[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 106 (Friday, June 4, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29977-29986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11716]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No.: 210528-0119]
RIN 0648-BK31


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Cook Inlet 
Salmon; Amendment 14

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 14 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive 
Economic Zone (EEZ) Off Alaska (Salmon FMP). If approved, Amendment 14 
would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea into the Salmon FMP's West 
Area, thereby bringing the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea and the commercial 
salmon fisheries that occur within it under Federal management by the 
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS. The 
management measure implemented by Amendment 14 would be to apply the 
prohibition on commercial salmon fishing that is currently established 
in the West Area to the newly added Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. This 
proposed rule is necessary to comply with a U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Ninth Circuit ruling and to ensure the Salmon FMP is consistent 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). This proposed rule is intended to promote the 
goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Salmon FMP, and 
other applicable laws.

DATES: Submit comments on or before July 6, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2021-0018, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2021-0018 in the Search box. 
Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter 
or attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant 
Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region 
NMFS. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, 
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender 
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter 
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
    Electronic copies of the Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory 
Impact Review, and the Social Impact Analysis (collectively referred to 
as the ``Analysis''), and the draft Finding of No Significant Impact 
prepared for this proposed rule may be

[[Page 29978]]

obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region 
website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for Action

    NMFS manages U.S. salmon fisheries off of Alaska under the Salmon 
FMP. The Council prepared, and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 
approved, the Salmon FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the Salmon FMP are 
located at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. 
fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600. The Council is authorized to 
prepare and recommend an FMP amendment for the conservation and 
management of a fishery managed under the FMP. NMFS conducts rulemaking 
to implement FMP amendments and regulatory amendments.
    The Council recommended Amendment 14 to incorporate the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Subarea (defined as EEZ waters north of a line at 59[deg]46.15' N) 
into the Salmon FMP's Fishery Management Unit as a part of the West 
Area. The West Area is currently defined as the EEZ off Alaska in the 
Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, and the Gulf of Alaska west of 
the longitude of Cape Suckling, at 143[deg]53.6' W longitude except for 
the Cook Inlet Area, the Prince William Sound Area, and the Alaska 
Peninsula Area. This proposed rule would implement Amendment 14.
    A notice of availability (NOA) for Amendment 14 was published in 
the Federal Register on May 18, 2021 with comments invited through July 
19, 2021. All relevant written comments received by July 19, 2021, 
whether specifically directed to the NOA or this proposed rule, will be 
considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, disapprove, or partially 
approve Amendment 14. Commenters do not need to submit the same 
comments on both the NOA and this proposed rule. Comments submitted on 
this proposed rule by the end of the comment period for this proposed 
rule (See DATES) will be considered by NMFS in our decision whether to 
approve and implement Amendment 14.

Background

    In December 2020, the Council recommended Amendment 14 to the 
Salmon FMP. Amendment 14 would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea 
into the Salmon FMP's West Area, thereby bringing the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Subarea and the commercial salmon fisheries that occur within it under 
Federal management by the Council and NMFS. The management measure 
implemented by Amendment 14 would apply the prohibition on commercial 
salmon fishing that is currently established in the West Area to the 
newly added Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. This proposed rule would implement 
Amendment 14 by removing the regulation that excludes the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Subarea from the directly adjacent West Area. This action 
specifically addresses management of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea and the 
commercial salmon fishery that occurs there.

History of the Salmon FMP

    The Council's Salmon FMP manages the Pacific salmon fisheries in 
the EEZ from 3 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles off Alaska. The 
Council developed the Salmon FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and it 
first became effective in 1979. The Salmon FMP was comprehensively 
revised by Amendment 3 in 1990 (55 FR 47773, November 15, 1990), and 
again most recently by Amendment 12 in 2012 (77 FR 75570, December 21, 
2012).
    Since 1979, the Council has divided the Salmon FMP's coverage into 
the West Area and the East Area, with the boundary between the two 
areas at Cape Suckling, at 143[deg]53.6' W longitude. This action 
focuses on commercial salmon fishing management in the West Area. Prior 
to Amendment 12, the Salmon FMP authorized commercial fishing in the 
East Area, sport salmon fishing in both areas, and prohibited 
commercial salmon fishing in the West Area. However, the commercial 
salmon fishing prohibition in the West Area was not applied to three 
areas in the EEZ where commercial salmon fishing with nets was 
originally authorized by the International Convention for the High Seas 
Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean, as implemented by the North 
Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954 (1954 Act). The Salmon FMP refers to 
these three areas of the EEZ where commercial net fishing for salmon 
occurs as the ``Cook Inlet EEZ,'' the ``Alaska Peninsula EEZ,'' and the 
``Prince William Sound EEZ,'' and refers to these areas collectively as 
the ``traditional net fishing areas.'' Under the authority of the 1954 
Act, NMFS issued regulations that set the outside fishing boundaries 
for the traditional net fishing areas as those set forth under State of 
Alaska (State) regulations and stated that any fishing in these areas 
was to be conducted pursuant to State regulations.
    In 1990, the Council amended the Salmon FMP, continuing to prohibit 
commercial salmon fishing with nets in the EEZ, with the exception of 
the traditional net fishing areas managed by the State. The next major 
modification to the Salmon FMP occurred when the Council recommended 
Amendment 12 in December 2011. In developing Amendment 12, the Council 
recognized that the law governing the three traditional net fishing 
areas (the 1954 Act) had changed and the Salmon FMP was vague with 
respect to Federal management of the traditional net fishing areas. 
After considering various alternatives, the Council recommended and 
NMFS approved Amendment 12, which removed the three traditional net 
fishing areas from the Salmon FMP's Fishery Management Unit.
    Removing the traditional net fishing areas from the Salmon FMP's 
West Area allowed the State to continue managing these areas 
independently, which the State has done since before the inception of 
the Salmon FMP in 1979. Any commercial fishing for salmon by State 
registered vessels in the traditional net fishing areas is managed 
solely by the State. In developing Amendment 12, the Council considered 
Federal management of the three traditional net fishing areas and the 
salmon fisheries that occur within them, but determined that (1) the 
State was managing the salmon fisheries within these three areas 
consistent with the policies and standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
(2) the Council and NMFS did not have the expertise or infrastructure 
(such as personnel, monitoring and reporting systems, and processes for 
salmon stock assessments) to manage Alaska salmon fisheries, and (3) 
Federal management of these areas would not serve a useful purpose or 
provide additional benefits and protections to the salmon fisheries 
within these areas. The Council recognized that salmon are best managed 
as a unit throughout their range and separate Federal management of a 
portion of the fishery would not be optimal. The Council also 
recognized the State's long-standing expertise and well developed 
infrastructure for salmon management and the fact that the State has 
been adequately managing the salmon fisheries in Alaska since 
Statehood. The Council determined that Amendment 12 was consistent with 
the management approach established in the original Salmon FMP in 1979.
    The final rule implementing Amendment 12 was published in the 
Federal Register on December 21, 2012 (77 FR 75570). On January 18, 
2013, Cook Inlet commercial salmon fishermen and seafood processors 
filed

[[Page 29979]]

a lawsuit in Federal district court challenging Amendment 12 and its 
implementing regulations. United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. NMFS, No. 
3:13-cv-00104-TMB, 2014 WL 10988279 (D. Alaska 2014). The lawsuit 
included a challenge to Amendment 12's removal of the Cook Inlet EEZ 
from the Salmon FMP. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that section 
302(h)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(h)(1)) clearly 
and unambiguously requires a Council to prepare and submit FMPs for 
each fishery under its authority that requires conservation and 
management. United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. NMFS, 837 F.3d 1055, 1065 
(9th Cir. 2016). Because NMFS agreed that the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon 
fishery needs conservation and management by some entity, the Ninth 
Circuit ruled that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that it be 
included in the Salmon FMP.

Developing Management Alternatives

    The Council spent significant time from 2017 to 2020 developing and 
evaluating management alternatives to comply with the Ninth Circuit's 
ruling. The Council broadly identified two management approaches for 
amending the FMP, one that would incorporate the area into the Salmon 
FMP and delegate authority over specific management measures to the 
State with review and oversight by the Council (Alternative 2; Section 
2.4 of the Analysis), and one that would incorporate the area into the 
Salmon FMP and retain all management within the Federal process 
(Alternative 3; Section 2.5 of the Analysis). The Analysis identified 
the management measures and processes that would be required to 
implement these two approaches, as well as the complexities, 
uncertainties, benefits, costs, and burdens to fishery participants 
associated with these two approaches. In October 2020, the Council 
considered all of this information and chose to identify an approach 
that would incorporate the Cook Inlet EEZ into the Salmon FMP and close 
the area to commercial salmon fishing as a separate and distinct 
management alternative (Alternative 4; Section 2.6 of the Analysis). 
This approach was previously identified as a potential management 
outcome under Alternative 3. Similar to Alternative 3, Alternative 4 
would retain all management within the Federal process and would not 
delegate management authority to the State. It is also noted that the 
Council considered taking no action (Alternative 1; Section 2.3 of the 
Analysis), but this is not a viable approach because it would be 
inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit ruling and the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act.
    To obtain important participant insight into the management of Cook 
Inlet salmon fisheries, the Council formed the Cook Inlet Salmon 
Committee (Committee), consisting of Cook Inlet salmon fishery 
stakeholders from the harvesting and processing sectors. The Committee 
met six times from 2018 to 2020 to develop recommendations for the 
Council regarding management of the Cook Inlet EEZ. Ultimately, the 
Committee recommended that management be delegated to the State, but 
with expanded Federal oversight and review, as well as a management 
scope that included both the State marine and fresh waters of Cook 
Inlet. The Council did not include the Committee's recommended 
alternative for further consideration because the Council does not have 
any jurisdiction over State fresh waters and can only assert 
jurisdiction over fisheries occurring within State marine waters under 
very limited circumstances if the Secretary preempts state management 
under section 306(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1856(b)). 
The conditions required for preemption are not met for the salmon 
fisheries in the State marine waters of Cook Inlet. A more complete 
discussion of the Committee's work and consideration by the Council can 
be found in Sections 1.4 and 2.7 of the Analysis, respectively.
    Over the course of several years, Federal and State fisheries 
scientists and fishery managers developed proposed status determination 
criteria complete with all the reference points required by the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act for appropriate conservation and management of 
Cook Inlet salmon stocks. These criteria were reviewed by the Council 
and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). This was a 
significant undertaking and integral to the development and analysis of 
alternatives. This process included input from State scientists 
currently managing the fishery, as well as comments from Committee 
members and other stakeholders. The proposed status determination 
criteria and reference points served as the foundation for proposed 
Federal management of the Cook Inlet EEZ under Alternatives 2 and 3 but 
were also applied retrospectively to provide a comprehensive assessment 
of the State's escapement-based management of Cook Inlet salmon stocks. 
The Analysis found that State management of Cook Inlet salmon stocks 
has been consistently appropriate for conservation within the bounds of 
the status determination criteria that would be implemented under 
Federal management. The analysis further determined that the addition 
of Federal management is unlikely to appreciably change salmon 
conservation metrics and thresholds established in Cook Inlet (Section 
3.1 of the Analysis). However, while conservation objectives for Cook 
Inlet salmon stocks were consistent across alternatives, the Analysis 
demonstrated that the ability to fully achieve these objectives while 
accounting for management uncertainty and management flexibility varied 
among alternatives (Sections 3.1 and 4.7.1 of the Analysis).
    Recognizing the significant regional, cultural, and economic 
importance of Cook Inlet salmon resources, the Council invested 
significant resources towards working to find solutions to challenges 
identified by stakeholders and fishery managers throughout the Salmon 
FMP amendment development process. While the Council identified some 
flexibility with the specific management measures that could be 
implemented under Federal management with specific management measures 
delegated to the State (Alternative 2) and Federal management 
(Alternatives 3 and 4), neither the Council, NMFS, the State, nor 
stakeholders were able to identify another fundamentally different 
management approach that could satisfy the Ninth Circuit ruling, the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
    After this extensive review and development process, and as 
explained in further detail below, the Council took final action to 
recommend Alternative 4 as Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP. The Council 
determined, and NMFS agrees, that Federal management of the Cook Inlet 
EEZ through closure of the area to commercial salmon fishing (1) takes 
the most precautionary approach to minimizing the potential for 
overfishing, (2) avoids creating new management uncertainty, (3) 
minimizes regulatory burden to fishery participants, (4) maximizes 
management efficiency for Cook Inlet salmon fisheries, and (5) avoids 
the introduction of an additional management jurisdiction and the 
associated uncertainty it would add to the already complex and 
interdependent network of Cook Inlet salmon fisheries.
    The Council considered but did not select Alternative 2, which 
would have delegated management authority over the Cook Inlet EEZ to 
the State. During Council deliberation, the State announced that it 
would not accept a delegation of management authority for Cook Inlet. 
Although section

[[Page 29980]]

306(a)(3)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows a Council to delegate 
management authority to a state, subject to a three-quarters majority 
vote, neither the Council nor NMFS can compel a state to cooperate in a 
fishery management plan that delegates authority (16 U.S.C. 
1856(a)(3)(B)). Therefore, after the State announced it would not 
accept delegated management authority for the Cook Inlet EEZ, 
Alternative 2 was no longer a viable option.
    Because Alternative 1 (no action) and Alternative 2 (Federal 
management with specific management measures delegated to the State) 
were not viable, this focused Council consideration on Alternative 3 
(Federal management) and Alternative 4 (Federal management with the 
Cook Inlet EEZ closed to commercial salmon fishing). The Council 
considered and rejected Alternative 3. The Council determined, and NMFS 
agrees, that a separately managed Federal commercial salmon fishery in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ would have significant management challenges 
alongside adjacent State-managed salmon fisheries, resulting in 
precautionary reductions in EEZ salmon harvests or closures of the area 
as detailed in Sections 2.5 and 4.7.1.3 of the Analysis. When a 
commercial salmon fishery could occur in the Cook Inlet EEZ, 
Alternative 3 would create new management uncertainty relative to the 
status quo because Federal harvest limits must be established preseason 
and Federal fishery managers do not have the same tools and flexibility 
available to State managers to quickly respond to updated in-season 
information about salmon runs that deviate from preseason estimates 
(Sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.10 of the Analysis). Alternative 3 would 
increase the risk of overfishing or forgone yield.
    For example, if a salmon run is larger than expected and a Federal 
catch limit for a stock is reached, it is unlikely Federal managers 
would be able to adjust Federal catch limits to provide for additional 
harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ within the window of harvest opportunity. 
These salmon would later be available for harvest in State waters, but 
because it would be difficult to predict the timing of Federal closures 
and such closures could occur with short notice, Alternative 3 is 
expected to make subsequent utilization in State waters more 
challenging. Conversely, if the run strength of one or more salmon 
stocks is weaker than expected, Federal managers would have less data 
to evaluate this as well as a longer delay to close the fishery, 
increasing the risk of not meeting escapement goals and overfishing 
weak stocks. It is important to note that the Cook Inlet salmon fishery 
targets mixed stocks of salmon. The composition, abundance, and 
productivity of salmon stocks and species in the fishery varies 
substantially on an annual basis, and the need to conserve weaker 
stocks and avoid overfishing by reducing fishing effort sometimes 
results in foregone harvest from more productive stocks. This is of 
particular concern for salmon gillnet gear which cannot always target 
strong stocks while sufficiently limiting harvest on co-occurring weak 
stocks. These practical considerations, combined with the preseason 
establishment of catch limits for each stock and stock complex, present 
significant challenges to consistently achieving appropriate harvest 
rates on all stocks under Alternative 3.
    In addition, NMFS must manage the Federal fisheries under its 
jurisdiction to prevent overfishing, including accounting for all 
removals, even when the removals responsible for causing overfishing 
are outside of NMFS's jurisdiction. Therefore, if the proportion of 
salmon removals increase in State waters, harvests in the EEZ would be 
reduced to prevent overfishing. Because of these factors and NMFS's 
overriding responsibility under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prevent 
overfishing, NMFS expects Cook Inlet EEZ catch limits under Alternative 
3 would be much more conservative than EEZ harvest levels under the 
status quo. As a result of limited data, increased management 
uncertainty, decreased management flexibility, and uncertainty about 
future State water harvest levels, NMFS expects that Alternative 3 
could often require closing the EEZ to commercial fishing to account 
for uncertainty and prevent overfishing.
    Another important consideration under Alternative 3 is the 
requirement for effective monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and 
enforcement of directly adjacent but separately managed State and 
Federal salmon fisheries within Cook Inlet. To ensure that salmon catch 
from the Cook Inlet EEZ could be accurately accounted for in order to 
avoid exceeding Federal catch limits, additional Federal fishery 
monitoring would be required (Section 2.5.7 of the Analysis). This 
would include requiring a Federal Fisheries Permit, completion of a 
required Federal logbook, and required use of a Vessel Monitoring 
System (VMS). Federal Fisheries Permits and logbooks would be provided 
at no cost to participants, but would require time to obtain and 
complete. The average cost for purchase, installation, and activation 
of a VMS is estimated at $3,500, and annual variable costs may include 
transmission costs of around $800 and potential maintenance and repairs 
averaging $77 (Section 4.7.2.2.6 of the Analysis). While there are 
grants available to help offset the initial purchase price of a VMS 
unit, ongoing operation and maintenance costs would be the 
responsibility of participants. These additional costs and burdens from 
required monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting would not be expected 
to produce commensurate benefits given the anticipated reductions in 
EEZ harvests and could disproportionately impact economically marginal 
participants.
    Ensuring that vessels participating only in the State waters 
fishery do not harvest in EEZ waters is another important 
consideration. As described in Section 2.5.7 of the Analysis, NMFS had 
concerns about monitoring vessels not registered to participate in the 
EEZ fishery to ensure that they do not intentionally or inadvertently 
harvest fish in the EEZ. This concern could be most simply addressed by 
opening the EEZ drift gillnet fishery at different times than when the 
State salmon drift gillnet fishery is open to allow for clear 
enforcement of the single open area. However, staggering the opening of 
EEZ and State salmon drift gillnet fisheries presents significant 
feasibility concerns given the dynamic nature of State management and 
the limited flexibility of Federal managers. For example, a short 
notice opening in State waters could disrupt a scheduled Federal 
opening. Additional monitoring of State waters participants could allow 
for concurrent State and Federal water openings, but this is not a 
viable solution because FMP requirements could not be imposed on 
vessels only registered and operating in the State waters drift gillnet 
salmon fishery.
    Under Alternative 3, the annual Council consideration and 
determination of whether to allow an EEZ fishery would also increase 
uncertainty for fishery participants and processors, as well as make it 
difficult for State mangers to optimize management of salmon fisheries 
within State waters given the strong interactions between all salmon 
fisheries in Cook Inlet and the potential for highly variable 
biological and management conditions across Cook Inlet in a given year. 
For example, multiple sets of State management measures and contingency 
plans would have to be developed in order to account for (1) whether 
the EEZ is open in a given year, (2) the potential for multiple salmon 
stock abundance scenarios, and (3) a potentially unpredictable closure 
of the EEZ to

[[Page 29981]]

commercial salmon fishing in a given year if a Federal catch limit is 
reached sooner than predicted. Therefore, NMFS expects that Alternative 
3 would pose significant challenges to achieving optimum yield (OY) on 
a continuing basis.
    Finally, the Council acknowledged that neither the Council nor NMFS 
currently has the expertise or infrastructure to optimally manage 
salmon fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska independent of the State. 
Federal managers would be dependent on a high degree of voluntary 
cooperation from State managers for successful management of Cook Inlet 
salmon stocks under Alternative 3. For a commercial salmon fishery to 
occur in a given year under Alternative 3, the conservation and 
management conditions described in Section 2.5.3 of the Analysis must 
be met. These include a Federal salmon data gathering process for Cook 
Inlet that is adequately supported with data from State salmon 
fisheries in Cook Inlet, a harvestable surplus of salmon available in 
the EEZ that could support directed fishery openings, and salmon 
harvest reporting tools that allow the Federal catch accounting system 
to adequately monitor harvest and bycatch such that overfishing can be 
prevented. While management capacity could be developed over time, 
independent Federal management could nonetheless result in annual 
closures of the Cook Inlet EEZ due to separate Federal and State 
management (Section 2.5.3 of the Analysis). Developing expertise would 
require significant agency resources, and new Federal infrastructure 
would increase the burden of regulatory compliance on participants. 
Even with an established Federal infrastructure and experienced 
managers, it is expected that EEZ harvests would be reduced over the 
long term for the reasons stated above without significant anticipated 
conservation and management benefits.

Amendment 14 and This Proposed Rule

    With Amendment 14 and this proposed rule, the Council and NMFS are 
proposing to amend the Salmon FMP and Federal regulations to comply 
with the Ninth Circuit's decision, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 
applicable law. Amendment 14 and this proposed rule would incorporate 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea into the Salmon FMP's West Area, thereby 
bringing the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea and the commercial salmon fisheries 
that occur within it under Federal management by the Council and NMFS. 
With Amendment 14, most existing FMP provisions that apply to the West 
Area, including the prohibition on commercial salmon fishing, would 
also apply to the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea.
    The reference points of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and OY 
would be separately specified for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery. 
Additionally, an annual catch limit (ACL) would be separately specified 
for the commercial salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea, 
reflecting the fact that Cook Inlet salmon stocks have historically 
been harvested in both State and Federal waters. This action would not 
modify reference points already established for the rest of the 
existing West Area. MSY would be established for the Cook Inlet salmon 
fishery as the maximum amount of harvest possible under the State's 
escapement goals, which is the largest long-term average catch that can 
be taken by the fishery under prevailing ecological, environmental 
conditions and fishery technological characteristics (e.g., gear 
selectivity), and the distribution of catch among fishery sectors (50 
CFR 600.310(e)(1)(i)). This includes the use of indicator stocks to 
manage where escapement is not directly known. Escapement goals account 
for biological productivity and ecological factors (Sections 3.1 and 11 
of the Analysis). The Cook Inlet salmon fishery includes the stocks of 
salmon harvested by all sectors within State and Federal waters of Cook 
Inlet.
    The OY range for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery would be the 
combined catch from all salmon fisheries occurring within Cook Inlet 
(State and Federal water catch), which results in a post-harvest 
abundance within the escapement goal range for stocks with escapement 
goals, and below the historically sustainable average catch for stocks 
without escapement goals, except when management measures required to 
conserve weak stocks necessarily limit catch of healthy stocks. This OY 
is derived from MSY, as reduced by relevant economic, social, and 
ecological factors. These factors include annual variations in the 
abundance, distribution, migration patterns, and timing of the salmon 
stocks; allocations by the Alaska Board of Fisheries; traditional 
times, methods, and areas of salmon fishing; ecosystem needs; and 
inseason indices of stock strength.
    The Council and NMFS determined that the proposed OY would be fully 
achieved in Cook Inlet State water salmon fisheries because 
compensatory fishery effort among various sectors in State waters is 
expected to make up for closing the Cook Inlet EEZ to commercial salmon 
fishing. Therefore, Amendment 14 would establish an ACL of zero for the 
commercial salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. The proposed 
management measure of closing the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea to commercial 
salmon fishing would achieve the proposed ACL. Given that the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Subarea management measure is fishery closure, additional 
reference points and accountability measures are not necessary and 
therefore would not be specified.
    This proposed rule would revise the definition of Salmon Management 
Area at 50 CFR 679.2 to redefine the Cook Inlet Area as the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Subarea and incorporate it into the West Area. This proposed rule 
would also revise Figure 23 to 50 CFR part 679 consistent with the 
revised definition of the Salmon Management Area at Sec.  679.2. As 
part of the West Area, the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea would be subject to 
the prohibition on commercial fishing for salmon at Sec.  679.7(h)(2).

Objectives and Rationale for Action

    The primary objective of this action is to apply Federal management 
to the commercial salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ in accordance 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In recommending Amendment 14, the 
Council ultimately concluded that managing the Cook Inlet EEZ by 
prohibiting commercial salmon fishing optimized conservation and 
management of Cook Inlet salmon fisheries when considering the costs 
and benefits of the available management alternatives. Through this 
proposed action, the Council would continue to apply its longstanding 
salmon management policy for the West Area, which is to facilitate 
State salmon management in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
applicable Federal law. As with the rest of the West Area, this policy 
would be achieved by prohibiting commercial fishing for salmon in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea so that the State can manage Alaska salmon 
stocks as a unit within State waters. NMFS determined that salmon 
fishery resources in Cook Inlet can be fully utilized by salmon 
fisheries occurring within State waters and that the State manages its 
salmon fisheries based on the best available information using the 
State's escapement goal management system. This proposed rule would not 
modify existing State management measures, nor would it preclude the 
State from adopting additional management measures that could provide 
additional harvest opportunities for harvesters, including commercial 
drift gillnet fishermen, within State waters.

[[Page 29982]]

    This action (1) takes the most precautionary approach to minimizing 
the potential for overfishing, (2) provides the greatest opportunity 
for maximum harvest from the Cook Inlet salmon fishery, (3) avoids 
creating new management uncertainty, (4) minimizes regulatory burden to 
fishery participants, (5) maximizes management efficiency for Cook 
Inlet salmon fisheries, and (6) avoids the introduction of an 
additional management jurisdiction into the already complex and 
interdependent network of Cook Inlet salmon fisheries.

Consistency of Proposed Action With the National Standards

    In developing Amendment 14, the Council considered consistency of 
the proposed action with the Magnuson-Stevens Act's 10 National 
Standards (16 U.S.C. 1851) and designed its proposed action to balance 
their competing demands. While all 10 of the National Standards were 
considered, five national standards figured prominently in the 
Council's recommendation for Amendment 14: National Standard 1, 
National Standard 2, National Standard 7, National Standard 3, and 
National Standard 8.
National Standard 1
    National Standard 1 states that conservation and management 
measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing 
basis, the OY from each fishery for the United States fishing industry. 
OY is the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit 
to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and 
recreational opportunities and taking into account the protection of 
marine ecosystems, that is prescribed on the basis of the MSY from the 
fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological 
factor. This action establishes MSY on the basis of State escapement 
goals and proxies that were evaluated through the analytical process 
for this action and determined to be consistent with the goals and 
objectives of the Salmon FMP and the conservation objectives of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    For the Cook Inlet salmon fishery, OY is based on the MSY 
escapement goals, qualitatively reduced to account for management 
measures required to conserve weak stocks. This OY ensures the Cook 
Inlet salmon fishery produces the greatest net benefit to the Nation by 
maintaining an economically viable fishery while still providing 
recreational and subsistence opportunities, accounting for consumption 
of salmon by a variety of marine predators, and protecting weaker 
stocks. As illustrated by Sections 3 and 4 of the Analysis, the State 
has consistently achieved this OY through its management strategy, and 
by allowing the State to continue managing Cook Inlet salmon as a unit, 
NMFS anticipates that OY would continue to be achieved in State water 
salmon fisheries. Thus, NMFS finds that the proposed OY for the Cook 
Inlet salmon fishery would be achieved on a continuing basis under 
Amendment 14.
    In addition, by prohibiting commercial salmon harvest in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ, the Council and NMFS would avoid creating new management 
uncertainty and reduce the risk of overfishing inherent to an 
independent Federal management regime that would not be well-suited to 
respond to in-season data as necessary to adjust harvest levels. 
Amendment 14 and this proposed rule would enable the State to continue 
to manage salmon fisheries in State waters to achieve escapement goals 
and maximize economic and social benefits from the fishery. While the 
closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea to commercial fishing impacts a 
significant proportion of the drift gillnet fleet's harvest, the 
closure would minimize the possibility of overfishing and would be 
expected to allow utilization of salmon to be maximized over the long-
term among all fishery participants as State management measures are 
refined to account for a predictable closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Subarea (Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis).
    The Council and NMFS properly weighed the adverse economic impacts 
that are anticipated to occur for some EEZ commercial salmon fishery 
participants from a closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea against the 
risk of overfishing and long-term achievement of OY through State 
fisheries. The Council and NMFS continue to recognize that the State is 
best situated to respond to changing conditions inseason to fully 
utilize salmon stocks consistent with the constraints of weak stock 
management in a mixed stock fishery. In light of this fact, through 
this action, the Council and NMFS are fulfilling their duty to manage 
the Cook Inlet EEZ and have determined that closing the Cook Inlet EEZ 
to commercial salmon fishing is the management approach most likely to 
maximize utilization of the resource while preventing overfishing. 
Management measures under the Salmon FMP and other Federal FMPs, 
together with the State's scientifically-based management program in 
State waters of Cook Inlet adjacent to the West Area, would continue to 
ensure that overfishing of salmon does not occur.
National Standard 2
    National Standard 2 states that conservation and management 
measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available. 
The Council carefully evaluated the available biological, ecological, 
environmental, economic, and sociological scientific information to 
determine how to most effectively conserve and manage Cook Inlet salmon 
resources. This process included SSC review to provide scientific 
advice for the fishery management decision, evaluation of uncertainty 
in the development of salmon escapement goals (Section 11 of the 
Analysis), and a comprehensive description of social and economic 
conditions in the Cook Inlet salmon fishery (Section 4 of the 
Analysis), as well as consideration of alternative scientific points of 
view regarding the potential for overcompensation in Cook Inlet salmon 
stocks (Section 13 of the Analysis). From this analysis, the Council 
determined that the State's escapement goal management system is based 
on and uses the best available scientific information to manage Cook 
Inlet salmon fisheries. Section 3.1 of the Analysis found State salmon 
management to be almost entirely consistent with proposed Federal 
measures for status determination criteria and reference points 
required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Specifically, this Analysis 
indicated that the State has and is appropriately conserving and 
managing Cook Inlet salmon stocks, that the State largely could have 
achieved Federal reference points over that time period, and that 
independent Federal management would not have been expected to produce 
significant conservation changes or benefits relative to State 
management of the salmon fishery based on Federal reference points. The 
Council also evaluated the social and economic impacts of their action 
using the best available scientific information.
National Standard 7
    The very high degree of consistency between existing State 
management and proposed Federal management was also important in the 
Council's consideration of National Standard 7, which states that 
conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize 
costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. The proposed management 
approach of closing the Cook Inlet EEZ to commercial salmon fishing 
avoids unnecessary duplication of management to the greatest possible 
extent. The

[[Page 29983]]

Council did recognize that this action could have significant costs 
because it closes an area responsible for just under 50 percent of 
drift gillnet fleet harvests, on average. However, under the only other 
viable alternative, the Council also expected significant reductions in 
EEZ harvests and possible fishery closures, but with added 
participation costs, management costs, and uncertainty, as described 
above. Ultimately, the Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that this 
action would provide for sufficient salmon harvest opportunity in State 
waters to largely offset the costs. In addition, closure of the Cook 
Inlet EEZ minimizes regulatory burden and participants would not have 
to track or participate in management of the Cook Inlet salmon fishery 
across multiple jurisdictions to plan their businesses. Finally, 
closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ would create the most efficient Cook 
Inlet salmon management arrangement of the two available management 
approaches. Under National Standard 7, management measures should not 
impose unnecessary burdens on the economy, on individuals, on private 
or public organizations, or on Federal, state, or local governments. As 
explained in more detail below under Potential Impacts of the Action, 
when the Council considered the costs and benefits of management by 
closure under Amendment 14 (Alternative 4), the Council determined, and 
NMFS agrees, that Amendment 14 is consistent with National Standard 7.
National Standard 3
    The Council highlighted that management of salmon in Cook Inlet is 
highly complex, requiring multiple interdependent management plans to 
achieve sustainable harvest of Cook Inlet salmon stocks that benefit 
all user groups. National Standard 3 states that to the extent 
practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit 
throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed 
as a unit or in close coordination. Given the significant degree of 
interaction among salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet, management of salmon 
stocks as a unit throughout all Cook Inlet salmon fisheries is 
particularly important. Management action in one Cook Inlet salmon 
fishery often has direct relationships with harvest rates and harvest 
composition by stock in other regional salmon fisheries. With 
commercial salmon fishing being prohibited in the Cook Inlet EEZ, all 
salmon fishing in Cook Inlet would occur within State waters under 
State management which continues to promote unity of management of Cook 
Inlet salmon stocks across their range. Separate Federal management 
under Alternative 3 would significantly disrupt management unity and 
would impose unnecessary duplication without additional benefits. 
Optimizing yield within acceptable management uncertainty thresholds is 
best accomplished by a single management entity in Cook Inlet. 
Developing Amendment 14 required extensive discussions and coordination 
between the managers of State and Federal jurisdictions to determine 
the best means of achieving the FMP's objectives and implementing a 
comprehensive approach to fishery management. The Council determined, 
and NMFS agrees, that management by closure of the federal fishery, 
which allows one jurisdiction (the State) to manage the harvest of 
salmon stocks as a unit, is consistent with National Standard 3.
National Standard 8
    The Council acknowledged that this action would likely have adverse 
impacts on drift gillnet salmon harvesters operating in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ and their associated communities, but would also likely have 
corresponding benefits to other salmon users within many of the same 
communities. National Standard 8 requires that conservation and 
management measures shall, consistent with the conservation 
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, take into account the 
importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing 
economic and social data that are based upon the best scientific 
information available, in order to (a) provide for the sustained 
participation of such communities, and (b) to the extent practicable, 
minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. The Analysis 
considered the social and economic importance of the Cook Inlet salmon 
fisheries to fishing communities, and recognized these communities 
participate in a variety of salmon fisheries apart from the drift 
gillnet fishery. While the Analysis identified varying dependence on 
the Cook Inlet EEZ portion of the Cook Inlet commercial salmon fishery, 
no community was identified as solely dependent on the EEZ portion of 
the drift gillnet fishery (Section 4.5.5 of the Analysis). In addition, 
the Council recognized that closing the Cook Inlet EEZ to commercial 
salmon fishing would result in additional harvest opportunity in State 
waters, and that the associated benefits would be distributed across 
Cook Inlet fishing communities given the diversity of users involved. 
In all, the Analysis supports a finding that this action would provide 
for the sustained participation of fishing communities in Cook Inlet 
salmon fisheries, even if there is some redistribution of benefits. 
Under this proposed action, it is likely that at least some of these 
benefits would accrue to communities that also experience adverse 
impacts based on their engagement and dependence on multiple Cook Inlet 
salmon fisheries. Therefore, this action is consistent with National 
Standard 8.
    In addition, closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea would minimize 
adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable by avoiding the 
costs of additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that would 
be required to access the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea under Alternative 3, 
despite reduced harvest opportunities and the annual possibility of 
closure to account for added uncertainty. Further, National Standard 8 
requires NMFS to consider adverse economic impacts within the 
constraints of conservation and management goals. This action is 
explicitly intended to prevent overfishing and achieve the conservation 
and management goals of the Salmon FMP while recognizing that an 
economically viable fishery would still occur within State waters.

Potential Impacts of the Action

    This action would close a portion of the historically used fishing 
area for the Upper Cook Inlet (UCI) drift gillnet salmon fishery. The 
UCI drift gillnet salmon fishery currently operates in both State and 
EEZ Cook Inlet waters without specific reference to the boundary and is 
the only commercial salmon fishery that would be directly regulated by 
this action.
    As described in Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis, the impacts of 
closing the Cook Inlet EEZ on UCI salmon drift gillnet vessels would be 
proportional to the extent that they rely on the EEZ. The entire active 
UCI salmon drift gillnet fleet likely fishes in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Subarea at some time during each fishing season, but over the entire 
season, each vessel differs with respect to its level of economic 
dependency on fishing in this area. Section 4.5.2.3 of the Analysis 
describes that from 2009 through 2018 an estimated average of 48.7 
percent of gross revenue ($10.3 million) for the UCI drift gillnet 
fleet was generated from salmon caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea. 
In the last 5 years, an estimated average of approximately 42.7 percent 
of gross revenue ($5.8 million) was generated in the EEZ for the 
fishery. While UCI drift gillnet vessels could relocate their

[[Page 29984]]

current EEZ salmon fishing effort to State waters under existing State 
regulations, their overall harvests may be reduced due to less 
productive fishing areas, increased travel costs, increased fishery 
congestion, and potentially less overall productive fishing time 
available in State waters. Conversely, catch rates in State waters may 
improve without commercial fishery catch in the EEZ. In addition, State 
management measures could be adjusted to allow more harvest in state 
waters to account for the Cook Inlet EEZ closure.
    It is not possible to estimate the magnitude of potential harvest 
reductions to the UCI drift gillnet fleet because of the complexities 
of Cook Inlet mixed-stock salmon fisheries and intertwined State 
management plans. If the UCI drift gillnet fleet cannot offset 
reductions in harvest within State waters due to the closure of the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea, it is likely that the UCI drift gillnet fleet's 
revenues and participation in the fishery would decrease. Reductions in 
harvest by the affected drift gillnet vessels are expected to provide 
additional harvest opportunity for other commercial and non-commercial 
salmon users in Cook Inlet. This is expected to offset forgone salmon 
harvest in the event the drift gillnet fleet is unable to make up its 
historical EEZ harvest amounts in State waters (Section 4.7.1.4 of the 
Analysis).
    This action would not prohibit or otherwise modify management of 
salmon fishing in State waters. The UCI drift gillnet fleet is expected 
to continue to operate in State waters under Amendment 14. It is 
important to note that State salmon management plans for Cook Inlet 
have been predicated on the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea being open to 
commercial salmon fishing by the drift gillnet fleet. The State would 
be able to modify management of all Cook Inlet salmon fisheries within 
State waters to account for the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea closure.
    This action is not expected to have significant impacts to salmon 
stocks or other affected parts of the environment. The State would 
continue to manage Cook Inlet salmon stocks within State waters 
consistent with current practices, and as described above, the State 
has consistently achieved conservation objectives. As described in 
Section 3.1.4 of the Analysis, harvest of Cook Inlet salmon stocks is 
expected to remain near or marginally below existing levels resulting 
in salmon escapements near or marginally above existing levels.
    While no significant impacts to Cook Inlet salmon stocks are 
expected, a closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea would have 
conservation and management benefits resulting from decreased 
management uncertainty. Importantly, commercial catch of Cook Inlet 
salmon stocks in the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea would be prohibited as a 
result of this action. This could improve management precision and 
better avoid overfishing as these stocks would be harvested nearer to 
natal streams where improved escapement data and better information 
about realized run strength is more likely to be available. This is 
particularly important given the life history of salmon that only 
allows for harvest in a single season for terminal fisheries. In the 
event of lower than expected salmon returns, the State has additional 
escapement data and can more rapidly take action to avoid a 
conservation concern using their Emergency Order authority when 
compared to the Federal rulemaking process because of the challenges 
described in Sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.10. Similarly, if realized run 
strength is better than expected, the State can better maximize 
utilization of surplus production by issuing an Emergency Order to 
allow for additional harvest opportunities, avoiding uncertainties from 
unpredictable EEZ closure timing identified in Section 4.7.1.3 of the 
Analysis.
    Additionally, increased passage of salmon stocks into Northern Cook 
Inlet may have other benefits. Prohibiting commercial catch in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Subarea could improve the density of salmon prey available to 
endangered Cook Inlet belugas present in northern Cook Inlet during the 
summer months as noted in Section 3.3.1.1 of the Analysis. If there is 
insufficient harvest capacity operating only in State waters, the 
escapement of some Cook Inlet salmon stocks could increase. While 
increased escapement may not be desirable for all stocks in all years, 
a closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea to commercial harvest minimizes 
the possibility of overfishing and would be expected to allow 
utilization to be maximized over the long term as State management 
measures are refined to account for a predictable closure of the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Subarea (Section 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis).
    This action would not directly regulate salmon processors, but may 
affect them. To the extent that this action would decrease catches by 
the drift gillnet fleet in Cook Inlet that are not offset by increased 
catch in State waters by the drift gillnet fleet or by other commercial 
salmon fishing sectors, deliveries of Cook Inlet salmon and associated 
revenues to processors would be reduced. The impacts to individual 
processors would be influenced by the dependency on Cook Inlet salmon 
harvested in the EEZ as described in Section 4.5.4 of the Analysis. The 
later entry of salmon stocks into the State waters of Cook Inlet may 
also lead to a later and shorter period of Cook Inlet salmon processing 
activity. Depending on the business models of individual processors, 
this could reduce processing efficiency.
    The previously mentioned impacts to Cook Inlet salmon harvesters 
and processors would also have impacts to associated communities in 
Cook Inlet and elsewhere as described in Section 4.7.1.4 of the 
Analysis. Decreases in the harvest levels of the UCI drift gillnet 
fleet under this action would have the potential to differentially 
affect communities, including communities associated with the UCI drift 
gillnet fleet and other salmon user groups. For communities engaged in 
or dependent on harvests by the UCI drift gillnet fleet, the potential 
adverse impacts to businesses connected to the harvest, processing, or 
support service sectors could result in greater or lesser localized 
impacts, depending on the specific nature and magnitude of community 
engagement in or dependency on the fishery in combination with the 
varying demographic and socioeconomic attributes of the relevant 
communities. However, reductions in salmon harvest by the UCI drift 
gillnet fleet are expected to be offset over the long term by increases 
to other salmon fishery sectors in these communities. Communities 
associated with these other salmon fishery sectors (e.g., the 
commercial set net, sport, and personal use salmon fisheries), may 
experience localized benefits based on the specific nature and 
magnitude of community engagement in or dependency on those other 
sectors but, as previously noted, it is not possible to estimate the 
magnitude of potential harvest benefits to these communities. Community 
level distributive impacts under this action are not anticipated to 
substantially affect net benefits to the nation (Section 4.10 of the 
Analysis).
    As this action would prohibit commercial salmon fishing in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Subarea consistent with existing management in adjacent West 
Area waters, no additional Federal fishery management measures are 
required. The West Area prohibition on commercial salmon fishing would 
continue to be enforced by State and Federal authorities under the 
revised boundaries resulting from this proposed action.

[[Page 29985]]

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is 
consistent with the Salmon FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration 
after public comment.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess costs and 
benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis 
is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Council recommended and 
NMFS proposes Amendment 14 and these regulations based on those 
measures that maximize net benefits to the Nation. Specific aspects of 
the economic analysis are discussed below in the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis section.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Proposed 
Rule

    This action would directly regulate holders of State of Alaska S03H 
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission Limited Entry salmon permits 
(S03H permits). In 2021, 567 S03H permits were held by 502 individuals, 
all of which are considered small entities based on the $11 million 
threshold. Additional detail is included in Sections 4.5.3 and 4.9 in 
the Analysis prepared for this proposed rule (see ADDRESSES).

Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts 
on Small Entities

    The Council considered, but did not select three other 
alternatives. The alternatives, and their impacts to small entities, 
are described below.
    Alternative 1 would take no action and would maintain existing 
management measures and conditions in the fishery within recently 
observed ranges, resulting in no change to impacts on small entities. 
This is not a viable alternative because it would be inconsistent with 
the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the Cook Inlet EEZ must be included 
within the Salmon FMP
    Alternative 2 would delegate management to the State. If fully 
implemented, Alternative 2 would maintain many existing conditions 
within the fishery. Fishery participants would have the added burdens 
of obtaining a Federal Fisheries Permit, maintaining a Federal fishing 
logbook, and monitoring their fishing position with respect to EEZ and 
State waters as described in Sections 2.4.8 and 4.7.2.2 of the 
Analysis. However, the State is unwilling to accept a delegation of 
management authority. Therefore, Alternative 2 is not a viable 
alternative.
    Alternative 3 would result in a Cook Inlet EEZ drift gillnet salmon 
fishery managed directly by NMFS and the Council. Alternative 3 would 
increase direct costs and burden to S03H permit holders and fishery 
stakeholders due to requirements including a Federal Fisheries Permit, 
VMS, logbooks, and accurate GPS positioning equipment as described in 
Sections 2.5.7 and 4.7.2.2 of the Analysis. Alternative 3 would also 
require that a total allowable catch (TAC) be set before each fishing 
season. The TAC would be set conservatively relative to the status quo 
in order to reduce the risk of overfishing without the benefit of 
inseason harvest data. Commercial salmon harvest in the EEZ would be 
prohibited if the Council and NMFS do not project a harvestable 
surplus, with an appropriate buffer for the increased management 
uncertainty. Further, as described in Section 2.5.3 of the Analysis, 
gaps in data could also require closing the EEZ to commercial fishing 
in any given year. Finally, Alternative 3 would increase uncertainty 
each year for fishery participants in developing a fishing plan because 
NMFS would determine whether the Cook Inlet EEZ could be open to 
commercial fishing on an annual basis and shortly before the start of 
the fishing season.
    As discussed, Alternative 3 would impose substantial direct 
regulatory costs on participants while at the same time is not expected 
to result in consistent commercial salmon fishing opportunities in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ. Alternative 4 would close the Cook Inlet EEZ but not 
impose any additional direct regulatory costs on participants and would 
allow directly regulated entities to possibly recoup lost EEZ harvest 
inside State waters. As a result, Alternative 4 minimizes impacts to 
small entities.
    Based upon the best available scientific data, and in consideration 
of the Council's objectives of this action, it appears that there are 
no significant alternatives to the proposed rule that have the 
potential to accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act and any other applicable statutes and that have the potential to 
minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the proposed rule 
on small entities. After public process, the Council concluded that 
Alternative 4, the proposed Amendment 14, would best accomplish the 
stated objectives articulated in the preamble for this proposed rule, 
and in applicable statutes, and would minimize to the extent 
practicable adverse economic impacts on the universe of directly 
regulated small entities.

Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

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

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements

    This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.


[[Page 29986]]


    Dated: May 28, 2021.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NOAA proposes to amend 50 
CFR part 679 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as 
follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  679.2, amend the definition ``Salmon Management Area,'' by 
revising the introductory text of paragraph (2) and removing and 
reserving paragraph (2)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.2   Definitions.

* * * * *
    (2) The West Area means the area of the EEZ off Alaska in the 
Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, and the Gulf of Alaska west of 
the longitude of Cape Suckling (143[deg]53.6' W), including the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Subarea, but excludes the Prince William Sound Area and the 
Alaska Peninsula Area. The Cook Inlet EEZ Subarea means the EEZ waters 
of Cook Inlet north of a line at 59[deg]46.15' N. The Prince William 
Sound Area and the Alaska Peninsula Area are shown in Figure 23 and 
described as:
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Figure 23 to Part 679 to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN21.007

[FR Doc. 2021-11716 Filed 6-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C