[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34718-34767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08664]



[[Page 34717]]

Vol. 89

Tuesday,

No. 84

April 30, 2024

Part VI





Department of Commerce





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





 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 600 and 679





Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Cook Inlet Salmon; 
Amendment 16; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 34718]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR 902

50 CFR Parts 600 and 679

[Docket No.: 240417-0111]
RIN 0648-BM42


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective on May 30, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of amendment 16; the Environmental 
Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Social Impact 
Analysis (contained in a single document and collectively referred to 
as the ``Analysis''); the Finding of No Significant Impact; and the 
public comment announcement and tribal consultation and meeting 
summaries prepared for this action may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/amendment-16-fmp-salmon-fisheries-alaska.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
final rule may be submitted to NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, 
Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Gretchen Harrington; in person at NMFS 
Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 401, Juneau, AK; and to 
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information 
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for 
Public Comments''; or by using the search function.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule implements amendment 16 to 
the Salmon FMP. NMFS published the proposed rule and Notice of 
Availability (NOA) for amendment 16 in the Federal Register on October 
19, 2023 (88 FR 72314), with public comments invited through December 
18, 2023. Comments submitted on the NOA and the proposed rule for 
amendment 16 were considered jointly. The Secretary of Commerce 
approved amendment 16 on April 9, 2024, after considering public 
comment and determining that amendment 16 is consistent with the Salmon 
FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.
    NMFS manages U.S. salmon fisheries in the EEZ off of Alaska under 
the Salmon FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) 
prepared, and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) approved, the 
Salmon FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 
1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the Salmon FMP are located at 50 
CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear 
at 50 CFR part 600. NMFS is authorized to prepare an FMP amendment 
necessary for the conservation and management of a fishery managed 
under the FMP if the Council fails to develop and submit such an 
amendment after a reasonable period of time (section 304(c)(1)(A); 16 
U.S.C. 1854(c)(1)(A)). Because the Council failed to take action to 
recommend an FMP necessary for the conservation and management of the 
Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery, NMFS developed amendment 16 to the 
Salmon FMP and this final rule pursuant to section 304(c) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act in order to comply with rulings from the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Alaska, and to ensure the Salmon FMP is consistent with 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Amendment 16 Overview

    Amendment 16 incorporates the Cook Inlet EEZ into the Salmon FMP as 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area (defined as the EEZ waters of Cook Inlet north 
of a line at 59[deg]46.15' N), thereby bringing the salmon fishery that 
occurs within it under Federal management by the Council and NMFS.
    Two different sectors participate in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon 
fishery: the commercial drift gillnet sector and the recreational 
sector. Historically, the commercial drift gillnet fleet has harvested 
over 99.99 percent of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Under this 
action, all salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area is managed by 
NMFS and the Council separately from adjacent State of Alaska (State) 
water salmon fisheries.
    Amendment 16 revises the Salmon FMP, beginning with an updated 
history of the FMP and introduction in chapter 1, as well as a revised 
description of the fishery management unit in chapter 2 that includes 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area as a separate and distinctly managed area. The 
management and policy objectives in chapter 2 are revised to include 
consideration of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Amendment 16 consolidates 
chapters describing management of the Salmon FMP's East Area and West 
Area into chapter 3. No substantive changes are made to Salmon FMP 
content related to the East Area and West Area.
    A new chapter 4 comprehensively describes Federal management 
measures and the roles and responsibilities of NMFS and the Council in 
managing the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery. In particular, chapter 
4 defines all required conservation and management measures, including 
maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), and status 
determination criteria, and includes an outline of the harvest 
specifications process. Chapter 4 also describes required Federal 
permits; fishing gear restrictions; fishing time and area restrictions; 
NMFS inseason management provisions; and monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements.
    Chapter 5 contains all content related to domestic annual 
harvesting and processing capacity, finding that all salmon fisheries 
off Alaska can be fully utilized by U.S. harvesters and processors. 
This finding is unchanged by this action.
    Chapter 6 contains information on Essential Fish Habitat and 
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern and is not modified by this action. 
Amendment 16 removes the outdated Fishery Impact Statement in the 
Salmon FMP. The Analysis prepared for amendment 16 contains the Fishery 
Impact Statement for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery and this action.

[[Page 34719]]

Maximum Sustainable Yield and Optimum Yield

    Under amendment 16, MSY and OY are specified consistent with the 
National Standard guidelines and are briefly described below. The 
definitions of MSY and OY are explained in greater detail in the 
preamble to the proposed rule and remain unchanged in this final rule.
    MSY is specified for salmon stocks and stock complexes in Cook 
Inlet and defined as the maximum potential yield, which is calculated 
by subtracting the lower bound of the escapement goal (or another 
escapement value as recommended by the Council's Scientific and 
Statistical Committee (SSC) based on the best scientific information 
available) from the total run size for stocks where data are available. 
An escapement goal is the number of spawning salmon likely to result in 
sustainable yields over a broad range of expected conditions. Any fish 
in excess of that necessary to achieve the escapement goal for each 
stock or stock complex are theoretically available for harvest under 
this definition of MSY. For stocks where escapement is not known, 
historical catch is used as a proxy for MSY.
    Amendment 16 defines the OY range for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon 
fishery in the Salmon FMP as the range between the averages of the 
three lowest years of total estimated EEZ salmon harvest and the three 
highest years of total estimated EEZ salmon harvest from 1999 to 2021. 
This definition of OY tempers the influence of extreme events in 
defining OY (e.g., fishery disasters at the low end, or extremely large 
harvests at the high end), thereby resulting in a range of harvests 
that are likely to be sustainable and provide the greatest net benefit 
to the Nation into the future.

Status Determination Criteria and Annual Catch Limits

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

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

    For stocks and stock complexes where escapement is known (Tier 1), 
or escapement of indicator stocks is thought to be a reliable index for 
the number of spawners in a stock complex (Tier 2), overfishing is 
defined as occurring when the fishing mortality rate in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area (FEEZ) exceeds the maximum fishery mortality 
threshold (MFMT). The MFMT is defined as the maximum potential fishing 
mortality rate in the EEZ above which overfishing occurs for Tier 1 and 
2 stocks, expressed as an exploitation rate that is assessed over one 
generation.
    For Tier 1 and Tier 2 stocks, the Salmon FMP defines the 
overfishing limit (OFL) as the amount of salmon harvest in the EEZ for 
the coming year that corresponds with the spawning escapement target 
not being achieved, based on information available preseason. 
Acceptable biological catch (ABC) is established based on the OFL. As 
an ABC control rule, ABC must be less than or equal to OFL, and the SSC 
may recommend reducing ABC from OFL to account for scientific 
uncertainty, including uncertainty associated with the assessment of 
spawning escapement goals, forecasts, harvests, and other sources. The 
annual catch limit (ACL) for each stock is set equal to ABC.
    For Cook Inlet salmon, the minimum stock size threshold (MSST)--the 
level of biomass below which a stock would be considered overfished--is 
calculated for stocks in Tier 1 and 2 as follows: a stock or stock 
complex is overfished when summed escapements over a generation fall 
below one half of summed spawning escapement goals over that 
generation.
    For Tier 3 stocks, which have no reliable estimates of escapement, 
overfishing is defined as occurring when harvest exceeds the OFL. The 
OFL for Tier 3 stocks is set as the maximum EEZ catch of the stock 
multiplied by the generation time (years). The result of this 
calculation is compared against the cumulative EEZ catch of the stock 
for the most recent generation. The SSC may recommend an alternative 
catch value for the OFL on the basis of the best scientific information 
available. As with Tier 1 and 2 stocks, ABC for these stocks must be 
set less than or equal to the OFL, and may be reduced by a buffer to 
account for scientific uncertainty. For Tier 3 stocks or stock 
complexes with escapement goals for a suitable indicator stock, the 
MSST is calculated the same as for Tier 1 and 2 stocks. For Tier 3 
stock complexes without any suitable indicator stocks with escapement 
goals, it is not possible to calculate MSST.
    While OFL, ABC, and ACL are calculated based on the best scientific 
information available preseason when harvest specifications must be 
established, realized harvest and escapement data are used post-season 
to determine whether ACLs were exceeded, whether overfishing occurred, 
and whether any stocks are overfished. Accountability measures are 
applied to prevent ACL overages and, if they occur, to prevent the 
recurrence of any ACL overages.

Harvest Specifications and Annual Processes

    Amendment 16 establishes a harvest specification process for the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area, along with specific definitions of required status 
determination criteria using the tier system described in the previous 
section.
    A Stock Assessment and Fisheries Evaluation (SAFE) report provides 
the SSC and Council with a summary of the most recent biological 
condition of the salmon stocks, including all status determination 
criteria, and the social and economic condition of the fishing and 
processing industries. NMFS develops the SAFE report for the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area, with public and scientific review through the Council process 
and public review through publication of the proposed salmon harvest 
specifications in the Federal Register.
    The SAFE report summarizes the best available scientific 
information concerning the past, present, and possible future condition 
of Cook Inlet salmon stocks and fisheries, along with ecosystem 
considerations, taking into account any uncertainty. This includes 
recommendations of OFL, ABC, and MSST that are calculated following the 
tier system described above. The SAFE report will include a final post-
season evaluation of the previous fishing year based on realized 
catches and escapement with all information needed to make 
``overfishing'' and ``overfished'' determinations, as well as 
recommendations to develop harvest specifications for the upcoming 
fishing year. In providing this information, the SAFE report uses a 
time series of historical catch for each salmon stock,

[[Page 34720]]

including estimates of retained and discarded catch taken in the salmon 
fishery; bycatch taken in other fisheries; catch in State commercial, 
recreational, personal use, and subsistence fisheries; and catches 
taken during scientific research (e.g., test fisheries).
    The SAFE report also provides information needed to document 
significant trends or changes in the stocks, marine ecosystem, and 
fisheries over time, as well as the impacts of management. The SAFE 
report will be developed to contain economic, social, community, 
essential fish habitat, and ecological information pertinent to the 
success of salmon management or the achievement of Salmon FMP 
objectives.
    The SSC reviews the SAFE report each year and recommends the OFL, 
ABC, MFMT, and MSST for each stock or stock complex, which then 
constrain the maximum allowable harvest for each stock based on biology 
and scientific uncertainty identified in the assessments. This SSC 
review constitutes the official peer review of scientific information 
used to manage the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery for purposes of 
National Standard 1 and for the purposes of the Information Quality 
Act. Upon review and acceptance by the SSC, the SAFE report, after 
incorporating any associated SSC comments, constitutes the best 
scientific information available for purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act.
    Total allowable catches (TACs) are set for the Cook Inlet EEZ 
commercial salmon fishery. A TAC is a limit on the annual catch of a 
stock, stock complex, or species that is the management target of the 
fishery, and operates as an accountability measure that accounts for 
management uncertainty to ensure total catch remains at or below the 
ACL for each stock. In the Cook Inlet EEZ, TACs will initially be set 
at the species level because it is not currently possible to 
distinguish among individual stocks of the same species when monitoring 
harvests during the fishing season. TACs are set considering the 
estimated proportional contributions of each stock to total harvest of 
a species such that ACLs are not expected to be exceeded for any 
component stock if all TACs are fully achieved. Because of the 
uncertainty inherent to estimating the proportional contributions of 
each stock to total harvest pre-season, species-level TACs are reduced 
from the combined ACLs of component stocks by an appropriate buffer 
that accounts for the degree of management uncertainty.
    NMFS will establish harvest specifications each year by publishing 
proposed and final salmon harvest specifications in the Federal 
Register. NMFS will consider public comments on proposed harvest 
specification prior to making a final decision. If approved, final 
harvest specifications are issued with any applicable modifications and 
the agency responses to public comments.

Changes From Proposed to Final Amendment 16

    After considering public comments, NMFS revised amendment 16 to 
specify the salmon stocks or stock complexes for which status 
determination criteria are being established, and, as recommended by 
the SSC at their February 2024 meeting, to better describe how the OFL 
would be set preseason. For Tier 1 stocks, the preseason OFL was 
updated in accordance with the SSC recommendation that it be based 
solely on the preseason total run size for the coming fishing season 
(equation 6 within section 4.2.4 of the Salmon FMP) rather than on the 
generational (multi-year) formula that was defined in equations 8 and 9 
of proposed amendment 16. For Tier 3 stocks, the language that 
describes how the preseason OFL is set was updated in accordance with 
the SSC recommendation that rather than considering only maximum 
historical catch, the preseason OFL could also be based on other values 
such as average or maximum catch for a particular period of time in the 
catch history. Finally, several technical corrections were also made to 
improve formatting consistency and to eliminate redundancy in the FMP.

Final Rule

    This final rule modifies Federal regulations to implement amendment 
16 by revising the definition of Salmon Management Area at 50 CFR 679.2 
to redefine the Cook Inlet Area as the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and 
incorporate it into the Federal Salmon Management Area. This final rule 
creates figure 22 to 50 CFR part 679 to show the location of the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area. Regulations at Sec.  600.725 are modified to authorize 
the use of drift gillnet gear for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial 
salmon fishery. Existing regulations related to salmon fisheries under 
the Salmon FMP throughout part 679 are moved to subpart J beginning at 
Sec.  679.110. Management measures necessary for the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area are added to subpart J. The following sections provide a summary 
of management measures implemented by this final rule.

Federal Commercial Fishing Season and Fishing Periods

    Under this final rule, the Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial drift 
gillnet fishing season begins each year on either the third Monday in 
June or June 19, whichever is later. For 2024, the third Monday in June 
is June 17, so the season will begin on June 19. However, because June 
19 falls on a Wednesday--which as described below is not an open 
fishing period--the first day of fishing in the 2024 Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area commercial fishing season will be on Thursday, June 20.
    On or after the season start date, NMFS will open the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area for drift gillnet fishing for two, 12-hour periods each week, 
from 7 a.m. Monday until 7 p.m. Monday, and from 7 a.m. Thursday until 
7 p.m. Thursday, a schedule that will continue until July 15 unless a 
harvest limit (TAC) is reached. From July 16 to July 31, drift gillnet 
fishing will be open for one 12-hour period per week from 7 a.m. until 
7 p.m. on Thursdays, unless a TAC is reached before that time. From 
August 1 to August 15, the Cook Inlet EEZ Area will again be open for 
drift gillnet fishing for two, 12-hour periods each week, from 7 a.m. 
Monday until 7 p.m. Monday, and from 7 a.m. Thursday until 7 p.m. 
Thursday unless a TAC is reached before that time. The Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area will be closed to drift gillnet fishing when the TAC is reached, 
or on August 15, whichever comes first.

Inseason Management for Commercial Fishing

    NMFS will actively monitor and manage the commercial salmon fishery 
in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area throughout the fishing season by exercising 
the inseason management authorities described in this rule. In 
regulations at Sec.  679.118(c)(1)(i), this final rule provides NMFS 
the authority to prohibit commercial salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area. In regulations at Sec.  679.25, this final rule provides NMFS 
inseason authority to adjust a TAC for any salmon species or stock and 
to close or open the Cook Inlet EEZ Area as necessary to prevent 
overfishing or prevent underharvest of a TAC for any species or stock 
(assuming there are no countervailing conservation concerns regarding 
co-occurring species or stocks).
    Fishing will occur during the regularly scheduled fishing periods 
described above. Throughout the fishing season, NMFS will project the 
additional harvest expected from each additional opening of the fishery 
based on the number of participating vessels,

[[Page 34721]]

catch rates, and any other available information. NMFS will close the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area to commercial fishing for salmon if projections 
indicate that an additional fishery opening is expected to exceed any 
specified TAC. NMFS will implement inseason management actions through 
publication in the Federal Register, consistent with the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA).
    NMFS will monitor all available sources of information during the 
fishery to evaluate whether the TAC remains appropriate. If the best 
scientific information available indicates that the number of salmon 
returning to Cook Inlet is significantly different than what was 
forecasted, NMFS may adjust management of the fishery using the 
adjustment authorities described above and specified in regulations at 
Sec.  679.25. If significantly fewer fish return relative to the 
forecast, NMFS may close the fishery before a TAC is reached or before 
the season closure date to prevent overfishing. This may be determined 
based on fishery catches, test-fishery catches, escapement, or other 
scientific information.
    NMFS may also consider an inseason adjustment to modify the TAC if 
scientific information indicates that salmon abundance is significantly 
higher than forecasted. To implement any inseason adjustment, NMFS 
publishes a temporary rule in the Federal Register and considers all 
public comments on the action. Any such action must not result in 
overfishing on any other co-occurring fish stocks and will also 
consider the potential impacts of such an action to all Cook Inlet 
salmon harvesters. NMFS could not adjust the TAC above any ABC or 
allowable de minimis amounts set forth in the harvest specifications 
established for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in that fishing year without 
engaging in notice and comment rulemaking to amend the harvest 
specifications.
    NMFS will use the authorities described above to achieve 
conservation and management goals. These tools may be used to either 
increase or decrease harvests in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area drift gillnet 
fishery as appropriate based on the specified TAC amounts, the amount 
already harvested, and other available information on inseason salmon 
abundance.

Federal Management Area

    The management area is all Federal waters of upper Cook Inlet (EEZ 
waters of Cook Inlet north of a line at 59[deg]46.15' N).

Retention of Bycatch

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

Cook Inlet EEZ Area Commercial Salmon Fishing Monitoring, 
Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

    This action manages the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery 
separately from the adjacent State waters salmon fisheries. 
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for commercial salmon fishing 
vessels operating in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area are specified at Sec.  
679.115. This final rule requires processors to report all landings of 
Cook Inlet salmon harvested in the EEZ through eLandings by noon of the 
day following completion of the delivery.
    Commercial salmon fishing vessels, processors, and other entities 
receiving deliveries of Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon (i.e., fish 
transporters, catcher sellers, and direct marketers) must obtain 
Federal permits and comply with Federal recordkeeping, reporting, and 
monitoring requirements consistent with regulations at Sec.  679.114. 
While operating, all entities required to have any Federal salmon 
permit(s) for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area must have a legible copy of each 
valid permit in either paper or electronic format.

Requirements for Commercial Salmon Fishing Vessels

    Harvesting vessel owners are required to obtain a Salmon Federal 
Fisheries Permit (SFFP). NMFS will issue SFFPs at no charge to the 
owner or authorized representative of a vessel. An SFFP will authorize 
a vessel of the United States to conduct commercial salmon fishing 
operations in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, subject to all other Federal 
requirements. An SFFP applicant must be a citizen of the United States. 
NMFS will issue SFFPs after receipt, review, and approval of a complete 
SFFP application. SFFPs will have a 3-year application cycle. Once a 
vessel owner or authorized representative obtains an SFFP, it is valid 
until the expiration date shown on the permit, which is after 3 years 
if issued at the beginning of a permit cycle. Participants must 
maintain a physical or electronic copy of their valid SFFP aboard the 
named vessel. As with other Federal fisheries, if a vessel owner or 
authorized representative surrenders an SFFP, they could not obtain a 
new SFFP for that vessel until the start of the next 3-year permit 
cycle.
    The SFFP is associated with a specific vessel and not transferable 
to another vessel. If the vessel is sold, the new owner will need to 
apply for an SFFP amendment from NMFS to reflect the new owner or 
authorized representative of the vessel. A vessel could not operate in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area fishery until the SFFP amendment was complete 
and the amended SFFP issued. The SFFP number is required to be 
displayed on the vessel's hull and buoys attached to the vessel's drift 
gillnet.
    For a vessel being leased, the vessel operator is considered the 
authorized representative of the SFFP holder and no amendments to the 
permit are required. The vessel operator is subject to all SFFP 
requirements and limitations and liable for any violations.
    This final rule requires commercial salmon fishing vessels to 
operate a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) as specified at Sec.  
679.28(f)(6)(x). VMS transmits the real-time GPS location of fishing 
vessels to NMFS. A vessel with an SFFP is required to keep VMS active 
at all times when operating with drift

[[Page 34722]]

gillnet gear on board in the waters of Cook Inlet any day the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area is open to commercial salmon fishing. This includes when 
operating within State waters to ensure that entire fishing trips are 
monitored and to help verify that no fishing occurred within State 
waters during a fishing trip that included salmon harvest in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ, or that a vessel with an SFFP does not fish in Federal 
waters during the same calendar day it fishes in State waters.
    To collect catch and bycatch information, this final rule requires 
vessels to use a Federal fishing logbook as specified at Sec.  
679.115(a)(1). Commercial salmon fishing vessels will record the start 
and end time and GPS position of each set, as well as a count of the 
catch and bycatch. Logbook sheets are submitted electronically to NMFS 
by the vessel operator when the fish are delivered to a processor. The 
data provided by the logbooks will provide information to satisfy the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) 
requirement (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(11)).
    State requirements, including possession of appropriate State 
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) permit(s), continue to 
apply for drift gillnet vessels landing salmon or other species caught 
in the EEZ within the State or entering State waters.
    This final rule prohibits commercial salmon fishing vessels from 
landing or otherwise transferring salmon caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area within the EEZ off Alaska. Commercial salmon fishing vessels 
delivering to tenders may deliver salmon caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area only to a tender vessel operating in State waters. This final rule 
prohibits processing (as defined by Federal regulations at Sec.  679.2) 
salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in the EEZ off Alaska in 
order to ensure historical participants and operation types are not 
displaced. Commercial salmon fishing vessels are allowed to gut, gill, 
and bleed salmon prior to landing but cannot freeze or further process 
salmon prior to landing their catch (freezing is considered processing 
per Federal regulations at Sec.  679.2 and therefore is prohibited in 
Cook Inlet EEZ waters).

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

    This final rule requires processors that receive and process 
landings of salmon that are caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area by a 
vessel authorized by an SFFP to obtain a Salmon Federal Processor 
Permit (SFPP). This includes any person, facility, vessel, or 
stationary floating processor that receives, purchases, or arranges to 
purchase and processes unprocessed salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area, except registered salmon receivers. Persons or businesses 
that receive landings (deliveries) of Cook Inlet EEZ salmon from 
harvesting vessels but do not immediately process it, or transport it 
to another location for processing, are required to obtain a Registered 
Salmon Receiver Permit (RSRP). If a tender vessel or vehicle receiving 
deliveries of salmon is operated by an SFPP holder, it may operate 
under the SFPP and does not need to obtain an RSRP. SFPP and RSRP 
holders may not receive deliveries or process salmon that were 
harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area while in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
or any EEZ waters.
    SFPP and RSRP holders are required to report all salmon landings 
through eLandings by noon of the day following completion of the 
delivery. Landings must be reported using existing Cook Inlet drift 
gillnet statistical areas, with the addition of an EEZ identifier and a 
requirement to identify the Federal permit associated with each 
landing.
    NMFS issues SFPPs and RSRPs on a 1-year cycle. If the ownership of 
an entity holding a SFPP or RSRP changes, the new owner will need to 
submit an application for an amended permit. An amended permit is 
issued with a new permit number to reflect the change.
    Because SFPPs are facility-specific, one SFPP is required for every 
processing facility, even if a facility is controlled by a company 
already holding an SFPP for another processing facility. An RSRP is 
required for each entity receiving but not processing landings of Cook 
Inlet EEZ salmon at the location of the delivery if they are not 
operated by an SFPP holder. If a single entity operates multiple 
vehicles or vessels receiving landings of Cook Inlet EEZ salmon, each 
one of those vehicles or vessels could use the RSRP held by the entity. 
This includes fish transporters or buying stations unaffiliated with an 
SFPP holder that receive deliveries directly from harvesting vessels.
    For direct-marketing operations where the owner or operator of a 
commercial salmon fishing vessel catches and processes their catch, 
both an SFFP and an SFPP are required. For catcher-seller operations 
where the owner or operator of a harvesting vessel catches and sells 
unprocessed salmon (e.g., whole fish or headed and gutted) directly to 
someone other than an SFPP or RSRP holder, both an SFFP and an RSRP are 
required.

Other Commercial Fishing Management Measures and Prohibitions

    This final rule defines the legal gear for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
drift gillnet fishery consistent with legal gear in the State waters 
drift gillnet fishery, to the extent practicable (see Sec.  
679.118(f)). Legal drift gillnet gear is no longer than 200 fathoms 
(365.76 m) in length, 45 meshes deep, and has a mesh size no greater 
than 6 inches (15.24 cm). Buoys at each end of the drift gillnet must 
be marked with the participant's SFFP number.
    Gillnets will be measured, either wet or dry, by determining the 
maximum or minimum distance between the first and last hanging of the 
net when the net is fully extended with traction applied at one end 
only. It is illegal to stake or otherwise fix a drift gillnet to the 
seafloor. The float line and floats of drift gillnets must float on the 
surface of the water while the net is fishing, unless natural 
conditions cause the net to temporarily sink.
    This final rule includes the following prohibitions specified at 
Sec.  679.117 for drift gillnet fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area:
     Vessels are prohibited from fishing in both State and 
Federal waters on the same day, or otherwise having on board or 
delivering fish harvested in both EEZ and State waters, to ensure 
accurate catch accounting for Federal managers.
     Vessels cannot have salmon harvested in any other fishery 
on board.
     Vessels are prohibited from having gear in excess of the 
allowable configuration or deploying multiple nets.
     Vessels are prohibited from participating in other 
fisheries while operating drift gillnet gear for salmon in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area and are not allowed to have other fishing gear on board 
capable of catching salmon while commercial fishing for salmon in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area (i.e., operating drift gillnet gear).
     Because vessels legally participating in adjacent State 
water salmon fisheries may transit across the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, 
vessels can have other fishing gear on board while moving through the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area, but are prohibited from commercial fishing for 
salmon within the Cook Inlet EEZ Area on any day they are participating 
in State water salmon fisheries.
     Manned or unmanned aircraft cannot be used to locate 
salmon or otherwise direct fishing.
     Vessels are prohibited from discarding any salmon caught 
while harvesting salmon using drift gillnet gear in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area.

[[Page 34723]]

     Vessels are prohibited from commercial or recreational 
fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area contrary to notification 
of inseason action, closure, or adjustment issued under Sec.  679.25 or 
Sec.  679.118.

Cook Inlet EEZ Recreational Fishing Management Measures

    This final rule includes management measures for recreational 
salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area as specified at Sec.  
679.119. NMFS establishes bag and possession limits in Federal 
regulations. For Chinook salmon, from April 1 to August 31, the bag 
limit is one Chinook salmon per day including a total limit of one in 
possession of any size. From September 1 to March 31, the bag limit is 
two Chinook salmon per day including a total limit of two in possession 
of any size. For coho (silver) salmon, sockeye salmon, pink salmon, and 
chum salmon there is a combined six fish bag limit per day, including a 
total limit of six in possession of any size. However, only three fish 
per day, including a total limit of three in possession, may be coho 
salmon.
    In addition to Federal bag limits, recreational anglers are 
constrained by State bag and possession limits if landing fish in 
Alaska. Because of this, an angler cannot exceed State limits when 
landing fish in Alaska, or otherwise have both an EEZ limit and a State 
limit on board at the same time in either area.
    Recreational fishing is open for the entire calendar year. In 
regulations at Sec.  679.118(c)(1)(ii), this final rule provides that 
NMFS may prohibit, through an inseason management action, retention of 
individual salmon species while still allowing harvest of other salmon 
species if necessary. In addition to prohibiting retention, NMFS may 
also prohibit fishing for one or more salmon species if required for 
conservation. Inseason management actions for the recreational sector 
will be published in the Federal Register and subject to the same 
process and timing limitations outlined for the commercial sector in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ.
    Recreational fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area may only 
be done using hook and line gear with a single line per angler with a 
maximum of two hooks. Salmon harvested must not be filleted or 
otherwise mutilated in a way that could prevent determining how may 
fish had been retained prior to landing. Gills and guts may be removed 
from retained fish prior to landing. Any salmon that is not returned to 
the water with a minimum of injury counts toward an angler's bag limit.
    Federal managers will review any available developing inseason 
information, including escapement data, and may prohibit retention of 
one or more salmon species if additional harvest could not be 
supported. This final rule does not establish a TAC specific to the 
recreational sector because the recreational harvest in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ has been small historically (less than 100 fish per year), but 
estimated removals in combination with commercial harvests are 
evaluated against the ACL to ensure they are not exceeded and to 
implement accountability measures, if required, for future seasons.
    The State's existing Saltwater Charter Logbook, the Statewide 
Harvest Survey, and creel surveys provide the information needed to 
account for recreational harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, as well as 
satisfy the Magnuson-Stevens Act SBRM requirement.

Changes From Proposed to Final Rule

    In response to public comment, this final rule modifies the number 
of commercial salmon fishing periods in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    The commercial fishing season was proposed to extend from 
approximately June 19 to August 15 each year, with two, 12-hour fishing 
periods each week. Overall, public comments highlighted a conservation 
and management concern associated with allowing two days of harvest per 
week between July 16 and July 31. Under the status quo of State 
management, this is the time period during which there has been a 
single drift gillnet opener per week in order to allow salmon bound for 
Northern Cook Inlet to pass through Federal waters (a management option 
many public commenters referred to as a ``conservation corridor''). The 
State requested that NMFS close the EEZ to all commercial fishing after 
July 15 to avoid conservation concerns, including stocks not achieving 
spawning escapement goals. In addition, multiple Alaska Native tribes 
from the Cook Inlet region, communities in Northern Cook Inlet, and 
regional sportfishing organizations all expressed concern that two 
fishery openings per week from July 16-July 31--which would provide 
significantly more fishing opportunity to the drift gillnet fleet--was 
likely to result in conservation concerns when compared to the status 
quo of one opening per week during this time period (see Comment 34). 
In all, these comments emphasized that reducing drift gillnet openings 
to one per week from July 16-July 31 is a management measure important 
to stakeholders and Alaska Native tribes in Northern Cook Inlet because 
it gives salmon stocks of lower abundance more opportunities to pass 
through the EEZ during the time period they are most likely to be 
present in Federal waters.
    In light of the public comments identifying significant potential 
conservation concerns, NMFS reviewed information contained in the 
Analysis and 2024 SAFE report to further consider the potential impacts 
that could result from increased commercial fishing opportunity during 
this late-July migratory period. State management measures that limited 
drift gillnet fishing effort in the Cook Inlet EEZ began in 2015. As 
described in section 3.1.2 of the Analysis, under Federal reference 
points, overfishing likely occurred on ``other sockeye salmon'' in 
2008, and on Cook Inlet coho salmon in 2013. Both of these stock 
complexes have substantial components that originate from the Northern 
District. Overfishing is not thought to have occurred on any stock 
since the State began restricting fishing in the EEZ in late July. 
Susitna (Yentna) River sockeye salmon were declared a State stock of 
concern in 2008 after repeated failures to meet escapement goals. After 
subsequent restrictions to fishing, including the reductions to EEZ 
fishing opportunities in late July, this stock met escapement goals to 
the point where it was delisted from being a stock of concern by the 
State of Alaska's Board of Fisheries (BOF) in 2020. Given the 
historical evidence suggesting an increased likelihood of conservation 
concerns for these stocks when there is additional EEZ fishing effort 
from July 16 until July 31, and because some salmon stocks have 
continued to miss spawning escapement goals during recent years when 
there was only a single drift gillnet opening per week from July 16-
July 31, NMFS has determined that it would be unwise to increase the 
number of fishing periods in late July from the status quo. Therefore, 
this final rule reduces the proposed number of openings to one per week 
during this period. The final rule, however, does not adopt the State's 
request to close the EEZ July 15. As explained in this final rule, the 
fishery will be open for one opening per week July 16-July 31 and two 
openings per week August 1-August 15, unless a TAC is reached.
    NMFS expects that one opening per week in late July will allow for 
the harvest of surplus yield to the extent practicable while still 
achieving spawning escapement goals in most years. If TACs allow for 
additional harvest in August, the fishery will

[[Page 34724]]

return to two openings per week from August 1 to August 15. This 
approach is expected to reduce the risk of higher than expected 
harvests in the EEZ that could result in overfishing or reduce or 
eliminate the harvestable surplus of one or more salmon stocks for all 
other salmon users in Cook Inlet.
    Further, NMFS expects this change will better allow the drift 
gillnet fleet to target the stocks of highest abundance while reducing 
the risk of early closures because a TAC is reached for a stock of 
lower abundance. As explained above and in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery will be managed using TACs. 
Allowing salmon stocks of lower abundance bound for Northern Cook Inlet 
more opportunities to pass through the EEZ in July--particularly coho 
and Chinook salmon--means it is less likely the fishery will close 
early due to reaching the TAC for a stock of lower abundance before the 
drift gillnet fleet is able to harvest the TAC for abundant sockeye 
salmon. Additionally, spreading out the sockeye salmon harvest 
throughout the season by reducing fishing periods in late July will 
reduce pressure on Northern District sockeye salmon--which are Tier 3 
stocks with less known conservation status--as more of the salmon in 
the EEZ in August are expected to be from the highly abundant Tier 1 
Kenai and Kasilof stocks for which there is better information to 
inform inseason management decisions.
    In this final rule, NMFS also clarified language at Sec.  
679.28(f)(6)(x) to clearly define when and where VMS is required to be 
used by vessels named or required to be named on a SFFP. An operational 
and transmitting VMS unit that complies with the requirements in Sec.  
679.28(f) must be carried by any such vessel operating in the waters of 
Cook Inlet with drift gillnet gear on board during a calendar day when 
commercial salmon fishing is authorized in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. The 
corresponding prohibition at Sec.  679.117(b)(1)(xiv) is similarly 
revised to prohibit operation contrary to requirements specified at 
Sec.  679.28(f)(6)(x). This final rule also adds a definition of the 
``waters of Cook Inlet'' at Sec.  679.2. For purposes of Sec. Sec.  
679.28(f)(6)(x) and 679.117(b)(1)(xiv), the waters of Cook Inlet 
includes all waters north of a line from Cape Douglas (58[deg]51.10' N) 
to Point Adam (59[deg]15.27' N). In sum, these changes from proposed to 
final regulations clarify that the VMS requirement for SFFP holders 
applies: (1) on days when directed fishing for salmon using drift 
gillnet gear is open in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area; (2) if the vessel has 
drift gillnet gear on board the vessel or deployed; and (3) if the 
vessel is operating in the waters of Cook Inlet.
    This final rule also modifies regulations at Sec.  
679.118(c)(1)(ii) to provide NMFS the authority to prohibit fishing for 
one or more salmon species if required for conservation. While the 
recreational salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area is extremely 
small, this would give NMFS all management tools potentially required 
to conserve stocks at very low abundance. The most likely potential 
need for this authority is because declines in Chinook salmon abundance 
have, in some cases, entirely eliminated the harvestable surplus of 
Chinook (i.e., escapement goals cannot be achieved even if no fish are 
harvested). In this instance, even the limited mortality resulting from 
catch and release fishing (i.e., what would be allowed under a 
prohibition on retention) could potentially result in exceeding an ABC/
ACL. NMFS would also maintain the authority to prohibit retention of 
one or more species if a closure to salmon fishing was not required to 
achieve conservation objectives or avoid exceeding an ABC/ACL.
    Additionally, this final rule adds two new prohibitions to Sec.  
679.117 to clarify that it is unlawful for any person to: (1) engage in 
commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area contrary to 
notification of inseason action, closure, or adjustment issued under 
Sec. Sec.  679.25 and 679.118 (see Sec.  679.117(b)(1)(xvi)); or (2) 
engage in recreational fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
contrary to notification of inseason action, closure, or adjustment 
issued under Sec.  679.118 (see Sec.  679.117(b)(2)(v)). The final rule 
also makes clarifying edits to Sec.  679.117(b) as follows: (1) moves 
``of the Salmon Management Area, defined at Sec.  679.2 and Figure 22 
to this part,'' from Sec.  679.117(b)(1)(ii), to Sec.  
679.117(b)(1)(i), which is the first time the term ``Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area'' appears in Sec.  679.117(b)(1); (2) replaces the word ``set'' in 
Sec.  679.117(b)(1)(v), and replaces it with ``deploy''; and (3) adds 
the term ``Cook Inlet EEZ Area'' to two prohibitions applicable to 
recreational fishing (see Sec.  679.117(b)(2)(ii) and (iii)). 
Throughout the regulatory text, NMFS also made technical and grammar 
edits to correct regulatory cross references, use consistent terms, 
remove redundancy, and promote clarity.
    One additional change from the proposed rule was removing a 
proposed requirement that any interactions or entanglements with marine 
mammals would be required to be recorded in the logbook. NMFS 
determined that this requirement would be duplicative with and may be 
confused with existing reporting requirements under the Marine Mammal 
Authorization Program and has therefore removed the requirement from 
this final rule. Participants are, however, still required to report 
marine mammal interactions under the Marine Mammal Authorization 
Program.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received 87 comment submissions on amendment 16 and the 
proposed rule. NMFS has summarized and responded to 95 unique and 
relevant comments below. The comments were from individuals, 
environmental groups, local governments, the Alaska Department of Fish 
and Game (ADF&G), sportfishing organizations, fishing guides, tribes 
and tribal members, drift gillnet fishermen, and commercial fishing 
organizations. Several comment submissions were duplicates or addressed 
topics outside the scope of amendment 16 and the proposed rule. 
Overall, there was a mix of support and opposition, with those comments 
opposing the rule expressing concerns about expanding Federal 
management to salmon fisheries, impacts to adjacent state salmon 
fisheries, the cost and burden of monitoring requirements, adverse 
economic impacts, preseason catch limits, the prohibition on fishing in 
both state and Federal waters on the same day, and underharvest 
(exceeding spawning escapement goals). The vast majority of commenters 
supported some version of Federal management (mostly drift gillnet 
fishers, commercial processors, and tribal groups), and a small 
minority opposed any type of Federal management. Comments are organized 
by topic into the following categories:

 Scope of the Fishery Management Plan
 National Standard 1
 Status Determination Criteria and Annual Catch Limits
 Inseason Management
 Cook Inlet EEZ Commercial Salmon Fishing Management Measures
 Federal Commercial Fishing Season and Fishing Periods
 Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
 Other Commercial Salmon Fishing Management Measures and 
Prohibitions
 Recreational Fishing
 National Standard 2
 National Standard 3
 National Standard 4
 National Standards 5 and 7
 National Standard 8
 National Standard 10
 Economic Impacts

[[Page 34725]]

 General Support
 General Opposition
 Tribal Comments
 Marine Mammals
 Process Concerns
 Other

Scope of the Fishery Management Plan

    Comment 1: NMFS's decision to limit the scope of Federal management 
to the Cook Inlet EEZ violates UCIDA v. NMFS, 837 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 
2016), in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that NMFS must 
manage the entire ``fishery,'' including State waters.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the Ninth Circuit's decision requires 
this FMP to cover both State and Federal waters. Rather, limiting NMFS 
management solely to Federal waters (i.e., the Cook Inlet EEZ) is 
consistent with the court's decision in UCIDA v. NMFS. In that case, 
UCIDA challenged amendment 12 to the Salmon FMP, which had excluded the 
Cook Inlet EEZ from the Salmon FMP. The Ninth Circuit considered only 
whether NMFS had the legal authority to exclude portions of the EEZ 
from the FMP. In ruling against NMFS, the Court held that NMFS must 
include the Cook Inlet EEZ in the Salmon FMP because it has an 
obligation to issue an FMP for each fishery under its authority that 
requires conservation and management. The phrase ``under its 
authority'' was critical to that Ninth Circuit decision, which 
considered whether a State could manage a fishery in Federal waters 
outside the context of an FMP. Nothing in UCIDA v. NMFS implied that a 
Federal FMP must cover fishing that occurs in State waters if a 
harvested stock occurs in both State and Federal waters. Not only was 
that question not before the Ninth Circuit, but requiring NMFS to 
manage in State waters through an FMP would violate the plain language 
of Magnuson-Stevens Act section 306(a), which provides that states 
retain management jurisdiction over fishing in state waters.
    In fact, the Ninth Circuit explicitly recognized that the Cook 
Inlet EEZ constitutes a fishery, stating that ``the statute requires an 
FMP for a fishery, a defined term,'' and adding ``[n]o one disputes 
that the exempted area of Cook Inlet''--i.e. the Cook Inlet EEZ--``is a 
salmon fishery.'' 837 F.3d at 1064. The portion of Cook Inlet at issue 
in the litigation over amendment 12 was the Cook Inlet EEZ, not all of 
Cook Inlet. In this action, NMFS is complying with the Ninth Circuit's 
decision by incorporating the very ``fishery'' at issue in that case--
the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery--into the Salmon FMP.
    Comment 2: NMFS's decision to limit the scope of Federal management 
to the Cook Inlet EEZ violates the plain language of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. The term ``fishery,'' as defined within section 3 of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, requires that amendment 16 include a definition 
of ``fishery'' that extends throughout the range of salmon in Cook 
Inlet, including State waters.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that its definition of the ``fishery'' 
violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As explained in the preamble to the 
proposed rule and the response to Comment 1, the ``fishery'' that is 
subject to Federal management under amendment 16 are the salmon stocks 
harvested by the commercial and recreational fishing sectors within the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Defining the fishery as geographically constrained 
to the Cook Inlet EEZ is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
Section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act broadly defines a ``fishery'' as 
one or more stocks of fish that can be treated as a unit for purposes 
of conservation and management and which are identified on the basis of 
geographical, scientific, technical, recreational, and economic 
characteristics; and any fishing for such stocks.
    NMFS has determined that salmon stocks in the Cook Inlet EEZ can be 
treated as a unit for purposes of conservation and management because 
they all fall within the geographical management area under NMFS's 
jurisdiction, the best scientific information available supports NMFS's 
determination that the EEZ has unique ecological characteristics due to 
the mixed stock nature of fishing in the EEZ, and fishing for these 
stocks in the EEZ has distinct technical and economic characteristics 
that distinguish it from State water fisheries, as discussed in the 
response to Comment 55.
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act expressly limits the management authority 
of NMFS and the Council to the EEZ, with a narrow exception. Section 
101(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act establishes the Nation's sovereign 
rights and exclusive fishery management authority over all fish and all 
Continental Shelf fishery resources within the EEZ. Section 3(11) of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act defines the inner boundary of the EEZ as a 
line coterminous with the seaward boundary of each of the coastal 
States. Section 302(a)(l)(G) states that the Council has authority over 
the fisheries in the Arctic Ocean, Bering Sea, and Pacific Ocean 
seaward of Alaska. Because Alaska's seaward boundary is 3 nautical 
miles (nmi) (5.56 kilometers) from its coast (3-nmi boundary line), 43 
U.S.C. 1301(b), the inner boundary of the EEZ, and therefore the 
Council's authority, starts 3 nmi (5.56 kilometers) from the Alaskan 
coast and extends to the outer boundary of the EEZ 200 nmi (370.4 
kilometers) seaward of the coast of Alaska. In section 306, the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act expressly states that it shall not be construed as 
extending or diminishing the jurisdiction or authority of any State 
within its boundaries. Therefore, the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not 
contemplate the extension of Federal authority into State waters, 
except under the very limited circumstances described in section 306(b) 
(discussed further in the response to Comment 4). In sum, given the 
geographic limits placed on NMFS's authority to manage fisheries, it is 
necessary for the ``fishery'' to be geographically constrained to the 
EEZ.
    Comment 3: NMFS's decision to define the fishery as geographically 
constrained to the Cook Inlet EEZ is arbitrary. There cannot be two 
adjacent management schemes for salmon; one in Federal waters and one 
in State waters, because one management scheme will always depend on 
the other. Salmon management depends on escapement goals. That means an 
FMP for just the EEZ will always depend on the State which sets the 
escapement goals.
    Response: Defining the fishery as geographically constrained to the 
Cook Inlet EEZ is not arbitrary; it is required by the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act and is consistent with fisheries management throughout the EEZ off 
Alaska and throughout the U.S. Nearly all stocks harvested in the EEZ 
nationwide also occur in State waters, but as explained in the response 
to Comment 2, the Magnuson-Stevens Act explicitly left jurisdiction 
over state waters to the states.
    Recognizing Federal and State jurisdictional boundaries is a 
foundational principle in the management of natural resources that 
straddle jurisdictions in the U.S. In mining, forestry, oil, gas, and 
fisheries, the location of the activity determines the applicable 
regulations, even if the relevant resource is also present in an 
adjacent jurisdiction. Furthermore, this is consistent with the 
management approach for other fisheries off Alaska. For example, in the 
GOA, the State manages fisheries for pollock and Pacific cod in State 
waters and NMFS manages pollock and Pacific cod fisheries in Federal 
waters. For these fisheries, the State determines when State waters 
will be open to fishing for pollock and Pacific cod, while the Council 
recommends and NMFS makes

[[Page 34726]]

those determinations for the EEZ, taking into account any anticipated 
harvest in State waters.
    Similar to the Federal management of the Cook Inlet EEZ, the 
Pacific Fishery Management Council's Salmon FMP expressly limits 
Federal management to the fisheries in EEZ waters. That FMP covers 
salmon stocks caught in the EEZ off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, 
and California.
    NMFS disagrees that a stock of anadromous fish cannot be 
successfully managed by different adjacent management regimes. NMFS and 
State management agencies regularly have separate fisheries that 
harvest the same stocks of fish. Management will be coordinated to the 
extent practicable. NMFS will establish catch limits for the Cook Inlet 
EEZ that are based on achieving escapement goals as defined in the 
Federal stock assessment, while accounting for both State and Federal 
expected harvests.
    There are cooperative management arrangements where a single 
management agency can make decisions for both State and Federal waters. 
But these are dependent on a mutually accepted delegation of management 
authority or international treaties. For example, NMFS's management 
jurisdiction over the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands king and Tanner 
crab fisheries is limited to the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area 
EEZ, but because the Council recommended delegated management of the 
EEZ to the State through the Crab FMP--and NMFS determined State 
management was consistent with the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act--
the State executes delegated management actions for crab stocks in 
Federal waters while also managing these stocks within State waters. 
While there is often coordination between NMFS and the State to ensure 
that fishery management decisions achieve the common goal of 
sustainability, State and Federal authority remains constrained by 
jurisdictional limits.
    Management of the Salmon FMP's East Area is different from the 
management of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area because of both the 
delegation of management authority to the State and the Pacific Salmon 
Treaty. Management of the salmon commercial troll and recreational 
fisheries in the East Area EEZ occurs across the State and EEZ boundary 
because the Council voted to delegate management of the salmon 
fisheries in the East Area EEZ to the State, the State was willing to 
accept such a delegation of authority, and NMFS determined State 
management was consistent with both the Salmon FMP and the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. The Council and NMFS considered delegating management of 
the Cook Inlet EEZ to the State, similar to the arrangement in the East 
Area. However, the State refused to accept delegated management on two 
occasions and NMFS has no authority to compel a state to accept such 
delegation. As a result, there is no alternative to having separately 
managed salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet, and the State and Federal 
fisheries are separated along the jurisdictional EEZ boundary.
    Comment 4: Even if states generally retain jurisdiction over state 
waters pursuant to Magnuson-Stevens Act 306(a), here Magnuson-Stevens 
Act 306(b) requires NMFS to preempt State management and assert 
management authority over salmon fishing in the state waters of Cook 
Inlet.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that Magnuson-Stevens Act section 306(b) 
requires NMFS to assert management jurisdiction over the State waters 
of Cook Inlet and/or implement management measures for State waters 
through this FMP amendment.
    Magnuson-Stevens Act section 306(b) includes two criteria that must 
both be met before NMFS can assert management authority over fishing in 
State waters: (1) the fishery must occur predominantly in the EEZ and 
(2) after notice and opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary must 
determine that a State is ``substantially and adversely'' affecting the 
carrying out of an FMP. Even when these criteria are met, Magnuson-
Stevens Act section 306(b) explicitly states that NMFS cannot assert 
management authority over internal (fresh) waters, meaning the scope of 
Magnuson-Stevens Act section 306(b) is narrower than claimed by the 
commenter even when it does apply.
    Historically, the State has managed salmon fishing in Cook Inlet as 
a single fishery with no distinction between State and Federal waters. 
Under State management, approximately 75 percent of total upper Cook 
Inlet salmon harvests occurred in State waters. NMFS has previously 
determined that the State-managed fishery did not occur predominantly 
in the EEZ, and thus for that reason alone it had no basis for 
asserting management authority over State waters under Magnuson-Stevens 
Act section 306(b)(1)(A). In addition, NMFS has consistently found that 
State management is consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements 
and the goals and objectives of the FMP. Thus, both criteria for 
preemption under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 306(b) have not been 
satisfied. As a result of litigation brought by drift gillnet 
fishermen, among others, status quo management as a single fishery by 
the State is no longer possible. NMFS acknowledges that amendment 16 
will create a new fishery in Cook Inlet, which will occur entirely 
within Federal waters.
    Even assuming the 306(b)(1)(A) criteria was met for the Cook Inlet 
EEZ salmon fishery after implementation of amendment 16--though total 
harvest of Cook Inlet salmon stocks will continue to occur 
predominantly within State waters--for NMFS to assert management 
jurisdiction over State waters it would also have to determine that 
State management ``substantially and adversely'' affects implementation 
of the Salmon FMP, after notice and opportunity for a hearing. The 
procedures and requirements for notice and the hearing at 50 CFR part 
600, subpart G are prescriptive, none have occurred here, and NMFS has 
no basis to begin proceedings at this time. No fishing has yet occurred 
under amendment 16 to the Salmon FMP and this final rule, and NMFS has 
no information that suggests that State action or inaction will prevent 
the Council or NMFS from carrying out the management measures and 
management objectives specified in amendment 16. Thus, the criteria for 
preemption under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 306(b)(1)(B) has not been 
satisfied.
    Comment 5: Every other FMP in Alaska sets management measures, 
including ACL and TAC, for the fishery in both State and EEZ waters. 
The King Crab closure around Kodiak Island does not allow the fishery 
in State waters to continue without direction, nor does the Pacific Cod 
TAC in the GOA apply for the EEZ waters only with the State waters 
fishery unregulated; the same is true for every other stock of fish 
except salmon. For the Salmon FMP, NMFS is trying to make us believe 
the rules governing this fishery are different, even after the Federal 
court decision that have determined they are not.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Federal ACLs and TACs are not established 
for State waters in other Federal FMPs. The BOF has established State 
managed fisheries in State waters, for example, the GOA Pacific cod 
fishery that the State manages by setting a guideline harvest level 
(GHL) outside the Federal harvest specifications process. For some 
fisheries, the BOF bases the GHL amount on a percentage of the Federal 
ABC. However, the GHL fishery is managed by the State. To comply with 
the Federal ACL regulations and National Standard 1 guidelines, NMFS 
manages Pacific cod in Federal waters to ensure the sum of all State 
waters and

[[Page 34727]]

Federal waters Pacific cod removals from the GOA do not exceed the 
Federal Pacific cod ABC (and therefore ACL) for the GOA. Accordingly, 
each year the Council recommends, and NMFS approves, a TAC in the GOA 
that is set at an amount to accommodate the State's GHL for the Pacific 
cod caught in State waters. This is consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and National Standard guidelines that direct, as a 
fundamental component of sustainable fisheries management, that catch 
should not exceed the ACL and that all sources of mortality from 
fishing activities should be evaluated for stock status and 
specification of Federal harvest limits. If the State changed the 
applicable State waters GHL, there are no limits on the amount of 
Pacific cod that may be harvested in State waters, and NMFS would 
adjust the Federal TAC accordingly to ensure that total Pacific cod 
removals do not exceed the Federal Pacific cod ABC and ACL. In other 
words, as under amendment 16, the Federal TAC accounts for State water 
harvest but does not constrain or limit State water harvest.
    The commenter also appears to reference the State Pacific cod 
parallel fishery. In this parallel fishery, some of the Federal TAC is 
harvested in State waters, under State regulations generally mirroring 
those used in Federal waters. NMFS does not establish a TAC for State 
waters or manage in State waters; rather, NMFS deducts catch in the 
parallel fishery from the Federal TAC per a longstanding arrangement 
that ensures this fishery does not create conservation concerns. The 
State originally developed and implemented parallel fisheries to 
provide fishing opportunities within State waters before the State had 
capacity and expertise to independently develop and manage State water 
groundfish fisheries (GHL fisheries). While the State has since 
developed State-managed groundfish fisheries, parallel fisheries have 
been maintained to address allocation issues with respect to vessel 
gear type, operation type, and size. The State opposes the Federal 
management approach for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and has not 
expressed interest in either a delegation of management authority or 
taking State action to develop a parallel fishery for salmon. 
Therefore, NMFS must manage salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ in the 
same manner as it manages the vast majority of fish stocks off Alaska--
by accounting for projected State water GHL harvest when establishing 
harvest limits for the EEZ, and debiting catch that occurs in the 
parallel fisheries against the Federal TAC during the fishing season.
    In regards to the crab fisheries in the GOA, there are no federally 
managed crab fisheries in the GOA, and there is no GOA crab FMP. The 
king crab closure around Kodiak is a State management measure.
    Comment 6: The proposed FMP violates both the letter and the spirit 
of the District Court's ruling in 2022, the Ninth Circuit's order in 
2016, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS's repeated failure to provide 
the relief requested has caused severe economic harm to the drift 
gillnet fleet. Amendment 16 violates nearly all of the National 
Standards and imposes a harvest plan that is both burdensome and 
inefficient. Do not approve this action.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS developed amendment 16 to comply 
with the decisions of the Ninth Circuit and the District Court, the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable Federal law. NMFS considered 
all Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for FMPs and balanced the 
competing demands of the National Standards when developing amendment 
16. NMFS finds this final rule to be consistent with all 10 National 
Standards, as detailed in section 5.1 of the Analysis and further 
addressed in responses to comments under the National Standard headings 
below. Economic impacts are further addressed in responses to comments 
below.
    Because the State refused to accept delegated management authority, 
amendment 16 must necessarily establish an entirely separate management 
jurisdiction and, therefore, results in decreased management efficiency 
relative to the status quo (management of all salmon fishing in Upper 
Cook Inlet by the State). Separate Federal management infrastructure 
and regulations must be established while all existing State management 
measures remain in place. In order to manage the fishery in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area, NMFS must begin collecting the data essential to manage 
the fishery and required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In particular, 
NMFS must know who is participating in the fishery, how many vessels 
are active, and where catch is occurring, and must be able to debit 
catch against established limits during the season to prevent 
overfishing, even though collecting this information will involve new 
recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements for participants 
that are separate from those required in State waters.
    Comment 7: NMFS is effectively deferring to State management by 
managing conservatively, claiming that it is unprepared and 
procedurally limited in its ability to manage the fishery.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that it is implicitly deferring to State 
management by managing conservatively. This will be the first year 
since Alaska Statehood that there will be a federally-managed salmon 
fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ, and currently all data collection and 
management infrastructure are run by the State. In light of these 
realities, ``managing conservatively'' is a responsible approach to 
fishery management, ensuring that NMFS does not harm salmon stocks as 
it builds infrastructure and expertise, and begins collecting the data 
needed to manage a new Federal fishery. It is unreasonable and 
imprudent to expect that NMFS could greatly increase total harvests 
from the status quo in the first year of a new fishery, with less 
management flexibility, less information, and less management 
experience in Cook Inlet. The best available science suggests status 
quo harvest levels in the EEZ could not be significantly increased 
without reducing or eliminating the harvestable surplus for other users 
and further increasing the risk that stocks of lower abundance will not 
achieve spawning escapement goals (which have not always been achieved 
in all years even under status quo EEZ harvests). While NMFS's approach 
is necessarily precautionary, the proposed 2024 Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
harvest specifications (89 FR 25857, April 12, 2024) would establish 
TACs for all species except coho salmon (due to elevated conservation 
risks and high uncertainty) that are higher than the recent 10-year 
average estimated Cook Inlet EEZ Area harvest.
    As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, this action 
contains all of the management measures required for NMFS to administer 
and manage all salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area consistent 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. No management decisions are deferred to 
the State and NMFS will not rely on the State--implicitly or 
otherwise--to achieve OY or prevent overfishing (one of the flaws the 
District Court identified with amendment 14).
    Using the best scientific information available, each year NMFS 
will prepare a SAFE report and develop harvest specifications based on 
the recommendations from the Council's SSC. As described in the 
response to Comment 5, although NMFS must necessarily account for 
projected

[[Page 34728]]

removals from State-managed fisheries in setting the harvest levels for 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, and other Federal fisheries off Alaska, that 
is part of making decisions based on best scientific information 
available and consistent with National Standard 2. Accounting for State 
action is not the same as deferring to State action. The processes by 
which Federal reference points are independently developed and annually 
reviewed is described in the preamble to the proposed rule and 
amendment 16.
    Although NMFS has not historically managed salmon fishing in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ, it has the ability to do so successfully. Acknowledging 
that the State has decades of institutional expertise and management 
tools that make it currently more capable of efficient administration 
(as described in the Analysis) is not an indictment of NMFS's 
management. Further, while Federal notice requirements limited the 
suite of management alternatives and options when developing amendment 
16 and preclude rapid fishery openings and closings as occurs under 
State management, no procedural limitations will prevent NMFS from 
implementing amendment 16, which has been designed to comply with all 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. NMFS is confident it can effectively 
manage this fishery.
    Comment 8: Regulations for Cook Inlet should allow fishing 110 
miles (177.03 km) out from the mouth of the fish spawning grounds. For 
sport fishing, regulations should allow snagging one mile (1.61 km) 
from the mouth of any rivers in the inlet.
    Response: This final rule would allow recreational salmon fishing 
in all waters of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. EEZ waters of the West Area 
(3-200 nmi (5.56-370.4 km) off Alaska) outside of the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area remain closed to commercial salmon fishing, as under the status 
quo, but recreational salmon fishing is authorized. Waters within 3 nmi 
(5.56 km) of shore are State waters and not subject to this action.
    Comment 9: Several commenters suggested it would be best if all 
salmon fishing in Cook Inlet was managed by ADF&G. Some commenters 
expressed skepticism about the track record of Federal fisheries 
management (e.g., halibut fishery declines and salmon bycatch concerns) 
and other Federal resource management in Alaska. Other commenters noted 
that the State has more expertise and better flexibility to manage 
salmon, which is desirable given the complexity and challenge of salmon 
management in Cook Inlet. One commenter noted that Federal management 
may prioritize non-Alaskan constituencies.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the complexity and challenges of salmon 
management in Cook Inlet. The challenges associated with Federal 
management are identified sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the Analysis. NMFS 
developed amendment 16 to address these challenges to the extent 
practicable.
    NMFS is required to implement Federal management of salmon fishing 
in the Cook Inlet EEZ. The Ninth Circuit held that section 302(h)(1) of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires a Council to prepare and submit FMPs 
for each fishery under its authority that requires conservation and 
management. United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. NMFS, 837 F.3d 1055, 1065 
(9th Cir. 2016). Because NMFS determined that the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon 
fishery requires conservation and management, the Ninth Circuit ruled 
that it must be included in the Salmon FMP. Because of this litigation 
and the State's subsequent decision not accept a delegation of 
management authority for the Cook Inlet EEZ, management of all salmon 
fishing in Cook Inlet by the State is not possible at this time. 
Additional discussion of Federal jurisdiction is provided in the 
response to Comment 3.
    Further, this rule will not prioritize any constituency. Consistent 
with National Standard 4, amendment 16 does not discriminate between 
residents of different states in allocating fishery resources and is 
fair and equitable to all fishermen. Consistency with National Standard 
4 is discussed further below.

National Standard 1

    Comment 10: The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS set MSY and 
OY for fishing that occurs in both Federal and state waters. Only by 
doing so can NMFS ensure that the State's action in the State waters 
fishery does not interfere with NMFS's obligation to follow the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act in the Federal-waters fishery and achieve OY. NMFS 
should define OY for both State and Federal waters so as to prevent the 
overescapement caused by State management decisions.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that it must set MSY and OY for fishing 
that occurs in both State and Federal waters. As discussed in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, MSY is a reference point, informed by 
the best available scientific information. The Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
National Standard 1 guidelines require that every FMP include an 
estimate of MSY for the stocks and stock complexes that require 
conservation and management (Sec.  600.310(e)(1)). MSY is defined as 
the largest long-term average catch or yield that can be taken from a 
stock or stock complex under prevailing ecological, environmental 
conditions and fishery technological characteristics (e.g., gear 
selectivity), and the distribution of catch among fleets (Sec.  
600.310(e)(1)). Thus, under National Standard 1, NMFS acknowledges that 
MSY should be defined for a stock or stock complex, regardless of where 
fishing occurs, and thus it is not set for State waters or Federal 
waters. Because MSY is not a management target, it does not depend on 
any management actions. Rather, it describes the capacity of a stock to 
be harvested sustainably, regardless of who manages fishing or how 
harvest is authorized. Only by accounting for catch wherever it occurs 
can NMFS understand the largest long-term average catch or yield that 
can be taken from the entire stock or stock-complex. Amendment 16 
provides that, for salmon stocks harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, 
MSY is defined at the stock or stock complex level (as described 
below), consistent with National Standard 1 guidelines for establishing 
MSY. Because MSY must be defined in terms of stocks or stock complexes, 
this definition of MSY does not subdivide between State and EEZ waters 
in Cook Inlet.
    NMFS disagrees that OY should be established for fishing occurring 
in both State and Federal waters. In contrast to MSY, OY may be 
established at the stock, stock complex, or fishery level (Sec.  
600.310(e)(3)). With respect to the yield from a fishery, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act defines ``optimum'' as the amount of fish that will provide 
the greatest overall benefit to the Nation. Under amendment 16, the 
fishery is properly defined as all harvest of co-occurring salmon 
stocks in the Cook Inlet EEZ for the reasons stated in Comments 1, 3, 
4, and 29. Because there is limited ability to target individual stocks 
of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, stocks of varying abundance are 
inevitably all harvested in the same fishing trip. The amount of 
harvest that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation in 
this highly mixed stock fishery where vessels operating in the EEZ 
cannot discriminate between stocks of varying abundance is very 
different from the amount of harvest that may be optimum for stocks or 
fisheries in State waters where vessels are better able to target 
individual stocks of fish near their natal streams. Thus, OY is better 
defined for the Cook Inlet EEZ fishery rather than at the stock or 
stock complex level, taking into account the

[[Page 34729]]

interactions among various stocks in the EEZ.
    Furthermore, by defining OY at the level of the Cook Inlet EEZ 
fishery under Federal jurisdiction, NMFS ensures that OY is entirely 
within its purview and control to achieve on a continuing basis. In 
vacating amendment 14, the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Alaska found that NMFS had impermissibly deferred too much management 
authority to the State, stating ``hinging federal management targets on 
the changing landscape of state decisions is an improper delegation of 
management authority to the State.'' United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n v. 
Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 3:21-cv-00255 at *28 (D. Alaska, June 
21, 2022). In developing amendment 16, NMFS took a different approach. 
For the first time since Alaska Statehood, there will be two salmon 
fishery management jurisdictions in Cook Inlet. To avoid relying on the 
State to achieve any Federal management targets under amendment 16, 
NMFS has established OY for the Cook Inlet EEZ fishery and developed a 
harvest specifications process that will achieve that OY on a 
continuing basis while preventing overfishing of any of the salmon 
stocks of varying abundance that co-occur in the EEZ.
    Comment 11: Amendment 16 addresses the complexities of a mixed 
stock fishery, with the added burden of separate adjacent 
jurisdictional authorities. The proposed rule addresses MSY and OY, the 
jurisdictional issues, and notes reliance on the State's scientific 
knowledge and management authority but does not describe what triggers 
fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Because the State did not accept 
delegated management and because NMFS lacks management expertise, 
amendment 16 implements Federal management that is not reliant on State 
input. However, because the State frequently develops the best 
scientific information available for Cook Inlet salmon stocks, 
amendment 16 should be modified to provide that NMFS authorize EEZ 
fishing only after receiving notice from the State that doing so will 
not negatively impact the State's management goals and strategies.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the jurisdictional complexity related 
to this action, and the State's expertise in salmon management. This 
action is intended to establish a Federal salmon management framework 
that is not dependent on the State and has the flexibility to adapt to 
changing conditions. The annual status determination criteria, harvest 
specifications, and inseason management will be dependent on the best 
scientific information available and the circumstances present in each 
fishing year.
    NMFS expects that it will develop management expertise and 
strengthen cooperative relationships with various Agency partners 
related to management of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area over time. NMFS 
acknowledges that the mixed stock nature of and status of weaker salmon 
stocks within the fishery can make it difficult to harvest all of the 
surplus yield for all component stocks and that the interaction between 
stocks must also factor into the definition of OY.
    NMFS disagrees that the FMP should include language requiring 
approval from the State prior to opening salmon fishing in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area. Consistent with the direction of the District Court, 
NMFS has implemented management measures including a fishing season, 
fishing periods, and TACs to ensure that OY can be achieved without 
relying on the State.
    Comment 12: Under the State's management and based on the State's 
preliminary numbers, the overescapement of sockeye in just two rivers 
in Upper Cook Inlet exceeded the total commercial harvest of sockeye 
for the entirety of Upper Cook Inlet and likely exceeded the escapement 
necessary for all other rivers in Cook Inlet. According to NMFS's own 
scientific information included in its analysis, overescapement is 
problematic because it results in ``foregone yield in the current'' 
year and ``may be expected to result in reduction in future 
recruitment,'' (i.e., reduction in long-term yield). To further put 
these numbers in perspective, overescapement of sockeye in the Kenai 
and Kasilof in 2023 was more than NMFS's OY range--approximately 
291,631 to 1,551,464--for the entire Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery for 
all species of salmon in Upper Cook Inlet. There is no discussion in 
proposed amendment 16 of how NMFS's management measures for the Cook 
Inlet EEZ salmon fishery will address and prevent rampant 
overescapement by the State and the resulting unutilized waste to 
ensure compliance with National Standard 1. Amendment 16 focuses only 
on the concept of avoiding overfishing, without making any meaningful 
effort to simultaneously prevent drastic underfishing by optimizing 
yield.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon 
stocks have exceeded escapement goals in recent years, resulting in 
foregone yield. As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, 
salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ necessarily targets mixed stocks 
of salmon. Conservation measures to prevent overfishing on less 
abundant co-occurring salmon stocks are a primary driver of this 
foregone yield as they limit a complete harvest of the most abundant 
sockeye salmon stocks to prevent overfishing on less abundant salmon 
stocks. As referenced within the 2024 SAFE report, which was reviewed 
by the SSC, during recent years when Kenai and Kasilof river sockeye 
salmon escapement goals were exceeded, some sockeye, coho, and Chinook 
salmon escapement goals in Cook Inlet were not achieved at the status 
quo level of salmon harvest; thereby highlighting the difficulty of 
managing mixed stock fisheries to enable the harvest of potential yield 
while also achieving conservation objectives. Management measures that 
are required to prevent overfishing on all stocks are consistent with 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    As described in the response to Comments 18, 25, and 55, Cook Inlet 
is a mixed stock fishery within which there are weak stocks (i.e., 
stocks of relatively low abundance). This situation requires management 
decisions that can result in overescapement of abundant stocks, such as 
Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon. Providing for greater harvest of the 
more abundant stocks in the EEZ would create a significant risk of not 
meeting escapement goals for less abundant stocks and reducing or 
eliminating the harvestable surplus of these stocks available to all 
other salmon users. As noted above, NMFS has evaluated historical EEZ 
harvest levels and found that harvest in the EEZ could not be increased 
to fully harvest surplus Kenai and Kasilof salmon without causing 
serious impacts to other salmon harvesters and major conservation 
problems for other stocks. Whether management in State waters could be 
modified to increase harvest of these stocks closer to their natal 
streams without increasing pressure on the stocks of lower abundance in 
the EEZ is outside the scope of this action, as NMFS has no 
jurisdiction over State waters (as described in the response to Comment 
10). The potential for overescapement to reduce future yields is 
addressed in the response to Comment 18.
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act has no prohibition against foregone 
harvest, and in fact suggests foregone harvest is necessary when 
additional harvest of an abundant stock would also result in bycatch of 
species for which there is a conservation concern. In contrast, the

[[Page 34730]]

Magnuson-Stevens Act explicitly mandates that NMFS prevent overfishing. 
Therefore, in defining OY for a mixed stock fishery, NMFS cannot look 
at the strongest stocks in isolation. Here, OY is appropriately limited 
to EEZ waters and defined so as to identify the amount of cumulative 
harvest of all co-occurring EEZ stocks that provides the greatest net 
benefit to the Nation while preventing overfishing. This is consistent 
with NMFS's approach to salmon management on the West Coast where 
``weak stock'' management is required to avoid exceeding limits for the 
stocks with the most constraining limits. Each year when setting 
harvest specifications, NMFS will evaluate the maximum potential 
harvest available in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and will work to provide 
harvest opportunities to the extent possible, subject to the 
constraints of scientific and management uncertainty. As the 
information available to NMFS to manage salmon fishing in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area improves through implementation of this new Federal 
fishery management regime, it is possible that harvest levels could 
increase.
    The State's management decisions prior to NMFS implementing 
amendment 16 regarding allocations among fishery sectors under State 
jurisdiction are State decisions that are outside the scope of this 
action.
    Comment 13: This definition of OY is inconsistent with a 2018 NMFS 
legal memorandum describing that OY should not be subdivided between 
State and Federal waters.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that amendment 16's definition of OY is 
inconsistent with the 2018 NMFS legal memorandum filed in UCIDA v. 
NMFS. The relevant portion of the legal memorandum stated, ``because 
the fisheries take place in the EEZ and State waters without formal 
recognition of the boundary between these two areas, the OY should not 
and cannot be subdivided into separate parts for the EEZ and State 
waters.'' At that time, management of Cook Inlet had never been divided 
into separate State and Federal management regimes under the FMP. As 
such, it was assumed that continued State management over the drift 
gillnet fishery throughout both Federal and State waters would continue 
through delegation under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 306(a). 
Delegation of certain Federal management authorities to the State would 
have maintained a single fishery that could operate without specific 
regard for the EEZ boundary, but the State declined delegation. 
Therefore, under amendment 16, which will create separate Federal and 
State fisheries, it is appropriate to define OY for the specific 
fishery under NMFS's jurisdiction--the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery.
    Comment 14: If NMFS could acknowledge that achieving OY/MSY 
escapement goals should be the driving factor in developing its FMP, 
then much of the complication built into amendment 16 would go away.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that an FMP must contain conservation 
and management measures, including ACLs and accountability measures, to 
achieve OY on a continuing basis and provisions for information 
collection that are designed to determine the degree to which OY is 
achieved. As stated above, here OY is defined for the fishery--which 
currently includes seven stocks or stock complexes of varying 
abundance--and accounts for the mixed stock nature of the salmon 
fishery in the EEZ and the needs of multiple user groups in identifying 
the harvest levels that will produce the greatest net benefit to the 
Nation across a variety of run sizes. The FMP's management measures are 
explicitly designed to achieve OY on a continuing basis while 
preventing overfishing, consistent with National Standard 1.
    NMFS does not agree that achieving MSY or MSY escapement goals are 
its mandates. MSY is not a management target, as described above, and 
MSY identifies the maximum sustainable harvest level an individual 
stock could theoretically support if it was possible to target that 
stock in isolation and without uncertainty. OY is prescribed on the 
basis of MSY, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or 
ecological factors. Here, for Tier 1 and 2 salmon stocks, MSY in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ represents all salmon in excess of the stock's 
escapement goal in a given year. For Tier 3 stocks, which have no 
reliable estimates of escapement, maximum catch over a recent range of 
years that are representative of current biological and environmental 
conditions is used as a proxy for MSY. But because it is not possible 
to target individual stocks of salmon in the EEZ, it is not possible to 
design conservation and management measures intended to fully harvest 
MSY for each stock, as such harvest levels would result in overfishing 
of the least abundant stocks. Instead, OY is defined for the fishery on 
the basis of MSY--in that it aims to achieve as much surplus yield for 
each stock as possible--but is reduced from MSY to account for 
interactions between stocks (ecological factors) and identify the 
harvest levels that will continue to support multiple active fishery 
sectors without resulting in any one stock routinely missing its 
escapement goal (i.e., likely overfishing) or any user group losing 
access to the resource (economic factors). Fully harvesting MSY for 
Kenai late run sockeye in the EEZ, for example, could decimate co-
occurring populations of salmon bound for Northern Cook Inlet, 
completely eliminating fishing opportunities for other users. Such an 
outcome would benefit one user group to the exclusion of all others and 
thus would not produce the greatest net benefit to the Nation. Here, 
NMFS has defined OY by carefully considering net benefits, the 
competing demands of the numerous stakeholders and tribes who rely on 
Cook Inlet salmon stocks, and the fundamental characteristic of co-
occurring, mixed stocks in the Cook Inlet EEZ. NMFS concludes the 
management measures in this final rule will achieve OY as defined in 
amendment 16 on a continuing basis.
    Comment 15: Federal oversight of this fishery is a must to obtain 
maximum harvest and sustainable yield.
    Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates that Federal fishery 
management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving OY, which 
is different from achieving maximum harvest or MSY. To the degree that 
the commenter is suggesting that Federal management will result in 
harvests equal to MSY, NMFS disagrees. To the contrary, many stocks of 
fish in the EEZ are harvested at levels well below their MSY because of 
the complex interactions between stocks; achieving MSY for certain 
stocks would result in overfishing of other stocks, which would be 
inconsistent with the first mandate of National Standard 1. Instead, 
Federal fishery management measures must achieve OY on a continuing 
basis. OY is defined as the amount of fish that:
    (1) 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;
    (2) Is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable 
yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or 
ecological factor; and
    (3) In the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding 
to a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield in 
such fishery (16 U.S.C. 1802(33)).
    Comment 16: Using historical catch data from 1999-2021 is incorrect 
as a proxy for MSY and OY. This period begins after the State increased

[[Page 34731]]

escapement levels, resulting in large overescapements of sockeye in the 
Kenai and Kasilof Rivers and under-harvest of coho, pink and chum 
salmon. Because the State has not been managing the fishery on the 
basis of MSY, this historical catch data has no relationship with MSY. 
This continues poor State management practices in Federal management. 
NMFS should include harvest data from the 1980s.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. To start, historical catch is not used as 
a basis for establishing MSY in this action for any stocks or stock 
complexes with escapement goals or estimates of total run size (Tier 1 
and Tier 2 stocks). Rather, MSY represents the maximum potential 
harvest of a run in excess of the spawning escapement goal. The annual 
SAFE reports will review the best scientific information available 
regarding escapement goals and estimated run sizes. For Tier 3 stocks 
with no data on run size or total escapement, maximum catch over a 
recent range of years that is representative of current conditions is 
used as a proxy for MSY because it represents the best scientific 
information available to estimate MSY. In prescribing OY on the basis 
of MSY, NMFS used the best scientific information available to identify 
the range of harvest levels in the EEZ that will provide the greatest 
net benefit to the Nation by ensuring all stocks harvested in the EEZ 
can meet their escapement goals and the greatest number and diversity 
of stakeholders and fishery sectors will retain access to the resource. 
In other words, NMFS defined OY as the harvest levels that are expected 
to capture as much yield in excess of escapement goals as possible in 
the EEZ without any individual stock routinely not achieving these 
escapement goals and risking overfishing, thereby maintaining a 
harvestable surplus for all other salmon users.
    The best scientific information available regarding the appropriate 
harvest levels in this mixed stock fishery are currently estimates of 
historic catch in years of high and low abundance across stocks from 
1999-2021. As explained in the Analysis, the 1999-2021 time period was 
chosen due to the advent of the current abundance-based approach to 
management of salmon in Upper Cook Inlet. In addition, this time series 
represents the recent range of salmon productivity conditions that are 
representative of reasonably foreseeable future conditions, reflects a 
range of time when management measures both increased and decreased 
fishing opportunity in EEZ waters, and captures a range of different 
social and economic conditions within fishing communities. Furthermore, 
this period also reflects the time for which high quality and 
comparable data for nearly all fisheries and fishing communities 
throughout Cook Inlet are available. The OY range considers but does 
not include the 1980s because there was a different ecological regime 
in place in the North Pacific (highly productive for salmon stocks), 
seafood markets for salmon were significantly different (strong Asian 
demand and less competition from farmed salmon), and the regional 
population was significantly smaller. These factors all influence 
NMFS's consideration of the greatest net benefit to the Nation, 
including consideration of food production and recreational 
opportunities and taking into account the protection of marine 
ecosystems.
    The harvest levels from 1999-2021 have resulted in numerous viable 
fisheries while preventing stocks from becoming overfished. While it 
may be possible to develop better information in the future as NMFS 
collects more data specific to the EEZ--and section 302(h)(5) of the 
Magnuson-Steven Act requires the Council to review OY on a continuing 
basis--at present, historic catch is the best scientific information 
available. Therefore, ranges of catch in years of high and low salmon 
abundance is an appropriate method to determine OY.
    This action establishes a Federal management framework that 
accommodates varying levels of harvest over time as the information 
available to inform harvest specifications and both relative and 
absolute abundances of salmon change each year. NMFS reviewed fishery 
data dating back to 1966 when developing a definition for OY. Harvests 
by the drift gillnet fleet, and all other salmon users in Cook Inlet, 
have fluctuated dramatically over time based on both salmon abundance 
cycles and management decisions. Ultimately, as explained above, NMFS 
determined that the best scientific information available for 
prescribing OY is currently the estimates of historic catch in years of 
high and low abundance across stocks from 1999-2021.
    Comment 17: The proposed calculation of MSY, OY, and TAC includes 3 
years, 2018, 2020 and 2021, which were declared economic disasters by 
the Secretary of Commerce. This data should be omitted from all 
analyses of historic harvest.
    Response: This action does not use historical catch data to define 
MSY or to set TACs, as explained above.
    For the reasons explained in response to Comment 16, the best 
available science for developing OY includes historic catch data. Of 
the 2018, 2020, and 2021 fishery disaster determinations referenced by 
the commenter, only the 2020 disaster determination applied to the 
drift gillnet fleet. The 2018 and 2021 determinations only applied to 
the East Side set net fishery sector. The East Side set net fishery 
does not operate in EEZ waters. Further, NMFS disagrees that disaster 
and low harvest years should be omitted from consideration in defining 
OY, as they represent part of the range of conditions experienced in 
the fishery. In defining the lower bound of OY for the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area, the three lowest EEZ harvests are averaged together, and this 
number identifies what optimum harvest levels might be in years when 
low stock abundance reduces harvest opportunities.
    It should be noted that OY is not an annual management target but 
is a long-term objective. Harvests may fall above or below the OY range 
in some years. Furthermore, OY may appropriately encompass very low 
harvests when that is what is required to prevent overfishing on all 
stocks. For example, in the GOA groundfish FMP, the lower bound of the 
OY range is defined by the year with the absolute lowest fishery 
harvest in the time series and in the BSAI King and Tanner Crab FMP, 
the lower bound of the OY range is zero.
    Comment 18: Multiple commenters expressed concern about 
overescapement reducing future yields of Cook Inlet salmon stocks. 
Commenters stated that underfishing (too little harvest) can jeopardize 
the capacity of a salmon stock to produce MSY on a continuing basis by 
allowing too many salmon to enter the stream to spawn and exceeding the 
carrying capacity of the spawning and rearing habitat, thereby reducing 
future runs. ADF&G data indicates all the salmon stocks in Cook Inlet 
are underfished, and with such low exploitation rates, we cannot be 
overfishing. The commenters stated that most salmon stocks in Cook 
Inlet are underfished with returns that have exceeded escapement goals. 
For example, Kenai and Kasilof River sockeye salmon have consistently 
exceeded escapement goals, sometimes by over a million fish. This 
action will continue or increase overescapement and result in 
overcompensation. Management practices that jeopardize the long-term 
health of the salmon resource reduce opportunities for harvesters and 
processors and harm the economies of fishing communities.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that all salmon stocks in Cook Inlet are

[[Page 34732]]

underfished, that overfishing cannot occur in Cook Inlet, and that 
amendment 16 will jeopardize the long-term health of the salmon 
resource if the stocks of highest abundance exceed their escapement 
goals when harvest restrictions are required to protect stocks of lower 
abundance. As discussed in the 2024 SAFE report, escapements for some 
stocks of sockeye, coho, and Chinook salmon have been below spawning 
escapement goals during recent years when Kenai and Kasilof sockeye 
salmon have exceeded the upper bound of their escapement goals.
    As discussed in section 3.1 of the Analysis, the need to conserve 
weaker stocks by reducing fishing effort sometimes results in foregone 
yield from more productive stocks. For salmon, this can result in 
escapement goals being exceeded, which is sometimes referred to as 
overescapement. NMFS has evaluated the best available science on 
overescapement. Appendix 14 of the Analysis is an independent analysis 
of the potential for overcompensation (reduced yield as a result of 
overescapement) in Kenai and Kasilof river sockeye salmon stocks. The 
SSC reviewed this analysis, which found that ADF&G's escapement goals 
were established within the range expected to produce MSY for those 
stocks, that ADF&G's point estimates of MSY were accurate, and that 
there is limited evidence for overcompensation across the observed 
range of escapements for Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon. Thus, while 
instances of overescapement will result in foregone yield in the 
current year, existing spawner-recruitment information does not 
indicate that overescapement has resulted in substantial reductions in 
recruitment and yield for the primary stocks harvested by the drift 
gillnet fleet in Cook Inlet. In other words, though the Kenai and 
Kasilof sockeye salmon stocks have recently exceeded their escapement 
goals, this has not resulted in a conservation problem for those stocks 
and available data does not indicate that overescapement has resulted 
in a reduction in future yields. NMFS concludes that increased fishing 
effort in the EEZ to fully harvest the available yield for Kenai and 
Kasilof sockeye salmon would result in serious conservation concerns 
for stocks of lower abundance, which would fail to achieve their 
escapement goals.
    For Cook Inlet salmon stocks without escapement goals, information 
is not available to analyze overescapement or its potential impacts on 
future yields. In the absence of specific stock information, 
conservative management using suitable proxies while following the 
precautionary principle is consistent with the National Standard 1 
guidelines for dealing with data-poor stocks (Sec.  600.310(e)(1)(v)(B) 
and (h)(2)). The guidelines provide flexibility in setting MSY and 
other reference points based on insufficient data and in consideration 
of stocks with unusual life history characteristics, including salmon. 
The risk of overfishing as a result of harvest rates that are too high 
is much greater than the uncertain and speculative risk of underharvest 
or overescapement. Therefore, precautionary management is appropriate 
for data-poor fish stocks.
    From a practical perspective, it is not possible to manage the 
mixed stock salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area by harvesting 
surplus yield on all stocks because the composition, abundance, and 
productivity of stocks and species in the fishery vary substantially. 
Overescapement occurs in Cook Inlet, as noted in section 3.1 of the 
Analysis. Overescapement usually results from (1) a lack of fishing 
effort, (2) unexpectedly large salmon runs, or (3) management or 
economic constraints on the fishery. In this instance, management must 
constrain harvest of the largest, most productive salmon stocks to 
protect less abundant salmon stocks and species.
    Comment 19: The Exxon Valdez litigation had documented damage to 
the Kenai River due to overescapement and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 
Trustees Council funded ADF&G research on damage from Kenai Sockeye 
overescapement and plaintiffs' compensation in part was for damage to 
future runs caused by overescapement. Now the State is managing the 
sockeye fishery in a manner that results in substantial overescapement, 
similar to what occurred after the oil spill.
    Response: The response to Comment 18 explains that the best 
scientific information available indicates that large escapements of 
sockeye salmon to the Kenai River have not resulted in reduced future 
yields and are not a conservation concern compared to the clear risks 
of overfishing and/or stocks failing to meet the lower bound of 
escapement goals. The claims and damages paid to plaintiffs in the 
decades of litigation arising from the Exxon Valdez oil spill are 
beyond the scope of this action.
    Comment 20: The result of the overescapement on the Kenai and 
Kasilof rivers caused by commercial fishery restrictions wastes a food 
resource that belongs to the whole nation (see the Supreme Court's case 
of Hughes v. Oklahoma which reversed Greer v. Connecticut). It is in 
the whole Nation's interest as to what happens to salmon in Alaska. 
When Alaska became a state, the State compact with Congress was for the 
State to manage its fish and wildlife in the national interest. The 
State created ADF&G to manage fish and game in the national interest. 
It is no longer doing that. This is the reason for the involvement of 
NMFS and the Department of Commerce.
    Response: The U.S. Supreme Court in Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 
322, 338 (1979), held that a State could not prohibit transporting fish 
out of state for sale once caught. Hughes v. Oklahoma is not relevant 
to this action.
    NMFS has determined that this action would achieve OY for the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area and, in doing so, will result in the greatest overall 
net benefit to the Nation. The National Standard 1 guidelines provide 
that OY means 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. This means NMFS must look at the impacts of its 
harvest management on all salmon stocks and stakeholders and cannot 
look at the interests of the drift gillnet fleet alone.
    As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, amendment 16 defines 
OY as the average range of target EEZ harvest across all species that 
maximizes fishing opportunities while preventing overfishing on any one 
stock. This OY range provides the greatest overall net benefits to the 
Nation because it ensures sustainable stock levels throughout the 
ecosystem, preserves multiple viable commercial fishery sectors for 
continued food production, and maintains a viable recreational fishing 
sector that attracts participants from throughout the Nation.
    This OY range is expected to result in drift gillnet harvests near 
historic levels, protect less abundant salmon stocks transiting to 
Northern Cook Inlet, and ensure other commercial and non-commercial 
stakeholders in Cook Inlet continue to have access to salmon resources. 
Any management plan designed only to prevent overescapement in the 
Kenai and Kasilof rivers by increasing EEZ harvest would upset this 
balance, preempting other users, and likely causing stocks of lower 
abundance--particularly in Northern Cook Inlet--to more regularly miss 
their escapement goals, ultimately resulting in overfishing.

[[Page 34733]]

    Comment 21: Use the flexibility within the National Standard 1 
guidelines (Sec.  600.310(h)(2)) to adopt an escapement-based inseason 
management methodology similar to the State. If the State is allowing 
too much harvest in its jurisdiction, it will be reflected in too low 
escapement numbers, and Federal managers will know to restrict fishing. 
Likewise, if the State is not providing for enough harvest, daily 
escapement numbers will indicate a higher than acceptable final 
escapement, and Federal managers will know to allow more fishing time. 
One commenter noted that an alternative approach is needed for salmon 
because of the following: (1) unlike groundfish stocks, salmon 
reproduce only once; (2) the harvestable surplus is entirely new 
recruits and the catch comprises almost exclusively mature salmon; (3) 
productivity of a specific year class cannot be improved by limiting 
harvest in subsequent years; (4) foregone harvest cannot be recaptured 
in future years; and (5) abundance cannot be estimated effectively in 
advance. Therefore, inseason estimates of abundance using 
contemporaneous data, with appropriate management actions taken to 
assure escapement and optimum production in future years, is the most 
effective way to avoid the risk of overfishing.
    Response: As set forth under section 301 of the Magnuson Stevens 
Act, National Standard 1 provides that conservation and management 
measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing 
basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States 
fishing industry. Section 303(a)(15) of the Magnuson Stevens Act 
requires that each FMP establish mechanisms for specifying ACLs to 
prevent overfishing and include accountability measures to prevent ACLs 
from being exceeded and to correct overages of the ACL if they do 
occur. The National Standard 1 guidelines at Sec.  600.310(h)(2) 
contemplate limited circumstances in which alternative approaches to 
establishing ACLs may be appropriate, and specifically cite Pacific 
salmon as an example of stocks that may require an alternative approach 
to ACLs. However, while Sec.  600.310(h)(2) provides NMFS some 
flexibility to consider alternative means of establishing ACL 
mechanisms and accountability measures in FMPs, the National Standard 1 
guidelines do not provide discretion to consider alternative means of 
establishing other reference points, like OFL or ABC. And any 
alternative approach to establishing ACLs must be consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    The primary function of status determination criteria, ACLs, and 
related requirements is to ensure that a scientifically-based approach 
is used for controlling catch to maintain stock abundance at the level 
necessary to prevent overfishing, ensure no stocks become overfished, 
and achieve OY in the fishery. Therefore, an alternative approach that 
is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act must document how the 
alternative management measures would limit catch and explain how such 
measures would rely on the best scientific information available.
    When the Council was developing the alternatives for analysis, the 
Council and NMFS considered using the State's salmon escapement goal 
management as an alternative approach for satisfying the ACL 
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act under delegated management to 
the State (Alternative 2). Under amendment 12, the Council recommended 
this alternative approach for ACLs in the East Area. Escapement goals 
are specified annually, in terms of numbers of fish. The biology of 
salmon is such that escapement is the point in the species life history 
best suited for routine assessment and long-term monitoring. Using 
spawning escapement goals is consistent with the long-standing practice 
of using spawning escapement to assess the status of salmon stocks.
    Under this alternative approach (not adopted in amendment 16), the 
mechanisms for specifying ACLs salmon stocks would be the State's 
scientifically-based management measures used to determine stock status 
and control catch to achieve the number of spawners necessary to 
produce MSY. The State's salmon management program is based on 
scientifically defensible escapement goals and inseason management 
measures to prevent overfishing. Accountability measures would include 
the State's inseason management measures and the escapement goal 
setting process that incorporates the best scientific information 
available on stock abundance.
    Using the State's inseason management approach as an alternative 
approach to establishing ACLs is not possible under Federal management 
of a new fishery in the EEZ that will be managed separately from 
fishing in State waters. NMFS currently has no infrastructure for 
collecting escapement information in Cook Inlet and there is no 
guarantee NMFS managers would have access to information collected by 
the State quickly enough to make real time management decisions. 
Additionally, escapement information is not available from any source 
for many salmon stocks in Cook Inlet. The responses to Comments 23 and 
28 provide additional discussion of the procedural challenges of 
implementing escapement-based inseason management in this situation.
    For management of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area as an entirely separate 
jurisdiction, using escapement-based inseason management as an 
alternative approach for ACLs may have additional limitations. Because 
there is a lag of multiple days (or longer for the Northern District 
salmon stocks currently with the greatest conservation risks) between 
encountering EEZ fisheries and being counted at escapement monitoring 
stations, that data may not be timely for the current management 
situation. This lag between receipt of data and action can have huge 
consequences in a fishery where a single opening can harvest well over 
300,000 salmon per day. Further, just because one stock has reached an 
escapement goal and can sustain additional harvest that does not mean 
that all of the other stocks, which are highly mixed in EEZ waters, can 
support additional harvest. This issue is compounded by fishing in EEZ 
waters occurring before all other users. Basing management solely on 
escapement would make it more difficult to ensure there was at least 
some harvestable surplus available to all salmon users in Cook Inlet 
across all jurisdictions when cooperation is not guaranteed through 
established agreements.
    During the development of this action--first at the Council, then 
as a Secretarial FMP amendment after the Council failed to recommend 
any management measures--no one identified any alternative means of 
specifying ACLs for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area that would be consistent 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, rely on the best scientific information 
available, and limit catch to ensure no overfishing occurred. 
Therefore, amendment 16 uses the default ACL approach described in the 
National Standard 1 guidelines--establishing preseason harvest limits 
based on the best scientific information available at the time stock 
assessments are drafted and harvest specifications are recommended. 
This is similar to how ACLs are set for salmon along the US West Coast 
and how the 2019 Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement establishes pre-season 
limits on Chinook harvest under the Treaty.
    Comment 22: The State, several regional sportfishing organizations, 
and

[[Page 34734]]

stakeholders in the Northern District believe amendment 16 will disrupt 
conservation and management benefits realized by the State's management 
plans, which these commenters have found to successfully balance the 
complexity and challenges of managing multiple user groups in a highly 
populated area. They emphasize that the State's management plans were 
developed by the BOF to ensure long-term sustainability of both strong 
and weak salmon stocks, optimize yields and opportunities of the 
diverse fisheries, and allocate benefits among user groups. They feel 
this action will result in overfishing of weak salmon stocks, produce 
suboptimum yields, and confound the State's effective in-season 
management. This is not consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act or 
National Standard 1.
    Response: NMFS recognizes the complex and challenging nature of 
Cook Inlet salmon fisheries. NMFS disagrees that amendment 16 will 
undermine the State's Central District Drift Gillnet Fishery Management 
Plan, result in overfishing, or produce suboptimal yields.
    As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS recognizes 
that salmon harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ occurs first and can impact 
the amount of salmon available to upstream users and to meet spawning 
escapement goals. In developing this final rule, NMFS considered the 
management measures implemented by the BOF and worked to balance 
competing interests and provide opportunity for all users of salmon 
throughout Cook Inlet.
    NMFS acknowledges that, in some years, this action may allow for 
more days of drift gillnet fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area relative 
to previous State management plans. NMFS will use TACs that account for 
uncertainty and harvest in other fisheries in order to prevent 
overfishing on any less abundant salmon stocks transiting through the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area. As described in section 2.5.2.1 of the Analysis 
and the response to Comment 25, TACs will account for stocks of lower 
abundance and prevent overfishing on weak stocks. The TACs are expected 
to result in total harvests fairly consistent with the status quo. NMFS 
will have inseason management authority to adjust TACs and close or 
reopen the fishery as needed to account for inseason conditions. NMFS 
and the Council will use the best scientific information available and 
work to improve salmon monitoring and assessment where possible/
practicable, and will coordinate with the State to the extent possible. 
Further, as discussed in the section on changes from the proposed to 
final rule, NMFS is reducing the number of open fishing periods from 
two to one from July 16 to July 31 to directly respond to the comments 
from users in Northern Cook Inlet who said they depend on the 
conservation corridor established under State management.
    NMFS expects that this final rule will continue to provide for a 
harvestable surplus for all Upper Cook Inlet salmon fishery sectors in 
both State and Federal waters. NMFS anticipates that under this final 
rule all Cook Inlet salmon fisheries will remain viable and produce 
economic benefits commensurate with the status quo.

Status Determination Criteria and Annual Catch Limits

    Comment 23: Many commenters raised concerns about using TACs for 
salmon harvest in the EEZ, including the following perspectives.
    Use of a TAC established on preseason projections will result in 
inappropriate catch. While uncertainty may be accounted for when 
setting ABC and OFL, it lacks the benefit of inseason information on 
run strength, weak stocks, harvests, and other important factors. Cook 
Inlet salmon run sizes and timing are variable and unpredictable, 
especially in recent years. Establishing a TAC increases the likelihood 
of either overfishing or underfishing and reduces the likelihood of 
remaining within the escapement goal range for those stocks with goals. 
Further, if there are deviations from forecasted run size, procedural 
constraints on Federal management may exacerbate the resulting 
problems. These issues combined could jeopardize sustainability, 
especially for weak stocks, and could result in overfishing of weak 
stocks.
    Commenters from the drift gillnet fleet emphasized that forecasts 
will be inaccurate, management objectives will not be met, harvest will 
be unnecessarily reduced, MSY and OY will not be achieved, and this 
action will cause adverse economic impacts.
    Other commenters voiced concerns that a TAC would not be 
conservative enough given that this action sets TACs for a first-in-
line fishery, which would require the State to reduce State water 
fisheries harvest if the pre-season forecasts are not realized. 
Commenters from other commercial and recreational salmon fishery 
sectors in Upper Cook Inlet, as well as associated communities, were 
significantly concerned that TACs would not be precautionary enough and 
EEZ harvests would reduce or eliminate the harvestable surplus 
available to other users. Some commenters cited unpredictable 
escapement data that would require unexpected fishery closures.
    Response: Under section 303(a)(15) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
FMP must include a mechanism for specifying ACLs at a level that 
overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including measures to ensure 
accountability. NMFS is therefore required to have ACLs and management 
measures to implement them, and amendment 16 includes these required 
elements. TACs (i.e., preseason catch limits) are established to ensure 
fishery harvests remain below ACLs. Because salmon of the same species 
originate from separate stocks but cannot be visually distinguished, in 
amendment 16, TACs are set at the species level based on the cumulative 
estimated contribution by stock, at least until inseason genetic 
information becomes available. There is uncertainty inherent to 
forecast-based catch limits. In establishing TACs, NMFS will take into 
account management uncertainty and public comment, just as NMFS and the 
SSC will consider scientific uncertainty in setting OFL and ABC (and 
therefore ACL since ACL equals ABC) each year. OFL and ABC are 
specified for each stock or stock complex. TACs are established for 
species rather than stocks or stock complexes because inseason it is 
not currently possible to differentiate among stocks of the same 
species. TACs for each species are set based on the aggregate ABC for 
each component stock and stock complex and account for the assumed 
contribution of each stock or stock complex to total catch to ensure 
ABC is not exceeded for any one component stock. NMFS will monitor the 
fishery daily and use inseason management measures and adjust the TAC, 
if practicable, to ensure that catch amounts are appropriate for the 
realized run strength. And NMFS expects that TACs set for the Cook 
Inlet EEZ will be suitably precautionary to avoid overfishing.
    Establishing TACs is consistent with the NMFS's management approach 
for salmon stocks in ocean fisheries on the West Coast with an ACL 
requirement (e.g., stocks that are not subject to a tribal/
international treaty or ESA exception). The Pacific Salmon Treaty also 
establishes pre-season catch limits for Chinook salmon covered by the 
Treaty. NMFS considered alternative approaches to establishing ACLs as 
described in the response to Comment 21.
    NMFS will consider all available information about Cook Inlet 
salmon

[[Page 34735]]

run strength and coordinate with the State to the extent practicable 
when making management decisions for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. However, 
this action establishes Federal reference points and harvest 
specifications for the Federal fishery, as required by the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, which are different from existing State management 
measures.
    NMFS acknowledges that the ACL requirement and additional Federal 
notice requirements--mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the APA--
are less flexible in adjusting fishing opportunity based on inseason 
information about run size when compared to managing by monitoring 
escapement goals and exercising emergency order authority pursuant to 
State law, as under State management. This is described in section 
2.5.2.6 of the Analysis. NMFS also acknowledges that fishing in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area takes place before all other salmon fisheries in 
upper Cook Inlet and that it can impact salmon escapement for each 
stock as well as the harvestable surplus available to all other 
subsequent salmon users. NMFS acknowledges the uncertainty inherent to 
forecast-based catch limits. However, NMFS designed the harvest 
specification process and management framework implemented by this 
action to account for the inherent uncertainty in preseason estimates 
and the need for inseason management, as well as the mixed-stock, 
first-in-line nature of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area fishery, consistent 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the APA.
    Comment 24: Appropriate harvest rates are not considered when 
determining what should be harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. The 
2002 ADF&G mark-recapture population estimate study (Regional 
Information Report 2A03-20, published 2003) on coho, pinks, and chums 
found that the commercial fishery harvest rates on coho were about 10 
percent, pinks were around 2 percent, and chums were around 6 percent. 
These harvest rates were the results of State management policies that 
were in effect at that time. To further skew the harvest rates since 
2002, when the study was done, the commercial fishery was even more 
restricted by State salmon management plans that continue to fail to 
meet the requirements of Magnuson-Stevens Act. All harvest rates should 
be based on 81 percent overfishing exploitation rate and a 65 percent 
MSY exploitation rate. MSY exploitation rates should be 63 percent for 
coho, 53 percent for pinks, and 56 percent for chums to achieve MSY on 
these stocks over the long term.
    Response: Harvest rates (exploitation rates) could not be 
considered for the Federal management of stocks of pink, chum, and coho 
salmon in Upper Cook Inlet because there are not sufficient data 
available to estimate such harvest rates. The mark-recapture studies 
cited by the commenter are now more than 20 years old, and salmon 
populations are not stable over time. Rather, as cited in the Analysis 
and the SAFE report, a variety of publications, including State of 
Alaska escapement goal reports, annual management reports, and stock 
assessments, indicate that Alaska's salmon populations experience 
substantial year-to-year fluctuations in abundance over time. 
Population estimates from a given year are not indicative of the 
population abundance during other years. There are no contemporary 
estimates of total run size or overall spawning escapement for stocks 
of coho, pink, and chum salmon for all of Upper Cook Inlet, and 
historical estimates are highly uncertain. As such, exploitation rates 
have not been estimated during recent years and therefore, it is not 
possible to precisely estimate MSY for these stocks based on current 
assessment methods. Moreover, there are no estimates of population 
abundance for these stocks to inform preseason harvests specifications. 
NMFS will use the best available scientific information to inform 
harvest specifications and management decisions for the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area.
    Comment 25: Several commenters, including Alaska Native tribes in 
the region, emphasized the importance of precautionary salmon 
management and felt that amendment 16 was not suitably precautionary 
given large potential harvests by the drift gillnet fleet, which 
includes a mixture of strong and weak stocks.
    One commenter noted that many Northern District salmon stocks lack 
estimates of annual escapement, escapement goals, and numeric data 
(historic or current). Cook Inlet salmon fisheries harvest mixed stocks 
and need to be managed to account for this. Precautionary management 
would help meet escapement goals. NMFS should fund genetic data 
collection and more escapement monitoring.
    Another commenter suggested setting conservative TACs for the first 
6 years. One commenter generally suggested that management measures in 
addition to TACs would be needed. Another commented stated that NMFS 
must develop a plan for pre-season commercial fishing closures as well 
as in-season commercial fishing closures based on in-season 
escapements.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the importance of precautionary fishery 
management and avoiding overfishing on all salmon stocks. Furthermore, 
NMFS acknowledges that some Cook Inlet salmon stocks are highly 
abundant and may support additional harvests while other salmon stocks 
are a major conservation concern and can support little or no harvest. 
Over time, NMFS will work to expand the scientific information 
available to manage Cook Inlet salmon stocks. Amendment 16 includes 
accountability measures, and NMFS can implement additional 
accountability measures if needed to avoid exceeding ACLs.
    NMFS must establish harvest specifications before fishing begins. 
NMFS agrees that there is a need for precaution when there is 
significant scientific or management uncertainty associated with salmon 
management in Cook Inlet. Drift gillnet fishing in Cook Inlet harvests 
mixed stocks of salmon. The best scientific information available will 
be used to assess the status of each salmon stock in Cook Inlet and set 
harvest limits each year. The harvest limits set for each species will 
consider the proportional contribution of each salmon stock to total 
catch, when known. Species-level TACs may also be reduced from combined 
ACLs to protect weak stocks when there is uncertainty about catch 
composition (a key type of management uncertainty). Furthermore, NMFS 
will close commercial fishing for all salmon species in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ when catch limits for one or more stocks are met or exceeded, or if 
other information becomes available that indicates overfishing is 
likely. This will help ensure that overfishing does not occur on any 
one stock.
    NMFS disagrees that the management framework established by this 
action is not sufficiently precautionary. As described in the preamble 
to the proposed rule, every year the Council's SSC will establish ABCs 
for each Cook Inlet salmon stock, accounting for scientific uncertainty 
by reducing ABC from OFL. TAC would then be set for each salmon species 
to account for management uncertainty to ensure that total catch does 
not exceed the ABC for any stock and may also include additional 
reductions to account for social, economic, and/or ecological factors. 
As noted in the changes from proposed to final rule section, this 
action reduces the number of fishing periods per week in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area to one opening per week from July 16-July 31 to allow salmon 
stocks of lower abundance to migrate northward. To further address 
mixed-stock conservation needs, drift gillnet fishing

[[Page 34736]]

in the Cook Inlet EEZ area will be closed after a TAC for a single 
species is reached or would be exceeded by another opening because 
drift gillnet gear catches all stocks present in the EEZ and the fleet 
could not focus harvest on only those species for which there is 
remaining TAC.
    NMFS acknowledges that there is some uncertainty in estimated EEZ 
harvests but recognizes it as the best scientific information 
available. Forecasted salmon abundance and associated uncertainty will 
be considered each year to set harvest specifications that are 
appropriately precautionary. After implementation of this action, NMFS 
will collect high quality data to determine total EEZ harvests.
    For further explanation of NMFS's approach to management of this 
mixed stock fishery, see the response to Comment 55.
    Comment 26: The State cannot commit to adjusting the work schedule 
and timing of Cook Inlet salmon management and science products to 
accommodate the proposed Federal harvest specification process. Salmon 
scales take time to read and age, data takes time to analyze, and 
models take time to run and fact check. Expediting these processes 
could result in errors. We already anticipate that this action will 
increase the volume and complexity of information requests that ADF&G 
receives from fishery participants, increasing staff workload.
    Response: Nothing in this action requires the State to change the 
timing of their reports, publications, or other work products. However, 
as described in sections 4.7.3.2 and 4.8 of the Analysis, NMFS 
acknowledges that this action will increase costs and burden to State 
and Federal fishery management agencies. NMFS acknowledges the timing, 
logistical challenges, and costs associated with fishery data 
collection, analyses, and the timing requirements of the Federal 
process for the SSC and Council to recommend harvest specifications and 
for NMFS to implement them by publishing proposed and final harvest 
specifications in the Federal Register.
    NMFS and the Council will use the best scientific information 
available at the time that harvest specifications must be developed or 
other fishery management decisions made. This may include information 
from the State or other sources, and NMFS will work with the State to 
the extent practicable. NMFS, the Council, and the SSC will evaluate 
the level of uncertainty in available data and information and adjust 
harvest specifications and other management measures accordingly.
    Comment 27: To establish a reliable TAC based on the proportional 
contribution of each stock to this fishery, better data must first be 
established including in-season genetics and escapement information for 
Northern Cook Inlet salmon stocks. Test fisheries need to take place 
where northern-bound fish are most easily differentiated from Kenai-
bound fish. Using averages of previous years to establish the TAC is no 
substitute for timely in-season management. NMFS may want to support 
the State's test fishery or establish another test fishery to monitor 
salmon numbers, species, and stocks entering upper Cook Inlet. Timely 
genetic analysis from test fisheries could provide better real-time 
abundance information for management.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that there are incomplete genetics and 
escapement data for Cook Inlet salmon stocks, as described in section 
2.5.2.2 of the Analysis. However, NMFS will use the best scientific 
information that is available, including information from test 
fisheries and historical data on genetic stock composition to manage 
salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Any uncertainties in the 
available scientific information will be accounted for, and management 
measures will be adjusted based on the level of precaution warranted. 
As discussed in the response to Comment 28, NMFS will monitor the 
fishery and make management decisions on a daily basis depending on 
currently available information on realized salmon abundance.
    NMFS will work to improve the level of information available to 
manage the fishery and may consider other management tools including 
Federal test fisheries and genetics sampling to address future 
management needs.

Inseason Management

    Comment 28: Daily management of the fishery must take place like 
all other State salmon fisheries.
    Response: NMFS will monitor catch from each Federal fishing day, 
catch in other fisheries, and any other information available about 
inseason salmon abundance to make management decisions for the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area on a daily basis. NMFS may close the fishery, reopen it, 
or--potentially--adjust the TAC amounts to account for emerging 
inseason conditions. However, unlike the State and as described in the 
proposed rule, NMFS must comply with the APA when implementing any 
fishery management decision. The need to comply with the APA's notice 
requirements for all inseason actions, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
requirement to establish ACLs, make it infeasible to implement an 
escapement-based salmon management approach like that used by the 
State.
    Comment 29: Catch per unit effort (CPUE) should be used instead of 
a TAC to manage salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that CPUE should be used to manage salmon 
fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area as CPUE data alone would be 
insufficient to meet Federal Magnuson-Stevens Act and National 
Standards requirements. CPUE data would provide managers with the 
information about catch rates of salmon in the fishery, but not about 
the specific stocks caught. Even with stock specific catch information, 
CPUE data for salmon harvests may not correspond to overall run size or 
numbers of fish necessary to meet spawning escapement goals. As 
described in section 2.4.4 of the Analysis, methods that use CPUE 
(e.g., catch per delivery) would likely not provide sufficient 
information to judge whether catches had exceeded a level thought to 
cause overfishing for a stock. NMFS does agree that CPUE can, under 
some circumstances, provide useful inseason information for fishery 
managers.
    Comment 30: The proposed TAC does not discuss the criteria that 
will be used to close the fishery. The only criterion that is presented 
is a salmon harvest of 291,631. This single criterion of 291,631 salmon 
does not meet Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Standards 
requirements.
    Response: This final rule does not establish a TAC of 291,631 
salmon. NMFS will establish TACs in a separate proposed and final 
harvest specifications process.
    The preamble to the proposed rule for this action comprehensively 
describe how TACs for each salmon species would be established 
according to the process laid out in the Harvest Specifications and 
Annual Processes section, while the criteria for closure are described 
in the Inseason Management section. This action establishes the lower 
bound of the OY range at 291,631 salmon. The OY range is not used to 
establish harvest specifications or close salmon fishing. The OY range 
is a long-term average amount of desired yield from the fishery, not an 
annual management target, and thus 291,631 represents the lower bound 
of the desired long-term average yield from the fishery. As described 
in the response to Comment 10, the OY range specified by this action is 
consistent with the

[[Page 34737]]

Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Standards.

Cook Inlet EEZ Commercial Salmon Fishing Management Measures

    Comment 31: Several commenters objected to the prohibition on drift 
gillnet fishing in State and Federal waters on the same calendar day. 
They indicated this will be inefficient, have adverse economic impacts, 
decrease flexibility to harvest salmon as migration paths and run 
timing vary, and be inconsistent with National Standard 6. Another 
commenter noted that there is not a similar prohibition on recreational 
fishing in both State and Federal waters on the same day. Some 
commenters also suggested these requirements are intended to be 
punitive against members of the drift gillnet fleet.
    Response: This final rule provides that it is unlawful for 
commercial fishery sector participants to:
     Set drift gillnet gear within, or allow any portion of 
drift gillnet gear to enter, State waters on the same calendar day that 
drift gillnet gear is also deployed in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area while 
commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area (Sec.  
679.117(b)(1)(v));
     Use a vessel named, or required to be named, on an SFFP to 
fish for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area if that vessel fishes for 
salmon in Alaska State waters on the same calendar day (Sec.  
679.117(b)(1)(vii));
     Possess salmon, harvested in Alaska State waters, on board 
a vessel commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area or to 
have salmon on board a vessel at the time a fishing trip commences in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area (Sec.  679.117(b)(1)(viii) and (ix)); and
     Land salmon harvested in Alaska State waters concurrently 
with salmon harvested commercially in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area'' (Sec.  
679.117(b)(1)(xii)).
    As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule (Other Commercial 
Fishery Management Measures and Prohibitions section), NMFS has 
determined that there is a need to restrict vessels from fishing in 
both State and Federal waters during the same calendar day. The Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area is managed separately from adjacent waters managed by 
the State. NMFS must be able to accurately account for harvest in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ to avoid exceeding the Federal TAC, prevent overfishing, 
and accurately manage to the established Federal reference points, as 
required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which NMFS would be less able to 
do if catches from State and Federal waters were mixed on a vessel 
during a single fishing trip.
    If vessels could fish in both State and Federal waters on the same 
calendar day, landings could contain a mix of salmon harvested in both 
the State and Federal fisheries. Some method to attribute a 
proportional amount of catch to Federal waters would be needed. This 
would embed assumptions about the correct proportions and thus would 
substantially increase uncertainty for Federal managers and would 
likely require significantly more conservative management decisions for 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. This could also create an incentive for 
fishermen to over-report State waters catch to keep the Cook Inlet EEZ 
open to commercial salmon fishing longer, which would necessitate 
additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting measures. In short, 
NMFS could not accurately monitor EEZ harvests and ensure the fishery 
complies with all Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements if vessels could 
move between State and Federal waters on the same day and land fish 
caught in both jurisdictions.
    As described in the response to Comment 37, these prohibitions do 
allow vessels to choose whether to fish in State or Federal waters on 
each calendar day. This allows vessels to operate where catches are 
highest or efficiency is maximized depending on their port location or 
any other factor.
    Also as described in the response to Comment 37, NMFS did consider 
management that would schedule the Federal drift gillnet fishery on 
separate days to alleviate the catch accounting concern but chose not 
to implement this approach due to significant uncertainty about the 
total number of drift gillnet fishing days in Cook Inlet that would 
result in highly unpredictable effort and catch.
    NMFS acknowledges that there is not a prohibition on recreational 
(sport) salmon fishing in State and Federal waters on the same day. As 
described in section 4.5.2.2 of the Analysis, fewer than 70 salmon per 
year are estimated to be harvested by recreational salmon fishing in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Furthermore, recreational anglers are not 
allowed to harvest additional salmon by fishing in either or both 
areas--the same bag limit applies in State and Federal waters and 
anglers are prohibited from catching or possessing a bag limit for both 
State and Federal waters on the same day. Therefore, there is no 
identified management need to prohibit recreational fishing in State 
and Federal waters on the same calendar day. If recreational salmon 
harvests in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area increase in the future, the Council 
may recommend and NMFS may choose to implement additional restrictions 
on recreational salmon fishing as needed.
    Comment 32: If NMFS implemented escapement-based management rather 
than a TAC, then there would be no need to prohibit vessels from 
fishing in State and Federal waters in the same trip.
    Response: Escapement-based management was considered during the 
development of this action under Alternative 2, which would have 
delegated management authority to the State. Delegated management under 
Alternative 2 would not have included a prohibition on fishing in both 
State and Federal waters on the same calendar day and provided for the 
State's use of their escapement-based tools to achieve Federal 
reference points. However, the State refused to accept delegated 
management. The response to Comment 21 describes why escapement-based 
management as currently conducted by the State could not be implemented 
by this action.
    Comment 33: Opening the whole EEZ and drift gillnet Area 2 will 
spread out the small drift gillnet fleet (less than 300 boats in recent 
years), reducing pressure on returning non-sockeye stocks and allowing 
maximum harvest of abundant sockeye stocks.
    Response: Under this final rule, the entire Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
will be open to drift gillnet salmon fishing during established fishing 
periods. Because this is similar to historical State management of the 
Area, as described in the response to Comment 25, NMFS remains 
concerned about mixed-stock harvests and impacts to less abundant 
stocks and will manage salmon fishing within the Cook Inlet EEZ to 
prevent overfishing on all stocks through the use of TACs and inseason 
information.
    While there have been fewer participants in recent years, this 
trend could reverse and over 200 additional latent permits could 
reenter the fishery, which must be considered in this long-term 
management framework.
    Drift gillnet Area 2 is entirely within State waters and will 
continue to be managed by the State and is outside the scope of this 
action.

Federal Commercial Fishing Season and Fishing Periods

    Comment 34: Many commenters expressed concern about the amount of 
fishing that this action will allow between July 15 and August 15, when 
certain stocks are migrating north through the Cook Inlet EEZ. Fishing 
by the drift fleet in EEZ waters from July 16 through July 31 is highly 
impactful

[[Page 34738]]

due to large catches and mixed stocks. Commenters noted that currently 
the drift gillnet fishery can only fish once per week during this 
critical period for migrating stocks and additional openings from July 
16 through July 31 are authorized only under certain conditions and in 
limited areas. Multiple regional tribes, Northern district communities, 
and regional sportfishing organizations recommended that NMFS allow 
only one EEZ opening per week between July 15 and July 31, or until the 
season closure date. The State and one other commenter proposed that 
NMFS close the Cook Inlet EEZ to fishing after July 15.
    Response: Upon reviewing the significant public comment received 
regarding the number of fishing periods in the proposed rule for this 
action and the importance of Cook Inlet salmon resources to all salmon 
users throughout Cook Inlet, NMFS agrees that it is prudent for 
conservation of Cook Inlet salmon stocks to reduce the number of 
commercial fishery openings in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area to one per week 
in late July. The reason for this change is discussed in detail above 
in the section on changes from the proposed to final rule and briefly 
summarized here.
    In addition to establishing TACs that are suitably precautionary in 
light of uncertainty, the other primary means by which NMFS prevents 
overfishing and ensures all stocks are able to meet their escapement 
goals is by managing the amount and timing of scheduled fishing 
periods. In this final rule, NMFS has decided to decrease the number of 
commercial fishing openings between July 16 and July 31 from two to one 
per week. This more closely aligns with the number of openings under 
the status quo and is responsive to the significant public comments 
received on the importance of this time period to Northern Cook Inlet 
salmon stocks that transit through the EEZ to spawning grounds. From 
June 19 until July 15, and from August 1 to August 15, there will still 
be two drift gillnet fishery openings per week, unless otherwise 
closed. NMFS expects that when there are high salmon abundances, and no 
constraining stocks, this management framework will allow for harvest 
of TACs in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    Decreasing the number of fishing periods in the second half of July 
may also have other important conservation and management benefits. 
First, it allows for more even utilization of the beginning, middle, 
and late returning components of each salmon stock. Second, it may 
decrease the risk of a smaller TAC for one salmon species being reached 
and resulting in a closure of the fishery before the larger, high value 
sockeye salmon TAC can be fully achieved. For example, while Chinook 
salmon are not harvested in large quantities by the drift gillnet fleet 
in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, declines in Chinook salmon abundance have, 
in some cases, entirely eliminated the harvestable surplus of Chinook 
(i.e., escapement goals cannot be achieved even if no fish are 
harvested). As a result, the Chinook salmon TACs established for the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area are likely to be relatively small. Although very 
few Chinook have historically been caught after August 1, significant 
numbers have been caught in the second half of July. Reducing fishing 
time in the second half of July makes it less likely that a Chinook TAC 
will be reached, triggering a closure before the sockeye salmon TAC has 
been harvested.
    As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS considered 
but rejected other management measures that would provide fewer drift 
gillnet fishing periods per week in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. NMFS 
determined that allowing only one 12-hour drift gillnet fishing period 
per week in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area throughout the entire season may 
not allow for adequate harvest opportunities in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
in years when salmon abundances are higher. Similarly, a fixed July 15 
closure would be expected to unnecessarily limit harvest in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area to less than half of its historical amount.
    Comment 35: The State objected to the drift gillnet fishing season 
ending on August 15, as it stated that allowing fishing in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ during the August 1 to August 15 time period conflicts with 
its 1 percent rule. Under that State regulation, from August 1 to 
August 15, if less than 1 percent of the season's total drift gillnet 
sockeye salmon harvest has been taken per fishing period for two 
consecutive fishing periods in the drift gillnet fishery, the fishery 
is restricted to the west side of Upper Cook Inlet where the fleet is 
less likely to catch salmon from weak stocks or those needed to provide 
a harvestable surplus to other users. These area restrictions are also 
implemented if the East Side Set Net fishery is closed. The State 
stated that the proposed closure date of August 15 rule is not based on 
conservation objectives and fails to coordinate with the existing Cook 
Inlet allocation processes.
    Response: NMFS chose not to implement a regulation similar to the 
State's 1 percent rule for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. NMFS expects that 
the season closure date of August 15 combined with the TAC will be 
sufficient to address conservation and management of coho salmon stocks 
in Cook Inlet. In most Federal fisheries, a TAC-based closure occurs 
before a season closure date. NMFS does not anticipate that drift 
gillnet fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area will be open through August 
15 in all years. NMFS will close the fishery when necessary to prevent 
exceeding a TAC. However, in years when salmon abundance supports 
higher TACs, two fishery openings per week for all of the season 
besides July 16-July 31 is expected to provide sufficient opportunities 
to harvest the available TAC by August 15 without creating conservation 
concerns for stocks of lower abundance.
    Comment 36: Consider opening drift gillnet fishing in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ and Area 2 for two or three 12-hour periods a week. When the 
Kenai River reaches the lower end of the sockeye escapement goal, the 
commercial fleet should get additional openers to maximize harvest to 
protect the river from overescapement.
    Response: As described in the preamble to the proposed rule and 
above, NMFS carefully considered the number of weekly commercial drift 
gillnet fishing periods. As described in the response to Comment 2, 
management of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area must balance utilization of 
abundant salmon stocks with protecting less abundant stocks from 
overfishing and ensuring stocks important to users other than the drift 
gillnet fleet continue to meet their escapement goals. While two 12-
hour openings per week was proposed by NMFS, public commenters 
identified significant potential conservation concerns associated with 
increasing Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial fishing time from the status 
quo. Opening the Cook Inlet EEZ Area to commercial fishing for three 
12-hour periods per week would represent a major increase in fishing 
time and could significantly exacerbate the conservation concerns 
identified in this final rule. Kenai sockeye salmon reaching their 
escapement goal does not provide information to managers that other 
salmon stocks (e.g., other sockeye, coho, and Chinook salmon) can also 
support additional harvest at that time.
    There are also potential procedural challenges associated with 
significant inseason changes or adjustments. Sections 2.5.2.6 and 
2.5.13 of the Analysis detail the constraints of the harvest 
specifications (i.e., the TAC amounts) that it must publish prior to 
the fishing season. If there are

[[Page 34739]]

unexpectedly large salmon returns, fishing may continue for the 
remaining days for the season until any TAC amount is reached. If a TAC 
amount is reached and the fishery closes, but the best scientific 
information available indicates there is still a harvestable surplus, 
NMFS may adjust the TAC and reopen the fishery until August 15, or the 
revised TAC amount(s) is reached, whichever comes first. In addition, 
the Federal reference points established by this action and required by 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act are not directly equivalent to State 
escapement goals.
    Drift gillnet Area 2 is entirely within State waters and will 
continue to be managed by the State and is outside the scope of this 
action.
    Comment 37: Do not conduct Federal openings on the exact same 
schedule as State openings. Combining the two on the same day will 
result in nothing more than lost opportunity and inefficiency of effort 
and cost.
    Response: This final rule at Sec.  679.118(e) provides that the 
Cook Inlet EEZ will be open to drift gillnet fishing for two, 12-hour 
periods each week, from 7 a.m. Monday until 7 p.m. Monday, and from 7 
a.m. Thursday until 7 p.m. Thursday from the later of the third Monday 
in June or June 19 until July 15, and from August 1 to August 15, and 
one, 12-hour fishing period on Thursdays from July 16 to July 31, until 
either (1) the TAC is reached, or (2) August 15, whichever comes first.
    As discussed in the proposed rule and sections 2.5.9 and 4.8 of the 
Analysis, NMFS considered whether to open the Cook Inlet EEZ Area to 
drift gillnet fishing on different days than when State waters are 
open. NMFS chose to open the Cook Inlet EEZ Area on the same days to 
avoid unpredictable impacts to Cook Inlet salmon stocks, as additional 
days of fishing in a week would put additional pressure on stocks of 
lower abundance, allowing those stocks less opportunity to pass through 
the EEZ with sufficient abundance to both meet escapement goals and 
provide a harvestable surplus to all other users. If the EEZ were open 
on days when adjacent State waters were closed, and the State 
maintained its existing management plan, it is likely there would be a 
significantly increased number of total drift gillnet fishing days in 
upper Cook Inlet. This would increase the likelihood of harvests that 
are too high (the drift gillnet fleet has the potential to harvest over 
300,000 salmon per opening) and it may not be possible to mitigate the 
impacts of additional fishing days each week in Cook Inlet, even with 
severe restrictions or closures of later occurring fishery sectors. 
Further, to achieve OY while preventing overfishing in salmon 
fisheries, an important consideration is balancing harvest and 
escapement over the period salmon are returning. Providing regular 
periods when fishing is closed allows early, middle, and late returning 
components of each salmon stock to move up Cook Inlet to their natal 
spawning streams. By largely maintaining the existing fishing schedule, 
these migratory periods where fishing is closed--and which have largely 
been successful in allowing Northern District stocks to meet their 
escapement goals--are maintained.
    Fishery participants may select whether to fish in State or Federal 
waters each day to maximize their harvest opportunities as salmon 
stocks move up Cook Inlet. NMFS acknowledges that, within a single 
fishing day, this may decrease efficiency and increase costs during 
times when salmon abundance may be unpredictably concentrated on the 
State/EEZ boundary. Across years, there is a high level of variability 
in the spatial and temporal distributions of salmon stocks migrating 
through Cook Inlet waters, including the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, due to 
changes in wind, tide, water temperature, and other factors. Therefore, 
it is very difficult to predict with accuracy any change in efficiency 
that may result from this rule.
    Comment 38: Several drift gillnet stakeholders requested that the 
commercial fishing season start several weeks early (June 1) and finish 
later (September 15) to increase harvests of all salmon species, 
including pink and chum salmon.
    Response: As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, 
historically drift gillnet fishing in Cook Inlet has not occurred prior 
to the third week in June as sockeye, coho, chum, and pink salmon are 
not present in commercially significant quantities in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ. The start date is based on this history of commercial fishing in 
the EEZ area. Further, as discussed in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, NMFS has concerns about additional impacts from the drift gillnet 
fleet to Chinook salmon that are present in the Cook Inlet EEZ before 
June 19. Opening after mid-June helps avoid potential additional 
impacts to early-run Cook Inlet Chinook salmon stocks. These stocks 
migrate through upper Cook Inlet in May and early June. For these 
reasons, NMFS did not choose to open drift gillnet fishing within the 
Cook Inlet EEZ prior to the third week in June.
    NMFS has concerns that additional fishing time after August 15 
could result in disproportionate impacts to coho salmon stocks in Cook 
Inlet. Fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ after August 15 would be expected 
to primarily increase harvests of this species. Based on recent indices 
of spawning escapements, additional harvests of coho salmon may result 
in a failure to achieve spawning escapement goals. The EEZ is 
relatively far from Northern District streams and associated weirs 
where escapements are monitored. As such, fishery openings targeting 
coho salmon (which have an elevated conservation concern) in the EEZ 
carry the largest risk in terms of potential harvest on Northern 
District stocks prior to information about the achievement of spawning 
escapement goals. In contrast, State waters are closer to natal streams 
and can be prosecuted more precisely on target stocks and during a time 
when escapement data is more likely to be available since there is 
significantly less travel time between the State fishery and weirs. 
This action does not modify management of State waters, and it is 
expected that the majority of coho salmon harvests, which occur in 
State waters after August 15, will be unaffected by this action.
    NMFS disagrees that closing the fishery later than August 15 would 
increase pink and chum salmon harvests. Historically, by August 15, 
over 99 percent of the average Chinook, sockeye, pink, and chum salmon 
harvest has been completed in both State and EEZ waters as those salmon 
species have largely moved through Cook Inlet EEZ waters and up into 
Cook Inlet State marine and fresh waters by that time (section 
4.5.1.2.1. of the Analysis). Therefore, additional Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
fishing time after August 15 would be expected to impact only coho 
salmon, for which there are conservation concerns.
    Comment 39: With amendment 16, NMFS's inseason management authority 
to close the fishery should be based on best available science and 
salmon escapement goals. NMFS needs more access to funding and 
resources to carry out these goals.
    Response: NMFS will use the best scientific information available 
when making any inseason management decisions. NMFS will consider all 
sources of information when determining what constitutes the best 
scientific information available. However, for the reasons explained in 
Comment 23, NMFS inseason management decisions are based on TACs. NMFS 
will consider the escapement goals and the best scientific information 
available regarding

[[Page 34740]]

projected run sizes for an upcoming fishing season during the stock 
assessment and harvest specifications process. The SSC and NMFS will 
account for scientific uncertainty in these projections when setting 
ABC, and the Council and NMFS will also consider management uncertainty 
in recommending and establishing TACs. Inseason closures before the end 
of the season are most likely to be based on information suggesting an 
additional opener would result in exceeding a TAC for any species or 
could result in overfishing of any stock. NMFS will consider available 
spawning abundance information inseason (i.e., progress toward meeting 
escapement goals) to ensure the abundance assumptions underlying the 
TACs are appropriate and will identify any potentially needed 
management changes.
    NMFS will strive to make timely and efficient inseason management 
decisions, consistent with the APA, Federal regulations, and other 
applicable law. NMFS will work to build capacity and resources for 
salmon management in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area over time, however NMFS 
has determined that it can successfully implement amendment 16 at this 
time.
    Comment 40: Pacific salmon evolved into the species we know today. 
Today, various stocks of salmon are considered threatened or endangered 
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Originally, indigenous people 
developed a social custom that delayed the start of salmon fishing and 
allowed salmon to reach their spawning grounds and complete their 
lifecycle, and this has been continued by government regulators. 
Flexibility in the opening and closing dates is needed to account for 
variations in run timing and migration patterns, especially under 
climate change, to avoid adversely affecting sport and subsistence 
fishers. The proposed new date of the third (or possibly fourth) Monday 
in June allows more flexibility.
    Response: NMFS recognizes the evolution of conservation and 
management measures for salmon stocks as jurisdictions have changed 
over time. No salmon stocks spawning in Alaska are listed under the 
ESA. As described in the response to Comment 38, NMFS established the 
fixed season start and end dates to maintain historical harvest 
patterns and avoid adverse impacts to non-target salmon stocks within 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. However, NMFS does agree that flexibility is 
important to account for variations and contingencies and expects that 
the TACs and associated inseason actions will ensure that harvest is 
adjusted to the specific conditions experienced during each fishing 
season to provide harvest opportunity and prevent overfishing, within 
the established commercial fishery season dates (approximately June 19 
to August 15). NMFS may close and reopen fishing during the season to 
account for run conditions.
    Comment 41: The season ending date needs to reflect the size of the 
return, which is not known until the very end of a salmon run or 
shortly thereafter.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the realized run size of a stock 
is not fully known until the end of the fishing season, but has 
selected a fixed season closure date that falls after nearly all EEZ 
harvest has historically taken place and avoids potential new impacts 
on coho stocks of lower abundance. However, NMFS will use its inseason 
management authorities specified at Sec.  679.25 to adjust the closure 
of the fishery based on TAC or other scientific information each year--
up to August 15--including available indices of abundance (e.g., test 
fishery data and spawning escapements).

Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

    Comment 42: ADF&G supports the monitoring, recordkeeping, 
reporting, legal gear, and prohibitions proposed for the commercial 
salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. These requirements are 
necessary to minimize conflicts between fisheries in State and Federal 
waters, ensure accurate catch accounting, and facilitate enforcement of 
Federal regulations. The proposed prohibitions on fishing in both State 
and EEZ waters on the same day and having on board or delivering fish 
harvested in both State and EEZ waters are particularly important to 
meeting these objectives and the State supports including them in the 
final rule. We also support the proposed prohibitions on landing or 
otherwise transferring salmon that is caught within the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area in the EEZ to ensure that harvesting vessels delivering to a 
tender vessel do so within State waters.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the support for these fishery 
management measures. NMFS agrees that the measures in this final rule 
are necessary to minimize conflicts between fisheries in State and 
Federal waters, ensure accurate catch accounting, and facilitate 
enforcement of Federal regulations.
    Comment 43: ADF&G supports the proposed monitoring requirements to 
enforce the prohibitions on drift gillnet fishing in State and Federal 
waters on the same day, including requirements for commercial salmon 
fishing vessels in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area to operate a VMS and 
complete a Federal logbook. NMFS may wish to consider onboard 
monitoring requirements such as electronic monitoring or observers to 
ensure adequate total catch accounting.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the support for the VMS and Federal 
logbook management measures described in the proposed rule and required 
by this final rule. As discussed in sections 2.5.6 and 4.7.2.2 of the 
Analysis, NMFS considered but did not require electronic monitoring or 
observers due to high costs and limited additional management utility 
beyond the measures contained in this final rule.
    Comment 44: NMFS received comments that a VMS requirement is not 
necessary. These comments indicated that the drift gillnet fishery has 
minimal or no bycatch of marine mammals, sea birds, or protected fish 
stocks; there are no closed economic zones nearby; and that there is no 
VMS requirement in salmon fisheries in the East and West Areas of the 
EEZ, where ADF&G reporting requirements are deemed sufficient. 
Commenters also asserted that NMFS did not provide a legitimate or 
sufficient justification for the VMS requirement. Several commenters 
also said that they felt NMFS was imposing it as a punishment. One 
commenter asked if other forms of electronic monitoring are required. 
Commenters also noted that the VMS devices cost 3,000 dollars, which 
can be a significant portion of their gross earnings in seasons when 
there is a declared fishery disaster, and require additional monthly 
fees to operate.
    Response: The final rule at Sec.  679.117(b)(1)(xiv) prohibits a 
vessel named, or required to be named, on an SFFP from operating in the 
waters of Cook Inlet with drift gillnet gear on board any day the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area is open to commercial salmon fishing without a 
functioning VMS as described in Sec.  679.28(f). Regulations at Sec.  
679.28(f)(6)(x) requires a vessel named, or required to be named, on an 
SFFP issued under Sec.  679.114 to use VMS when operating in the waters 
of Cook Inlet with drift gillnet gear on board on any calendar day the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area is open to commercial salmon fishing. NMFS has 
determined that use of a VMS is necessary to effectively and 
efficiently manage the fishery. A VMS requirement is not punitive, it 
is not based on assumed bycatch of protected species nor intended to 
reduce bycatch, and NMFS disagrees that there are no closed fishing 
areas adjacent to the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. NMFS relies on VMS for most 
Federal fisheries off Alaska, particularly

[[Page 34741]]

when fishing vessels must comply with area restrictions. Vessels drift 
gillnet fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area are prohibited 
from fishing in the adjacent EEZ waters south of the Anchor Point line 
at all times and, on the same calendar day, in the State waters 
directly adjacent to the eastern, western, and northern boundaries of 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. As stated above, for the purposes of catch 
accounting and enforcement it is critical for NMFS to understand where 
a vessel has been fishing--in State or Federal waters. Drift gillnet 
vessels that are fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ are therefore 
subject to closed areas, and VMS is a standard technology used to 
monitor compliance with these regulations.
    NMFS acknowledges that VMS is not a requirement in the East Area 
commercial troll salmon fishery. However, management of the East Area 
is delegated to the State, which allows fishing to occur seamlessly 
across the EEZ boundary. The State has well-established monitoring and 
enforcement infrastructure as well as other regulations to manage the 
fishery without the use of VMS. Similarly, the delegated management 
approach proposed for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area under Alternative 2 
(section 2.4.8.1 the Analysis) was not expected to include a VMS 
requirement given the State's existing management tools and expertise. 
However, the State would not accept delegated management authority, and 
therefore under this final rule VMS is needed to enforce the 
prohibition against harvesting salmon in both State and Federal waters 
on the same calendar day.
    As described in sections 2.5.6 and 4.7.2.2 of the Analysis, NMFS 
considered but chose not to require more costly onboard observers or 
electronic monitoring camera systems in this fishery. Therefore, VMS 
data and logbooks are necessary to ensure accuracy of reported fishing 
effort, catch accounting, and compliance with regulations. Critically, 
NMFS managers will depend on VMS to determine the effort and projected 
catch in order to inform management decisions. Furthermore, without 
VMS, NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement would have to rely 
exclusively on resource-intensive patrols by air and sea; methods that 
are not as consistent as VMS in verifying that no fishing is occurring 
in closed waters and confirming fleet-wide reported fishing effort 
information.
    Vessel owners will be responsible for the cost of obtaining and 
operating a VMS. As discussed in section 4.7.2.2.7 of the Analysis, 
NMFS estimates the cost of purchasing a compliant VMS unit at 3,100 
dollars. One-time installation and tax costs are estimated at 888 
dollars. Annual service and maintenance is estimated at 206 dollars. 
NMFS acknowledges that these requirements place additional burden on 
fishermen. However, Federal funds may be available to qualified vessel 
owners or operators for complete reimbursement of the cost of 
purchasing type-approved VMS units, which could offset over 75 percent 
of the total purchase and installation cost for fishery participants.
    To facilitate compliance with the VMS requirement, NMFS has 
provided information on obtaining VMS and opportunities for 
reimbursement within the small entity compliance guide published with 
this final rule. Beyond VMS, this final rule does not require other 
electronic monitoring for vessels commercially fishing for salmon in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ.
    Comment 45: VMS devices impose a significant privacy cost, 
requiring vessel owners to transmit their exact location to NMFS every 
hour of every day, regardless of why they are using their vessel.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. VMS use would be required when operating 
a vessel named, or required to be named, on an SFFP in the waters of 
Cook Inlet with drift gillnet gear on board, and only on days when the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area is open to commercial salmon fishing. When a vessel 
is operated outside the waters of Cook Inlet, the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
is closed, or no drift gillnet gear is onboard the vessel, the VMS unit 
would not be required to be activated and transmitting. VMS data are 
collected for many Federal fisheries. Section 402(a)(2) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes the collection of data necessary for 
the efficient management of fisheries but provides for restrictions on 
the release of that data beyond NMFS. VMS collects vessel location 
information in near real time that it uses to ensure efficient 
management and compliance with regulations. VMS data collected for law 
enforcement purposes is considered confidential under sections 
311(b)(1)(a)(vi) and 402 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Federal 
regulations at Sec.  679.28(f)(3)(v) provide that vessel owners 
participating in a fishery that requires a VMS must make the VMS 
transmitter available to ``NMFS personnel, observers, or an authorized 
officer.'' Federal regulations at Sec.  600.1509(b) limit the 
circumstances under which personally identifying information, including 
business identifiable information, can be disclosed beyond authorized 
entities, such as NMFS. NMFS does not release confidential data to the 
public unless directed by a court order. If NMFS uses VMS data in 
publications, it is aggregated to prevent release of confidential 
information.
    Comment 46: Will the drift gillnet fishery participants be required 
to maintain a digital logbook?
    Response: This final rule does not require a digital logbook. Under 
regulations at Sec.  679.115, this action requires vessel operators to 
complete and submit logbooks in paper or electronic format. NMFS will 
make logbook sheets available to participants at no cost.
    Comment 47: The proposed rule appears to allow new participants 
into the commercial fishery by requiring only a Federal fisheries 
permit and provides no explanation or justification for doing so. 
Commercial fishing for salmon in Federal and State waters in Cook Inlet 
has been restricted to State CFEC limited entry permit holders since 
1974. If the permitting requirements under this action allow new 
participants by no longer requiring a CFEC permit, that will 
significantly devalue the CFEC permits held by existing participants. 
If NMFS is not opening the fishery up to new participants, it must 
clarify the ambiguity in the proposed rule in response to this comment.
    Response: This action does not modify the State requirements 
related to CFEC permits. As described in section 2.5.6 of the Analysis, 
NMFS issues Federal permits authorizing participation in Federal 
fisheries and allowing for implementation of Federal monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in order to manage fisheries. 
This final rule at Sec.  679.114(b)(1) requires vessel owners or 
operators to obtain a SFFP to commercially fish for salmon in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ. NMFS will issue SFFPs free of charge. A SFFP is not a 
Federal limited entry permit. As described in section 2.5.15 of the 
Analysis, a Federal limited entry program was considered but not 
selected.
    Although the SFFP is not a limited entry permit, vessels that land 
salmon from the Cook Inlet EEZ in Alaska must also comply with all 
applicable State requirements, which include the requirement to have 
the appropriate State CFEC permit, which is a limited entry permit. 
Because landing or transferring fish in the EEZ is prohibited, and 
there are significant logistical constraints to landing salmon outside 
of Alaska, NMFS anticipates that all participating vessels will land

[[Page 34742]]

their fish within the State of Alaska where they would be required to 
have State CFEC S03H limited entry permits. This will help ensure that 
historical participants in the fishery are not displaced or disrupted 
by new entrants and avoid negative impacts to CFEC permit values.
    As described in section 2.5.15 of the Analysis, in the future the 
Council may consider whether it is necessary to recommend an FMP 
amendment to limit entry in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    Comment 48: Can a vessel registered in a separate Alaska gillnet 
area (e.g., a vessel fishing in Bristol Bay state waters) participate 
in the Federal Cook Inlet fishery?
    Response: No, as explained in response to Comment 47, in order to 
use drift gillnet gear in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, participants are 
required to have a SFFP. State CFEC permit requirements fall under the 
purview of the State and are not modified by this final rule. NMFS 
anticipates that a CFEC S03H permit for Cook Inlet drift gillnet would 
continue to be required to land fish caught using drift gillnet gear in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in Alaska. Participants should consult the 
applicable State of Alaska regulations for a definitive answer 
regarding landing requirements.
    Comment 49: The State supports maintaining the requirement for 
drift gillnet vessels in the EEZ to have the appropriate CFEC permit(s) 
to land salmon or other species caught in the EEZ within the State or 
enter State waters.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment. This final rule does not 
modify any State requirements for landing salmon or other species 
caught in the EEZ within the State or transiting through State waters 
with drift gillnet gear on board.

Other Commercial Salmon Fishing Management Measures and Prohibitions

    Comment 50: The State supports the proposed legal gear definition 
for drift gillnet fishing of a net no longer than 200 fathoms (365.76 
m) in length, 45 meshes deep, and maximum mesh size of no greater than 
6 inches (15.24 cm). The proposed definition is consistent with State 
regulations and would help maintain consistency with recent fishery 
operations in terms of effort and selectivity and enable managers to 
estimate projected catches in the fishery more effectively.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
    Comment 51: Are the net length requirements the same as State 
waters or can a single permit fish 200 fathoms (365.76 m) in Federal 
waters?
    Response: This final rule at Sec.  679.118(f)(1) limits the length 
of drift gillnet gear in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area to a maximum length of 
200 fathoms (365.76 m) for all participants. Fishery participants 
should consult State of Alaska regulations when determining what amount 
of gear is allowable when transiting State waters and landing salmon in 
Alaska with the CFEC permit(s) they hold.
    Comment 52: One commenter stated that no more than 150 fathoms 
(274.32 m) of gillnet gear per permit should be allowable. Another 
suggested that NMFS impose the same State of Alaska CFEC rules 
regarding permits (i.e., allow 150 fathoms (274.32 m) for 1 CFEC 
permit, and 200 fathoms (365.76 m) for 2 CFEC permits).
    Response: NMFS disagrees with these recommendations. As described 
in section 4.5.1.2.1 of the Analysis, up to 200 fathoms (365.76 m) of 
drift gillnet gear may be used by participants who are drift gillnet 
fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. NMFS does not anticipate this final 
rule will increase the allowable length of gear and result in increased 
harvests in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, as State restrictions on the 
amount of gear a vessel can have on board will still apply when 
transiting through State waters following a fishing trip in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area.
    Fishery participants should consult State of Alaska regulations to 
determine the amount of fishing gear they are allowed to have on board 
while transiting through State waters and landing salmon in Alaska.

Recreational Fishing

    Comment 53: The State supports the proposed management measures for 
recreational anglers in the EEZ, including requirements for allowable 
gear, processing harvested salmon and reporting harvest. The proposed 
rule would establish bag and possession limits in Federal regulations 
consistent with current State regulations; however, we note that State 
regulations could change in the future and result in different 
regulations for anglers harvesting salmon in State waters and the EEZ.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.

National Standard 2

    Comment 54: NMFS failed to use the best scientific information, as 
required by National Standard 2. One example of this is the data used 
to calculate a potential TAC, as it is unknown what percent of fish 
have been harvested in the EEZ. ``Best guess'' data should not be used.
    Similarly, NMFS relied on State catch records, but those may be 
skewed by 20 percent or more due to the history of overescapement and 
pulling the in-river fish counters prior to the end of the later runs. 
The one good historical reference is the Offshore Test Fishery, which 
should be used in the analysis and to set TACs. Previous years run data 
cannot be considered reliable because Cook Inlet has not been properly 
managed for many years which has resulted in overescapement and stock 
declines. Consider modifying the historical percent of drift gillnet 
harvests attributed to the Cook Inlet EEZ to 65 percent.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the management measures implemented 
by amendment 16 and this final rule rely on information that is 
inconsistent with National Standard 2. National Standard 2 provides 
that conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best 
scientific information available. NMFS considered and weighed all of 
the information available in making the decisions, including public 
testimony, to develop and approve amendment 16, respectively.
    NMFS used the best scientific information to inform the Analysis, 
which includes comprehensive fish ticket data including locale codes. 
Previously, data regarding harvests, landings, and statistical areas in 
Upper Cook Inlet did not differentiate between State and Federal 
waters. Therefore, NMFS had to develop a methodology to estimate 
historic salmon harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ. The methodology used to 
develop EEZ harvest estimates for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area is presented 
in section 4.5.1.2.3 of the Analysis, along with a description of the 
associated uncertainties. This method and the results were reviewed and 
approved by the SSC, which agreed that the Analysis and harvest 
specification process relies on the best scientific information 
available. NMFS received no comments providing additional data to 
estimate EEZ harvest and no suggested alternate methodologies and 
cannot arbitrarily increase the attribution of historical harvest to 
the EEZ in the absence of any supporting data. Therefore, NMFS 
determined that the estimates presented in the Analysis constitute the 
best scientific information available.
    However, this action establishes a fishery management framework 
that is adaptive, and is expected to improve the scientific information 
available for management of Cook Inlet salmon stocks over time. Once 
amendment 16 is implemented, NMFS will collect the

[[Page 34743]]

landings information needed to directly and precisely determine EEZ 
harvests. NMFS will review the information available to manage Cook 
Inlet salmon stocks each year, including any data gaps and 
uncertainties. As actual data is collected on harvest in this new 
fishery, NMFS will include that information in the ongoing assessment 
of what constitutes best scientific information available at that time, 
reviewed by the SSC, to establish harvest specifications and manage the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    NMFS agrees that the offshore test fishery may be a useful source 
of information for management of the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery, but 
disagrees that it should have relied on it. The offshore test fishery 
provides standardized CPUE information. However, as described in the 
response to Comment 29 and in section 2.4.4 of the Analysis, CPUE data 
could not provide sufficient information to evaluate salmon abundance 
and determine whether catches exceed a level that could cause 
overfishing.

National Standard 3

    Comment 55: Defining fishing as limited to the Cook Inlet EEZ 
violates National Standard 3. NMFS's definition of the fishery fails to 
manage salmon stocks as a unit throughout their range. Splitting the 
fishery into a Federal and State fishery makes the Federal fishery 
subordinate to the State fishery because the State fishery will 
continue overescapement. If there are harvestable surpluses, waiting to 
find out via the State fishery will mean the EEZ fishery will be 
compromised by State management.
    Response: As explained in greater detail in the proposed rule, NMFS 
has determined that amendment 16 is consistent with National Standard 
3. As set forth under section 301 of the Magnuson Stevens Act, National 
Standard 3 provides 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.
    The key term here is ``practicable.'' It is not practicable for 
NMFS to manage salmon stocks into State waters where NMFS has no 
management jurisdiction, and, thus, NMFS has designed management 
measures that allow it to manage stocks of salmon as a unit throughout 
the portion of their range under NMFS's authority, grouping 
interrelated stocks of salmon together because vessels cannot target 
individual stocks in the EEZ. Amendment 16 will allow NMFS to manage to 
optimum levels of EEZ harvest while preventing overfishing, but NMFS 
cannot rely on National Standard 3 as a basis to assert management 
authority over State waters.
    Furthermore, the National Standard 3 guidelines explain how to 
structure appropriate management units for stocks and stock complexes 
(Sec.  600.320). These guidelines state that the purpose of National 
Standard 3 is to induce a comprehensive approach to fishery management 
(Sec.  600.320(b)). The guidelines define management unit as a fishery 
or that portion of a fishery identified in an FMP as relevant to the 
FMP's management objectives and state that the choice of a management 
unit depends on the focus of the FMP's objectives and may be organized 
around biological, geographic, economic, technical, social, or 
ecological perspectives (Sec.  600.320(d)). As discussed above, in 
defining the fishery, NMFS primarily focused on co-occurring salmon 
stocks harvested within the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, as that geographic 
area defines the routine limits of NMFS's management jurisdiction.
    There are unique technical, ecological, and economic features of 
salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area that further support limiting 
the management unit to the Cook Inlet EEZ. As described in the preamble 
to the proposed rule, drift gillnet gear captures all salmon in an 
area, and an entangled salmon cannot be released without an extremely 
high mortality rate. Further, in EEZ waters, salmon stocks are highly 
mixed, and catch in the EEZ includes both the Kenai and Kasilof stocks 
of sockeye salmon that are currently highly abundant, as well as much 
less abundant Northern District salmon stocks. In contrast, in 
nearshore waters, individual salmon stocks can be targeted by fishing 
adjacent to the river a specific salmon stock is returning to. This is 
not possible in EEZ waters. In other words, the EEZ is ecologically 
unique compared to near-shore waters due to the highly mixed stock 
nature of the fishery, with varying abundances and compositions of the 
stocks caught. The stocks that are mixed in the EEZ may be more 
discretely targeted in State waters management districts. Therefore, 
salmon fishery management in the EEZ requires an approach that ensures 
the stocks of lowest abundance are not overharvested before they reach 
their natal streams. The Cook Inlet EEZ Area is also economically 
unique because the drift gillnet fleet has exclusive use of the area 
for commercial salmon fishing. Within State waters, there are multiple 
commercial and non-commercial fishery sectors operating to selectively 
target specific individual stocks to the extent practicable, with 
management measures in place to limit catch and mortality on stocks at 
risk of overfishing.
    Federal management of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area under amendment 16 
achieves National Standard 3 objectives through coordination with the 
State to the extent practicable before, during, and after each fishing 
season, as described in the harvest specifications and annual processes 
section of this preamble. This includes reviewing the available 
scientific information for management of Cook Inlet salmon stocks held 
by the State, as well as other sources, and estimating what harvests 
are expected in State waters to inform harvest limits for the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area that are designed to prevent overfishing on all Cook 
Inlet salmon stocks. NMFS and the Council will evaluate both where 
harvest of salmon stocks may be constrained by the presence of stocks 
of low abundance and where there may be opportunities to harvest 
additional salmon that would not otherwise be utilized. NMFS will 
provide data on early EEZ catches to the State to inform run strength 
forecasts for management of all other upper Cook Inlet salmon 
fisheries.

National Standard 4

    Comment 56: This action discriminates against Cook Inlet commercial 
fishers. Amendment 16 violates National Standard 4 as it does not 
allocate fishing privileges in a way that is fair and equitable. It 
places a TAC on one group of harvesters (the drift gillnet fleet) in 
one area (the EEZ), without a similar requirement on any other group. 
This can severely affect the economic viability of the drift gillnet 
fleet if the TAC is set incorrectly, and the drift gillnet fleet is 
precluded from harvesting the excess salmon. In addition, requiring a 
VMS system to commercial fish in Federal waters is not equitable as 
there is no similar requirement for the recreational fishery sector, or 
any VMS requirement for vessels fishing salmon in the East Area.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that amendment 16 is inconsistent with 
National Standard 4, or that it allocates harvest in a manner that is 
not fair and equitable to the drift gillnet fleet. As set forth under 
section 301 of the Magnuson Stevens Act, National Standard 4 provides 
that conservation and management measures shall not discriminate 
between residents of different states. This final rule does not in any 
way discriminate between residents of different states. National 
Standard 4 further provides that, if it becomes necessary to allocate 
or assign

[[Page 34744]]

fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such 
allocation shall be (1) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (2) 
reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (3) carried out in 
such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity 
acquires an excessive share of such privilege.
    To start, this action allocates all commercial fishing privileges 
in the Cook Inlet EEZ to the drift gillnet fleet--NMFS cannot conclude 
that an allocation made to a single sector is not fair and equitable 
for that sector. No other commercial sector is subject to a TAC because 
no other commercial sector is permitted to fish in the EEZ at all. The 
drift gillnet fleet has historically harvested over 99.99 percent of 
the salmon caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ. The recreational fishery 
sector in the Cook Inlet EEZ harvests the remaining amount, an 
estimated average of 66 fish per year. This action is expected to 
maintain the harvest range of both sectors in the EEZ and does not 
allocate any harvest away from the drift gillnet fleet.
    Although allocations must be fair and equitable and reasonably 
calculated to promote conservation, not all management measures 
required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act are subject to the same analysis. 
Neither the use of TACs to manage fishery effort nor the requirement to 
install VMS are allocations. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires ACLs for 
fisheries managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and TACs are how NMFS 
implements ACLs. And because fishing will take place adjacent to 
multiple closed areas, VMS is needed to enforce and monitor time and 
area closures. But even if NMFS were required to show that TACs or VMS 
requirements were fair and equitable to the drift gillnet fleet when 
compared to regulations that apply to the only other authorized sector 
in the EEZ, the recreational sector, it easily meets that burden here. 
Because the recreational sector catches under 100 fish per year in the 
EEZ and because recreational anglers are prohibited from possessing or 
landing the bag limit for both State and Federal waters on the same 
day--and thus there is no way that sector could increase its harvest 
opportunities compared to the status quo--neither a TAC nor VMS is 
needed to control recreational harvest or enforce rules for 
recreational fishermen.
    The rationale for requiring VMS for commercial salmon fishing 
vessels in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area but not the East Area is described 
in the response to Comment 44.
    If harvests by the recreational fishery sector increase, then NMFS 
may implement monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting measures. For the 
time being, on-the-water and dockside enforcement of the recreational 
fishery sector is sufficient because the same bag limits apply across 
State and Federal waters for a single calendar day.
    The allocation decisions referenced in National Standard 4 do not 
apply to decisions made by other management authorities that govern 
fishing outside of the Cook Inlet EEZ.
    Comment 57: The proposed TAC does not address priority use for 
Federal Subsistence.
    Response: Although it is unclear from the comment what the 
commenter means by ``Federal Subsistence,'' NMFS acknowledges that, in 
Alaska, subsistence taking of fish and wildlife is regulated by Federal 
law under Title VIII of the Alaska National Interests Land Conservation 
Act (ANILCA), which accords a priority for taking of fish and wildlife 
for subsistence uses over recreational/sport and commercial users on 
Federal public lands in Alaska (16 U.S.C. 3102, 3114). However, here 
NMFS is managing the Cook Inlet EEZ Area (i.e., Federal marine waters) 
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and therefore Title VIII of 
ANILCA does not apply to this action regulating Federal marine waters 
in the Cook Inlet EEZ. The Magnuson-Stevens Act does not have a 
subsistence priority for fisheries in the EEZ.
    Comment 58: Multiple commenters, including municipalities, trade 
associations, and fishing guides located in the Matanuska-Susitna 
Valley indicated that stable and predictable salmon fishing 
opportunities for all commercial and non-commercial users have both 
provided food security and an economic base for the region (communities 
of Palmer, Wasilla, Knik, Houston, Willow, Skwentna, Talkeetna, and 
Trapper Creek). These commenters cited several economic studies, which 
concluded that a broad base of fishing activities and fishing 
activities with conservative regulations, limits, and harvest 
opportunities (e.g., recreational and subsistence) generate 
considerable economic benefit for each fish harvested.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the importance of salmon to fishermen 
and communities in Northern Cook Inlet, and when there are declines in 
salmon abundance, it results in adverse economic impacts. For 
discussion of the potential economic impacts on communities from this 
action, see sections 4.7.1.3 to 4.7.1.4 of the Analysis.
    Comment 59: Several commenters felt this action would increase Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area salmon harvests, which would require the State to 
implement more restrictive fishery management measures for the Northern 
District commercial and non-commercial fisheries and may cause 
overfishing of weak stocks, such as the Susitna sockeye stock and the 
coho stock. By increasing commercial harvest, this action will 
exacerbate the inequity between the drift gillnet fleet and Northern 
Cook Inlet fishing groups. Drift gillnet permit holders have 
historically been the only commercial fishermen allowed to harvest 
salmon in Federal waters and also have better harvest opportunities in 
State waters.
    Response: As described in section 4.7.1.3 of the Analysis, this 
action is not expected to increase salmon harvests in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ. Therefore, historical harvests by all fishery sectors in both 
State and EEZ waters should be maintained. As described in the response 
to Comment 25, this action will account for weak stocks and uncertainty 
when setting TACs for the Cook Inlet EEZ. NMFS acknowledges that 
harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area occurs before all other salmon users 
in upper Cook Inlet and before there is robust information on realized 
inseason salmon abundance, both generally and for specific stocks. The 
uncertainty associated with this and risks of reducing or eliminating 
the harvestable surplus for other salmon users will be accounted for in 
both the harvest specification process and inseason management 
decisions. NMFS also acknowledges that the drift gillnet fleet is one 
of the largest salmon harvesters in Cook Inlet and has fishing 
opportunities in both State and Federal waters.
    Comment 60: The Magnuson-Stevens Act emphasizes fairness in 
allocation and the production of food. To that end, the drift gillnet 
fleet should have not only meaningful harvest opportunities for sockeye 
but also a fair chance to bring northbound coho to market.
    Response: As described in section 4.5.1.2.2 of the Analysis, the 
drift gillnet fleet is generally the largest or second largest 
harvester of coho salmon in Cook Inlet. On average, they harvest over 
30 percent of the coho salmon in Cook Inlet, with an increasing harvest 
trend from 1999 to 2021. This results in an approximately even split 
between the drift gillnet fleet, the commercial set gillnet sector, and 
all non-commercial fishery sectors (recreational, personal use, and 
subsistence). This action is not expected to significantly reduce drift 
gillnet harvests of coho salmon. NMFS

[[Page 34745]]

determined that this action balances food production and recreational 
opportunities across all users in Cook Inlet while also protecting 
salmon stocks and the marine ecosystem. If there are increased harvests 
by the drift gillnet fleet, it is expected that the harvest of other 
users would necessarily be reduced, which NMFS concludes would reduce 
the fairness of salmon resource allocations in Cook Inlet by preempting 
or even eliminating harvest opportunities for other users, many of 
which can only operate in State waters.
    Comment 61: Where in amendment 16 are the management plans the 
State will follow? For example, amendment 16 does not address closures 
of the East Side set net fishery and the implications for Federal 
management. The East Side set net fishery is the second largest fishery 
in Cook Inlet but has been ignored. The failure to include the entire 
fishery has decimated the East Side set net fishery, which has been 
restricted and closed based on illegal and unscientific objectives.
    Response: NMFS does not include management measures in this action 
for salmon fishing in State waters. The East Side set net fishery 
sector and other salmon fishery sectors operating in State waters are 
described in section 4.6 of the Analysis. The East Side set net fishery 
sector occurs entirely within State waters. NMFS has no jurisdiction to 
implement management measures within State waters in Cook Inlet. NMFS 
will consider the harvests of other fisheries, including the East Side 
set net fishery sector, in making management decisions for the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area. Comments on State management of the East Side set net 
fishery are outside of the scope of this action.

National Standard 5 and 7

    Comment 62: The restriction on fishing in State and Federal waters 
on the same calendar day violates National Standard 5 because it is 
impossible to fish near the boundary line between State and Federal 
waters, given large Cook Inlet tides and current speeds in excess of 7 
knots (12.96 kph) and the difficulty of staying within the irregularly-
shaped Federal boundary line. Drift gillnetters lack the technology to 
determine where the boundary line is located while fishing.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the prohibition on fishing in both 
State and Federal waters in a single calendar day is not practicable 
and disagrees that the prohibition violates National Standard 5, which 
provides that conservation and management measures shall consider 
efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources where practicable. 
Under State management, participants have successfully remained within 
the boundaries open to drift gillnet fishing within either State or EEZ 
waters. This action does not modify legal fishing gear or other 
operational elements in a way that is expected to increase the 
difficulty of staying within an open area. Nothing in this rule 
prohibits participants who are concerned about their ability to remain 
within Federal waters during certain fishing conditions from setting 
and retrieving their gear farther away from the State/EEZ boundary. 
Vessels participating in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area drift gillnet fishery 
are expected to be aware of their fishing location and fish only in 
locations and at times open to that fishery. In other Federal fisheries 
off Alaska and elsewhere, federally permitted vessels fishing in EEZ 
waters are commonly prohibited from fishing in State waters and are 
able to successfully remain with the Federal waters open to fishing 
immediately adjacent to the EEZ boundary. Examples include the Pacific 
cod fisheries in the Kodiak, Chignik, and South Alaska Peninsula areas, 
and the Aleutian Islands and Dutch Harbor subdistricts of the Bering 
Sea-Aleutian Islands Area.
    As for the availability of suitable technology to verify vessel 
locations, NMFS has provided charts depicting the boundary and will 
provide electronic charts compatible with smartphone applications and 
commonly used commercial navigation products available at the NMFS 
Alaska Region website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska. 
More information is provided in the small entity compliance guide 
published with this action.
    Comment 63: Amendment 16 does not adequately consider or promote 
efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources, and it fails to 
minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication to the extent 
practicable in violation of National Standards 5 and 7.
    NMFS's analysis notes that amendment 16 will increase direct costs 
and burdens to drift gillnet vessels harvesting salmon in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area due to requirements including obtaining a SFFP, 
installing and operating a VMS, and maintaining a Federal logbook. NMFS 
also chose to open fishing in the EEZ on the same days and at the same 
times that the State fishery is open and to prohibit participants from 
fishing in State and Federal waters during the same trip. This 
limitation makes no sense, is extremely inefficient, is impracticable 
for participants, and appears punitive.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that any of the above-described 
requirements are punitive, impractical, or inconsistent with either 
National Standard 5 or 7. As set forth under section 301 of the 
Magnuson Stevens Act, National Standard 5 provides that conservation 
and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency 
in the utilization of fishery resources, except that no such measure 
shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose. National Standard 7 
provides that conservation and management measures shall, where 
practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication.
    This action considers efficiency in the utilization of fishery 
resources and minimizes costs and avoids unnecessary duplication to the 
extent practicable. NMFS recognizes that a system in which a single 
authority manages both State and Federal waters could allow for a more 
efficient means of conducting the catch accounting necessary to avoid 
overfishing. This is not possible here. Because the State did not 
accept delegated management authority nor would it commit to providing 
the information required for management within the needed timeframe, 
NMFS must establish Federal monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements to supply this essential information to Federal fishery 
managers, consistent with the mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As 
discussed in the response to Comment 31, to account for fish caught 
solely in the Federal EEZ, it is necessary for NMFS to prohibit fishing 
in State and Federal waters on the same trip. As such, this requirement 
is consistent with National Standard 7.
    As described thoroughly in the response to Comment 44 and in 
section 4.7.2.2 of the Analysis, NMFS identified the minimum level of 
information required to effectively manage and enforce salmon fishing 
in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. NMFS considered the additional costs and 
burden of these measures, including the costs of VMS equipment, on 
participants. NMFS managers will depend on VMS to determine the effort 
and projected catch in order to inform management decisions. 
Furthermore, without VMS, NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement 
would have to rely exclusively on resource-intensive patrols by air and 
sea; methods that are not as consistent as VMS in verifying that no 
fishing is occurring in closed waters and confirming fleet-wide 
reported fishing effort information. NMFS considered but did not choose 
to require management measures that would provide additional 
information

[[Page 34746]]

but impose disproportionate costs to participants such as fishery 
observers and electronic monitoring camera systems. Federal funds may 
be available to qualified vessel owners or operators for complete 
reimbursement of the cost of purchasing type-approved VMS units, which 
could offset over 75 percent of the total purchase and installation 
cost for fishery participants.
    Logbooks are similarly necessary to ensure accuracy of reported 
fishing effort, catch accounting, and compliance with regulations. 
Logbook sheets will be available for participants to obtain from NOAA's 
website, free of charge.

National Standard 8

    Comment 64: Amendment 16 violates National Standard 8 because it 
fails to take into account the importance of fishery resources to the 
Cook Inlet fishing communities and does not utilize economic and social 
data to provide for the sustained participation of such communities and 
to minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that amendment 16 violates National 
Standard 8. As set forth under section 301 of the Magnuson Stevens Act, 
National Standard 8 provides that conservation and management measures 
shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of the Act 
(including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished 
stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to 
fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data (based on the 
best scientific information available), in order to (1) provide for the 
sustained participation of such communities, and (2) to the extent 
practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.
    Section 4 of the Analysis extensively documents the importance of 
salmon to Cook Inlet fishing communities throughout the Cook Inlet 
region as well as communities in Washington and Oregon. Many of these 
communities are jointly dependent on commercial salmon fishing (both 
drift gillnet and set gillnet), as well as non-commercial salmon 
fishing (recreational participants and guides, subsistence, ceremonial, 
and educational fishery sectors). NMFS carefully considered the costs 
and benefits of each management measure. As described in the Analysis 
and the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS selected measures that 
balance the burden on participants with providing the information that 
is essential for NMFS to manage salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area. Further, NMFS expects that participants drift gillnet fishing in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area will be able to maintain their existing range 
of harvests and may be able to increase harvests if conservation 
conditions allow for it. Overall, because harvest levels of all sectors 
are expected to remain more or less consistent with status quo 
conditions, no long term community level impacts are expected. And 
because this rule is expected to maintain more or less status quo 
fishing opportunities for all users in Cook Inlet--with some 
possibility of additional days for the drift gillnet fleet--it 
appropriately provides for the sustained participation of fishing 
communities throughout Cook Inlet, including communities with residents 
that participate in State water fisheries. Many public commenters from 
Northern Cook Inlet expressed concern with any management plan that 
would increase EEZ harvests and thereby decrease salmon returns to the 
Northern Cook Inlet, causing adverse economic impacts on those 
communities. Instead, NMFS selected a management strategy that will 
preserve the complicated balance among various groups throughout Cook 
Inlet that has provided for the sustained participation of all Cook 
Inlet fishing communities for decades.

National Standard 10

    Comment 65: There is no meaningful discussion of National Standard 
10 Safety for this action. In the recent 10 year period, many vessels 
have been lost or damaged during periods of bad weather. Amendment 16 
needs to address what happens and how the fishery will still achieve OY 
when these regular bad weather events occur.
    Response: NMFS disagrees; the impacts of amendment 16 on the safety 
of human life at sea are discussed in sections 4.5.1.7 and 4.7.4 of the 
Analysis and NMFS finds this rule in consistent with National Standard 
10. National Standard 10 provides that conservation and management 
measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human 
life at sea. Overall impacts to public health and safety from this 
action are not expected to be significant. The VMS requirement provides 
a valuable tool for search and rescue efforts to locate a vessel in 
distress by regularly providing position information. This action also 
closes fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area prior to the advent of 
deteriorating late summer and fall weather conditions. NMFS 
acknowledges that an inseason closure of the Cook Inlet EEZ under this 
action could result in vessel congestion in the fishing areas that 
remain open. In addition, closures of traditional, local fishing areas 
may induce vessel operators to take additional risks, such as fishing 
in weather and sea conditions that they would normally avoid, to remain 
economically viable. However, NMFS expects that the safety benefits 
resulting from VMS will more than offset any marginal, indirect adverse 
effects on safety that this action may have.

Economic Impacts

    Comment 66: Multiple commenters cited studies and information 
highlighting the economic importance of salmon fisheries to 
participants and regional Alaskan communities. Several commenters 
support amendment 16 as a vehicle to conserve the salmon species on 
which these fisheries depend.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment. Economic information, 
community information, and an analysis of expected economic impacts are 
presented in section 4 of the Analysis.
    Comment 67: Many commenters and their families are long-term Cook 
Inlet drift gillnet participants who feel State management has left 
drift gillnet fishery participants struggling, and worry this will 
continue under amendment 16. They allege this action does not correct 
the perceived errors in State management and will continue to reduce 
harvester and processor participation.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges relatively low revenues to the Cook 
Inlet drift gillnet fleet and decreases in participation in recent 
years. Under this action, NMFS will be responsible for managing salmon 
fishing within the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. NMFS has no jurisdiction to 
modify salmon management within State waters.
    As discussed in the response to Comment 10, NMFS recognizes that 
some of the management measures necessary to meet Federal managements 
in the EEZ will require additional costs and time commitments from 
participants. As described in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
in the Classifications section of this preamble, NMFS designed the 
management measures related to collection of information for management 
purposes to minimize the financial impact on participants to the extent 
practicable. NMFS selected these measures after evaluating a range of 
options for information collection, as described in sections 2.5.6 and 
4.7.2.2 of the Analysis. More information is provided in the response 
to comments related to Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements.
    Because EEZ fishing opportunity is expected to be similar to the 
status quo under this action, salmon harvests in

[[Page 34747]]

the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and other areas of Cook Inlet are expected to 
remain at or near existing levels. As described in section 4.7.1.3, 
temporary shutdown or permanent closing of some processing businesses 
would only be expected to occur if there were substantial decreases in 
production. This is not expected to occur because harvest levels are 
expected to remain near existing levels. However, in the event NMFS 
closed the EEZ under this action, that likely means fishery conditions 
would also be expected to result in EEZ closure or severe restrictions 
under status quo management by the State. The most likely reason for 
closure is the low abundance of stocks that pass through the EEZ as 
they move into the Northern District of Cook Inlet. Thus, as compared 
to the status quo, no substantial reductions in EEZ harvest are 
anticipated when considered in the context of run strength in a given 
fishing season.
    NMFS disagrees that State management has arbitrarily left the drift 
gillnet fleet struggling. The low abundance of specific salmon stocks 
in Cook Inlet has been challenging to all salmon fishery sectors in 
Cook Inlet. The State has taken necessary management action to protect 
these weak stocks, which has reduced harvest for all users. As 
described in section 4.5.1.2.2 of the Analysis, despite these 
conservation challenges, the drift gillnet fleet has, on average, 
harvested an increasing percentage of the available harvestable surplus 
for all salmon species over this same time period (1999-2021).
    Further, the Analysis includes an examination of the social and 
economic impacts of the alternatives. Section 3 of the Analysis 
evaluates the impact of the proposed action on salmon stocks and other 
parts of the environment while section 4.7 of the Analysis discusses 
the impact on fishing communities in comparison to the status quo. 
Based on the Analysis, NMFS concluded that this final rule will not 
have a significant impact on the human environment.
    Comment 68: A commenter stated support for NMFS's proposed action 
to manage the Cook Inlet EEZ because the local economy on the Kenai 
Peninsula is fragile, with people affected by economic disasters such 
as fishing closures and fires and faced with few employment 
opportunities.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
    Comment 69: Several local government representatives and bodies 
requested that NMFS implement management for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
that provides for a healthy commercial fishing industry including 
processors and support services, considers all user groups, and 
considers the impact that management of the Cook Inlet EEZ can have on 
all Alaska communities that rely on sportfishing for economic 
development and subsistence use of salmon.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment. One of NMFS's primary 
concerns in developing amendment 16 is ensuring that all Cook Inlet 
salmon users, processors, and fishing communities retain access to and 
benefits from Cook Inlet salmon resources.
    Comment 70: NMFS has not adequately addressed the economic impacts 
on fishermen and communities where the harvest is landed, including 
consideration of landing taxes, employment on the vessels, and in the 
processing plants.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. The economic impacts of salmon fishing 
under the alternatives in Cook Inlet were comprehensively described and 
analyzed throughout section 4 of the Analysis. This included 
consideration of revenues, taxes, employment, and dependency. As 
summarized in section 4.10 of the Analysis, this action is expected to 
maintain harvest levels and opportunities commensurate with status quo 
conditions to the extent possible while accounting for uncertainty and 
the expectation that Federal management should improve over time as 
management expertise is developed. In fact, as noted above, this action 
allows for the possibility of slight increases in fishing days and 
harvest for the drift gillnet fleet when possible without impacting 
stocks of lower abundance. Thus, because this action is expected to 
maintain status quo harvest opportunities or even increase harvest 
opportunities for participants willing to comply with regulations in 
Federal waters, the best scientific information available supports 
NMFS's conclusion that minimal adverse economic impacts are anticipated 
from this action. Landings, landings taxes, employment, and processing 
are not expected to be significantly affected by this final rule 
compared to status quo conditions.
    Comment 71: Market conditions arising from competition with farm-
raised salmon account for a large part of the economic losses in salmon 
fisheries around Alaska. Permitting increased harvest of salmon in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ is unlikely to correct this problem but will likely 
adversely affect other Upper Cook Inlet salmon users.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that market conditions can have 
significant impacts on fishery values and that fisheries management 
decisions made in other jurisdictions do affect market conditions. 
Sections 4.5.1 and 4.7.1.3 of the Analysis describe market conditions. 
In the near-term, this action is not expected to result in the 
harvesting of significantly more or less salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ. 
Therefore, it should not directly affect the market conditions for 
commercially harvested salmon.
    NMFS also acknowledges that management of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
may impact the harvestable surplus available to all other salmon users 
in Upper Cook Inlet. Again, because NMFS does not anticipate a 
significant change in harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ as a result of this 
action, NMFS disagrees that this action will adversely affect the 
fishing opportunity, and associated economic value, for other users in 
the Upper Cook Inlet area.
    As described in sections 4.5.1.3.4.2 and 4.6 of the Analysis, 
commercial catches and fishery values in nearly all Cook Inlet salmon 
fishery sectors were above the long-term average from 2010 to 2014. The 
ability to realize high fishery values are dependent on the number and 
value of harvested species. Drift gillnet fishery catches during recent 
years have been constrained by mixed stock management considerations, 
including constraining fishing time and area in order to avoid 
overharvesting less abundant salmon stocks.
    Section 4.6 of the Analysis included an examination of the 
potentially affected fisheries, including personal use, set net, 
freshwater, subsistence, and educational fisheries and determined that 
harvests near status quo levels are likely to be maintained by this 
action.

General Support

    Comment 72: I support Federal management of fisheries in Alaska.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
    Comment 73: Federal management will ensure optimum yield and 
sustainable fish populations.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
    Comment 74: I support this action. Federally regulating fishing for 
all salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ will help save the resources so that 
salmon fishing by all users can continue. However, I want more input 
from Alaskans.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment. The public had multiple 
opportunities to provide input, including at AP, SSC, and Council 
meetings in 2022 and 2023; during a public hearing hosted online by 
NMFS

[[Page 34748]]

on Mary 18, 2023; and during the public comment period on the proposed 
rule and notice of availability for Amendment 16. Public input on this 
action from all members of the public was considered and is summarized 
and responded to in this final rule.

General Opposition

    Comment 75: NMFS does not need to recreate the wheel to create this 
FMP. It should adopt the FMP management plan put forward by Cook Inlet 
Fisherman's Fund, which is based on historic regulations and would 
manage the Cook Inlet fishery to comply with the court orders, 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.
    The commenter's proposed FMP amendment can be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NOAA-NMFS-2023-0065-0071.
    The commenter's FMP includes the following primary provisions:
     Escapement based management.
     Management measures for all commercial salmon fishery 
sectors in both State and Federal waters.
     Management of Chinook stocks throughout upper Cook Inlet 
with the commercial fishery allowed whatever harvest necessary to 
achieve the MSY/OY objectives for sockeye, coho, pink, and chum stocks.
     Prioritize restrictions on non-resident sport fishing over 
resident sport-fishing when restrictions are needed to achieve OY.
     A commercial fishing season from May through December, 
with two or three 12 hour regular commercial fishing periods per week. 
The State or NMFS would retain authority to adjust this fishing 
schedule to manage for MSY escapement goals or exploitation rates as 
required.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that this commenter's proposed FMP 
amendment should be adopted. As explained in the responses to Comments 
3 and 4, NMFS cannot adopt Federal management measures that apply to 
the State waters of Cook Inlet. As explained in the response to Comment 
23, NMFS cannot implement escapement based management through amendment 
16. NMFS disagrees that commercial salmon fishing should be exempt from 
management restrictions required to conserve Chinook salmon or other 
salmon stocks. Even with severe restrictions to both recreational and 
commercial salmon fishing, Chinook salmon stocks in Cook Inlet are not 
meeting escapement goals under the status quo. Forgoing any 
restrictions on commercial fishing to harvest all available yield of 
sockeye, coho, pink, and chum salmon stocks would result in 
overfishing, which is inconsistent with NMFS's National Standard 1 
mandate. NMFS disagrees that achieving MSY, particularly for a single 
fishery sector, constitutes achieving OY or maximizing net benefits to 
the nation. As explained in the response to Comment 39, a dramatic 
increase the fishing season duration and number of commercial fishing 
periods in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area would result in overfishing and 
reduce or eliminate the harvestable surplus for other salmon users in 
Cook Inlet. And NMFS may not discriminate between residents of 
different states when adopting Federal management measures. Section 2.7 
of the Analysis generally explains why other provisions in stakeholder-
submitted FMP amendments are inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act.
    Amendment 16 complies with the Ninth Circuit ruling by amending the 
Salmon FMP to include the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. It complies with the 
District Court's order by implementing a federally-managed fishery in 
the EEZ that includes all Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements--including 
ACLs--and does not rely on the State to achieve any of the FMP's 
management objectives. The Analysis provides a comprehensive 
description of the purpose and need for this action, the management 
alternatives considered, and an analysis of their respective impacts.
    Comment 76: Despite having the flexibility and resources to do an 
excellent job, NMFS is making amendment 16 unnecessarily complicated 
and difficult.
    Response: NMFS developed amendment 16, the proposed rule, and this 
final rule in compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and all other 
applicable Federal law. Management of Cook Inlet salmon fisheries is 
complex and challenging. The fishery includes multiple stocks of 
varying abundance, no stocks can be targeted in isolation in EEZ 
waters, and Cook Inlet includes many stakeholders beyond the drift 
gillnet fleet with competing demands. There is no simple solution to 
fisheries management in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area if NMFS is to consider 
the perspectives of all stakeholders and tribes, as it must. The 
Analysis identifies the strengths and weaknesses of each management 
alternative under consideration, including procedural constraints and 
currently available expertise.
    NMFS intends to do an effective job managing the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area salmon fishery, and expertise in this new Federal fishery will 
increase over time.
    Comment 77: This unprecedented action should not be implemented. It 
will disrupt management of Cook Inlet waters and lead to further 
lawsuits. While not everyone will be happy with any rule, the action's 
legality and the resources are most important.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that this action implements a separate 
Federal salmon fishery management regime within Cook Inlet for the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area and that salmon users have diverse preferences for 
management measures. As described in the response to Comment 9, NMFS 
must implement Federal management of the Cook Inlet EEZ to comply with 
applicable court orders, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and all other 
applicable Federal law.

Tribal Comments

    Comment 78: Regional tribes were not adequately consulted in the 
development of amendment 16, which may have adverse impacts to salmon 
stocks that tribes have traditionally depended on since time 
immemorial. Three federally recognized regional tribal groups requested 
government-to-government tribal consultation.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the importance of salmon to many tribal 
entities located throughout Cook Inlet and adjacent lands. NMFS's 
efforts to engage and consult with tribes on this action are described 
in detail in the Tribal Summary Impact Statement of this rule. In 
brief, NMFS participated in three tribal engagement meetings on this 
action before the Council failed to take action and NMFS began 
developing a Secretarial FMP amendment. NMFS offered to consult with 
tribes after the Council failed to take action, and NMFS subsequently 
held consultations with two tribes in May and June, 2023. NMFS held a 
public hearing on the action in May 2023, to which it invited all 
impacted tribes. After publishing the proposed rule in October 2023, 
NMFS directly solicited comments on the proposed rule from impacted 
tribes in the fall of 2023. In December 2023, NMFS held an engagement 
meeting with the tribal fishing group, and in January 2024, NMFS held 
two informational meetings with tribal entities throughout the 
Southcentral Alaska region.
    Many of the tribes NMFS engaged with requested an indigenous 
subsistence fishery set-aside to be incorporated into amendment 16 and 
this final rule. However, given the impending court deadline of May 1, 
2024 for publication of this action, there was not sufficient 
opportunity to work with interested tribes on developing a proposal 
that could be analyzed and incorporated into amendment 16 while

[[Page 34749]]

remaining on schedule to comply with the court order. NMFS received 
additional tribal consultation requests related to the possibility of 
an indigenous subsistence fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ and will honor 
them.
    Comment 79: Multiple tribes in the region noted that this action 
impacts sovereign federally recognized Tribes and their citizens and 
ask that NMFS, as part of its Federal trust responsibilities to tribes, 
co-develop with Alaska Native tribes a tribal subsistence fishery or 
set-aside (tribal fishery) and include it as part of this action. Many 
reasons were provided in support, including that Alaska Natives have 
used Cook Inlet salmon since ancestral times; they have stewarded 
salmon for thousands of years; tribal inherent fishing rights have long 
been ignored; a lack of equitable tribal representation in Federal 
fisheries management; obligations under international law, Executive 
orders, and ANILCA; and that a new subsistence set-aside fishery in the 
EEZ would be highly beneficial for tribal members unable to 
sufficiently meet their needs with other harvest opportunities. It was 
suggested that a tribal fishery be modeled after the subsistence 
halibut fishery.
    Response: NMFS recognizes that Alaska tribes are seeking more 
equitable fisheries management and increased involvement in Federal 
fisheries management processes. Furthermore, NMFS acknowledges the 
long-standing and ancestral use of salmon fishery resources by Alaskan 
tribes.
    NMFS evaluated the impacts of this action on tribes in the Analysis 
and the tribal impact summary statement. NMFS recognizes that salmon 
fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area occurs before all other fishing in 
Cook Inlet and impacts the harvestable surplus available to all others 
who rely on the salmon resources in Cook Inlet, including tribal and 
subsistence users. As described in section 4.7.1.3 of the Analysis, 
because this action is expected to maintain salmon harvests near status 
quo levels, NMFS does not expect that amendment 16 will decrease the 
harvestable surplus for ongoing tribal and subsistence fisheries in 
Cook Inlet.
    To create a new tribal fishery within the Cook Inlet EEZ would 
require an FMP amendment, including further analysis and consideration 
by NMFS and the Council. NMFS has committed to honor requests for 
tribal consultation regarding the potential establishment of a tribal 
fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ. FMPs are adaptive and the Council may 
recommend and NMFS may amend the FMP in the future to incorporate 
feedback from tribes received in upcoming consultations.
    Comment 80: The proposed action and subsequent management directly 
impacts the sovereign federally recognized tribes of the Cook Inlet and 
their citizens, which directly ties to their vital cultural way of life 
that has sustained their people for millennia. NMFS must partner with 
the Cook Inlet Tribes, thereby fulfilling their Federal trust 
responsibilities and guaranteeing the utilization and sustainability of 
traditional resources. The requirement to engage directly, government-
to-government, is found in international law, treaties, declarations, 
Presidential Executive Orders (E.O.), and Secretarial Orders (See U.S. 
Department of the Interior's Secretary Order No. 3335 affirming the 
Federal trust responsibility of the United States to Indian Tribes and 
their citizens). Furthermore, the White House signed E.O. 14096 on 
Environmental Justice in April 2023. The E.O. directly cites tribal 
sovereignty and self-governance, recognizing the requirement for tribal 
consultation and enhanced collaboration with tribes on Federal 
policies, stating, in part, that we must recognize, honor, and respect 
the different cultural practices--including subsistence practices, ways 
of living, Indigenous Knowledge, and traditions--in communities across 
America.
    Response: As described in response to Comment 78 and in the Tribal 
Summary Impact Statement section of this final rule, NMFS provided 
multiple informational meetings to tribes and conducted tribal 
consultations. Impacts to tribes, their members and all other salmon 
users in Cook Inlet will continue to be considered in management of the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area. NMFS will continue to consult and work with 
interested tribes to develop potential future management actions for 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area that may provide subsistence or tribal fishing 
opportunities.

Marine Mammals

    Comment 81: I support including the Cook Inlet EEZ in the Salmon 
FMP. Consider the importance of available salmon to the Cook Inlet 
beluga whales, which are endangered under the ESA. Cook Inlet beluga 
whales rely on salmon as prey. Failure to protect against overfishing 
or otherwise could amount to an illegal ``taking'' under the ESA. 
Harassing or harming the beluga whale is another reason the Salmon FMP 
must include the Cook Inlet EEZ.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that salmon are important prey to Cook 
Inlet beluga whales and that the availability of salmon prey for Cook 
Inlet beluga whales is a factor identified in the recovery plan. NMFS 
Sustainable Fisheries Division consulted with NMFS Protected Resources 
Division under ESA section 7 to evaluate the potential impacts of these 
management measures to all ESA-listed species, including Cook Inlet 
beluga whales, that may be affected by this action. As described in 
section 3.3.1 of the Analysis, the best scientific information 
available at this time suggests that status quo salmon prey 
availability is adequate for belugas. This final rule is not expected 
to appreciably alter salmon availability to belugas compared to the 
status quo. NMFS will continue to review and consider any new 
information on the importance and availability of salmon prey to Cook 
Inlet beluga whales.
    Comment 82: Drift gillnet gear can be destructive and its continued 
use in Cook Inlet may have adverse impacts to endangered beluga whales.
    Response: As described in section 3.3.1 of the Analysis, NMFS has 
no information indicating that the drift gillnet gear used in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area has resulted in entanglements of Cook Inlet beluga 
whales or habitat degradation. This action does not modify drift 
gillnet fishing in Cook Inlet in any way that is expected to increase 
the entanglement risk for Cook Inlet beluga whales.

Process Concerns

    Comment 83: One commenter stated that the EEZ line being used was 
ruled illegal in U.S. v. Alaska in 1975. This commenter alleges NMFS 
continues to use an illegal EEZ boundary. If NMFS were to use a proper 
boundary line (50 to 60 miles (80.47 to 96.56 km) north), the majority 
of the fishery would occur in State waters, undermining its argument 
that it cannot regulate State waters under section 306(b) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Another commenter suggested that the EEZ boundary was incorrect for 
fisheries jurisdiction and should only be used for oil and gas leasing 
purposes. Federal waters for fishing have not been designated and need 
to be decided by the Boundary Commission as in Southeast Alaska.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that it is using an incorrect EEZ 
boundary. NMFS also disagrees that Federal waters boundaries for the 
purpose of fisheries jurisdiction have not been defined in Cook Inlet. 
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the EEZ is defined as the zone 
established by Proclamation Numbered 5030, dated March 10, 1983. For 
purposes of applying this Act, the inner boundary of that zone is a 
line

[[Page 34750]]

coterminous with the seaward boundary of each of the coastal States. 
The baselines used to determine the EEZ boundary are reviewed and 
approved by an interagency committee called the U.S. Baseline 
Committee, which is chaired by the Department of State. In 2006, a new 
method was used to calculate the baseline and NOAA navigation charts 
published in 2006 depict changes in the 3 nmi (5.56 km) boundary in 
parts of Alaska. In 2011, the U.S. Baseline Committee reviewed some of 
the changes to the baseline in Cook Inlet based on feedback from the 
State and updated their recommendations. However, not all areas where 
the baseline changes occurred have been reviewed by the Baseline 
Committee. For this reason, NMFS manages and enforces Federal fisheries 
according to the decisions of the U.S. Baseline Committee for the areas 
they reviewed and approved after considering input from the State since 
2006. NMFS recognizes the historical (pre-2006) t3-nmi (5.56 km) state-
waters boundary line for all other areas. This information is 
documented in a letter from NMFS to Alaska Department of Fish and Game 
that is posted on NMFS Alaska Region website.
    To the extent this comment is alleging the U.S. Baseline Committee 
erred in approving this EEZ boundary, the decisions of the Baseline 
Committee are outside the scope of this action. For NMFS's response to 
the contention that it has authority to regulate state waters under 
section 306(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, see the response to Comment 
4.
    Comment 84: NMFS has repeatedly disregarded instruction from 
courts, and a special master should be appointed to oversee development 
of Federal management of Cook Inlet.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that it disregarded instruction from any 
court. NMFS has worked to ensure that Federal management of salmon 
fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ will be in place by May 1, 2024, 
consistent with the Ninth Circuit and District Court orders.
    Comment 85: One commenter felt that NMFS has been disingenuous, 
duplicitous, insulting to stakeholders, and deliberately obstructive 
throughout this process and produced poor work product that suggests it 
does not understand the fishery. It was also suggested that this action 
fails to reflect consideration or incorporation of input that the 
stakeholders from the drift gillnet fleet have provided on multiple 
occasions over several years, including the Council's stakeholder 
committee, resulting in an unworkable product.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. The proposed rule and Analysis prepared 
for this action contains all relevant information about salmon 
fisheries in Cook Inlet and perspectives provided by stakeholders 
during the development of this action. Amendment 16 and this final rule 
implement Federal management in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in accordance 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and as appropriate in recognition of the 
multiple users of salmon throughout Cook Inlet.
    Throughout the development of this action, some stakeholders 
advocated for many provisions to increase harvests by the drift gillnet 
fleet that NMFS is not implementing for reasons discussed in a number 
of responses to comments. This input, as well as recommendations from 
the stakeholder committee, is also summarized in section 2.7 of the 
Analysis, which provides a comprehensive discussion of why certain 
recommendations were not incorporated into the management alternatives 
under consideration. Many of the drift gillnet fleets requests can be 
distilled to two basic premises, neither of which are consistent with 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act: (1) NMFS must apply Federal management to 
both State and Federal waters in Cook Inlet; and (2) NMFS must manage 
to fully harvest MSY for Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon, as well as 
all other salmon stocks and prevent overescapement. As described in the 
response to Comment 4, NMFS does not have jurisdiction to assert 
management authority over the State waters of Cook Inlet. As explained 
throughout the Analysis, the preamble to the proposed rule, and in 
responses to comments in this final rule, fully harvesting the entire 
harvestable surplus for Kenai and Kasilof sockeye would require an 
amount of fishery effort in the EEZ that would result in overfishing of 
other salmon stocks and could completely eliminate fishery 
opportunities and access to fishery resources for other users in Cook 
Inlet. To achieve OY and ensure that the fishery results in the 
greatest net benefits to the Nation, NMFS cannot prioritize access for 
one user group over access for all others. And in mixed stock 
fisheries, harvest is always constrained by the stocks of lowest 
abundance, as the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fishery management 
measures prevent overfishing.
    NMFS's decision not to implement specific measures advocated for by 
one group of fishery stakeholders--and which other stakeholders and 
tribes oppose as likely to decrease their access to salmon and the 
State opposes based on conservation concerns--does not mean NMFS is 
being disingenuous, duplicitous, insulting, or deliberately 
obstructive.
    Comment 86: Most Council members could see their special interests 
(trawlers) affected by further scrutiny over salmon management. These 
conflicts are the reason that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires science 
to drive management. These conflicts and the lack of accountability are 
why councils nationwide should be appointed by the president and be 
held responsible for their decisions.
    Alaska has a majority of seats on the Council, including the 
commissioner of ADF&G, and the Council will mostly rule in favor of the 
State's parochial interests. This prioritizes protecting State 
interests and revenues.
    Response: Amendment 16 is a Secretarial FMP amendment developed by 
NMFS and was not recommended by the Council. When this action was 
previously under Council consideration, none of the Council members had 
financial interests that would have required recusal from voting had 
the Council decided to recommend action. Regardless, the statutorily 
prescribed system for appointing Council members is outside the scope 
of this action.
    Comment 87: ADF&G has a financial conflict of interest in managing 
South Central Alaska Salmon stocks. They are funded, in part, by sport 
fishing licenses and associated Federal matched funds. Therefore, they 
have a financial incentive to favor the recreational and personal use 
fisheries.
    Response: The State of Alaska's allocation decisions among various 
sectors within State waters are outside of the scope of this action. In 
the Cook Inlet EEZ, nearly all catch is by the commercial drift gillnet 
fleet. There is no Federal personal use fishery, and the recreational 
sector catches less than 70 fish per year on average in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ.
    Comment 88: Multiple commenters suggested that ADF&G had 
prioritized political considerations, or specific user groups, over 
sustainability and has not managed salmon and other species properly, 
which has resulted in the declines of Chinook and sockeye fisheries in 
Cook Inlet and unnecessary litigation. One commenter felt that 
amendment 16 results in more political management.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that amendment 16 is political management. 
As described throughout the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS worked 
to balance competing interests and demands of the National Standards in 
the policy decisions inherent to this fishery management action. NMFS 
will

[[Page 34751]]

manage salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area using best available 
science to achieve OY and prevent overfishing on all Cook Inlet salmon 
stocks. The State will continue to manage salmon fishing within State 
waters.
    NMFS found the State has prioritized protecting stocks with the 
lowest abundance in regulating salmon fishing in Cook Inlet. As 
described in sections 3.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Analysis, salmon 
abundance is cyclical, and the harvests of different user groups have 
both increased and decreased at different times. To the extent the 
comment is criticizing allocation decisions made by the BOF (i.e., 
which user group(s) are allowed to harvest the available excess yield 
of salmon), that is outside the scope of this action.
    Comment 89: Our fisheries statewide are in peril because of multi-
jurisdictional authority and allocations to specific user groups based 
on political agendas. Trawling back and forth across the mouth to Cook 
Inlet occurred only weeks prior to our State-regulated 2023 commercial 
salmon season being shut down due to a prediction of a shortage of what 
turned out to be less than 1,500 Chinook salmon. This was under both 
jurisdictions. So who should manage the anadromous fishery? The owner 
of the resource.
    Response: NMFS, with guidance from the Council, has jurisdiction 
over salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. This action addresses 
directed fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Comments 
regarding salmon bycatch in trawl fisheries are outside of the scope of 
this action.
    Comment 90: The State should no longer manage the fishery as they 
have failed to do so in a way that supports Alaskan interests. 
Furthermore, there is no longer a fishery to manage in the EEZ, as the 
president has taken away the ability of Alaskans to utilize Alaska's 
natural resources, such as oil and gas.
    Response: Under this rule, NMFS, not the State of Alaska, will 
manage all salmon fishing (commercial and recreational) in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ. Comments regarding executive actions that affect other 
natural resources in Alaska are outside the scope of this action.
    Comment 91: Alaskans who are licensed business owners and fishing 
in the EEZ should be managing their resources. People in Washington DC 
or Washington State are the reason many of our wild resources are being 
depleted; they should not have a say in managing Alaska fisheries.
    Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act governs the management of the 
fisheries in the EEZ. Section 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides 
that the purpose of the Act is to exercise sovereign rights for the 
purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing all fish 
within the exclusive economic zone. It further provides that, with 
respect to management within the EEZ adjacent to Alaska waters, the 
Council is responsible for developing and recommending fishery 
management plans and regulations that implement those plans for 
management. Comments from all stakeholders and members of the public 
were considered in the development of amendment 16 and will be 
considered every year in the annual management processes for 
establishing salmon harvest specifications for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    Comment 92: Alaska's permanent fund dividend is declining and is 
being used to build commercial vessel docks. This litigation, which 
favors one fishing group over others, is costing millions of dollars. 
Commercial fishing is not hurting anyone. Protecting recreational 
fishing is not needed.
    Response: Comments on the Alaska permanent fund, State government 
revenues, and dock construction are outside of the scope of this 
action. Comments about the cost of litigation are outside the scope of 
this action. This action will implement conservation and management 
measures for commercial drift gillnet and recreational fishing solely 
within the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.

Other

    Comment 93: The proposed rule is incomplete without a complete 
overview of how offshore wind turbines, which are responsible for the 
increase in deaths of whales, dolphins, and other cetaceans off the 
East Coast, will be handled off Alaska.
    Response: This action does not include elements related to offshore 
wind energy. Therefore, this comment is outside of the scope of this 
action.
    Comment 94: Protect the hooligan (eulachon); that fishery needs 
review.
    Response: This comment is outside the scope of this action.
    Comment 95: In the Cook Inlet area, salmon spawning and rearing 
occurs on Federal lands and waters under the Department of the 
Interior. The Department of the Interior should be consulted and 
included in the development of this action.
    Response: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), an 
agency within the Department of the Interior, has a representative on 
the Council and is aware of the issue. The USFWS did not provide 
comments to NMFS during the comment period on amendment 16 or the 
proposed rule. In this action, NMFS implements federal management over 
commercial and recreational fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
consistent with NMFS's authorities under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The 
authorities of other agencies, including the Department of the Interior 
and USFWS, over lands and waters outside of the EEZ are outside the 
scope of this action.

Classification

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator (AA) has determined that this 
action is consistent with the Salmon FMP, the National Standards, other 
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
    NMFS prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for amendment 16 and 
the AA concluded that there will be no significant impact on the human 
environment as a result of this rule. This action is expected to 
maintain Cook Inlet EEZ salmon harvests at or near existing levels. The 
same or similar vessels will continue to use the same or similar 
fishing gear. As a result, no significant environmental impacts are 
anticipated. Copies of the EA and Finding of No Significant Impact are 
available from the NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess costs and 
benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis 
is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). NMFS approved amendment 16 and 
these regulations based on those measures that maximize net benefits to 
the Nation when considering the viable management alternatives. 
Specific aspects of the economic analysis are discussed below in the 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) section.

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 FRFA, 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.'' Copies of the proposed rule, this final rule, and the small 
entity compliance guide are available on the Alaska Region's website 
at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska.

[[Page 34752]]

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    NMFS prepared a FRFA that incorporates the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and a summary of the analyses completed to 
support this final rule.
    Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that, 
when an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of title 5 of 
the U.S. Code (5 U.S.C. 553), after being required by that section or 
any other law to publish a general notice of final rulemaking, the 
agency shall prepare a FRFA (5 U.S.C. 604). 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 IRFA, a statement of 
the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any 
changes made to 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 (SBA) 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 that will be subject to the requirement 
and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the 
report or record; and (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 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.
    A description of this final rule and the need for and objectives of 
this rule are contained in the preamble to the proposed rule and final 
rule and are not repeated here.

Public and Chief Counsel for Advocacy Comments on the IRFA

    An IRFA was prepared in the Classification section of the preamble 
to the proposed rule. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not 
file any comments on the proposed rule. NMFS received no comments 
specifically on the IRFA. No comments provided information that refuted 
the conclusions presented in the IRFA.

Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Final Action

    This final rule will directly regulate commercial salmon fishing 
vessels that operate in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, charter guides and 
charter businesses fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, and 
entities receiving deliveries of salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area.
    For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established small business size 
standards for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary 
industries are commercial fishing, charter fishing, seafood processing, 
and seafood buying (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in 
commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business 
if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field 
of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual 
receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations 
worldwide. For charter fishing vessels (NAICS code 713990), this 
threshold is combined annual receipts not in excess of $9 million. For 
shoreside processors (NAICS code 311710), the small business size is 
defined in terms of number of employees, with the threshold set at not 
greater than 750 employees. For entities that purchase seafood but do 
not process it (NAICS code 424460), the small business threshold is not 
greater than 100 employees.
    From 2019 to 2021, there was an average of 567 S03H permits in 
circulation, with an average of 361 active permit holders, all of which 
are considered small entities based on the 11 million dollar threshold. 
Because NMFS expects the State to maintain current requirements for a 
commercial salmon fishing vessels landing any salmon in upper Cook 
Inlet to hold a CFEC S03H permit, NMFS does not expect participation 
from non-S03H permit holders in the federally managed salmon fishery in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Therefore, the number of S03H permit holders 
represents the maximum number of directly regulated entities for the 
commercial salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. From 2019 to 
2021, there was an average of 11 shoreside processors and 6 direct 
marketers, all of which are considered small entities based on the 750 
employee threshold. From 2019 to 2021, there was an average of 4 
catcher-sellers, all of which are considered small entities based on 
the 100 employee threshold. From 2019 to 2021, there was an average of 
58 charter guides that fished for salmon at least once in the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area, all of which are considered small entities based on the 
9 million dollar threshold. Additional detail is included in sections 
4.5 and 4.9 in the Analysis prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).

Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts 
on Small Entities

    NMFS considered, but did not select three other alternatives. The 
alternatives, and their impacts to small entities, are described below.
    Alternative 1 would take no action and would maintain existing 
management measures and conditions in the fishery within recently 
observed ranges, resulting in no change to impacts on small entities. 
This is not a viable alternative because it would be inconsistent with 
the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the Cook Inlet EEZ must be included 
within the Salmon FMP and managed according to the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act.
    Alternative 2 would delegate management to the State. If fully 
implemented, Alternative 2 would maintain many existing conditions 
within the fishery. Fishery participants would have the added burdens 
of obtaining a SFFP, maintaining a Federal fishing logbook, and 
monitoring their fishing position with respect to EEZ and State waters 
as described in sections 2.4.8 and 4.7.2.2 of the Analysis. However, 
section 306(a)(3)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that NMFS 
cannot delegate management to the State without a three-quarter 
majority vote by the Council, which did not occur. Therefore, 
Alternative 2 cannot be implemented and is not a viable alternative.
    Alternative 4 would close the Cook Inlet EEZ but not impose any 
additional direct regulatory costs on participants and would allow 
directly regulated entities to possibly recoup lost EEZ harvest inside 
State waters. However, the District Court ruled that Alternative 4 was 
contrary to law. Therefore, Alternative 4 is not a viable alternative.
    This action (Alternative 3) will result in a Cook Inlet EEZ salmon 
fishery managed directly by NMFS and the Council. Within Alternative 3, 
there were numerous sub-options for management measures. As described 
below, NMFS worked to select specific management measures that 
minimized cost and burden on participants to the extent practicable. 
This action will increase direct costs and burdens to

[[Page 34753]]

commercial salmon fishing vessels that operate in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area by requiring an SFFP, associated requirements to install and 
operate a VMS, and maintaining a Federal logbook as described in 
sections 2.5.6 and 4.7.2.2 of the Analysis. This action also requires 
that TACs be set before each fishing season. The TAC will be set to 
account for management uncertainty and reduce the risk of overfishing 
without the benefit of inseason harvest data, but overall catch in the 
EEZ is likely to remain near existing levels with a possibility for 
slight increases from the status quo (particularly as Federal managers 
collect data specific to the EEZ and develop expertise managing the 
fishery). As is possible under the status quo, salmon harvest in the 
EEZ could be reduced or prohibited in years when salmon returns are not 
predicted to result in a harvestable surplus, with an appropriate 
buffer to account for scientific and management uncertainty.
    Processors receiving deliveries of salmon commercially harvested in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area are required to obtain an SFPP. Entities 
receiving deliveries of salmon commercially harvested in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ but not processing the fish are required to obtain an RSRP. All of 
these permits are available at no cost from NMFS. However, entities 
with these permits are required to use eLandings and report landings 
with all associated information by noon of the day following the 
completion of each delivery, which increases direct costs and burden.
    While these measures do increase costs to commercial fishery sector 
participants, all of these elements are necessary to manage the fishery 
and prevent overfishing. Specific consideration was given in their 
development to minimize the burden on participants to the extent 
practicable while also providing required information to Federal 
fishery managers in a timely manner. More costly means of monitoring 
catch--including observers and electronic monitoring--were considered 
but rejected by NMFS. All entities that may be directly regulated by 
this action could also choose to continue participating in only the 
State waters fisheries to avoid being subject to these Federal 
requirements.
    Charter fishing vessels do not have any additional Federal 
recordkeeping, reporting, or monitoring requirements but are subject to 
Federal bag, possession, and gear regulations. These measures are the 
same as existing State requirements and do not add additional burden.
    Based upon the best scientific information available, there are no 
significant alternatives to the action that have the potential to 
comply with applicable court rulings, accomplish the stated objectives 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and any other statutes, and minimize any 
significant adverse economic impact of the action on small entities 
while preventing overfishing. After a public process, NMFS concluded 
that of the viable management options, Alternative 3, amendment 16 and 
this final rule, best accomplish the stated objectives articulated in 
the preamble for this action and in applicable statutes, and minimizes, 
to the extent practicable, adverse economic impacts on directly 
regulated small entities.

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements 
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This final rule adds a 
new collection of information for the Cook Inlet EEZ salmon fishery 
under new OMB control number 0648-0818 and revises and extends for 3 
years existing collection-of-information requirements for OMB Control 
Number 0648-0445 (NMFS Alaska Region VMS Program). The public reporting 
burden estimates provided below for these collections of information 
include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information.

[[Page 34754]]

OMB Control Number 0648-0818
    A new collection of information is created for reporting, 
recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements implemented by this action 
that are necessary to federally manage the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon 
fishery. This new collection contains the applications and processes 
used by harvesters, processors, and other entities receiving deliveries 
of Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon to apply for and manage their permits; 
provide catch, landings, and processing data; and mark drift gillnet 
buoys. The data are used to ensure that the fishery participants adhere 
to harvesting, processing, and other requirements for the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area salmon fishery.
    The public reporting burden per individual response is estimated to 
average 15 minutes for the SFFP application, 25 minutes for the SFPP 
application, 20 minutes for the RSRP application, 15 minutes to 
register for eLandings, 10 minutes for landing reports, 15 minutes for 
the daily fishing logbook, and 30 minutes to mark drift gillnet buoys.
OMB Control Number 0648-0445
    NMFS proposes to revise and extend by 3 years the existing 
requirements for OMB Control Number 0648-0445. This collection contains 
the VMS requirements for the federally managed groundfish and crab 
fisheries off Alaska. This collection is revised because this action 
requires vessels commercially fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area to install and maintain an operational VMS. The public reporting 
burden per individual response is estimated to average 6 hours for 
installation of a VMS unit, 4 hours for VMS maintenance, and 2 hours 
for VMS failure troubleshooting. VMS transmissions are not assigned a 
reporting burden because the transmissions are automatic.
Public Comments
    We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment 
on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us 
assess the impact of our information collection requirements and 
minimize the public's reporting burden. Written comments and 
recommendations for these information collections should be submitted 
on the following website: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 
Find the particular information collection by using the search function 
and entering either the title of the collection or the OMB Control 
Number.
    Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is 
required to respond nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Tribal Summary Impact Statement

    NMFS's responsibility to engage in tribal consultations on Federal 
policies with tribal implications is outlined in Executive Order (E.O.) 
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 
(November 6, 2000), the Executive Memorandum (April 29, 1994), the 
American Indian and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S. Department of 
Commerce (March 30, 1995), the Department of Commerce Tribal 
Consultation and Coordination Policy (78 FR 33331, June 4, 2013), 
Presidential Memorandum (Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-
to-Nation Relationships) (86 FR 7491, January 29, 2021), and the 
updated NOAA Policy on Government-to-Government Consultations with 
Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (July 
27, 2023). Congress required federal agencies to consult with Alaska 
Native corporations on the same basis as federally recognized Indian 
tribes under E.O. 13175 (Pub. L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by 
Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 3267). NOAA interprets the term ``Alaska 
Native corporations'' in this requirement to mean ``Native 
corporation[s]'' as that term is defined under the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1602).
    Section 5(b)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 requires a ``Tribal Summary Impact 
Statement'' for any regulation that has tribal implications, imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on Native Tribal governments, and 
is not required by statute. Although not required by section 5(b)(2)(B) 
of E.O. 13175, the following is a tribal summary impact statement for 
this final rule that is consistent with E.O. 13175 and summarizes and 
responds to issues raised during all tribal consultations on Amendment 
16 and the proposed rule.
    Under E.O. 13175 and agency policies, NMFS notified all potentially 
impacted federally recognized Tribal governments in Alaska and Alaska 
Native Corporations and provided the opportunity to comment and respond 
to the agency's invitation for tribal consultation on the action.

A Description of the Extent of NMFS's Prior Consultation With Tribal 
Officials

    On February 17, 2023, NMFS emailed tribal consultation invitation 
letters to Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and Alaska 
Native Organizations (``Alaska Native representatives''). The letter 
notified Alaska Native representatives that the management of salmon 
fisheries in the Federal (EEZ) marine waters of upper Cook Inlet would 
be presented to the Council for review, with an invitation to 
participate in the process and contribute to fishery decisions at the 
April 2023 meeting. NMFS invited Alaska Native representatives to 
consult with and provide comments to the agency directly via meeting or 
by telephone.
    NMFS received one response from the Chickaloon Village Traditional 
Council (CVTC) to consult on management of salmon fisheries in the 
Federal (EEZ) waters of Cook Inlet. The purpose was to complete 
consultation between CVTC and NMFS Alaska Region per the agency's 
government-to-government relationship regarding the management of 
salmon fisheries in the EEZ waters of Cook Inlet before scheduled final 
action at the April 2023 Council meeting to hear and better understand 
the CVTC's perspectives regarding tribal impacts. NMFS also shared 
information about the action and its potential implementation and 
answered questions during the consultation.
    NMFS was invited by Alaska Native representatives to speak on this 
action at the Tikahtnu Forum Meeting on February 24, 2023, the 
Kenaitze/Salamatof Hunting Fishing and Gathering Commission Meeting on 
March 7, 2023, and the Cook Inlet Fishers Group on March 30, 2023, to 
listen to tribal perspectives, provide information and answer questions 
on the action.
    On April 21, 2023, NMFS sent an announcement to Alaska Native 
representatives stating the agency was under a court order to implement 
an amendment to the Salmon FMP by May 1, 2024 to federally manage the 
salmon fisheries that occur in the Cook Inlet EEZ, consistent with 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. NMFS provided a second invitation 
for tribal consultation and engagement opportunities on this issue. Two 
Alaska Native tribes responded to the invitation to consult on 
amendment 16. NMFS held tribal consultation on this action with the 
Salamatof Tribe on May 22, 2023, and with the Chickaloon Native Village 
(CNV) on June 20, 2023. NMFS shared information regarding Federal 
salmon management during the meeting but

[[Page 34755]]

primarily wanted to hear and better understand the Salamatof Tribe's 
and CNV's perspectives regarding tribal impacts. Also, on June 22, 
2023, NMFS received a letter from the Ninilchik Traditional Council 
(NTC). NTC thanked NMFS for the invitation to consult and for engaging 
with tribes on the action but declined NMFS's invitation to consult 
based on lack of agency engagement in the past, lack of adequate time, 
and because of NTC's concern that the action did not incorporate tribal 
input in studies and impact statements related to traditional 
ecological knowledge.
    On April 26, 2023, NMFS notified Alaska Native representatives that 
NMFS would hold a public hearing to receive input on an amendment to 
the Salmon FMP to establish Federal management for salmon fishing in 
the Federal waters of upper Cook Inlet. Alaska Native representatives 
were given another opportunity to provide verbal comments at the public 
hearing on May 18, 2023 or written comments by May 25, 2023 during the 
public comment process.
    On October 18, 2023, NMFS solicited public comment--including 
comments from Alaska Native representatives--on the proposed rule that 
would implement Federal management of commercial and recreational 
salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ (88 FR 72314, October 19, 2023). 
NMFS invited comment from Alaska Native representatives on the action 
through December 18, 2023. Additionally, on October 20, 2023, NMFS 
provided a response letter to the NTC thanking them for their concerns 
and encouraging the NTC to reconsider engagement with NMFS on this 
action.
    On November 16, 2023, NMFS received a response from the Cook Inlet 
Fishers Group asking for tribal engagement. On December 5, 2023, NMFS 
met with tribal representatives from the Cook Inlet Tribal Fishers 
Group, which included the Knik Tribal Council, CVTC, and NTC. The 
purpose of this meeting was to engage with interested Cook Inlet Tribes 
regarding Federal management of salmon fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ. 
NMFS shared information about the action and its potential 
implementation during the meeting but primarily wanted to hear and 
better understand the Cook Inlet Tribes' perspectives regarding tribal 
impacts. At the close of the meeting, participants agreed that a follow 
up tribal engagement meeting on this action would be pertinent in 
January 2024.
    At the close of the amendment 16 public comment period on December 
18, 2023, NMFS received written comments from NTC, Salamatof Tribe, 
CVTC, and Kenaitze Tribe. The Salamatof Tribe requested separate 
government-to-government engagement while the remaining Cook Inlet 
tribes requested joint government-to-government consultation. On 
January 8, 2024, NMFS met with the Salamatof Tribe to share a status 
update on amendment 16 as well as hear and better understand their 
perspectives on the need for an indigenous subsistence fishery set-
aside. On January 9, 2024, NMFS met with 11 Alaska Native 
representatives, including the NVC, CVTC, Seldovia Village Tribe, NTC, 
Knik Tribe, Native Village of Eklutna, Kenaitze Tribe, Chugach Regional 
Resource Commission, Ninilchik Native Association, Tyonek Native 
Corporation, and the Salamatof Tribe. NMFS listened to tribal concerns 
and perspectives regarding the new idea for an indigenous subsistence 
fishery set-aside and provided a status update on the amendment 16 
process.
    After the close of the amendment 16 public comment period, NMFS 
also received three written tribal comments from the Chugach Regional 
Resource Commission representing the Nanwalek Indian Reorganization Act 
Council and Port Graham Village Council, Tyonek Conservation District, 
and Native Village of Eklutna. The Chugach Regional Resource Commission 
requested tribal consultation with Nanwalek IRA Council and Port Graham 
Village Council. The Tyonek Conservation District expressed significant 
interest in participating in natural resource management decisions that 
could affect Cook Inlet. The Native Village of Eklutna requested to 
further develop traditional stewardship, through a degree of co-
management with NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), of 
culturally important trust salmon stocks returning to traditional 
areas.
    Many tribal members requested an indigenous subsistence fishery 
set-aside to be incorporated into amendment 16 and this final rule. 
Such a modification could not have been made to amendment 16 without 
publishing a new proposed rule, which was not possible given the 
impending court deadline for implementation of a final rule. Creating 
an indigenous subsistence fishery set-aside within the Cook Inlet EEZ 
would require further analysis and consideration by NMFS and the 
Council that are outside of the original scope and purpose of this 
action. As noted in response the Comment 79, FMPs are adaptive and the 
Council may recommend amending the Salmon FMP in the future to 
incorporate feedback from tribes in upcoming consultations that NMFS 
has committed to honoring.

A Summary of the Nature of Tribal Concerns

    Comments from Alaska Native representatives received prior to the 
close of the public comment period are summarized in the Comments and 
Responses section of this final rule. NMFS also received three written 
comments from Alaska Native representatives after the public comment 
period closed. Tribal comments received after the public comment period 
are included in the summary below.
    Cook Inlet tribes expressed a significant interest in collaborating 
with NMFS on this action. The primary question received from Alaska 
Native representatives during tribal outreach and engagement on 
amendment 16 was how this action would impact tribal subsistence 
fishing. Based on the above tribal engagements, consultations, and 
public comments, the nature of tribal concerns fell into four main 
categories: (1) impacts to traditional lands/Federal trust 
responsibility; (2) indigenous subsistence fishery set-aside; (3) 
salmon status/fishery management; and (4) fish & habitat enhancement. 
The nature of tribal concerns are summarized for each of these 
categories below.
Impacts To Traditional Lands/Federal Trust Responsibility
    All Cook Inlet tribes expressed that this action would affect their 
traditional ancestral territories, customary areas of use, and vital 
way of life and would impact environmental and cultural resources that 
are imperative to the health, safety, and welfare of tribal citizens. 
Cook Inlet tribes stated that NMFS must partner with them to fulfill 
the Federal trust responsibility and international obligations for 
tribal rights and food security, including access to traditional 
resources such as salmon. Cook Inlet tribes stated that Federal, 
territorial, and State regulations have dramatically reduced the 
fishing opportunities for Alaska Native tribal citizens while globally 
significant markets have been developed to sell Alaskan fish, which 
have eroded indigenous rights and have had a huge impact on Alaska 
Native peoples.
Indigenous Subsistence Fishery Set-Aside
    Cook Inlet tribes expressed concerns that less weight was given to 
tribal comments relative to the commercial fishing industry and that 
they do not have a voice in the government process. Cook Inlet tribes 
asked NMFS to be

[[Page 34756]]

mindful of this power imbalance and that the action impacts tribal 
rights. Personal use, educational fishery permits, and a few (select) 
subsistence permits are how tribal citizens currently harvest fish in 
Cook Inlet. Cook Inlet tribes believe that Federal management of salmon 
in the Cook Inlet EEZ provides a long overdue opportunity for an 
indigenous subsistence fishery (e.g., tribal fishery set-aside) in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ, ahead of commercial and recreational needs, and would 
like to work with NMFS to develop an indigenous set-aside for salmon 
harvest that has priority over other uses.
Salmon Status/Fishery Management
    One Cook Inlet tribe felt overescapement was unsustainable for the 
available habitat. Another tribe had significant concerns about the EEZ 
fishing and wanted to maintain the conservation corridor in Cook Inlet. 
Other tribes highlighted that there are numerous and increasing threats 
to Cook Inlet salmon populations that decrease salmon runs originating 
from Cook Inlet. Several Cook Inlet tribes support Federal management 
of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ. Tribes generally emphasized that NMFS 
must do more to achieve a precautionary fishery management approach 
based on threats to Cook Inlet salmon populations. Tribes also stated 
that by merely focusing on the commercial and recreational fishing that 
was the subject of the District Court's 2022 order, NMFS ignores 
subsistence needs, which are also included in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
With subsistence use representing only one tenth of one percent of Cook 
Inlet harvest, Cook Inlet tribes stated a subsistence fishery would not 
threaten commercial or recreational fisheries, have a very small effect 
on the salmon populations, and have a notably beneficial impact on 
tribal cultural perpetuation, citizen health, and wellbeing. Cook Inlet 
tribes requested that Federal fishery management be precautionary with 
TACs based on timely in-season escapements and not historical harvest 
averages and pre-season forecasts. Tribal recommendations included 
funding better escapement data collection and genetic analysis of EEZ-
harvested salmon, development of a salmon database with in-season 
genetic data, development of test fisheries, a fishery period from July 
16 to August 15, allowing only one 12-hour fishing period per week, and 
maintaining the current drift gillnet length of 150 fathoms (274.32 m). 
Lastly, tribes recommend creating a tribal fishing opportunity modeled 
after the Alaska Subsistence Halibut Program and providing proxy 
fishing opportunities developed collectively with Tribal governments to 
ensure tribal elders and other tribal citizens who are physically 
unable to harvest fish in the Cook Inlet EEZ can access salmon.
Fish & Habitat Enhancement
    All Cook Inlet tribes that commented want to work towards 
increasing salmon runs and have been taking actions (e.g., fish and 
habitat enhancement) over the past 50 years to address Alaska Native 
community concerns by reducing invasive species; replacing fish passage 
barriers in their district; restoring over 45 miles (72.42 km) of 
upstream salmon habitat; leading regional efforts for the prevention, 
early detection, and treatment of aquatic invasive plants; collecting 
baseline stream data; and surveying streams for inclusion in the State 
of Alaska Anadromous Waters Catalog for protection. Cook Inlet tribes 
have also performed research to advise habitat assessments and salmon 
restoration planning.
    In summary, tribal concerns were focused on providing relief to 
Alaska Native salmon fishing families and communities as well as 
continued communication in the NMFS tribal engagement and consultation 
process as it relates to fishery resource access that sustains the 
tribal way of life. Detailed meeting summaries of the tribal concerns 
listed above are available on the NMFS Alaska Region website (see 
ADDRESSES).

NMFS's Position Supporting the Need To Issue the Regulation

    This final rule is needed to implement Federal fisheries management 
of the Cook Inlet EEZ. NMFS's position is stated in the preamble to the 
proposed rule and this final rule, and in the comments and responses 
section.

Statement of the Extent to Which the Concerns of Tribal Officials Have 
Been Met

    From the perspective of a number of Cook Inlet tribes, the primary 
concern was over how this fishery would impact Alaska Native 
subsistence fishing and, secondly, if the action would include a tribal 
subsistence set-aside. The Analysis prepared for this action provides 
information on the current subsistence fisheries in Cook Inlet and 
indicates that there has not been a subsistence fishery in the EEZ 
during the time period for which NMFS has data, though tribes have 
stated that they did historically fish in EEZ waters. Throughout 
litigation and for much of the development of amendment 16, a tribal 
subsistence fishery did not come up as a management proposal. This 
final rule, developed in response to court decisions on a strict 
timeline, therefore authorizes only commercial drift gillnet and 
recreational fishing in the EEZ. To address tribal concerns that 
amendment 16 did not include an indigenous subsistence set-aside, NMFS 
has committed to honoring the Cook Inlet tribal consultation requests 
received in 2024 and welcomes further engagement and discussion.
    NMFS and the Council have made significant efforts in conducting 
direct outreach and engagement, and for NMFS in conducting tribal 
consultations, with Alaska Native representatives, which include Alaska 
Native tribes, Alaska Native corporations, and Native organizations and 
communities over the last few years. NMFS made significant efforts to 
involve Alaska Native representatives in the development of this 
action. In conjunction with Council outreach, NMFS provided information 
to Alaska Native representatives that were interested in engaging at 
each step in the process and consulted with interested Alaska Native 
representatives, as described above.
    NMFS considered all input from these consultations and engagements, 
consistent with E.O. 13175 and the agency's tribal consultation 
obligations before reaching a final decision on this action. In 
addition, NMFS committed to honoring the Cook Inlet tribal consultation 
and information requests to discuss the possibility of a tribal 
subsistence fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ.
    NMFS acknowledges the long-standing challenges that Alaska Native 
representatives have had communicating with the agency and appreciates 
the tribes' commitment to communicating needed improvements to the 
consultation process. NMFS has taken several actions over the last 
year, including building staff capacity and hosting listening sessions, 
and intends to continue to improve tribal consultation.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 902

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 600

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign 
relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

[[Page 34757]]

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.

50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 18, 2024.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 
902 and 50 CFR parts 600 and 679 as follows:

TITLE 15--COMMERCE AND FOREIGN TRADE

PART 902--NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE 
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB COLLECTION NUMBERS

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 902 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.


0
2. Amend Sec.  902.1, in the table in paragraph (b), by adding in 
numerical order entries for ``679.114'', ``679.115'', 
``679.117(b)(1)(xiv)'', and ``679.118(f)(2)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  902.1  OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Current OMB
                                                            control No.
  CFR part or section where the information collection     (all numbers
                 requirement is located                     begin with
                                                              0648-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
50 CFR                                                    ..............
 
                                * * * * *
679.114.................................................           -0818
679.115.................................................           -0818
679.117(b)(1)(xiv)......................................           -0445
679.118(f)(2)...........................................           -0818
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

TITLE 50--WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

PART 600--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

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

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


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


Sec.  600.725  General prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (v) * * *

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

* * * * *

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

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

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


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


Sec.  679.1  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) Regulations in this part govern commercial fishing for salmon 
by fishing vessels of the United States in the West Area and commercial 
and recreational fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area of the 
Salmon Management Area.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  679.2 by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definition for ``Daily bag 
limit'';
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Federally permitted vessel,''
0
c. Adding paragraph (7) to the definition of ``Fishing trip'';
0
d. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions for ``Possession 
limit'' and ``Registered Salmon Receiver'';
0
e. Revising the definition of ``Salmon Management Area''; and
0
f. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions for ``Salmon 
shoreside processor'' and ``Waters of Cook Inlet.''
    The additions and revision read as follows:


Sec.  679.2  Definitions.

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

[[Page 34758]]

operator commences commercial fishing for any salmon species in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area and ending when the vessel operator offloads or 
transfers any unprocessed salmon species from that vessel.
* * * * *
    Possession limit means the maximum number of unprocessed salmon a 
person may possess from recreational fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area.
* * * * *
    Registered Salmon Receiver means a person holding a Registered 
Salmon Receiver Permit issued by NMFS.
* * * * *
    Salmon Management Area means those waters of the EEZ off Alaska 
(see figures 22 and 23 to part 679) under the authority of the Salmon 
FMP. The Salmon Management Area is divided into three areas: the East 
Area, the West Area, and the Cook Inlet EEZ Area:
    (1) The East Area means the area of the EEZ in the Gulf of Alaska 
east of the longitude of Cape Suckling (143[deg]53.6' W).
    (2) The West Area means the area of the EEZ off Alaska in the 
Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, and the Gulf of Alaska west of 
the longitude of Cape Suckling (143[deg]53.6' W), but excludes the Cook 
Inlet EEZ Area, Prince William Sound Area, and the Alaska Peninsula 
Area. The Prince William Sound Area and the Alaska Peninsula Area are 
shown in figure 23 to this part and described as:
    (i) The Prince William Sound Area means the EEZ shoreward of a line 
that starts at 60[deg]16.8' N and 146[deg]15.24' W and extends 
southeast to 59[deg]42.66' N and 144[deg]36.20' W and a line that 
starts at 59[deg]43.28' N and 144[deg]31.50' W and extends northeast to 
59[deg]56.4' N and 143[deg]53.6' W.
    (ii) The Alaska Peninsula Area means the EEZ shoreward of a line at 
54[deg]22.5' N from 164[deg]27.1' W to 163[deg]1.2' W and a line at 
162[deg]24.05' W from 54[deg]30.1' N to 54[deg]27.75' N.
    (3) The Cook Inlet EEZ Area, shown in figure 22 to this part, means 
the EEZ of Cook Inlet north of a line at 59[deg]46.15' N.
* * * * *
    Salmon shoreside processor means any person or vessel that 
receives, purchases, or arranges to purchase, and processes unprocessed 
salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, except a Registered Salmon 
Receiver.
* * * * *
    Waters of Cook Inlet means, for the purposes of Sec. Sec.  
679.28(f)(6)(x) and 679.117(b)(1)(xiv), all Federal waters and Alaska 
State waters north of a line from Cape Douglas (58[deg]51.10' N) to 
Point Adam (59[deg]15.27' N).
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  679.3 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.3  Relation to other laws.

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


Sec.  679.7  [Amended]

0
9. Amend Sec.  679.7 by removing and reserving paragraph (h).

0
10. Amend Sec.  679.25 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(1)(vi) and (a)(2)(vi) through (viii); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(3) and (8).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  679.25  Inseason adjustments.

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

0
11. Amend Sec.  679.28 by adding paragraph (f)(6)(x) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  679.28  Equipment and operational requirements

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (x) You operate a vessel named, or required to be named, on an SFFP 
issued under Sec.  679.114 in the waters of Cook Inlet during a 
calendar day when directed fishing for salmon using drift gillnet gear 
is open in the Cook Inlet

[[Page 34759]]

EEZ Area and have drift gillnet gear on board or deployed.
* * * * *

0
12. Add subpart J, consisting of Sec. Sec.  679.110 through 679.119, to 
read as follows:

Subpart J--Salmon Fishery Management

Sec.
679.110 Applicability.
679.111 through 679.113 [Reserved]
679.114 Permits.
679.115 Recordkeeping and reporting.
679.116 [Reserved]
679.117 Salmon fisheries prohibitions.
679.118 Management measures.
679.119 Recreational salmon fisheries.

Subpart J--Salmon Fishery Management


Sec.  679.110  Applicability.

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


Sec.  679.111 through 679.113  [Reserved]


Sec.  679.114  Permits.

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

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

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

[[Page 34760]]

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


Sec.  679.115  Recordkeeping and reporting.

    (a) General recordkeeping and reporting (R&R) requirement. R&R 
requirements include, but are not limited to, paper and electronic 
documentation, logbooks, forms, reports, and receipts.
    (1) Salmon logbooks and forms. (i) The Regional Administrator will 
prescribe and provide logbooks required

[[Page 34761]]

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

[[Page 34762]]

    (B) If a Registered Salmon Receiver, enter the RSRP number;
    (v) Enter the home port code (see tables 14a, 14b, and 14c to this 
part) for the operation;
    (vi) If a tender operation, the operator must enter the ADF&G 
vessel identification number of the vessel;
    (vii) If a buying station or Registered Salmon Receiver operation 
is a vehicle, enter vehicle license number and the state of license 
issuance;
    (viii) If a buying station, tender vessel, or custom processor, 
enter the following information to identify the associated processor 
where the processing will take place: operation type, ADF&G processor 
code, and applicable SFPP number, and RSRP number; and
    (ix) Each operation requires a primary User. Enter the following 
information for the primary User for the new operation: create and 
enter a UserID, initial password, company name, User name (name of the 
person who will use the UserID), city and state where the operation is 
located, business telephone number, business fax number, business email 
address, security question, and security answer.
    (4) Information entered automatically for eLandings landing report. 
eLandings autofills the following fields from processor registration 
records (see paragraph (b)(2) of this section): UserID, processor 
company name, business telephone number, email address, port of 
landing, operation type (for catcher/processors, motherships, or 
stationary floating processors), ADF&G processor code, and Federal 
permit number. The User must review the autofilled cells to ensure that 
they are accurate for the landing that is taking place. eLandings 
assigns a unique landing report number and an ADF&G electronic fish 
ticket number upon completion of data entry.
    (5) Registered Salmon Receiver landing report. The manager and a 
Registered Salmon Receiver that receives salmon from a vessel issued an 
SFFP under Sec.  679.114 and that is required to have an SFPP or RSRP 
under Sec.  679.114(c) or (d) must use eLandings or other NMFS-approved 
software to submit a daily landing report during the fishing year to 
report processor identification information and the following 
information under paragraphs (b)(5)(i)(A) through (C) of this section:
    (i) Information entered for each salmon delivery to a salmon 
shoreside processor or Registered Salmon Receiver. The User for a 
shoreside processor, stationary floating processor, or Registered 
Salmon Receiver must enter the information specified at (b)(5)(i)(A) 
through (C) of this section for each salmon delivery provided by the 
operator of a vessel, the operator or manager of an associated buying 
station or tender vessel, and from processors for reprocessing or 
rehandling product into eLandings or other NMFS-approved software:
    (A) Delivery information. The User must:
    (1) For crew size, enter the number of licensed crew aboard the 
vessel, including the operator;
    (2) Enter the management program name in which harvest occurred 
(see paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section);
    (3) Enter the ADF&G salmon statistical area of harvest;
    (4) For date of landing, enter date (mm/dd/yyyy) that the delivery 
was completed;
    (5) Indicate (YES or NO) whether delivery is from a buying station 
or tender vessel;
    (6) If the delivery is received from a buying station, indicate the 
name of the buying station;
    (7) If the delivery is received from a tender vessel, enter the 
ADF&G vessel registration number;
    (8) If delivery is received from a vessel, indicate the ADF&G 
vessel registration number of the vessel; and
    (9) Mark whether the vessel logsheet has been received.
    (B) Catch information. The User must record the number and landed 
scale weight in pounds of salmon, including any applicable weight 
modifier such as delivery condition code, and disposition code of fish 
by species.
    (C) Discard or disposition information. (1) The User must record 
discard or disposition of fish: that occurred on and was reported by a 
vessel; that occurred on and was reported by a salmon shoreside 
processor or Registered Salmon Receiver; and that occurred prior to, 
during, and/or after production at the salmon shoreside processor.
    (2) The User for a salmon shoreside processor or Registered Salmon 
Receiver must submit a landing report containing the information 
described in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section for each salmon 
delivery from a specific vessel by 1200 hours, A.l.t., of the day 
following completion of the delivery. If the landed scale weight 
required in paragraph (b)(5)(i)(B) of this section is not available by 
this deadline, the User must transmit an estimated weight and count for 
each species by 1200 hours, A.l.t., of the day following completion of 
the delivery, and must submit a revised landing report with the landed 
scale weight for each species by 1200 hours, A.l.t., of the third day 
following completion of the delivery.
    (3) By using eLandings, the User for a salmon shoreside processor 
or a Registered Salmon Receiver and the operator of the vessel 
providing information to the User for the salmon shoreside processor or 
Registered Salmon Receiver accept the responsibility of and acknowledge 
compliance with Sec.  679.117(b)(5).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (c) Logbooks--(1) Requirements. (i) All Cook Inlet EEZ Area logbook 
pages must be sequentially numbered.
    (ii) Except as described in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) or (iv) of this 
section, no person may alter or change any entry or record in a 
logbook;
    (iii) An inaccurate or incorrect entry or record in printed data 
must be corrected by lining out the original and inserting the 
correction, provided that the original entry or record remains legible. 
All corrections must be made in ink; and
    (iv) If after an electronic logsheet is signed, an error is found 
in the data, the operator must make any necessary changes to the data, 
sign the new logsheet, and export the revised file to NMFS. The 
operator must retain both the original and revised logsheet reports.
    (2) Logsheet distribution and submittal. The operator of a vessel 
must distribute and submit accurate copies of logsheets to the salmon 
shoreside processor or Registered Salmon Receiver and to NOAA Fisheries 
Office of Law Enforcement Alaska Region according to the logsheet 
instructions.
    (3) Salmon drift gillnet vessel daily fishing log. The operator of 
a vessel that is required to have an SFFP under Sec.  679.114(b), and 
that is using drift gillnet gear to harvest salmon in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area, must maintain a salmon drift gillnet vessel daily fishing 
log.
    (4) Reporting time limits. The operator of a vessel using drift 
gillnet gear must record in the daily fishing log the information from 
the following table for each set within the specified time limit:

[[Page 34763]]



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

Sec.  679.116  [Reserved]


Sec.  679.117  Salmon fisheries prohibitions.

    In addition to the general prohibitions specified in Sec.  600.725 
of this chapter and Sec.  679.7, it is unlawful for any person to do 
any of the following:
    (a) The East Area and the West Area--(1) East Area. Engage in 
commercial fishing for salmon using any gear except troll gear, defined 
at Sec.  679.2, in the East Area of the Salmon Management Area, defined 
at Sec.  679.2 and figure 23 to this part.
    (2) West Area. Engage in commercial fishing for salmon in the West 
Area of the Salmon Management Area, defined at Sec.  679.2 and figure 
23 to this part.
    (b) Cook Inlet EEZ Area--(1) Commercial fishery participants. (i) 
Engage in commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area of 
the Salmon Management Area, defined at Sec.  679.2 and figure 22 to 
this part, with a vessel of the United States that does not have on 
board a legible copy of a valid SFFP issued to the vessel under Sec.  
679.114;
    (ii) Engage in commercial fishing for salmon using any gear except 
drift gillnet gear, described at Sec.  679.118, in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area;
    (iii) Have on board, retrieve, or deploy any gear, except a drift 
gillnet legally configured for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial 
salmon fishery while commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area;
    (iv) Deploy more than one drift gillnet while commercial fishing 
for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
    (v) Deploy drift gillnet gear within, or allow any portion of drift 
gillnet gear to enter, Alaska State waters on the same calendar day 
that drift gillnet gear is also deployed in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
while commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
    (vi) Deploy drift gillnet gear in excess of the allowable 
configuration for total length and mesh size specified at Sec.  
679.118(f) while commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area;
    (vii) Use a vessel named, or required to be named, on an SFFP to 
fish for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area if that vessel fishes for 
salmon in Alaska State waters on the same calendar day;
    (viii) Possess salmon, harvested in Alaska State waters, on board a 
vessel commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
    (ix) Have salmon on board a vessel at the time a fishing trip 
commences in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
    (x) Conduct recreational fishing for salmon, or have recreational 
or subsistence salmon on board, while commercial fishing for salmon in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
    (xi) Use or employ aircraft (manned or unmanned) to locate salmon 
or to direct commercial fishing while commercial fishing for salmon in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 1 hour before, during, and 1 hour after a 
commercial salmon fishing period;
    (xii) Land salmon harvested in Alaska State waters concurrently 
with salmon harvested commercially in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
    (xiii) Land or transfer salmon harvested while commercial fishing 
for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, within the EEZ off Alaska;
    (xiv) Operate a vessel named, or required to be named, on an SFFP 
in the waters of Cook Inlet without an operable VMS as required in 
Sec.  679.28(f).
    (xv) Discard any salmon harvested while commercial fishing for 
salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    (xvi) Engage in commercial fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area contrary to notification of inseason action, closure, or 
adjustment issued under Sec. Sec.  679.25 and 679.118.
    (2) Recreational fishery participants. (i) Engage in recreational 
fishing for salmon using any gear except for handline, rod and reel, or 
hook and line gear, defined at Sec.  600.10, in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
of the Salmon Management Area, defined at Sec.  679.2 and figure 22 to 
this part;
    (ii) Use more than a single line, with more than two hooks 
attached, per angler in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area;
    (iii) No person shall possess on board a vessel, including charter 
vessels and pleasure craft used for fishing, salmon retained in the 
Cook Inlet EEZ Area that have been filleted, mutilated, or otherwise 
disfigured in any manner, except that each salmon may be cut into no 
more than two pieces with a patch of skin on each piece, naturally 
attached. One piece from one salmon on board may be consumed.
    (iv) Exceed the daily bag limits and possession limits established 
under Sec.  679.119.
    (v) Engage in recreational fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area contrary to notification of inseason action, closure, or 
adjustment issued under Sec.  679.118.
    (3) Processors and Registered Salmon Receivers. (i) Receive, 
purchase or arrange for purchase, discard, or process salmon harvested 
in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area without having on site a legible copy of a 
valid SFPP or valid RSRP issued under Sec.  679.114;
    (ii) Process or receive salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
without submitting a timely and complete landing report as required 
under Sec.  679.115;
    (iii) Process salmon harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in the 
EEZ off Alaska; and
    (iv) Receive or transport salmon caught in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
without an SFPP or RSRP issued under Sec.  679.114.
    (4) Recordkeeping and reporting. (i) Fail to comply with or fail to 
ensure compliance with requirements in Sec.  679.114 or Sec.  679.115.
    (ii) Alter or forge any permit or document issued under Sec.  
679.114 or Sec.  679.115;
    (iii) Fail to submit or submit inaccurate information on any 
report, application, or statement required under this part; and
    (iv) Intentionally submit false information on any report, 
application, or statement required under this part.
    (5) General. Fail to comply with any other requirement or 
restriction specified in this part or violate any provision under this 
part.

[[Page 34764]]

Sec.  679.118  Management measures.

    This section applies to vessels engaged in commercial fishing and 
recreational fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    (a) Harvest limits--(1) TAC. NMFS, after consultation with the 
Council, will specify the annual TAC amounts for commercial fishing for 
each salmon stock or species after accounting for projected 
recreational fishing removals.
    (2) Annual TAC determination. The annual determinations of TAC for 
each salmon species or stock may be based on a review of the following:
    (i) Resource assessment documents prepared regularly for the 
Council that provide information on historical catch trends; updated 
estimates of the MSY of the salmon stocks or stock complexes; 
assessments of the stock condition of each salmon stock or stock 
complex; SSC recommendations on reference points established for salmon 
stocks; management uncertainty; assessments of the multispecies and 
ecosystem impacts of harvesting the salmon stocks at current levels, 
given the assessed condition of stocks, including consideration of 
rebuilding depressed stocks; and alternative harvesting strategies and 
related effects on the salmon species;
    (ii) Social and economic considerations that are consistent with 
Salmon FMP goals for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, including the need to 
promote efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources, including 
minimizing costs; the desire to conserve, protect, and rebuild depleted 
salmon stocks; the importance of a salmon fishery to harvesters, 
processors, local communities, and other salmon users in Cook Inlet; 
and the need to promote utilization of certain species.
    (b) Annual specifications--(1) Proposed specifications. (i) As soon 
as practicable after consultation with the Council, NMFS will publish 
proposed specifications for the salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ 
Area; and
    (ii) NMFS will accept public comment on the proposed specifications 
established by this section for a period specified in the notice of 
proposed specifications published in the Federal Register.
    (2) Final specifications. NMFS will consider comments received on 
the proposed specifications and will publish a notice of final 
specifications in the Federal Register unless NMFS determines that the 
final specifications would not be a logical outgrowth of the notice of 
proposed specifications. If the final specifications would not be a 
logical outgrowth of the notice of proposed specifications, NMFS will 
either:
    (i) Publish a revised notice of proposed specifications in the 
Federal Register for public comment, and after considering comments 
received on the revised proposed specifications, publish a notice of 
final specifications in the Federal Register; or
    (ii) Publish a notice of final specifications in the Federal 
Register without an additional opportunity for public comment based on 
a finding that good cause pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act 
justifies waiver of the requirement for a revised notice of proposed 
specifications and opportunity for public comment thereon.
    (c) Management authority--(1) Fishery closures. (i) For commercial 
fishing, if NMFS determines that any salmon TAC for commercial fishing 
as specified under paragraph (b) of this section has been or may be 
reached for any salmon species or stock, NMFS will publish notification 
in the Federal Register prohibiting commercial fishing for salmon in 
the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.
    (ii) For recreational fishing, if NMFS determines that any salmon 
ABC as specified under paragraph (b) of this section has been or may be 
reached, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal Register 
prohibiting retention of that salmon species when recreational fishing 
in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and may also prohibit recreational fishing 
for one or more salmon species in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. The Regional 
Administrator maintains the authority to open or close the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area to recreational fishing for one or more salmon species if they 
deem it appropriate for conservation or other management purposes. 
Factors such as the ABC, anticipated harvest rates, expected mortality, 
and the number of participants will be considered in making any such 
determination.
    (d) Commercial Fishery maximum retainable amounts (MRA)--(1) 
Proportion of basis species. The MRA of an incidental catch species is 
calculated as a proportion of the basis species retained on board the 
vessel using the retainable percentages in table 10 to this part for 
the GOA species categories.
    (2) Calculation. (i) To calculate the MRA for a specific incidental 
catch species, an individual retainable amount must be calculated with 
respect to each basis species that is retained on board that vessel.
    (ii) To obtain these individual retainable amounts, multiply the 
appropriate retainable percentage for the incidental catch species/
basis species combination, set forth in table 10 to this part for the 
GOA species categories, by the amount of the relevant basis species on 
board, in round-weight equivalents.
    (iii) The MRA for that specific incidental catch species is the sum 
of the individual retainable amounts for each basis species.
    (e) Seasons--(1) Fishing season. Directed fishing for salmon using 
drift gillnet gear in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area may be conducted from 
0700 hours, A.l.t., from the third Monday in June or June 19, whichever 
is later, through 1900 hours, A.l.t., August 15.
    (2) Fishing periods. Notwithstanding other provisions of this part, 
fishing for salmon with drift gillnet gear in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area 
is authorized during the fishing season only from 0700 hours, A.l.t., 
until 1900 hours, A.l.t., Mondays and from 0700 hours, A.l.t., until 
1900 hours, A.l.t., Thursdays from the third Monday in June or June 19, 
whichever is later, until July 15, and from August 1 until August 15. 
From July 16 until July 31, fishing for salmon with drift gillnet gear 
in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area is authorized during the fishing season only 
from 0700 hours, A.l.t., until 1900 hours, A.l.t., Thursdays. Fishing 
for salmon using drift gillnet gear at times other than during the 
specified fishing periods is not authorized.
    (f) Legal gear--(1) Size. Drift gillnet gear must be no longer than 
200 fathoms (1.1 kilometer) in length, 45 meshes deep, and have a mesh 
size of no greater than 6 inches (15.24 cm).
    (2) Marking. Drift gillnet gear must be marked at both ends with 
buoys that legibly display the vessel's SFFP number.
    (3) Floating. The float line and floats of gillnets must be 
floating on the surface of the water while the net is fishing, unless 
natural conditions cause the net to temporarily sink. Staking or 
otherwise fixing a drift gillnet to the seafloor is not authorized.
    (4) Measurement. For purposes of paragraph (f)(1) of this section, 
nets must be measured, either wet or dry, by determining the maximum or 
minimum distance between the first and last hanging of the net when the 
net is fully extended with traction applied at one end only.


Sec.  679.119  Recreational salmon fisheries.

    (a) Daily bag limits and possession limits. For each person 
recreational fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, the 
following daily bag and possession limits apply:
    (1) Chinook salmon. From April 1 to August 31, the daily bag limit 
is one Chinook salmon of any size and the possession limit is one daily 
bag limit

[[Page 34765]]

(one Chinook salmon). From September 1 to March 31, the daily bag limit 
is two Chinook salmon of any size and the possession limit is one daily 
bag limit (two Chinook salmon).
    (2) Coho salmon, sockeye salmon, pink salmon, and chum salmon. For 
coho salmon, sockeye salmon, pink salmon, and chum salmon, the daily 
bag limit is a total of six fish combined, of any size, of which a 
maximum of three may be coho salmon. The possession limit for coho 
salmon, sockeye salmon, pink salmon, and chum salmon is one daily bag 
limit (six fish total).
    (3) Combination of bag/possession limits. A person who fishes for 
or possesses salmon in or from the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section, may not combine such bag or possession 
limits with any bag or possession limit applicable to Alaska State 
waters.
    (4) Responsibility for bag/possession limits. The operator of a 
vessel that fishes for or possesses salmon in or from the Cook Inlet 
EEZ Area is responsible for the cumulative bag or possession limit 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section that apply to that vessel, 
based on the number of persons aboard.
    (5) Transfer at sea. A person who fishes for or possesses salmon in 
or from the Cook Inlet EEZ Area under a bag or possession limit 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section may not transfer a salmon at 
sea from a fishing vessel to any other vessel, and no person may 
receive at sea such salmon.
    (b) Careful release. Any salmon brought aboard a vessel and not 
immediately returned to the sea with a minimum of injury will be 
included in the daily bag limit of the person catching the salmon.

0
13. Add figure 22 to part 679 to read as follows:

Figure 22 to Part 679--Cook Inlet EEZ Area

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 34766]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30AP24.023

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

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

[[Page 34767]]



                                                 Table 15 to Part 679--Gear Codes, Descriptions, and Use
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Use alphabetic code to complete the following:     Use numeric code to complete the following:
                                                                                                      --------------------------------------------------
                                                      ------------------------------------------------
                     Name of gear                                                        Electronic      Numeric gear
                                                         Alpha gear     NMFS logbooks  check-in/check-       code        IERS eLandings     ADF&G COAR
                                                            code                             out
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                NMFS AND ADF&G GEAR CODES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Gillnet, drift.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............              03                X                X
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2024-08664 Filed 4-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P