[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44887-44891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18380]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 150305219-5619-02]
RIN 0648-BE78


Fisheries Off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Species 
Fisheries; Recreational Fishing Restrictions for Pacific Bluefin Tuna

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is issuing 
regulations to modify the existing Pacific bluefin tuna (PBF) Thunnus 
orientalis recreational daily bag limit in the Exclusive Economic Zone 
(EEZ) off California, and to establish filleting-at-sea requirements 
for any tuna species in the U.S. EEZ south of Point Conception, Santa 
Barbara County, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (MSA). This action is intended to conserve PBF, and is 
based on a recommendation of the Pacific Fishery Management Council 
(Council).

DATES: The final rule is effective July 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Environmental 
Assessment, and other supporting documents are available via the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, identified by 
``NOAA-NMFS-2015-0029'', or contact the Regional Administrator, William 
W. Stelle, Jr., NMFS West Coast Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Bldg 
1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, or [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Heberer, NMFS, 760-431-9440, 
ext. 303, or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 21, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (80 FR 22156) that would modify and add regulations at 50 CFR 
660.721, to reduce the daily bag limits for sport-caught PBF harvested 
in the EEZ off the coast of California and to promulgate new at-sea 
fillet regulations applicable south of Point Conception, Santa Barbara 
County. The public comment period on the proposed rule was open until 
May 6, 2015, and NMFS received 976 comments, which are summarized and 
discussed below. This final rule is intended to reduce fishing 
mortality and aid in rebuilding the PBF stock, which is overfished and 
subject to overfishing (78 FR 41033, July 9, 2013), and to satisfy the 
United States' obligation to reduce catches of PBF by sportfishing 
vessels in accordance with conservation measures adopted by the Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). This rule is implemented 
under the authority of the MSA as a conservation measure recommended by 
the Council during the 2015-2016 biennial management cycle, as 
established in the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast 
Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP) framework provisions 
for changes to routine management measures.
    The proposed rule contains additional background information, 
including the basis for the new regulations. Additional information on 
changes since the proposed rule is included below.

Modified Daily Bag Limit Regulations

    This final rule reduces the existing bag limit of 10 PBF per day to 
2 PBF per day and the maximum multiday possession limit (i.e., for 
trips of 3 days or more) from 30 PBF to 6 PBF. For fishing trips of 
less than 3 days, the daily bag limit is multiplied by the number of 
days fishing to determine the multiday possession limit (e.g., the 
possession limit for a 1-day trip would be two fish and for a 2-day 
trip, four fish). The bag limits of this section apply on the basis of 
each 24-hour period at sea, regardless of the number of trips per day. 
The final rule does not authorize any person to take and retain more 
than one daily bag limit of fish during 1 calendar day. The daily bag 
and multiday possession limits apply to the U.S. EEZ off the coast of 
California and might be more or less conservative than Mexico's limits. 
The U.S. recreational limits would not apply to U.S. anglers while in 
Mexico's waters, but to facilitate enforcement and monitoring, the 
limits will apply to U.S. vessels in the U.S. EEZ or landing to U.S. 
ports, regardless of where the fish were harvested.

New At-Sea Filleting Requirements

    The regulations establish new requirements for filleting tuna at-
sea (i.e., each fish must be cut into six pieces placed in an 
individual bag so that certain diagnostic characteristics are left 
intact), which will assist law enforcement personnel in accurately 
identifying the different tuna species. These requirements apply to 
tuna species caught south of the line running due west true from Point 
Conception, Santa Barbara County (34[deg]27' N. lat.). As defined in 50 
CFR 660.702, tuna refers to the following species: Yellowfin, Thunnus 
albacares; bluefin, T. orientalis; bigeye, T. obesus; albacore, T. 
alalunga; and skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis.

Public Comments and Responses

    NMFS received 976 written public comments pertaining to the 
proposed action.
    NMFS categorized comments by whether they supported a reduced bag 
limit and/or establishment of new fillet requirements. Summaries of the 
comments received and NMFS' responses appear below. Some comments were 
beyond the scope of this rulemaking and are not addressed here. 
Nonetheless, those comments are valuable; and NMFS will consider them 
for future management planning.
    Comment 1: Reducing the daily bag limit from 10 PBF per day to 2 
PBF per

[[Page 44888]]

day would result in an 80 percent reduction in catch, which goes beyond 
the 25-40 percent harvest reduction measure embodied in IATTC 
Resolution C-14-06.
    Response: A reduction of 80 percent in the daily limit (from 10 PBF 
per day to 2 PBF per day) does not reflect the actual estimated 
reduction in catch (harvest), which is the metric for rebuilding the 
stock of PBF in both domestic and international conservation measures. 
The alternatives analyzed and presented to the Council, including the 
preferred alternative of 2 PBF per day, were intended to reduce 
retained recreational catch of PBF compared to the status quo (i.e., 10 
PBF per day). The existing 10 fish per day bag limit for PBF was 
adopted in 2007 and became effective in 2008. California Passenger 
Fishing Vessel (CPFV) logbook data for the 2008 to 2013 time period, 
were analyzed to cover the period when the existing 10 fish bag limit 
has been in effect. On average, a daily bag limit change from 10 to 4 
fish would result in a 5 to 10 percent catch reduction; a daily bag 
limit of 3 fish would equal a 15 percent reduction; a daily bag limit 
of 2 fish, a 30 percent reduction; and a daily bag limit of 1 fish, a 
50 percent reduction.
    Comment 2: In lieu of a daily bag limit, NMFS should have 
considered using quota management, including the use of in-season 
closures if needed. A catch limit (i.e., a quota) of 208 metric tons 
should be applied, consistent with IATTC scientific staff 
recommendations for sportfishing harvest reductions needed to rebuild 
the PBF stock.
    Response: Prior to the IATTC annual meeting in 2014, IATTC 
scientific staff recommended keeping non-commercial catches in the 
eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) below 214 mt based on the same methods, and 
years, that they used to recommend a commercial limit for the EPO 
(IATTC-87-03d). IATTC member countries expressed concerns about the 
appropriateness of these methods for the recreational sector. After 
additional work, the IATTC scientific staff recommended percentage 
reductions based on more recent levels of catch, and in lieu of an 
annual quota. This is reflected in Resolution C-14-06, which states: 
``Taking into account the IATTC scientific staff's conservation 
recommendation that a reduction of 20 percent to 45 percent in catches 
would be beneficial for the stock, provided that these reductions are 
implemented over the entire range of the stock. . . .'' The 
implementation of a daily bag limit meets the conservation 
recommendation in Resolution C-14-06 while also allowing U.S. anglers 
to target PBF throughout the season; a catch limit could result in a 
retention prohibition on PBF early in the recreational fishing season. 
This seasonal access is valued by anglers, and also an important 
component for maintaining the economic viability of sportfishing 
businesses that depend on fishing throughout the season.
    Comment 3: NOAA should have considered a slot size limit (range of 
allowable harvest by size) to protect younger, pre-spawning PBF and 
older, reproductively mature PBF.
    Response: The majority of PBF harvested by U.S. anglers in the EPO 
are 1-3 year old juvenile fish (average weight 30 pounds) that have not 
yet reached sexual maturity (i.e., are reproductively inactive). PBF 
reach sexual maturity at approximately five years of age and roughly 
125 pounds. PBF spawn in the western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) 
between central Japan and the northern Philippines, and in the Sea of 
Japan from April through August (2014 PBF Stock Assessment, 
International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in 
the North Pacific Ocean). Very few PBF of spawning size are available 
to U.S. anglers in the EPO therefore a slot limit constraining harvest 
by size would not be a demonstrably effective measure. In addition, 
instituting a slot limit management measure would require additional 
and costly monitoring and compliance resources to effectively 
implement. Expanded state and Federal monitoring efforts, including 
increased dockside surveys and at-sea sampling efforts, are being 
implemented to more accurately track the recreational and commercial 
harvest of PBF to comply with conservation measures in place.
    Comment 4: Given the severely depressed status of the stock, a 1-
fish daily bag limit resulting in a projected harvest impact reduction 
of 54 percent would be more appropriate to address the harvest 
reductions embodied in IATTC Resolution C-14-06.
    Response: A 2-fish daily bag limit is consistent with IATTC 
scientific staff recommendations and Pacific Council recommendations. 
IATTC Resolution C-14-06 recommends a reduction of 20 percent to 45 
percent in PBF catches to assist in the rebuilding of the PBF stock, 
provided that these reductions are implemented over the entire range of 
the stock. For the period 2004-2013, the impact of recreational catch 
of PBF in the EPO (predominantly by California-based recreational 
vessels) has ranged from 0.4 percent to 24 percent of the total EPO 
fishery impact and 0.1 percent to 4.7 percent of the stock-wide fishery 
impact. The implementation of a bag limit of 2 PBF per day is estimated 
to reduce the U.S. recreational harvest of PBF by 30 percent, as 
compared to the average U.S. West Coast sport fishing harvest of PBF 
during the 2008-2013 time frame. The estimated 30 percent reduction is 
consistent with IATTC scientific staff recommendations and guidance 
embodied in MSA Section 304(i) for reducing the relative impact of the 
U.S. fleet on the stock. The percentage of angler bags that would face 
a reduction increases steeply when considering a reduction from a 2 
fish per day bag limit to a 1 fish per day limit, while the reduction 
in the overall U.S. recreational mortality increases by a relatively 
smaller amount. Estimated employment impacts also increase sharply with 
lower bag limits; for instance, job loss in the CPFV industry on the 
range from 14 to 85 full-time positions, out of an estimated 1,537 
total positions, is expected with a bag reduction to one fish per day 
(Draft Environmental Assessment, Daily Bag Limits, Possession Limits, 
and At-Sea Processing for Pacific Bluefin Tuna in California 
Recreational Fisheries. Pacific Fishery Management Council, June 2015). 
The 2 fish per day bag limit is consistent with MSA National Standards, 
including Standard 8, which requires consideration of the importance of 
fishery resources to fishing communities when implementing conservation 
and management measures.
    Comment 5: A total PBF recreational fishery closure is warranted 
based on the estimated 96-percent PBF population biomass decrease from 
the unfished biomass.
    Response: There is no evidence to suggest that a unilateral closure 
of U.S. recreational fishing for PBF will either end overfishing or 
have a measurable impact on reducing overfishing because catch of PBF 
by the U.S.-based recreational fishery represents such a small portion 
of the total Pacific-wide catch. Furthermore, such a prohibition would 
economically harm U.S. West Coast fishing communities. Despite the fact 
that U.S. West Coast-based sport fishermen are not permitted to sell 
their catch, other positive regional economic impacts generated by 
recreational fishing activities, as well as the pleasure of 
recreational fishing, would be negatively impacted by a fishing 
closure. The Pacific Council considered impacts to recreational 
fisheries when adopting the measures contained in this rule as part of 
its biennial management process, and in accordance with 
responsibilities under MSA section 304(i) to address the relative 
impact of U.S. fisheries on the PBF stock. During

[[Page 44889]]

its deliberations, the Pacific Council considered an analysis of the 
potential impact of recreational bag and possession limit reductions, 
including a 0-bag limit scenario (i.e., a moratorium on retention of 
catch), which is similar in nature to closing the fishery. This 
analysis was based on CPFV logbook data from the 2008 to 2013 fishing 
seasons and included results indicating that a moratorium on PBF 
fishing (e.g., reducing the current PBF bag limit from 10 to 0 fish) 
could lead to a loss of up to $13.8 million in annual trip expenditures 
and $25.8 million in annual gross sales within the southern California 
due to a decrease in the number of CPFV trips that target PBF (5,275 
angler days in U.S. waters and 56,338 angler days in Mexico waters). 
Additionally, the 0-bag limit scenario was estimated to generate a 
potential employment loss in the southern California economy of up to 
178 full-time equivalent jobs. In addition to the indirect economic 
impact of a potential no-retention measure, recreational fishermen 
would also be deprived of the pleasure of fishing for, and retaining, 
even small numbers of PBF.
    Comment 6: Given the increased presence and abundance of PBF off 
the U.S. West Coast over the past few seasons, a bag limit reduction is 
unnecessary.
    Response: The spawning stock biomass (SSB) of PBF is at historic 
lows (about 4 percent compared to the SSB if no fishing had taken 
place) while the amount and rate of PBF harvested each year continues 
to be high (2014 PBF Stock Assessment, International Scientific 
Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean). 
The U.S. has a statutory obligation under both the MSA and the Tuna 
Conventions Act (statutory authority to implement IATTC Resolutions) to 
reduce harvest of PBF. All member nations to the IATTC and the Western 
and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) that harvest PBF have 
committed to harvest reductions that contribute to the rebuilding of 
the PBF stock.
    Of the tunas, PBF has the broadest geographic range, spanning large 
expanses of the Pacific Ocean. They spawn in the WCPO between central 
Japan and the northern Philippines, and in the Sea of Japan from April 
through August. Based on tag return data, a portion of these fish are 
known migrate to waters off the U.S. West Coast and Mexico. The exact 
proportion that migrates is unknown, but it is possible that in the 
last few years a larger proportion of the juveniles have migrated from 
the spawning grounds to the U.S. West Coast and Mexico. The migration 
patterns of PBF are influenced by oceanographic conditions and vary 
among years. Increases in the number of fish observed locally may be a 
result of changes in the proportion of fish migrating to the eastern 
Pacific, and/or conditions along the west coast that may have shifted 
schools further north.
    Comment 7: The proposed fillet requirements are overly burdensome 
and unnecessary to adequately identify tuna species; specifically, NMFS 
should not require fishermen to cut out the collars and the belly 
flaps.
    Response: The at-sea fillet requirements will assist law 
enforcement personnel in accurately differentiating among species of 
tuna, specifically yellowfin and PBF. Personnel from NMFS, the 
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and key sportfishing 
industry stakeholders worked with state and Federal law enforcement 
personnel to design and test the proposed at-sea fillet requirements. 
The final fillet specifications were derived, in part, from advice 
provided by regionally recognized tuna species identification 
specialists and based on a series of filleting demonstrations and 
simulated identification exercises. One of the key diagnostic 
characteristics for identifying these two species is the shape and 
length of the pectoral fin. Another diagnostic characteristic is the 
thickness of the belly flaps and the shape of the urogenital pore. The 
belly wall is thicker and the urogenital pore is rounded in PBF versus 
a thinner belly wall and a more oval-shaped pore in yellowfin tuna. 
Therefore, to facilitate enforcement, NOAA has a compelling reason for 
requiring fishermen to leave these characteristics intact (i.e., by 
keeping pectoral fins attached to the collars, and including the belly 
flap) when filleting at-sea.
    Comment 8: The fillet requirements would create unsafe conditions 
at sea, given the difficulty in making the proposed cuts, specifically 
the collar cuts, while working on unstable and slippery vessel 
platforms.
    Response: The fillet requirements will only apply south of a line 
running due west true from Point Conception, Santa Barbara County 
(34[deg]27' N. latitude) to the U.S.-Mexico border. If rough seas 
create a safety risk while filleting, fishermen may choose to not 
fillet their catch until reaching calmer waters. Individuals may also 
leave the fish whole or process them in another manner such that the 
species may be determined. This could include gilling and gutting, a 
process in which the fish is bled and the gills and/or internal organs 
are removed, but the rest of the fish remains intact. This type of 
processing is not considered filleting.
    Comment 9: More should be done to constrain commercial harvests of 
PBF given the majority of the impacts on the stock have been attributed 
to commercial fisheries interactions. Domestic regulations are not 
equitable to measures being implemented internationally to rebuild the 
stock.
    Response: While this comment was not within the scope of this 
rulemaking, NMFS notes that considerable effort is being undertaken to 
constrain commercial harvests of PBF both domestically and 
internationally. The United States is part of this effort and is 
obligated under the treaty establishing the IATTC and under the MSA to 
constrain harvest by U.S. commercial and recreational fleets. All 
members of the WCPFC and IATTC, including the United States, are 
obligated to make catch reductions in the interest of rebuilding the 
stock. Specifically, the WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure 
2014-04 stipulates that:
     All members must reduce their fishing of PBF to below the 
average amount they fished in 2002 to 2004 in the WCPO; and
     All members must reduce their catch of PBF smaller than 30 
kg (66 lbs) by 50 percent of the average amount fished in 2002 to 2004 
in the WCPO.
    Additionally, IATTC Resolution C-14-06 stipulates that:
     A 20- to 45-percent reduction be made to PBF catches to 
benefit rebuilding of the stock, provided that these reductions are 
implemented over the entire range of the stock; and
     U.S. commercial catches cannot exceed 600 mt in 2015 and 
2016 combined; and the total commercial catches by all IATTC Members 
cannot exceed 6,600 mt in 2015 and 2016 combined in the EPO.
    Comment 10: There is potential for high grading PBF (releasing or 
discarding smaller fish so that larger fish may be retained within the 
bag limit); unquantified catch and release mortality could negatively 
impact the stock.
    Response: While the potential for high grading exists based on the 
reduced bag and the desire for anglers to retain larger fish, the 
impact of PBF mortalities due to catch and release is expected to be 
minimal on a stock-wide basis. As stated above, the U.S. recreational 
catch of PBF in the EPO (i.e., predominantly by California-based 
recreational vessels) from 2004 to 2013 has comprised 0.4 percent to 24 
percent of the total EPO fishery and 0.1 percent to 4.7 percent of the 
stock-wide fishery. Limited

[[Page 44890]]

monitoring of discards in the PBF sport fishery, including the level of 
catch and release events, will take place in 2015. If it is determined 
that the mortalities associated with high grading and or discards are 
impacting the PBF stock recovery and rebuilding schedule, NMFS and the 
Pacific Council could develop additional management measures, as part 
of the biennial management measure cycle under the HMS FMP.
    Comment 11: Release all spawning size female PBF and retain only 
male PBF greater than 15 pounds.
    Response: This management approach, also known as a slot limit, has 
proven effective in several federally managed fisheries, but the sex of 
PBF, like all other tuna species, cannot be identified by visual 
characteristics. Therefore, a slot limit is impractical for this 
fishery. In addition, the majority of PBF captured in the EPO sport 
fishery are juvenile, pre-spawning fish.
    Comment 12: Commercial fishing for PBF should be prohibited 
shoreward of 60 miles to create an exclusion zone that would help to 
recover the stock and provide more opportunities for sport fishermen to 
offset the reduced bag limit.
    Response: Restrictions on commercial fisheries are beyond the scope 
of this rulemaking. Both the U.S. commercial and recreational sectors 
are contributing to rebuilding of the PBF stock. The U.S. commercial 
harvest of PBF is limited to 600 mt for 2015 and 2016, combined, with 
the caveat that harvest cannot exceed 425 mt in any single year (i.e., 
via a separate rulemaking based on IATTC Resolution C-14-06). 
Additionally, if the U.S. commercial harvest in 2015 exceeds 300 mt, 
the harvest for 2016 will be limited to 200 mt. These commercial catch 
restrictions comport with the recommendation by IATTC scientific staff 
to reduce the catch of PBF by 20- to 45-percent. The implementation of 
an additional conservation measure (i.e., requiring the U.S. commercial 
fleet to fish seaward of 60 miles off the U.S. West Coast) would place 
an additional economic burden beyond what is required to rebuild the 
PBF stock. An additional area closure would unduly penalize U.S. 
commercial fishing interests and jeopardize the economic viability of 
this seasonal fishery.
    Comment 13: The effective date for the regulations should be tied 
to the Mexican government reopening the PBF sport fishery in their 
waters in 2015.
    Response: When a stock has been declared overfished or overfishing 
is occurring, as is the case with PBF, MSA Section 304(i) requires that 
the NMFS take action to address the relative impact of U.S. fishing on 
the stock. That requirement is not contingent on the actions of a 
foreign government, such as the prohibition on sport harvest of PBF 
within Mexico's EEZ, therefore NMFS is not tying the effective date of 
this final rule to the Mexican government's reopening the PBF sport 
fishery.
    Comment 14: The at-sea fillet requirements for tunas should be 
contingent on PBF being present in U.S. waters.
    Response: There would need to be a notification methodology 
designed and put in place that would accurately identify when PBF have 
moved into U.S. waters to make the at-sea fillet requirements 
contingent on the presence/absence of PBF in U.S. waters. A reliable 
and valid methodology is not currently in place, therefore NMFS is not 
making at-sea filleting requirements contingent on the presence of PBF 
in U.S. waters.

Classification

    The Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, determined that the 
regulatory amendment under the HMS FMP is necessary for the 
conservation and management of the PBF fishery, and that it is 
consistent with the MSA and other applicable laws.

Administrative Procedures Act

    There is good cause, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 
requirement for a 30-day delay in effectiveness, and to implement this 
rule 7 days after the date of filing with the Office of the Federal 
Register. NMFS is waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness because PBF 
have appeared in California waters earlier than anticipated. The vast 
majority of U.S. recreational angling trips for PBF are from 1 to 3 
days in duration. Seven days would provide enough advanced notice for 
recreational vessel operators and anglers to be notified of the new 
regulations if they are out at sea when the rule publishes. At present, 
there is extensive media coverage of the presence of PBF in U.S. west 
coast waters, which suggests that fishing effort targeting PBF will 
remain a focal point for anglers and could potentially intensify if 
favorable oceanic conditions result in additional PBF entering local 
waters. If this rule is delayed to allow for a 30-day delay in 
effectiveness, the level of harvest permitted under current regulations 
(10 fish per day with a daily possession limit of 30 fish per day) 
could compromise efforts to rebuild the PBF stock, conform with State 
of California regulations, and uphold the U.S. obligations to reduce 
catch agreed to under IATTC Resolution C-14-06.
    There has been considerable and extensive public outreach and 
education relating to the impending imposition of reduced daily bag and 
possession limits for PBF that will mitigate the impacts of a shortened 
delay in effectiveness of this rule. As stated earlier, this rulemaking 
is based on a recommendation by the Council, which came after several 
public scoping meetings and extensive opportunities for public input 
and comment. The State of California and NMFS has kept the regulated 
public informed with frequent announcements on this action (e.g., 
California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Marine Management 
Newsletter and NOAA Fisheries West Coast Recreational Fisheries email 
listserve, Let's Talk Hookup radio show, San Diego Union Tribune daily 
newspaper, Western Outdoor News weekly newsletter coverage, and 
Sportsfishing Association of California (SAC) updates). There is a 
small fleet of larger U.S. CPFVs that fish longer range trips (3 to18 
days) into Mexico's waters from home ports in San Diego. These vessels 
have constant radio and/or satellite communications contact with their 
home offices and/or personnel from SAC. When the final rule files with 
the Office of the Federal Register, notice will be provided to home 
offices and to SAC to relay to these vessels and their broader 
membership. Furthermore, since June of 2014, the government of Mexico 
has prohibited U.S. vessels from catching and landing PBF in their 
waters. Until that prohibition is lifted there will be no U.S. vessels 
fishing for PBF in Mexico's waters.

Executive Order 12866

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

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    There are no new collection-of-information requirements associated 
with this action that are subject to the PRA. Existing collection-of-
information requirements associated with the HMS FMP have been approved 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Number 0648-
0204. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to 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.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified

[[Page 44891]]

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed 
rule and is not repeated here. One comment was received regarding this 
certification questioning the ``not likely to adversely impact'' 
determination contained in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 
economic analysis presented for this action. The final rule implements 
a reduction in recreational bag and possession limits for PBF, and 
filleting requirements for harvested tuna. These restrictions directly 
affect only individual recreational anglers. Recreational anglers may 
not legally sell their catch, and thus are not considered to be a 
business. Because recreational anglers are not considered to be a small 
business entity under the RFA, the economic effects of this final rule 
to anglers are outside the scope of the RFA. Although the CPFV sector 
of the sport fishery is likely to experience indirect economic impacts 
due to the imposition of reduced daily bag and possession limits, an 
RFA analysis of those impacts was not included since CPFV operators are 
not subject to direct impacts of this final rule, other than to a 
limited extent if they personally participate in the recreational 
fishing activity. Indirect impacts on small business entities, such as 
a potential decline in demand for CPFV trips, are not considered under 
the scope of RFA analysis. As a result, a regulatory flexibility 
analysis was not required and none was prepared.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 21, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended 
as follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF THE WEST COAST STATES

0
1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 
16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.


0
2. In Sec.  660.721, revise the section heading, introductory text, and 
paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b), and add paragraph (e) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  660.721  Recreational fishing bag limits and filleting 
requirements.

    This section applies to recreational fishing for albacore tuna in 
the U.S. EEZ off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington and 
for bluefin tuna in the U.S. EEZ off the coast of California. In 
addition to individual fishermen, the operator of a U.S. sportsfishing 
vessel that fishes for albacore or bluefin tuna is responsible for 
ensuring that the bag and possession limits of this section are not 
exceeded. The bag limits of this section apply on the basis of each 24-
hour period at sea, regardless of the number of trips per day. The 
provisions of this section do not authorize any person to take and 
retain more than one daily bag limit of fish during 1 calendar day. 
Federal recreational HMS regulations are not intended to supersede any 
more restrictive state recreational HMS regulations relating to 
federally-managed HMS.
    (a) Albacore Tuna Daily Bag Limit. Except pursuant to a multi-day 
possession permit referenced in paragraph (c) of this section, a 
recreational fisherman may take and retain, or possess onboard no more 
than:
* * * * *
    (b) Bluefin Tuna Daily Bag Limit. A recreational fisherman may take 
and retain, or possess on board no more than two bluefin tuna during 
any part of a fishing trip that occurs in the U.S. EEZ off California 
south of a line running due west true from the California--Oregon 
border [42[deg]00' N. latitude].
* * * * *
    (e) Restrictions on Filleting of Tuna South of Point Conception. 
South of a line running due west true from Point Conception, Santa 
Barbara County (34[deg]27' N. latitude) to the U.S.-Mexico border, any 
tuna that has been filleted must be individually bagged as follows:
    (1) The bag must be marked with the species' common name; and
    (2) The fish must be cut into the following six pieces with all 
skin attached: the four loins, the collar removed as one piece with 
both pectoral fins attached and intact, and the belly cut to include 
the vent and with both pelvic fins attached and intact.

[FR Doc. 2015-18380 Filed 7-23-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P