alternative. These other alternatives considered included defining the 
GOA trawl sectors differently, applying a different historic time 
period for establishing Chinook salmon PSC limits instead of the time 
interval selected, establishing a different long-term average Chinook 
salmon PSC, and allocating the Chinook salmon PSC to the GOA trawl 
sectors by smaller management areas or in different proportions than 
hose selected. The Council did not adopt a separate Chinook salmon PSC 
apportionment for small entities because a shared hard cap across all 
entities within each operational type sector promotes information 
sharing and collective action in avoiding Chinook salmon PSC, which is 
beneficial to all entities.
    The economic impact on directly regulated small entities is the 
extent to which entities incur additional costs in the avoidance of 
Chinook salmon PSC, or are limited in their groundfish harvest by a 
closure due to the Chinook salmon PSC limit being reached. Operational 
costs could arise from changing the location of fishing or from 
suspending fishing when relatively high Chinook salmon PSC occurs. In 
addition, it is possible that some costs may be incurred in attempting 
to determine Chinook salmon PSC rates in order to decide whether 
Chinook salmon avoidance measures are needed. These potential impacts 
are not expected to more significantly and adversely impact small 
entities relative to non-small entities. It may be the case that 
entities with cooperative affiliations have access to a broader array 
of information where spatial salmon avoidance is concerned, but many of 
the directly regulated small entities are also members of cooperatives. 
Moreover, under a shared Chinook salmon PSC limit, information sharing 
across the entire fleet is in the best interest of each entity, if the 
limit appears to be constraining. Finally, while non-small entities may 
have greater access to funds to invest in salmon excluding 
technologies--should they be developed and widely adopted--the small 
entities would benefit from the PSC reductions achieved by other 
vessels, as they would decrease the probability of fishery closure.

Tribal Consultation

    Executive Order (E.O.) 13175 of November 6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450 
note), the Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), 
and the American Indian and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S. Department 
of Commerce (March 30, 1995) outline the responsibilities of NMFS in 
matters affecting tribal interests. Section 161 of Public Law 108-199 
(188 Stat. 452), as amended by section 518 of Public Law 109-447 (118 
Stat. 3267), extends the consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 to 
Alaska Native corporations.
    NMFS is obligated to consult and coordinate with federally 
recognized tribal governments and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
(ANCSA) regional and village corporations on a government-to-government 
basis pursuant to E.O. 13175, which establishes several requirements 
for NMFS, including (1) to provide regular and meaningful consultation 
and collaboration with Indian tribal governments and Alaska Native 
corporations in the development of Federal regulatory practices that 
significantly or uniquely affect their communities, (2) to reduce the 
imposition of unfunded mandates on Indian tribal governments, and (3) 
to streamline the applications process for and increase the 
availability of waivers to Indian tribal governments. This Executive 
Order requires Federal agencies to have an effective process to involve 
and consult with representatives of Indian tribal governments in 
developing regulatory policies and prohibits regulations that impose 
substantial, direct compliance costs on Indian tribal communities.
    Section 5(b)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 requires NMFS to prepare a tribal 
summary impact statement as part of the final rule. This statement must 
contain (1) a description of the extent of the agency's prior 
consultation with tribal officials, (2) a summary of the nature of 
their concerns, (3) the agency's position supporting the need to issue 
the regulation, and (4) a statement of the extent to which the concerns 
of tribal officials have been met.
Tribal Summary Impact Statement
    Pursuant to E.O. 13175 NMFS mailed letters to approximately 640 
Alaska tribal governments, ANCSA corporations, and related 
organizations providing information about Amendment 97 and the proposed 
rule. The letter invited comments and requests for consultation on this 
action. One letter was received from Ahtna, Incorporated, an ANCSA 
corporation, expressing support for the action. NMFS received no 
requests for consultation. This final rule is needed to implement 
Amendment 97 to establish Chinook salmon PSC limits in the Western and 
Central GOA non-pollock trawl fisheries. Implementing Amendment 97 is 
consistent with the general support for this action expressed by tribal 
officials during testimony provided at the Council meeting in June 
2013.

Collection-of-Information Requirements

    This final rule contains references to collection-of-information 
requirements that have been reviewed and approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The 
collections are listed below by OMB control number.

OMB 0648-0316

    The Alaska PSD Program is mentioned in this rule; however, the 
public reporting burden for this collection-of-information is not 
directly affected by this final rule.

OMB 0648-0515

    The Alaska Interagency Electronic Report System is mentioned in 
this rule; however, the public reporting burden for this collection-of-
information is not directly affected by this final rule.
    In the proposed rule, NMFS requested public comments on the 
collection-of-information that are mentioned in this rule. No comments 
were received.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 21, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended 
as follows:

[[Page 71361]]

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

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  679.7, revise paragraph (b)(8) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.7  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (8) Prohibitions specific to salmon discard in the Western and 
Central Reporting Areas of the GOA directed fisheries for groundfish. 
Fail to comply with any requirements of Sec.  679.21(h) and Sec.  
679.21(i).
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  679.21:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (b)(2)(ii), paragraph (h) heading, and paragraphs 
(h)(1), (h)(4), and (h)(5); and
0
b. Add paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.21  Prohibited species bycatch management.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) After allowing for sampling by an observer, if an observer is 
aboard, sort its catch immediately after retrieval of the gear and, 
except for salmon prohibited species catch in the BS pollock fisheries 
and GOA groundfish fisheries under paragraphs (c), (h), or (i) of this 
section, or any prohibited species catch as provided (in permits 
issued) under the PSD program at Sec.  679.26, return all prohibited 
species, or parts thereof, to the sea immediately, with a minimum of 
injury, regardless of its condition.
* * * * *
    (h) GOA Chinook Salmon PSC Management for pollock fisheries--(1) 
Applicability. Regulations in this paragraph apply to vessels directed 
fishing for pollock with trawl gear in the Western and Central 
reporting areas of the GOA and processors receiving deliveries from 
these vessels.
* * * * *
    (4) Salmon retention. (i) The operator of a vessel, including but 
not limited to a catcher vessel or tender, must retain all salmon until 
offload to a processing facility that takes the delivery.
    (ii) The owner and the manager of a shoreside processor or SFP 
receiving pollock deliveries must retain all salmon until:
    (A) The manager of a shoreside processor or SFP has accurately 
recorded the number of salmon by species in the eLandings groundfish 
landing report; and
    (B) If an observer is present, the observer is provided the 
opportunity to count the number of salmon and to collect any scientific 
data or biological samples from the salmon.
    (5) Salmon discard. Except for salmon under the PSD program at 
Sec.  679.26, all salmon must be discarded after the requirements at 
paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this section have been met.
* * * * *
    (i) GOA Chinook Salmon PSC Management for non-pollock trawl 
fisheries--(1) Applicability. Regulations in this paragraph apply to 
vessels directed fishing for groundfish species, other than pollock, 
with trawl gear in the Western and Central reporting areas of the GOA 
and processors receiving deliveries of groundfish, other than pollock, 
from catcher vessels.
    (2) Non-pollock trawl sectors. The sectors identified in this 
paragraph (i) are:
    (i) Rockfish Program catcher vessel Sector. For the purpose of 
accounting for the Chinook salmon PSC limit at paragraph (i)(3)(i)(B) 
of this section, the Rockfish Program catcher vessel Sector is any 
catcher vessel fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, with trawl 
gear in the Western or Central reporting areas of the GOA and operating 
under the authority of a Central GOA Rockfish Program CQ permit 
assigned to the catcher vessel sector;
    (ii) Trawl catcher/processor Sector. For the purpose of accounting 
for the Chinook salmon PSC limits at paragraphs (i)(3)(i)(A) and 
(i)(3)(ii) of this section, the Trawl catcher/processor Sector is any 
catcher processor vessel fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, 
with trawl gear in the Western or Central GOA reporting areas and 
processing that groundfish at sea; and
    (iii) Non-Rockfish Program catcher vessel Sector. For the purpose 
of accounting for the Chinook salmon PSC limit at paragraph 
(i)(3)(i)(C) of this section, the Non-Rockfish Program catcher vessel 
Sector is any catcher vessel fishing for groundfish, other than 
pollock, with trawl gear in the Western or Central reporting areas of 
the GOA and not operating under the authority of a Central GOA Rockfish 
Program CQ permit assigned to the catcher vessel sector.
    (3) GOA non-pollock trawl Chinook salmon PSC limits. (i) NMFS 
establishes annual Chinook salmon PSC limits in the Western and Central 
reporting areas of the GOA for the sectors defined in paragraph (i)(2) 
of this section as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Unless, the use    If so, in the
                                                                The total      of the Chinook       following
                                                             Chinook salmon   salmon PSC limit   calendar year,
For the following sectors defined at Sec.   679.21(i)(2) .    PSC limit in     for that sector     the Chinook
                            . .                               each calendar     in a calendar   salmon PSC limit
                                                              year is . . .     year does not    for that sector
                                                                                exceed . . .      will be . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Trawl catcher/processor sector........................             3,600             3,120             4,080
                                                                             -----------------------------------
(B) Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector................             1,200                  N/A
                                                                             -----------------------------------
(C) Non-Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector............             2,700             2,340             3,060
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) For the Trawl catcher/processor Sector defined at Sec.  
679.21(i)(2)(ii):
    (A) NMFS establishes a seasonal limit within the sector's annual 
Chinook salmon PSC limit that is available to the sector prior to June 
1. If the Trawl catcher/processor Sector defined at Sec.  
679.21(i)(2)(ii) has an annual Chinook salmon PSC limit of 3,600 
Chinook salmon, then the sector's seasonal limit prior to June 1 is 
2,376 Chinook salmon. If the Trawl catcher/processor Sector defined at 
Sec.  679.21(i)(2)(ii) has an annual Chinook salmon PSC limit of 4,080 
Chinook salmon, then the sector's seasonal limit prior to June 1 is 
2,693 Chinook salmon.
    (B) The amount of Chinook salmon PSC limit available to the Trawl 
catcher/processor Sector defined at Sec.  679.21(i)(2) on June 1 
through the

[[Page 71362]]

remainder of the calendar year will be the annual Chinook salmon PSC 
limit specified for the Trawl catcher/processor Sector minus the number 
of Chinook salmon PSC used by that sector prior to June 1.
    (4) Rockfish Program catcher vessel Sector reallocation of Chinook 
salmon PSC limit. (i) If, on October 1 of each year, the Regional 
Administrator determines that more than 150 Chinook salmon are 
available in the Rockfish Program catcher vessel Sector Chinook salmon 
PSC limit specified at paragraph (i)(3)(i)(B) of this section, the 
Regional Administrator will reallocate all Chinook salmon PSC available 
to the Rockfish Program catcher vessel Sector except for 150 Chinook 
salmon to the Non-Rockfish Program catcher vessel Sector Chinook salmon 
PSC limit specified at paragraph (i)(3)(i)(C) of this section.
    (ii) On November 15 of each year, the Regional Administrator will 
reallocate all of the remaining Chinook salmon available in the 
Rockfish Program catcher vessel Sector Chinook salmon PSC limit 
specified at paragraph (i)(3)(i)(B) of this section to the Non-Rockfish 
Program catcher vessel Sector Chinook salmon PSC limit specified at 
paragraph (i)(3)(i)(C) of this section.
    (5) Salmon retention. (i) The operator of a catcher vessel or 
tender must retain all salmon until offload to a processing facility 
that takes the delivery.
    (ii) The owner and manager of a shoreside processor or SFP 
receiving non-pollock fishery deliveries must retain all salmon until 
the number of salmon by species has been accurately recorded in the 
eLandings groundfish landing report.
    (iii) The operator of a catcher/processor must retain all salmon 
until an observer is provided the opportunity to collect scientific 
data or biological samples, and the number of salmon by species has 
been accurately recorded in the eLandings At-sea production report.
    (6) Salmon discard. Except for salmon under the PSD program defined 
at Sec.  679.26, all salmon must be discarded after the requirements at 
paragraph (i)(5)(ii) or (i)(5)(iii) of this section have been met.
    (7) Chinook salmon PSC closures in non-pollock trawl gear 
fisheries. If, during the fishing year, the Regional Administrator 
determines that:
    (i) Vessels in a sector defined at Sec.  679.21(i)(2) will catch 
the applicable Chinook salmon PSC limit specified at paragraph 
(i)(3)(i) of this section for that sector, NMFS will publish 
notification in the Federal Register closing directed fishing for all 
groundfish species, other than pollock, with trawl gear in the Western 
and Central reporting areas of the GOA for that sector; or
    (ii) Vessels in the Trawl catcher/processor Sector defined at Sec.  
679.21(i)(2) will catch the seasonal Chinook salmon PSC limit specified 
under paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(A) of this section prior to June 1, NMFS 
will publish notification in the Federal Register closing directed 
fishing for groundfish species, other than pollock, with trawl gear in 
the Western and Central reporting areas of the GOA for all vessels in 
the Trawl catcher/processor Sector defined at Sec.  679.21(i)(2) until 
June 1. Directed fishing for groundfish species, other than pollock, 
with trawl gear in the Western and Central reporting areas of the GOA 
for vessels in the Trawl catcher/processor Sector defined at Sec.  
679.21(i)(2) will reopen on June 1 with the Chinook salmon PSC limit 
determined under paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(B) of this section unless NMFS 
determines that the amount of Chinook salmon PSC limit available to the 
sector is insufficient to allow the sector to fish and not exceed its 
annual Chinook salmon PSC limit.

[FR Doc. 2014-28096 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P