[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 192 (Friday, October 2, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62492-62537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21783]



[[Page 62491]]

Vol. 85

Friday,

No. 192

October 2, 2020

Part VI





Department of Commerce





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





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





50 CFR Part 660





Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 
Management Plan; Amendment 29; 2021-22 Biennial Specifications and 
Management Measures; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 192 / Friday, October 2, 2020 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 62492]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 200928-0257]
RIN 0648-BJ74


Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 
Management Plan; Amendment 29; 2021-22 Biennial Specifications and 
Management Measures

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would establish the 2021-22 harvest 
specifications for groundfish taken in the U.S. exclusive economic zone 
off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, consistent with 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP). This 
proposed rule would also revise the management measures that are 
intended to keep the total annual catch of each groundfish stock or 
stock complex within the annual catch limits. These proposed measures 
are intended to help prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, 
achieve optimum yield, and ensure that management measures are based on 
the best scientific information available. Additionally, this proposed 
rule announces the receipt of exempted fishing permit applications. 
NMFS has made a preliminary determination that these applications 
warrant further consideration. NMFS requests public comment on these 
applications. This action also would implement Amendment 29 to the 
PCGFMP, which would designate shortbelly rockfish as an ecosystem 
component species, and would make changes to the trawl/non-trawl 
allocations for blackgill rockfish within the southern slope complex 
south of 40[deg]10' North latitude (N lat.), petrale sole, lingcod 
south of 40[deg]10' N lat., and widow rockfish.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than November 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2020-0098, by 
either of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020-0098, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, 
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. The 
exempted fishing permit (EFP) applications will be available under 
Supporting Documents through the same link.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Barry Thom, Regional 
Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, 
Seattle, WA 98115-0070.
    Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments if they are sent by 
any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after 
the comment period ends. All comments received are a part of the public 
record and NMFS will post for public viewing on www.regulations.gov 
without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, 
address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise 
sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender is publicly 
accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the 
required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

Electronic Access

    This rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the 
Federal Register website at https://www.federalregister.gov/. 
Background information and documents including an integrated analysis 
for this action (Analysis), which addresses the statutory requirements 
of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), the National Environmental Policy Act, 
Presidential Executive Order 12866, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
are available at the NMFS West Coast Region website at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/groundfish/index.html and at 
the Pacific Fishery Management Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org. The final 2020 Stock Assessment and Fishery 
Evaluation (SAFE) report for Pacific Coast groundfish, as well as the 
SAFE reports for previous years, are available from the Pacific Fishery 
Management Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Palmigiano, phone: 206-526-4491 
or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Chapter 5 of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 
(PCGFMP) requires the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to 
assess the biological, social, and economic conditions of the Pacific 
coast groundfish fishery and use this information to develop harvest 
specifications and management measures at least biennially. This 
proposed rule is based on the Council's final recommendations for 
harvest specifications and management measures for the 2021-22 biennium 
made at its April and June 2020 meetings.
    The Council deemed the proposed regulations necessary and 
appropriate to implement these actions in an August, 26, 2020, letter 
from Council Executive Director, Chuck Tracy, to Regional Administrator 
Barry Thom. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS is required to publish 
proposed rules for comment after preliminarily determining whether they 
are consistent with applicable law. We are seeking comment on the 
proposed regulations in this action and whether they are consistent 
with the PCGFMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, 
and other applicable law.
    Concurrent with this proposed rule, NMFS also published a Notice of 
Availability (NOA) to announce the proposed Amendment 29 to the PCGFMP. 
The NOA requests public review and comment on proposed changes to the 
Council fishery management plan document (85 FR 54529; September 2, 
2020).

A. Specification and Management Measure Development Process

    The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) conducted full stock 
assessments in 2019 for 7 of the 128 stocks \1\ currently included 
under the PCGFMP as stocks that require conservation and management 
(cabezon, big skate, longnose skate, sablefish, cowcod, gopher 
rockfish, and black-and-yellow rockfish). Additionally, the NWFSC 
reviewed assessment updates for Petrale sole and widow rockfish, as 
well as catch-only assessment updates for a number of previously 
assessed stocks (black rockfish, blackgill rockfish, California blue/
deacon rockfish north of Point Conception, canary rockfish, China 
rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, Dover sole, lingcod, longspine 
thornyheads, rougheye and blackspotted rockfishes, and shortspine 
thornyhead). The NWFSC did not update assessments for the remaining 
stocks, so harvest

[[Page 62493]]

specifications for these stocks are based on assessments from previous 
years. The full stock assessments used to set catch limits for this 
biennium are available on the Council website (https://www.pcouncil.org/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Stocks for which annual catch limits (ACLs) or ACL 
contributions to stock complex ACLs are calculated. Assessments do 
not include stocks designated as ecosystem component species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Council's stock assessment review panel (STAR panel) reviewed 
the stock assessments, including assessments on stocks for which some 
biological indicators are available, as described below, for technical 
merit, and to determine that each stock assessment document was 
sufficiently complete. Finally, the Council's Scientific and 
Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed the stock assessments and STAR 
panel reports and made its recommendations to the Council (Agenda Item 
H.5, September 2019 Council Meeting).
    The Council considered the new stock assessments, stock assessment 
updates, catch-only updates, public comment, recommendations from the 
SSC, and advice from its advisory bodies over the course of six Council 
meetings during development of its recommendations for the 2021-22 
harvest specifications and management measures. At each Council meeting 
between June 2019 and June 2020, the Council made a series of decisions 
and recommendations that were, in some cases, refined after further 
analysis and discussion. Table 2 in the Analysis describes the 
Council's meeting schedule for developing the 2021-22 biennial harvest 
specifications. Additionally, detailed information, including the 
supporting documentation the Council considered at each meeting, is 
available at the Council's website, www.pcouncil.org.
    The 2021-22 biennial management cycle was the third cycle following 
PCGFMP Amendment 24 (80 FR 12567, March 10, 2015), which established 
default harvest control rules and was analyzed through an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) (Final Environmental Impact Statement for 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Harvest Specifications and Management Measures 
for 2015-2016 and Biennial Periods Thereafter, and Amendment 24 to the 
PCGFMP, published January 2015). The EIS described the ongoing 
implementation of the PCGFMP and default harvest control rules, along 
with 10-year projections for harvest specifications and a range of 
management measures. Under Amendment 24, the default harvest control 
rules used to determine the previous biennium's harvest specifications 
(i.e., overfishing limits [OFLs], acceptable biological catches (ABCs), 
and annual catch limits [ACLs]) are applied automatically to the best 
scientific information available to determine the future biennium's 
harvest specifications. NMFS implements harvest specifications based on 
the default harvest control rules used in the previous biennium unless 
the Council makes a recommendation to deviate from the default. 
Therefore, this rule implements the default harvest control rules, 
consistent with the last biennium (2019-20), for most stocks, and 
discusses Council-recommended departures from the defaults. The 
Analysis supporting this action identifies the preferred harvest 
control rules, management measures, and other management changes that 
were not described in the 2015 EIS, and will be posted on the NMFS West 
Coast Region web page (see Electronic Access).
    Information regarding the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs proposed for 
groundfish stocks and stock complexes in 2021-22 is presented below, 
followed by a discussion of the proposed management measures for 
commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries.

II. Proposed Harvest Specifications

    This proposed rule would set 2021-22 harvest specifications and 
management measures for 127 of the 128 groundfish stocks which 
currently have ACLs or ACL contributions to stock complexes managed 
under the PCGFMP, except for Pacific whiting. Pacific whiting harvest 
specifications are established annually through a separate bilateral 
process with Canada. Shortbelly rockfish, which is currently managed 
with harvest specifications, would no longer be managed with harvest 
specifications beginning in the 2021-22 biennium and would instead be 
classified as an ecosystem component species. The change to shortbelly 
management is made through Amendment 29 to the PCGFMP and is discussed 
in detail in the NOA for that amendment. Public comment is open on the 
NOA (see ADDRESSES).
    The proposed OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs are based on the best available 
biological and socioeconomic data, including projected biomass trends, 
information on assumed distribution of stock biomass, and revised 
technical methods used to calculate stock biomass. The PCGFMP specifies 
a series of three stock categories for the purpose of setting maximum 
sustainable yield (MSY) \2\, OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, and rebuilding 
standards. Category one represents the highest level of information 
quality available, while category three represents the lowest. Category 
one stocks are the relatively few stocks for which the NWFSC can 
conduct a ``data rich'' quantitative stock assessment that incorporates 
catch-at-age, catch-at-length, or other data. The SSC can generally 
calculate OFLs and overfished/rebuilding thresholds for these stocks, 
as well as ABCs, based on the uncertainty of the biomass estimated 
within an assessment or the variance in biomass estimates between 
assessments for all stocks in this category. The set of category two 
stocks includes a large number of stocks for which some biological 
indicators are available, yet status is based on a ``data-moderate'' 
quantitative stock assessment. The category three stocks include minor 
stocks which are caught, but for which there is, at best, only 
information on landed biomass. For stocks in this category, there is 
limited data available for the SSC to quantitatively determine MSY, 
OFL, or an overfished threshold. Typically, catch-based methods (e.g., 
depletion-based stock reduction analysis, depletion corrected average 
catch, and average catches) are used to determine the OFL for category 
three stocks. A detailed description of each of these categories can be 
found in Section 4.2 of the PCGFMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ MSY is the largest long-term average catch that can be taken 
from a fish stock under prevailing environmental and fishery 
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Proposed OFLs for 2021 and 2022

    The OFL serves as the maximum amount of fish that can be caught in 
a year without resulting in overfishing. Overfishing occurs when a 
stock has a harvest rate, denoted as Fx, is set 
higher than the rate that produces the stock's MSY. The SSC derives 
OFLs for groundfish stocks with stock assessments by applying the 
harvest rate to the current estimated biomass (B). Harvest rates 
represent the rates of fishing mortality (F) that will reduce the 
female spawning potential ratio (SPR) to X percent of its unfished 
level. As an example, a harvest rate of F40 is more 
aggressive than F45 or F50 
harvest rates because F40 allows more fishing 
mortality on a stock (as it allows a harvest rate that would reduce the 
stock to 40 percent of its unfished level). The OFL does not account 
for scientific or management uncertainty, so the SSC typically 
recommends an ABC that is lower than the OFL in order to account for 
this uncertainty. Usually, the greater the amount of scientific 
uncertainty, the lower the ABC is set compared to the OFL.
    For 2021-22, the Council maintained its policy of using a default 
harvest rate as a proxy for the fishing mortality rate that is expected 
to achieve FMSY. The Council also maintained the same 
default harvest rate proxies as used in

[[Page 62494]]

the 2019-20 biennium, based on the SSC's recommendations: 
F30 for flatfish (meaning an SRP harvest rate that 
would reduce the stock to 30 percent of its unfished level), 
F50 for rockfish (including longspine and shortspine 
thornyheads), F50 for elasmobranchs, and 
F45for other groundfish such as sablefish and 
lingcod. For unassessed stocks, the Council recommended using a 
historical catch-based approach (e.g., average catch, depletion-
corrected average catch, or depletion-based stock reduction analysis) 
to set the OFL. See Tables 1a and 2a to Part 660, Subpart C in the 
proposed regulatory text supporting this rule for the proposed 2021-22 
OFLs.
    A detailed description of the scientific basis for all of the SSC-
recommended OFLs proposed in this rule is included in the SAFE document 
for 2020, available at the Council's website, www.pcouncil.org.

B. Proposed ABCs for 2021 and 2022

    The ABC is the stock or stock complex's OFL reduced by an amount 
associated with scientific uncertainty. The SSC-recommended P star-
sigma approach determines the amount by which the OFL is reduced to 
account for this uncertainty. Under this approach, the SSC recommends a 
sigma ([sigma]) value. The [sigma] value is generally based on the 
scientific uncertainty in the biomass estimates generated from stock 
assessments and is usually related to the stock category. After the SSC 
determines the appropriate [sigma] value, the Council chooses a P star 
(P*) based on its chosen level of risk aversion considering the 
scientific uncertainties. A P* of 0.5 equates to no additional 
reduction for scientific uncertainty beyond the [sigma] value 
reduction. The PCGFMP specifies that the upper limit of P* will be 
0.45. The P*-sigma approach is discussed in detail in the proposed and 
final rules for the 2011-12 (75 FR 67810, November 3, 2010; 76 FR 
27508, May 11, 2011) and 2013-14 (77 FR 67974, November 12, 2012; 78 FR 
580, January 3, 2013) biennial harvest specifications and management 
measures.
    The SSC recently endorsed new [sigma] values that increase the 
scientific uncertainty estimate and reduce the proposed ABCs and ACLs 
relative to what they could have been under the [sigma] and P* values 
used in the previous biennium. The new [sigma] values, endorsed by the 
Council at its March 2019 meeting, include a new base reduction for 
Category 1 stocks of 0.5 and an increase in the buffer between the OFL 
and ABC as the age of the assessment increases. Currently, [sigma] is 
the same for each year regardless of the age of the assessment. Table 1 
provides the [sigma] values used in previous biennium and the new 
[sigma] values with a higher base year deduction and progressively 
increasing [sigma] values with the age of the assessment.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.000

    Based on the new methodology, the SSC quantified major sources of 
scientific uncertainty in the estimates of OFLs and generally 
recommended a [sigma] value of 0.5 for category one stocks (previously 
0.36), a [sigma] value of 1.0 for category two stocks (previously 
0.72), and a [sigma] value of 2.0 for category three stocks (previously 
1.44). For category two and three stocks, there is greater scientific 
uncertainty in the OFL estimate because the assessments for these 
stocks are informed by less data than the assessments for category one 
stocks. Therefore, the scientific uncertainty buffer is generally 
greater than that recommended for stocks with data-rich stock 
assessments. Assuming the same P* is applied, a larger [sigma] value 
results in a larger reduction from the OFL. For 2021-22, the Council 
continued the general policy of using the SSC-recommended [sigma] 
values for each stock category.
    For 2021-22, the Council maintained the P* policies it established 
for the previous biennium for most stocks, except Oregon black 
rockfish, cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat., sablefish, and shortbelly 
rockfish. The Council considered alternative P* values for Petrale sole 
but ultimately decided to stay with the default P* value used in the 
previous biennium. As was done in 2015-16, 2017-18, and 2019-20, the 
Council recommended using P* values of 0.45 for all individually 
managed category one stocks, except sablefish and yelloweye rockfish. 
Combining the category one [sigma] value of 0.5 with the P* value of 
0.45 results in a reduction of 6.1 percent from the OFL when deriving 
the ABC. For category two stocks, the Council's general policy was to 
apply a P* of 0.4, with a few exceptions. The Council recommended 
applying a P* of 0.45 for big skate, cowcod south of 34[deg]27' N lat., 
English sole, longnose skate, Pacific ocean perch, and all of the 
stocks managed in the Oregon blue/deacon/black rockfish complex,

[[Page 62495]]

Nearshore Rockfish complexes, and the Other Fish complex. When combined 
with the [sigma] values of 1.00 for category two, a P* value of 0.45 
corresponds to an 11.8 percent reduction and a P* value of 0.40 
corresponds to a 22.4 percent reduction. For category three stocks, the 
Council's general policy was to apply a P* value of 0.45 for these 
stocks, except the Council recommended a P* value of 0.40 for cowcod 
between 40[deg]10' N lat. and 34[deg]27' N lat., Pacific cod, starry 
flounder, and all stocks in the Other Flatfish complex. When combined 
with the [sigma] values of 2.00 for category three, a P* value of 0.45 
corresponds to 22.2 percent reduction and a P* value of 0.40 
corresponds to a 39.8 percent reduction. See Tables 1-3 in Agenda Item 
H.8, Supplemental Attachment 2, September 2019 Council meeting for the 
full description of [sigma] and P* values by stock. See Tables 1a and 
2a to Part 660, Subpart C in the in the proposed regulatory text of 
this proposed rule for the proposed 2021-22 ABCs.

C. Proposed ACLs for 2019 and 2020

    The Council recommends ACLs for each stock and stock complex that 
is in need of conservation and management or ``in the fishery,'' as 
defined in the PCGFMP. To determine the ACL for each stock, the Council 
will determine the best estimate of current stock abundance and its 
relation to the precautionary and overfished/rebuilding thresholds. 
Under the PCGFMP, the biomass level that produces MSY, or 
BMSY, is defined as the precautionary threshold. When the 
biomass for an assessed category one or two stock falls below 
BMSY, the ACL is set below the ABC using a harvest rate 
reduction to help the stock return to the BMSY level, which 
is the management target for groundfish stocks. If a stock biomass is 
larger than BMSY, the ACL may be set equal to the ABC, or 
the ACL may be set below the ABC to address conservation objectives, 
socioeconomic concerns, management uncertainty, or other factors 
necessary to meet management objectives. The overfished/rebuilding 
threshold is 25 percent of the estimated unfished biomass level for 
non-flatfish stocks or 50 percent of BMSY, if known. The 
overfishing/rebuilding threshold for flatfish stocks is 12.5 percent of 
the estimated unfished biomass level. When a stock is below 
BMSY (the precautionary threshold) but above the 
overfishing/rebuilding threshold, it is considered to be in the 
precautionary zone.
    Under PCGFMP Amendment 24, the Council set up default harvest 
control rules, which established default policies that would be applied 
to the best available scientific information to set ACLs each biennial 
cycle, unless the Council has reasons to diverge from that harvest 
control rule. A complete description of the default harvest control 
rules for setting ACLs is described in the proposed and final rule for 
the 2015-16 harvest specifications and management measures and PCGFMP 
Amendment 24 (80 FR 687, January 6, 2015; 80 FR 12567, March 10, 2015).
    The PCGFMP defines the 40-10 harvest control rule for stocks with a 
BMSY proxy of B40 that are in the 
precautionary zone as the standard reduction. The analogous harvest 
control rule with the standard reduction for assessed flatfish stocks 
is the 25-5 harvest control rule for flatfish stocks with a 
BMSY proxy of B25. The further the stock 
biomass is below the precautionary threshold, the greater the reduction 
in ACL relative to the ABC, until at B10 for a stock 
with a BMSY proxy of B40, or 
B5 for a stock with a BMSY proxy of 
B25, the ACL would be set at zero.
    Under the PCGFMP, the Council may recommend setting the ACL at a 
different level than what the default harvest control rules specify as 
long as the ACL does not exceed the ABC and complies with the 
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (see Chapter 8 of the analysis 
for information on the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws). 
For most of the stocks and all the stock complexes managed with harvest 
specifications for 2021-22, the Council chose to maintain the default 
harvest control rules from the previous biennial cycle. For four 
stocks, Oregon Black rockfish, cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat., 
sablefish, and shortbelly rockfish, the Council recommended deviating 
from the default harvest control rule. Table 2 presents a summary table 
of the proposed changes to default harvest control rules for certain 
stocks for 2021-22. Each of these changes is discussed further below.

[[Page 62496]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.001

Cowcod South of 40[deg]10' N Lat.
    A new cowcod assessment conducted by the NWFSC in 2019 indicated 
the stock south of 40[deg]10' N lat. had transitioned from a rebuilding 
stock to a stock with current depletion estimate at the start of 2019 
of 57 percent of unfished spawning output (Agenda Item H.5. Attachment 
9, September 2019), which is far above the precautionary threshold of 
50 percent. When a stock is determined to be rebuilt, its harvest 
control rule automatically reverts back to the default harvest control 
rule for the next biennium. For the 2021-22 biennium, cowcod south of 
40[deg]10' N lat. was the only stock declared rebuilt.
    Consistent with the Council's preferred alternative, this action 
proposes that the cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat. ACL would be set 
equal to the ABC with a P* of 0.4, resulting in ACLs of 84 mt in 2021 
and 82 mt in 2022. The Council recommended a lower P* value for cowcod 
south of 40[deg]10' N lat. than what would have been applied under the 
default P* value (P* = 0.45) to address the relatively high uncertainty 
in the estimated biomass and productivity in the cowcod assessment due 
to a lack of adequate data (particularly age data) for estimating 
growth, natural mortality, and recruitment. The revised P* value of 
0.40 is consistent with other category two stocks. See Section 2.2.2.2 
of the Analysis for more information on the Council's consideration of 
alternative harvest specifications for cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N 
lat.
    The resulting ACLs would increase by more than eight times the 
amount in place in 2019 (10 mt). As an additional precaution due to the 
uncertainty in the assessment, the Council also recommended, and NMFS 
is proposing, an ACT of 50 mt for cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat. The 
ACT is a management measure and is discussed further in Section III of 
this preamble.
Oregon Black Rockfish
    Oregon black rockfish is a category two stock, managed as part of 
the Oregon blue/deacon/black rockfish complex. Oregon black rockfish 
was first assessed as a single stock in 2015. In 2019, the Oregon black 
rockfish stock was estimated to be at 56 percent of its unfished 
spawning output. For 2021-22, the NWFSC conducted a catch-only update 
to the 2015 assessment by adding realized catch data from 2015-2018 and 
estimates of catch for 2019 and 2020. In Oregon, realized catches were 
closer to projected catches in 2015-2017, but lower in 2018 resulting 
in OFL projections for 2021 and 2022 that are slightly higher than the 
projections in the previous assessment. In addition to the catch data 
update, the SSC applied the newly endorsed [sigma] values to each year 
in the forecast (as discussed above in B. Proposed ABCs for 2021 and 
2022). Because Oregon black rockfish is a category two stock, a base 
[sigma] value of 1.0 was applied to years 2021-2030 (Table 1-2 in 
Agenda Item H.5, Attachment 15, September 2019). Black rockfish was 
last assessed in 2015, so the stock is also subject to further [sigma] 
value reductions. However, the Council recommended and NMFS is 
proposing a

[[Page 62497]]

phased-in approach to incorporating this additional ABC reduction.
    Black rockfish is the primary target for the Oregon recreational 
and commercial nearshore fisheries. In 2017, Oregon recreational 
fisheries were shut down early because of black rockfish concerns, and 
the Council received public testimony as to the severe negative 
consequences for charter business operators and tourist-revenue 
dependent coastal communities resulting from this closure. Due to the 
constraining nature of black rockfish in Oregon and the biomass level 
being above the precautionary threshold, the Oregon Department of Fish 
and Wildlife (ODFW) requested the Council consider an alternative for 
the 2021-22 biennium where the 2020 ABC (512 mt) is specified for 2021 
and 2022, and the ACLs are set equal to ABCs. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 
and the PCGFMP allow the SSC to recommend an ABC that differs from the 
ABC control rule on a case by case basis, provided the SSC offers 
justification for its recommended deviation. In 2023, the current 
default harvest control rule (ABC = ACL, P* of 0.45) would once again 
apply to Oregon black rockfish. In this case, long-term projections 
under the Council's default harvest control rule and the alternative 
2021 and 2022 ABC both result in a projected stock biomass at 54 
percent of its unfished spawning output in 2030. Stocks with biomass 
estimates greater than 40 percent depletion are above the precautionary 
thresholds in the PCGFMP. Because the biomass is the same under either 
option, the SSC recommended the alternative 2021 and 2022 ABC.
    Therefore based on the Analysis, the Council has recommended and 
NMFS is proposing alternative harvest specifications for Oregon black 
rockfish as part of the Oregon blue/deacon/black rockfish complex. The 
alternative harvest control rule would implement an ACL for the 2021 
and 2022 biennium of 512 mt in each year. This ACL contributes to the 
overall stock complex ACL.
Sablefish
    The NWFSC completed a full stock assessment for sablefish in 2019 
(Agenda Item H.5. Attachment 7, September 2019). In 2019, the sablefish 
stock is estimated to be at 39 percent of unfished spawning output. 
However, biomass is projected to increase, and the spawning output is 
projected to be above the precautionary threshold (B40) in 
2021. The expected increase in biomass is driven in part by the 
estimated, but highly uncertain, size of the 2016 year class. Now that 
sablefish biomass is projected to be above BMSY, the Council 
considered alternative harvest specifications for the 2021-22 biennium.
    Additionally, the Council recommended revising the apportionment of 
the ACL north and south 36[deg] N Lat. Each biennium, the coastwide 
sablefish ABC is apportioned to ACLs for the areas north and south of 
36[deg] N Lat. based on a percentage. In 2019-20, the Council used the 
average swept area biomass from the trawl survey to determine this 
percentage. However, for the 2021-22 biennium, the Council recommended 
updating its methods for determining this percentage and will now be 
using a rolling 5-year average of the swept area biomass instead of the 
long-term average. This results in an increase in the percentage of the 
sablefish apportioned north of 36[deg] N Lat. ACL from 73.7 percent to 
78.4 percent and a decrease in the percentage of the sablefish 
apportioned south of 36[deg] N Lat. ACL from 26.3 percent to 21.5 
percent. The change in apportionment of the north and south sablefish 
ACLs is expected to result in higher attainment of both of the ACLs and 
should better align with recent catches by area.
    Under the default harvest control rule, the ABC would be set equal 
to the ACL with a P* value of 0.4. The P* value of 0.4 was set when the 
unfished spawning output was below 40 percent. Under a P* value of 0.4, 
the unfished spawning output is estimated to be at 46 percent in 2021 
and 47 percent by 2030 assuming full ACL removals each year. The ACLs 
would no longer be subject to the 40-10 rule reduction because the 
stock would be above the BMSY proxy in 2021 and would 
therefore be set equal to the ABC. The ACLs under the default harvest 
control rule and the revised apportionment percentages would be 6,435 
mt for north of 36[deg] N Lat. and 1,773 mt for south of 36[deg] N Lat. 
in 2021. In 2022, the ACL would be 6,124 mt for north of 36[deg] N Lat. 
and 1,687 mt for south of 36[deg] N Lat.
    Based on the 2019 sablefish stock assessment, the Council 
recommended an alternative harvest specifications for sablefish using a 
P* value of 0.45 for the 2021-22 biennium. Under the increased P* 
value, the unfished spawning output is estimated to be at 46 percent in 
2021 and 44 percent by 2030, assuming full ACL removals each year. No 
reduction to the ACL would be necessary, similar to the default, 
because the stock's unfished spawning output is above 40 percent. 
Therefore, under the P* value of 0.45, the 2021 ACLs for the north and 
south would be 6,479 mt and 2,312, mt, respectively. The 2022 ACLs for 
the north and south would be 6,172 mt and 2,203 mt, respectively.
    Therefore, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, to 
implement an alternative harvest control rule for sablefish for the 
2021-22 biennium. The alternative harvest control rule would set the 
ABC equal to the ACL with a P* value of 0.45 resulting in ACLs that are 
higher than under the Council's No Action default harvest control rule 
for sablefish.
Shortbelly Rockfish
    Shortbelly rockfish has been a topic of discussion on every Council 
agenda beginning in November 2018 due to higher than anticipated 
bycatch in recent years. Shortbelly rockfish is currently a species 
managed within the PCGFMP in section 3.1 of the PCGFMP and directed 
fishing is allowed even though it is not the target of a directed 
fishery.
    As part of the 2021-22 biennium, the Council recommended and NMFS 
is proposing to reclassify shortbelly rockfish as an ecosystem 
component species through Amendment 29 to the PCGFMP. For more 
information on this reclassification, see the NOA for Amendment 29 (see 
ADDRESSES).
Stocks in Rebuilding Plans
    When a stock has been declared overfished, the Council must develop 
and manage the stock in accordance with a rebuilding plan. For 
overfished stocks in the PCGFMP, this means that the harvest control 
rule for overfished stocks sets the ACL based on the rebuilding plan. 
The proposed rules for the 2011-12 (75 FR 67810, November 3, 2010) and 
2013-14 (77 FR 67974, November 14, 2012) harvest specifications and 
management measures contain extensive discussions on the management 
approach used for overfished stocks, which are not repeated here. In 
addition, the SAFE document posted on the Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/safe-documents/ contains a detailed 
description of each overfished stock, its status and management, as 
well as the SSC's approach for rebuilding analyses. This document 
provides information on cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat., which has 
rebuilt since the last biennium, and yelloweye rockfish which is the 
only remaining rebuilding stock in the PCGFMP. The Council proposed 
yelloweye rockfish ACLs for 2021 and 2022 based on the current 
yelloweye rockfish rebuilding plan, so additional details are not 
repeated here. Appendix F to the PCGFMP contains the most recent 
rebuilding plan parameters, as well as a

[[Page 62498]]

history of each overfished stock, and can be found at http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/fisherymanagement-plan/.
    Yelloweye rockfish was declared overfished in 2002. The Council 
adopted a rebuilding plan for the stock in 2004, and revised the 
rebuilding plan in 2011 under Amendment 16-4 to the PCGFMP, and again 
during the 2019-20 biennium.
    Additionally, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, to 
establish annual catch targets (ACTs) within the nontrawl allocation 
harvest guideline (HG). The nontrawl sector includes the limited entry 
fixed gear (LEFG) and open access (OA) fisheries as well as the 
recreational fisheries for Washington, Oregon, and California. The 
nearshore fisheries occur off of Oregon and California and are subject 
to both Federal and state HGs as well as other state-specific 
management measures. The non-nearshore fisheries include the limited 
entry and Federal open access fixed gear fleets. Tables 3 and 4 outline 
the proposed harvest specifications for 2021 and 2022 for yelloweye 
rockfish.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.002

    The Council recommended using ACTs for the nontrawl sector as a 
precaution. As discussed in the Analysis, because yelloweye rockfish 
catch has been restricted for many years, it is difficult to project 
encounter rates. This precautionary approach to higher catch limits 
would allow more access to target fisheries for the nontrawl sector, 
while also managing for the uncertainty and volatility in catch of this 
rebuilding stock by this sector.

D. Summary of ACL Changes From 2019 to 2021-22

    Table 5 compares the ACLs for major stocks for 2019, 2020, and 
2021-22. Under this proposed rule, nine stocks would have higher ACLs 
in 2021 and 2022 than in 2019. Of the 43 stocks and stock complexes 
managed with ACLs in 2020, 21 stocks have ACLs that would decrease in 
2021 from 2020 and 12 stocks have ACLs that would be close to the 
amount in place in 2020 (Table 4.6 of the Analysis). Shortbelly 
rockfish are proposed to be no longer be managed with an ACL and one 
stock, Pacific cod, would have the same ACLs in 2020, 2021, and 2022. 
Two stocks (big skate and cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat.) have ACLs 
that would increase more than 100 percent, and one stock complex, 
Washington's cabezon/kelp greenling, has an ACL that would increase by 
92.3 percent. These increases are due to new information provided in 
the 2019 stock assessments for these stocks. The ACL for the shelf 
rockfish north complex would decrease by 26.5 percent, which is the 
largest ACL decrease between 2020 and 2021, followed by the ACL for 
arrowtooth flounder, which would decrease by 22.1 percent. These 
decreases are due to updated projections based on the new sigma values.

[[Page 62499]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.003


[[Page 62500]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.004

III. Proposed Management Measures

    This section describes proposed management measures (i.e., biennial 
fishery harvest guidelines and set-asides) used to further allocate the 
ACLs to the various components of the fishery and control fishing. 
Management measures for the commercial fishery modify fishing behavior 
during the fishing year to ensure that catch does not exceed the ACL, 
and include trip and cumulative landing limits, time/area closures, 
size limits, and gear restrictions. Management measures for the 
recreational fisheries include bag limits, size limits, gear 
restrictions, fish dressing requirements, and time/area closures.

A. Deductions From the ACLs

    Before making allocations to the primary commercial and 
recreational components of groundfish fisheries, the Council recommends 
``off-the-top deductions,'' or deductions from the ACLs to account for 
anticipated mortality for certain types of activities: Harvest in 
Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribal fisheries; harvest in scientific 
research activities; harvest in non-groundfish fisheries (incidental 
catch); and harvest that occurs under EFPs. These off-the-top 
deductions are proposed for individual stocks or stock complexes and 
can be found in the footnotes to Tables 1a and 2a to part 660, subpart 
C. The details of the EFPs are discuss below in Section III., J.

B. Tribal Fisheries

    The Quileute Tribe, Quinault Indian Nation, Makah Indian Tribe, and 
Hoh Indian Tribe (collectively, ``the Pacific Coast Tribes'') implement 
management measures for Tribal fisheries both independently as 
sovereign governments and cooperatively with the management measures in 
the Federal regulations. The Pacific Coast Tribes may adjust their 
Tribal fishery management measures inseason to stay within the Tribal 
harvest targets and estimated impacts to overfished stocks. Table 6 
provides the proposed Tribal harvest targets proposed for the 2021-22 
biennium.

[[Page 62501]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.005

    The Pacific Coast Tribes proposed trip limit management in Tribal 
fisheries for 2021-22 for several stocks, including several rockfish 
stocks and stock complexes. This rule proposes the trip limits for 
Tribal fisheries as provided to the Council at its April 2020 meeting 
in Supplemental Tribal Report 1, Agenda Item G.6.a. For rockfish 
stocks, Tribal regulations will continue to require full retention of 
all overfished rockfish stocks and marketable non-overfished rockfish 
stocks. The Pacific Coast Tribes will continue to develop management 
measures, including depth, area, and time restrictions, in the directed 
Tribal Pacific halibut fishery in order to minimize incidental catch of 
yelloweye rockfish.

C. Biennial Fishery Allocations

    The Council routinely recommends 2-year trawl and nontrawl 
allocations during the biennial specifications process for stocks 
without formal allocations (as defined in Section 6.3.2 of the PCGFMP) 
or stocks where the long-term allocation is suspended because the stock 
is declared overfished. As part of the 2021-22 biennium, the Council 
also decided to revise the 2-year allocations for canary rockfish, as 
well as Petrale sole, widow rockfish, lingcod south of 40[deg]10' N 
lat., and the slope rockfish complex south of 40[deg]10' N lat., which 
were established through Amendment 21 to the PCGFMP (75 FR 32993, June 
10, 2010), to better align these allocations with current harvest 
trends. The changes to these allocations are proposed as part of 
Amendment 29 to the PCGFMP (see I. Background).
    The trawl and nontrawl allocations, with the exception of sablefish 
north of 36[deg] N lat., are based on the fishery harvest guideline. 
The fishery harvest guideline is the tonnage that remains after 
subtracting the off-the-top deductions described in Section III., A, 
entitled ``Deductions from the ACLs,'' in this preamble. The trawl and 
nontrawl allocations and recreational harvest guidelines are designed 
to accommodate anticipated mortality in each sector as well as 
variability and uncertainty in those mortality estimates. Additional 
information on the Council's allocation framework and formal 
allocations can be found in Section 6.3 of the PCGFMP and Sec.  660.55 
of the Federal regulations. Allocations described below are detailed in 
the harvest specification tables appended to 50 CFR part 660, subpart 
C, in the regulatory text of this proposed rule.
    The Council's recommended and NMFS' proposed allocations are shown 
Tables 1b and 2b in the proposed regulatory text for this proposed rule 
and summarized below.
Big Skate
    The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the allocations shown 
in Table 7 for big skate in 2021 and 2022. These allocations are 
anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of big skate, by 
sector, in 2021-22. Allocations of big skate are determined on a 
biennial basis. For 2021-22, the Council elected to maintain the 
current big skate split of 95 percent to the trawl fishery and 5 
percent to the non-trawl fishery

[[Page 62502]]

resulting in a trawl allocation of 1,348.7 mt and a non-trawl 
allocation of 71 mt in 2021 and 2022. No further allocations or 
deductions are made.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.006

Bocaccio South of 40[deg]10' N Lat.
    Specifications for bocaccio are determined through the biennial 
specifications process. For 2021-22, the Council recommended and NMFS 
is proposing the allocations shown in Table 8 for bocaccio in 2021 and 
2022, which maintain the allocation structure from the previous 
biennium. These allocations are anticipated to accommodate estimates of 
mortality of bocaccio, by sector, in 2021-22. In each year, the fishery 
harvest guideline is split with 39 percent going to the trawl sectors 
and 61 percent to the non-trawl sectors. For the trawl sector this 
results in an allocation of 663.8 mt in 2021 and 654.4 mt in 2022. The 
non-trawl sectors would receive 1,036.4 mt in 2021 and 1,021.8 mt in 
2022. The non-trawl allocation is then distributed between the 
commercial (nearshore and non-nearshore fisheries) and California 
recreational fisheries. In 2021, the commercial sector would receive 
30.9 percent of the non-trawl allocation or 320.2 mt, and the 
California recreational sector would receive 716.2 mt. In 2022, the 
same percentage would remain in place with the commercial sector 
receiving 315.7 mt and the California recreational sector receiving 
706.1 mt.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.007

Canary Rockfish
    The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the allocations in 
Table 9 for canary rockfish in 2021 and 2022, which maintain the status 
quo proportions from the 2017-18 biennium, but also combine the 
commercial fixed gear harvest guideline for the nearshore and non-
nearshore fisheries. These allocations are anticipated to accommodate 
estimates of mortality of canary rockfish, by sector, in 2021-22. For 
canary rockfish, the fishery harvest guideline is distributed to the 
trawl and non-trawl sectors with trawl receiving 72.3 percent and non-
trawl sectors receiving 27.7 percent each year. In 2021, the trawl 
sector would receive 917 mt of canary rockfish, of which 36 mt would be 
deducted to account for bycatch in the at-sea sectors, and the 
remaining 881.2 mt would be distributed to the shorebased individual 
fishing quota (IFQ) sector. The non-trawl sector would receive 351.4 mt 
which is distributed to the commercial nontrawl (126.5 mt), WA 
recreational (43.2 mt), OR recreational (65 mt), and CA recreational 
(116.7 mt) fisheries. In 2022, the trawl sector would receive 894.6 mt 
of canary rockfish, of which 36 mt would be deducted to account for 
bycatch in the at-sea sectors, and the remaining 858.6 mt would be 
distributed to the shorebased IFQ sector. The non-trawl sector would 
receive 343.1 mt, which is distributed to the commercial nontrawl 
sector (123.5 mt), WA recreational (42.2 mt), OR recreational (63.5 
mt), and CA recreational (113.9 mt) fisheries.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.008


[[Page 62503]]


Cowcod
    For 2021-22, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing setting 
a cowcod ACT below the fishery harvest guideline at 50 mt, and having 
it function as a fishery harvest guideline similar to the ACT in the 
2017-18 and 2019-20 bienniums. The ACT would be allocated across 
groundfish fisheries. Table 9 shows the trawl/nontrawl allocations for 
cowcod for 2021 and 2022. NMFS anticipates the proposed allocation 
structure will keep catch below the 2021-22 cowcod ACT. The ACT is 
distributed to the trawl and non-trawl sectors, with the trawl sector 
receiving 36 percent and the non-trawl sector receiving 64 percent each 
year. In 2021 and 2022, the trawl sector would receive 18 mt of cowcod. 
The non-trawl sector would receive 32 mt, which is distributed to the 
commercial and recreational sectors as a 50/50 split.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.009

Lingcod South of 40[deg]10' N Lat.
    The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the trawl/nontrawl 
allocations for lingcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat. in Table 10. These 
allocations are anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of 
lingcod, by sector, in 2021-22. Specifications of lingcod south of 
40[deg]10' N lat. were established through Amendment 21 with a trawl/
non-trawl allocation set at 45 percent to trawl and 55 percent to non-
trawl. For the 2021-22 biennium, the Council recommended revising the 
fixed percentages through Amendment 29 to the PCGFMP to better align 
with current catch levels and provide some relief to the nontrawl 
sector which is usually constrained by lingcod south of 40[deg]10' N 
lat. Therefore, beginning with the 2021-22 biennium, the Council 
recommended and NMFS is proposing changing trawl/non-trawl allocations 
of lingcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat., so that 40 percent of the 
harvest guideline for lingcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat. is allocated 
to the trawl sector and 60 percent is allocated to the nontrawl sector. 
In 2021, the distribution results in 435.6 mt to the trawl sector and 
653.4 mt to the non-trawl sectors. In 2022, the distribution results in 
463.6 mt to the trawl sectors and 695.4 mt to the non-trawl sectors. No 
further allocations or distributions are made. The NOA for Amendment 29 
is available for public comment (see ADDRESSES).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.010

Longnose Skate
    The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the trawl/nontrawl 
allocations for longnose skate in Table 11. The allocation percentages, 
90 percent to trawl and 10 percent to nontrawl, reflect historical 
catch of longnose skate in the two sectors. These allocations are 
anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of longnose skate 
rockfish, by sector, in 2021-22. In 2021, the 90/10 distribution 
results in 1,414.4 mt to the trawl sectors and 157.2 mt to the non-
trawl sectors. In 2022, the distribution results in 1,358.6 mt to the 
trawl sectors and 151 mt to the non-trawl sectors.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.011

Minor Shelf Rockfish
    Allocations for Minor Shelf Rockfish are recommended by the Council 
and proposed by NMFS for each biennial cycle. The proposed allocations 
for 2021 and 2022 are shown in Table 12. Specifications for the shelf 
rockfish complex north of 40[deg]10' N lat. were established through 
the biennial process with a trawl/non-trawl allocation for the 2021-22 
specifications of 60.2 percent to trawl sectors and 39.8 percent to 
non-trawl sectors. In 2021, the distribution results in 864.2 mt to the 
trawl sectors and 571.4 mt to the non-trawl sectors. In 2022, the 
distribution results in 827.5 mt to the trawl sectors and 547.1 mt to

[[Page 62504]]

the non-trawl sectors. Of the amount going to the trawl sectors, 35 mt 
is deducted each year from the trawl allocation to account for bycatch 
in the at-sea whiting sectors, with the remaining 829.2 mt in 2021 and 
792.49 mt in 2022 going to the shorebased IFQ fishery. No further 
allocations or distributions are made.
    Specifications for the shelf rockfish complex south of 40[deg]10' N 
lat. were established through the biennial process with a trawl/non-
trawl allocation for the 2021-22 specifications of 12.2 percent to 
trawl sectors and 87.8 percent to non-trawl sectors. In 2021, the 
distribution results in 161.7 mt to the trawl sectors and 1,163.6 mt to 
the non-trawl sectors. In 2022, the distribution results in 160.5 mt to 
the trawl sectors and 1,154.8 mt to the non-trawl sectors. No further 
allocations or distributes are made.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.012

Slope Rockfish Complex
    The slope rockfish complex south of 40[deg]10' N lat. is a fixed 
allocation with a trawl/non-trawl allocation of 63 percent to trawl and 
37 percent to non-trawl. For the 2021-22 biennium, the Council 
recommended the fixed allocation be revised through Amendment 29 to the 
PCGFMP and made into a 2-year allocation, with custom shares for 
blackgill rockfish, to be reviewed each biennium. In 2021, the 
distribution results in 556.9 mt to the trawl sectors and 152.1 mt to 
the non-trawl sectors. In 2022, the distribution results in 515.6 mt to 
the trawl sectors and 142.1 mt to the non-trawl sectors. The NOA for 
Amendment 29 is open for public comment (see ADDRESSES).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.013

Petrale Sole
    The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the trawl/nontrawl 
allocations for Petrale sole in Table 14. These allocations are 
anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of Petrale sole, by 
sector, in 2021-22. Petrale sole has a fixed allocation with a trawl/
non-trawl allocation of the fishery harvest guideline of 95 percent to 
the trawl fishery and 5 percent to the non-trawl fishery. As part of 
the 2021-22 biennium, the Council recommended changing the fixed 
allocation to a biennial allocation through Amendment 29 to the PCGFMP 
and revising the percentages to better align with current catch by 
sector. Therefore, beginning in 2021, specifications for Petrale sole 
will be determined as part of the biennial specifications process. For 
the 2021-22 biennium, 30 mt of Petrale sole will be allocated to the 
nontrawl sector and the remainder will go to the trawl sector each 
year. This would shift around 150 and 130 mt to the shorebased IFQ 
sector in 2021 and 2022, respectively, and would not constrain the 
nontrawl sector. In 2021, the distribution results in 3,697.9 mt to the 
trawl sector. In 2022, the trawl sector would receive 3,242.5 mt. The 
NOA for Amendment 29 is open for public comment (see ADDRESSES).

[[Page 62505]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.014

Widow Rockfish
    The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the trawl/nontrawl 
allocations for Widow rockfish in Table 15. These allocations are 
anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of widow rockfish, by 
sector, in 2021-22. Widow rockfish is an Amendment 21 species with a 
trawl/non-trawl allocation of the fishery harvest guideline of 91 
percent to the trawl fishery and 9 percent to the non-trawl fishery. As 
part of the 2021-22 biennium, and through Amendment 29 to the PCGFMP, 
the Council recommended making it a biennial allocation and providing a 
fixed amount to the nontrawl sector to better align with current catch 
by sector. Therefore, beginning in 2021, specifications for widow 
rockfish will be determined as part of the biennial specifications 
process. For the 2021-22 biennium, 400 mt of widow rockfish will be 
allocated to the nontrawl sector and the remainder will go to the trawl 
sector each year. This would shift just under 1,000 mt of widow 
rockfish to the shorebased IFQ sector in 2021 and 2022, and would not 
constrain the nontrawl sector. In 2021, the distribution results in 
14,076.7 mt to the trawl sector. In 2022, the trawl sector would 
receive 13,139.7 mt. The NOA for Amendment 29 is open for public 
comment (see ADDRESSES).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.015

D. Corrections to Waypoints for Rockfish Conservation Areas

    Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) are large area closures intended 
to reduce the catch of a stock or stock complex by restricting fishing 
activity at specific depths. The boundaries for RCAs are defined by 
straight lines connecting a series of latitude and longitude 
coordinates that approximate depth contours. These sets of coordinates, 
or lines, are not gear or fishery specific, but can be used in 
combination to define an area. NMFS then implements fishing 
restrictions for a specific gear and/or fishery within each defined 
area.
    For the 2021-22 biennium, the Council recommended and NMFS is 
proposing minor adjustments to the 40 fathom (fm) depth contour 
offshore of San Mateo in Central California, and the 100 fm depth 
contours off of California to more accurately refine the depth 
contours, as well as the addition of a 100 fm line around the Channel 
Islands. See Chapter 2 of the Analysis for more details on these 
changes.

E. Limited Entry Trawl

    The limited entry trawl fishery is made up of the shorebased IFQ 
program, whiting and non-whiting, and the at-sea whiting sectors. For 
some stocks and stock complexes with a trawl allocation, an amount is 
first set-aside for the at-sea whiting sector with the remainder of the 
trawl allocation going to the shorebased IFQ sector. Set-asides are not 
managed by NMFS or the Council except in the case of a risk to the ACL.
At-Sea Set Asides
    For several species, the trawl allocation is reduced by an amount 
set-aside for the at-sea whiting sector. This amount is designed to 
accommodate catch by the at-sea whiting sector when they are targeting 
Pacific whiting. The Council considered several proposals to generate 
amounts for these set-asides. After much discussion and analysis, the 
Council is recommending and NMFS is proposing the set-asides in Table 
16 for the 2021-22 biennium.

[[Page 62506]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.016

Incidental Trip Limits for IFQ Vessels
    For vessels fishing in the Shorebased IFQ Program, with either 
groundfish trawl gear or nontrawl gears, the following incidentally-
caught stocks are managed with trip limits: Minor Nearshore Rockfish 
north and south, black rockfish, cabezon (46[deg]16' to 40[deg]10' N 
lat. and south of 40[deg]10' N lat.), spiny dogfish, shortbelly 
rockfish, big skate, Pacific whiting, and the Other Fish complex. For 
all these stocks except big skate, this rule proposes maintaining the 
same IFQ fishery trip limits for these stocks for the start of the 
2021-22 biennium as those in place in 2019. For big skate, the Council 
proposes an unlimited trip limit to start the 2021 fishing year. 
Additionally, the Council is recommending and NMFS is proposing a trip 
limit for blackgill rockfish within the southern slope rockfish 
complex. The trip limit would be unlimited to start the 2021 fishing 
year. The purpose of the blackgill trip limit would be to allow the 
Council to reduce targeting of blackgill rockfish inseason, if needed. 
Trip limits for the IFQ fishery can be found in Table 1 North and Table 
1 South to part 660, subpart D, in the regulatory text of this proposed 
rule. Changes to trip limits would be considered a routine measure 
under Sec.  660.60(c), and may be implemented or adjusted, if 
determined necessary, through inseason action.

F. LEFG and OA Nontrawl Fishery

    Management measures for the LEFG and OA nontrawl fisheries tend to 
be similar because the majority of participants in both fisheries use 
hook-and-line gear. Management measures, including area restrictions 
(e.g., nontrawl RCA) and trip limits in these nontrawl fisheries, are 
generally designed to allow harvest of target stocks while keeping 
catch of overfished stocks low. For the 2021-22 biennium, the Council 
considered increasing trip limits for almost all LEFG and OA fisheries, 
many of which are decades old and do not reflect stocks rebuilding in 
previous biennium and management changes (e.g., stock complex 
reorganizations). LEFG and OA trip limits are specified in Table 2 
(North), Table 2 (South) to subpart E for LEFG and in Table 3 (North) 
and Table 3 (South) to subpart F for OA in the regulatory text of this 
proposed rule.
Sablefish Trip Limits
    Sablefish are managed separately north and south of 36[deg] N lat. 
For the portion of the stock north of 36[deg] N lat., the Council 
recommended and NMFS is proposing higher trip limits for the LEFG and 
OA fisheries in 2021. For the portion south of 36[deg] N lat., the 
Council recommended removing the daily trip limit for the OA fishery 
but maintaining the same weekly and bimonthly trip limits as were in 
place in the start of 2019. The proposed sablefish trip limits for 
2021-22 are shown in Table 17.

[[Page 62507]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.017

LEFG and OA Trip Limits
    The Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing higher trip limits 
for LEFG and OA fisheries in 2021, including trip limits for shortspine 
thornyhead, longspine thornyhead, widow rockfish, shelf rockfish, 
shortbelly rockfish, canary rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, yellowtail 
rockfish, slope rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, Lingcod, nearshore 
rockfish, black rockfish, Other Flatfish, bocaccio south of 40[deg]10' 
N lat., and chilipepper rockfish (Agenda Item G.6.a., Supplemental GMT 
Report 2, April 2020). These increases in trip limits are meant to help 
members of industry harvest more fish while still keeping total 
mortality within the ACLs for these stocks and stock complexes. Further 
information on these trip limits can be found in Section 4.3.5.1 of the 
Analysis.
    As part of the Council's recommended trip limits for the LEFG and 
OA fisheries, the Council established an OA trip limit for shortspine 
and longspine thornyheads in the area between 40[deg]10' N lat. and 
34[deg]27' N lat. As part of the Council's action during the 2019-20 
biennium, the Council recommended and NMFS implemented, trip limits for 
OA fisheries for shortspine and longspine thornyheads north of 
40[deg]10' N. lat. and south of 34[deg]27' N lat., but inadvertently 
omitted the trip limit for the area between 40[deg]10' N lat. and 
34[deg]27' N lat., leaving this area closed. The Council is 
recommending, and NMFS is proposing, implementing a 50 lb (22.7 kg) per 
month limit for OA fisheries targeting shortspine and longspine 
thornyheads in the area between 40[deg]10' N lat. and 34[deg]27' N lat. 
This is the same trip limit currently proposed for OA fisheries 
targeting shortspine and longspine thornyheads north of 40[deg]10' N 
lat. See Section 4.5.6.1 of the Analysis for more information on this 
change.
Primary Sablefish Tier Limits
    Some limited entry fixed gear permits are endorsed to receive 
annual sablefish quota, or tier limits. Vessels registered with one, 
two, or up to three of these permits may participate in the primary 
sablefish fishery. The proposed tier limits are as follows: In 2021, 
Tier 1 at 58,649 lb (26,602 kg), Tier 2 at 26,659 lb (12,092 kg), and 
Tier 3 at 15,234 lb (6,910 kg). For 2022, Tier 1 at 55,858 lb (25,337 
kg), Tier 2 at 25,390 lb (11,517 kg), and Tier 3 at 14,509 lb (6,581 
kg).
Yellowtail Trip Limit for the Salmon Troll Fishery North of 40[deg]10' 
N lat.
    During public comment at the November 2019 Council meeting, there 
was a request to increase the yellowtail rockfish ratio and monthly 
limits in the salmon troll fishery north of 40[deg]10' N lat. The 
current ratio and limit are 1lb (0.45 kg) of yelloweye rockfish for 
every 2 lb (0.9 kg) of salmon landed, with a 200 lb (91 kg) monthly 
limit. As part of the 2017-18 biennial cycle, yellowtail rockfish was 
removed from the OA multi-stock trip limit, and a new separate trip 
limit of 500 lb (227 kg) per month was recommended by the Council and 
implemented by NMFS; however, the salmon troll yellowtail rockfish trip 
limit did not reflect this change. Agenda Item G.6., Attachment 3 
(April 2019) contains a detailed analysis of the salmon troll trip 
limits considered by the Council. After consideration of the detailed 
analysis, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing increasing the 
yellowtail rockfish limit in the salmon troll fishery north of 
40[deg]10' N lat. from 200 lbs (91 kg) to 500 lbs (227 kg) and removing 
the ratio for yellowtail to salmon.
Removal of Other Flatfish Gear Restriction Off California
    Currently, Federal regulations in Table 2 (South) to Part 660, 
Subpart E and Table 3 (South) to Part 660, Subpart F include a gear 
restriction for vessels targeting stocks in the Other Flatfish complex 
south of 42[deg] N lat. while inside the boundaries of the nontrawl 
RCA. The gear restriction limits the number of hooks per line, size of 
the hooks, and the number and size of the weights. Other flatfish 
include butter sole, curlfin sole, Pacific sanddab, rex sole, rock 
sole, and sand sole, as defined in 50 CFR 660.11. This management 
measure was originally implemented in 2003 to protect bocaccio, which 
was overfished at that time and was thought to provide protections to 
other overfished groundfish stocks in following years (e.g., Petrale 
sole) while still allowing an artisanal sanddab fishery off California. 
However, it was determined in subsequent cycles that it was not 
effective at preventing bycatch of overfished species. During the 2009-
10 harvest specifications cycle, this restriction was removed from 
regulations for the recreational fishery but was kept for the 
commercial fishery.
    Since this measure was first implemented the stocks it was intended 
to protect have all been rebuilt while the Other Flatfish complex 
continues to be under-attained. Therefore, to provide more opportunity 
to target stocks in the Other Flatfish complex, the Council recommended 
and NMFS is proposing removing the gear restrictions for the LEFG and 
OA fisheries targeting stocks in the Other Flatfish complex inside the 
RCA south of 42[deg] N lat.

[[Page 62508]]

Nontrawl RCA Adjustments
    Increasing the LEFG and OA trip limits, as proposed in Section III, 
F., LEFG and OA Fishery, of this proposed rule is one way to help 
increase attainment of many currently under-attained species. However, 
as has been discussed under public comment at Council meetings during 
development of this action, increasing trip limits without providing 
access to the areas where those fish can be found does little to help 
with attainments. Therefore, as part of the 2021-22 biennium, the 
Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the following changes to the 
Nontrawl RCA off Oregon and Washington:
     Between 40[deg]10' N lat. and 46[deg]16' N lat. (the 
Oregon-Washington border): Open the area between the 30- and 40-fm 
management lines to hook-and-line gear except bottom longline and 
dinglebar, as defined in the ``general definitions'' section of the 
Federal regulations at 50 CFR 660.11;
     Between 38[deg]57.5' N lat. and 34[deg]27' N lat., (Point 
Arena to Point Conception): Open the area between 40 fm and 50 fm; and
     South of 34[deg]27' N lat.: Open the area between 75 fm 
and 100 fm.
    These proposals, along with the proposed changes to recreational 
conservation areas (discussed in Section III, H., Recreational 
Fisheries) will provide much needed access to these areas for the LEFG 
and OA fisheries to better attain their trip limits. Section 4.7.2 of 
the Analysis provides a detailed assessment of the impacts of these 
openings. Nontrawl RCA closures can be found in the LEFG and OA trip 
limits in Table 2 (North), Table 2 (South) to subpart E for LEFG and in 
Table 3 (North) and Table 3 (South) to subpart F for OA in the proposed 
regulatory text of this proposed rule.
    As provided in the Analysis, the purpose of opening these areas is 
to provide LEFG and OA fisheries access to areas where they can catch 
abundant target stocks, such as bocaccio, canary rockfish, yellowtail 
rockfish, and widow rockfish. All of these stocks have been 
underutilized by the LEFG and OA fisheries since they were rebuilt due 
to limited access to the areas where they can be found. Opening these 
areas of the nontrawl RCA, many of which are currently already open to 
other types of fishing (i.e., trawl or recreational fishing with hook 
and line gear), along with the increased LEFG and OA trip limits for 
many of these stocks and stock complexes will likely result in greater 
attainment of the nontrawl allocations and therefore the ACLs without 
increasing the risks of exceeding these limits.
    New Management Line at 38[deg]57.5' N lat.
    In order to make some of the proposed changes to the Nontrawl RCA, 
the Council also recommended and NMFS is proposing creating a new 
management line at 38[deg]57.5' N lat., which is Point Arena, 
California. Point Arena is already defined in Federal regulations under 
the definition for North-South Management Areas, as a commonly used 
geographic coordinate.

H. Recreational Fisheries

    This section describes the recreational fisheries management 
measures proposed for 2021-22. The Council primarily recommends depth 
restrictions and groundfish conservation areas to constrain catch 
within the recreational harvest guidelines for each stock. Washington, 
Oregon, and California each proposed, and the Council recommended, 
different combinations of seasons, bag limits, area closures, and size 
limits for stocks targeted in recreational fisheries. These measures 
are designed to limit catch of overfished stocks found in the waters 
adjacent to each state while allowing target fishing opportunities in 
their particular recreational fisheries. The following sections 
describe the recreational management measures proposed in each state.
Washington
    The state of Washington manages its marine fisheries in four areas: 
Marine Area 1 extends from the Oregon/Washington border to Leadbetter 
Point; Marine Area 2 extends from Leadbetter Point to the mouth of the 
Queets Rivers; Marine Area 3 extends from the Queets River to Cape 
Alava; and Marine Area 4 extends from Cape Alava to the Sekiu River. 
This proposed rule would adopt the following season structure in Table 
18.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.018


[[Page 62509]]


    The aggregate groundfish bag limits in waters adjacent to 
Washington would continue to be nine fish in all areas with a sub-bag 
limit for cabezon (one per day), rockfish (seven per day), and lingcod 
(two per day). The flatfish limit would increase from three fish to 
five fish, and is not counted towards the groundfish bag limit of nine 
but is in addition to it. The Council recommended these season and bag 
limit changes, which allow more access to target stocks with fewer 
restrictions.
    Consistent with the 2019-20 biennium, the Council recommended and 
NMFS is proposing to continue to prohibit recreational fishing for 
groundfish and Pacific halibut inside the North Coast Recreational 
Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA), a C-shaped closed area off 
the northern Washington coast. However, the Council recommended and 
NMFS is proposing opening the South Coast Recreational YRCA and the 
Westport Offshore YRCA to recreational fishing for the 2021-22 
biennium. Coordinates for YRCAs are defined at Sec.  660.70.
    Opening the South Coast Recreational YRCA and the Westport Offshore 
YRCA would provide additional access to healthy underutilized stocks. 
Originally closed to recreational fishing in 2007 to protect canary 
rockfish and yelloweye rockfish, these closures may no longer be needed 
since canary rockfish has been rebuilt and higher harvest guidelines 
were implemented for yelloweye rockfish. As stated by the Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in their analysis for this 
proposal, the additional impacts to target and non-target species 
expected from allowing recreational hook-and-line fishing in these 
areas would be minimal because the areas to be opened are very small, 
particularly in comparison to the overall area used by Washington 
recreational fisheries (Agenda Item F.1.a, Supplemental WDFW Report 1, 
June 2020).
Oregon
    The Council proposed that Oregon recreational fisheries in 2021-22 
would operate under an all months all depths season structure to start 
the 2021 fishing year. The Council proposed maintaining the 2019-20 
aggregate bag limits and size limits in Oregon recreational fisheries 
for 2021-22. The proposed limits are: Three lingcod per day, with a 
minimum size of 22 in (56 cm); 25 flatfish per day, excluding Pacific 
halibut; and a marine fish aggregate bag limit of 10 fish per day, 
where cabezon have a minimum size of 16 in (41 cm).
    The ODFW also requested that the Council consider allowing 
longleader gear fishing and ``all-depth'' Pacific halibut fishing on 
the same trip, which had been requested by Oregon anglers during 
discussion of the 2019 Pacific halibut Catch Sharing Plan process. 
Currently, combining the two trip types is prohibited; this prohibition 
was meant to limit interactions with yelloweye rockfish.
    Impacts to yelloweye rockfish or other species of concern (e.g., 
Chinook and Coho salmon) are unlikely to increase significantly under 
this proposed change as effort is not expected to increase by much. 
Instead, removing the prohibition would allow anglers already 
participating in one or the other fisheries to have additional 
opportunity while offshore. As ODFW's analysis to the Council shows 
(Agenda Item F.1.a, June 2020), over the past 2 years that the 
longleader gear fishery has been allowed to operate, the average 
encounter rates of yelloweye rockfish, Chinook salmon, and Coho salmon 
has been extremely low at around 0.02, 0.6, and 6 fish per angler, 
respectively. When added to the encounters from the traditional 
bottomfish fishery, the total annual encounters would not be much 
different than the recent years' total estimates, and should not 
increase the potential for the total groundfish salmon thresholds to be 
reached or exceeded. Therefore the Council recommended and NMFS is 
proposing removing the prohibition on combining Oregon longleader trips 
with all depths halibut trips.
California
    The Council manages recreational fisheries in waters adjacent to 
California in five separate management areas. Season and area closures 
differ between California management areas to limit incidental catch of 
overfished stocks while providing as much recreational fishing 
opportunity as possible. The Council's proposed California season 
structure includes additional time and depth opportunities, which are 
supported by the proposed increase to the yelloweye rockfish ACL 
described in Section C. Table 19 shows the proposed season structure 
and depth limits by management area for 2021 and 2022.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.019


[[Page 62510]]


    The Council recommended that size limits would remain the same as 
for 2020 for all stocks. However, the Council recommended and NMFS is 
proposing to eliminate the sub-bag limits for black rockfish, canary 
rockfish, and cabezon, and establish a sub-bag limit for vermillion 
rockfish of five fish.

J. Exempted Fishing Permits

    This action is authorized by the PCGFMP and the regulations 
implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 50 CFR 600.745, which state 
that EFPs may be used to authorize fishing activities that would 
otherwise be prohibited.
    At its June 2020 meeting, the Council recommended that NMFS approve 
five EFP applications for the 2021 fishing year and preliminarily 
approve the EFP applications for the 2022 fishing year. The Council 
considered these EFP applications concurrently with the 2021-2022 
biennial harvest specifications and management process because expected 
catch under most EFP projects is included in the catch limits for 
groundfish stocks. Three of the EFP applications are renewals, and 
request to test hook-and-line gear that selectively targets 
underutilized, midwater rockfish species (e.g., yellowtail rockfish) 
while avoiding overfished, bottom-dwelling rockfish species (e.g., 
yelloweye rockfish). An EFP is necessary for these activities because 
they will all occur in the non-trawl RCA, which is closed to fishing 
with non-trawl fixed gear to protect overfished groundfish stocks. The 
other two EFP applications are new, and request to retain certain 
prohibited species in order to collect fishery-dependent data for 
potential use in upcoming stock assessments. A summary of each EFP 
application is provided below:
     Groundfish EFP Proposal--Yellowtail Rockfish Jig Fishing 
off California: The San Francisco Community Fishing Association (SFCFA) 
and private open access fisherman Daniel Platt submitted a renewal 
application for research that has been conducted since 2013. The 
purpose of the EFP project is to continue testing the potential for a 
commercial jig gear configured to target underutilized, midwater 
yellowtail and shelf rockfish species while avoiding the rebuilding, 
bottom-dwelling yelloweye rockfish. The EFP project would require 
exemptions from: (1) The prohibition to fish inside the non-trawl RCA 
with non-trawl gear (see Sec.  660.330(d)(12)(i)); (2) the prohibition 
on transiting through the non-trawl RCA without non-trawl gear stowed 
(see Sec.  660.330(d)(12)(ii)); and (3) the prohibition on retaining 
and landing groundfish harvested from inside the non-trawl RCA with 
non-trawl gear (see Sec.  660.330(d)(12)(iii)). If approved, NMFS would 
authorize up to seven vessels to target midwater rockfish inside the 
non-trawl RCA off the California coast--specifically between 40[deg] 
10' north latitude (N lat.) and Point Conception, California, at depths 
ranging from 35 to 150 fathoms (64 to 274 meters (m)).
     Groundfish EFP Proposal--Commercial Midwater Hook-and-Line 
Rockfish Fishing in the RCA off the Oregon Coast: Scott Cook, a private 
fisherman of Coos Bay, Oregon submitted a renewal application to 
continue research that has been conducted since 2019. The purpose of 
the EFP project is to test a modified, midwater trolled longline gear 
configured to target underutilized, midwater yellowtail, widow, and 
canary rockfish, while avoiding the rebuilding, bottom-dwelling 
yelloweye rockfish. The EFP project would require exemptions from: (1) 
The prohibition to fish inside the non-trawl RCA with non-trawl gear 
(see Sec.  660.330(d)(12)(i)); (2) the prohibition on transiting 
through the non-trawl RCA without non-trawl gear stowed (see Sec.  
660.330(d)(12)(ii)); and (3) the prohibition on retaining and landing 
groundfish harvested from inside the non-trawl RCA with non-trawl gear 
(see Sec.  660.330(d)(12)(iii)). If approved, NMFS would authorize up 
to five vessels to target midwater rockfish inside the non-trawl RCA 
off the Oregon Coast--specifically in the rocky reef habitat at depths 
ranging from 30 to 100 fathoms (55 to 183 m).
     Groundfish EFP Proposal--Monterey Bay Regional EFP 
Chilipepper Rockfish: Real Good Fish of Moss Landing, California 
submitted a renewal application to continue research that has been 
conducted since 2019. The purpose of the EFP project is to test a 
trolled hook-and-line gear configured to target underutilized, midwater 
chilipepper rockfish and avoid the rebuilding, bottom-dwelling 
yelloweye rockfish. The EFP project would require exemptions from: (1) 
The prohibition to fish inside the non-trawl RCA with non-trawl gear 
(see Sec.  660.330(d)(12)(i)); (2) the prohibition on transiting 
through the non-trawl RCA without non-trawl gear stowed (see Sec.  
660.330(d)(12)(ii)); and (3) the prohibition on retaining and landing 
groundfish harvested from inside the non-trawl RCA with non-trawl gear 
(see Sec.  660.330(d)(12)(iii)). If approved, NMFS would authorize up 
to 10 vessels to target midwater rockfish inside the non-trawl RCA off 
the California coast--specifically in areas with canyon edges and walls 
that have historically produced high volumes of chilipepper rockfish 
catch and at depths ranging from 40 to 150 fathoms (73 to 274 m).
     Groundfish EFP Proposal--California Department of Fish and 
Wildlife 2021-2022 EFP: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(CDFW) submitted a new EFP application to collect fishery-dependent 
biological data for cowcod for inclusion in future stock assessments. 
The EFP project would require an exemption from the prohibition to 
retain cowcod in the California recreational fishery (see Sec.  
660.360(c)(3)). The EFP would also provide that any cowcod taken and 
retained would not count against the recreational bag limit for the 
aggregate of rockfish, cabezon, and greenlings. If approved, NMFS would 
authorize up to 20 vessels that participate in the California 
recreational fishery to retain cowcod and transfer the cowcod to CDFW 
groundfish staff upon landing.
     Groundfish EFP Proposal--Washington Department of Fish 
Wildlife Enhanced Yelloweye Recreational Fishery Biological Sampling 
EFP: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) submitted a 
new EFP application to collect fishery-dependent biological data for 
yelloweye rockfish for inclusion in future stock assessments. The EFP 
project would require an exemption from the prohibition to retain 
yelloweye rockfish in the Washington recreational fishery (see Sec.  
660.360(c)(1)(ii)). The EFP would also provide that any yelloweye 
rockfish taken and retained would not count against the recreational 
bag limit for rockfish. If approved, NMFS would authorize up to 10 
vessels that participate in the Washington recreational fishery to 
retain yelloweye rockfish and transfer the yelloweye rockfish to WDFW 
staff upon landing.
    During the 2-year period of EFP activities from 2021 to 2022, all 
vessels participating in the non-trawl RCA EFP projects (i.e., the 
renewal applications submitted by the SFCFA, Scott Cook, and Real Good 
Fish) would adhere to EFP set-asides for targeted and incidental 
groundfish and other species, which were considered and approved by the 
Council at their June 2020 meeting. These EFP set-asides are off-the-
top deductions from the 2021-2022 applicable ACLs, meaning any landings 
and discards that occur under these EFPs would be accounted for within 
the applicable ACLs. These vessels are also required to have 100 
percent observer coverage. All cowcod mortality under the CDFW EFP 
project is expected to

[[Page 62511]]

occur in conjunction with routine recreational fishing activities and 
will be calculated as part of the normal recreational catch estimation 
process. All yelloweye rockfish taken under the WDFW EFP project would 
be counted against the Washington recreational harvest guideline for 
yelloweye rockfish. NMFS would not require 100 percent observer 
coverage for vessels participating in the CDFW and WDFW EFP projects 
because recreational vessels do not meet the minimum size requirements 
under Federal regulations to carry an observer.
    NMFS does not expect any impacts to the environment, essential fish 
habitat, or protected or prohibited species from these EFPs beyond 
those analyzed for the groundfish fishery as a whole in applicable 
biological opinions 3 4 or the draft Environmental 
Assessment (EA) for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 2021-2022 
Harvest Specifications and Management Measures.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Available at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/groundfish/s7-groundfish-biop-121117.pdf.
    \4\ Available at: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/F7_Att1_USFWS_2017_STALBiOp_NOV2017BB.pdf.
    \5\ Draft available at: https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2020/05/f-1-attachment-8-pacific-coast-groundfish-fishery-2021-2022-harvest-specifications-and-management-measures-analytical-document-organized-as-a-draft-environmental-assessment-chapters-1-5-electroni.pdf/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After publication of this document in the Federal Register, NMFS 
may approve and issue permits for the proposed EFP projects for the 
2021 fishing year after the close of the public comment period. All 
five EFP applications are available under ``Supporting and Related 
Materials'' (see ADDRESSES). NMFS will consider comments submitted in 
deciding whether to approve the applications as requested. NMFS may 
approve the applications in their entirety or may make any alterations 
needed to achieve the goals of the EFP projects. NMFS would not issue 
another Federal Register notice soliciting public comment on renewing 
these EFP projects for 2022 unless: (1) The applicants modify and 
resubmit their applications to NMFS; (2) changes to relevant fisheries 
regulations warrant a revised set of exemptions authorized under the 
EFP projects; or (3) NMFS' understanding of the current biological and 
economic impacts from EFP fishing activities substantially changes.

IV. Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is 
consistent with the PCGFMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after 
public comment. In making its final determination, NMFS will take into 
account the complete record, including the data, views, and comments 
received during the comment period.
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed 
after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials 
from the area covered by the PCGFMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 
16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council 
must be a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized 
fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In 
addition, regulations implementing the PCGFMP establish a procedure by 
which the tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the 
PCGFMP request new allocations or regulations specific to the tribes, 
in writing, before the first of the two meetings at which the Council 
considers groundfish management measures. The regulations at 50 CFR 
660.324(d) further direct NMFS to develop tribal allocations and 
regulations in consultation with the affected tribes. The tribal 
management measures in this proposed rule have been developed following 
these procedures. The tribal representative on the Council made a 
motion to adopt the non-whiting tribal management measures, which was 
passed by the Council. Those management measures, which were developed 
and proposed by the tribes, are included in this proposed rule.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule is not an 
Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not 
significant under Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS prepared an integrated Analysis for this action, which 
addresses the statutory requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
National Environmental Policy Act, Presidential Executive Order 12866, 
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The full suite of alternatives 
analyzed by the Council can be found on the Council's website at 
www.pcouncil.org. This Analysis does not contain all the alternatives, 
because an EIS was prepared for the 2015-16 biennial harvest 
specifications and management measures and is available from NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES). This EIS examined the harvest specifications and management 
measures for 2015-16 and 10-year projections for routinely adjusted 
harvest specifications and management measures. The 10-year projections 
were produced to evaluate the impacts of the ongoing implementation of 
harvest specifications and management measures and to evaluate the 
impacts of the routine adjustments that are the main component of each 
biennial cycle. Therefore, the EA for the 2021-22 cycle tiers from the 
2015-16 EIS and focuses on the harvest specifications and management 
measures that were not within the scope of the 10-year projections in 
the 2015-16 EIS. A copy of the EA is available from NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES). This action also announces a public comment period on the 
EA.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The purpose of this proposed rule is to conserve Pacific Coast 
groundfish stocks by preventing overfishing, while still allowing 
harvest opportunity among the various fishery sectors. This will be 
accomplished by implementing the 2021-2022 annual specifications in the 
U.S. exclusive economic zone off the West Coast. The harvest 
specifications affect large and small entities similarly, and for this 
biennium, many of the catch limits are proposed to increase, providing 
benefit to all participants. Additionally, this proposed rule contains 
several of new management measures that are likely to benefit vessels, 
specifically openings of previously closed fishing grounds. As a 
result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and 
none has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 28, 2020.
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 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF 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.


[[Page 62512]]


0
2. In Sec.  660.11, amend the definition of ``North-South management 
area'' by revising paragraph (2)(xviii) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.11   General definitions.

* * * * *
    North-South management area * * *
    (2) * * *
    (xviii) Point Arena, CA--management line--38[deg]57.50' N lat.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  660.40, revise the section heading, removing paragraph (a), 
redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (a), and add a reserved 
paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.40   Rebuilding plans.

* * * * *
0
4. In Sec.  660.50, revise paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (f)(6) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.50   Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The Tribal allocation is 689.2 mt in 2021 and 656.6 mt in 2022 
per year. This allocation is, for each year, 10 percent of the Monterey 
through Vancouver area (North of 36[deg] N lat.) ACL. The Tribal 
allocation is reduced by 1.7 percent for estimated discard mortality.
* * * * *
    (6) Petrale sole. For petrale sole, treaty fishing vessels are 
restricted to a fleetwide harvest target of 350 mt each year.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  660.71 as follows:
0
a. Redesignate paragraphs (o)(133) through (216) as paragraphs (o)(135) 
through (218); and
0
b. Add new paragraphs (o)(133) and (134).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  660.71   Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 10-fm (18-m) 
through 40-fm (73-m) depth contours.

* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (133) 37[deg]25.00' N lat., 122[deg]38.66' W long.;
    (134) 37[deg]20.68' N lat., 122[deg]36.79' W long.;
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  660.73 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(309) through (315);
0
b. Add paragraphs (a)(316) through (321);
0
c. Revise paragraphs (b)(1) through (14);
0
d. Add paragraph (b)(15);
0
e. Revise paragraphs (c)(10) through (14);
0
f. Redesignate paragraphs (d) through (l) as paragraphs (e) through 
(m); and
0
g. Add new paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  660.73   Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 100 fm (183 
m) through 150 fm (274 m) depth contours.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (309) 33[deg]2.81' N lat., 117[deg]21.17' W long.;
    (310) 33[deg]1.76' N lat., 117[deg]20.51' W long.;
    (311) 32[deg]59.90' N lat., 117[deg]19.38' W long.;
    (312) 32[deg]57.29' N lat., 117[deg]18.94' W long.;
    (313) 32[deg]56.15' N lat., 117[deg]19.54' W long.;
    (314) 32[deg]55.30' N lat., 117[deg]19.38' W long.;
    (315) 32[deg]54.27' N lat., 117[deg]17.17' W long.;
    (316) 32[deg]52.94' N lat., 117[deg]17.11' W long.;
    (317) 32[deg]52.66' N lat., 117[deg]19.67' W long.;
    (318) 32[deg]50.95' N lat., 117[deg]21.17' W long.;
    (319) 32[deg]47.11' N lat., 117[deg]22.98' W long.;
    (320) 32[deg]45.60' N lat., 117[deg]22.64' W long.; and
    (321) 32[deg]42.79' N lat., 117[deg]21.16' W long.
    (b) * * *
    (1) 33[deg]04.80' N lat., 118[deg]37.90' W long.;
    (2) 33[deg]02.65' N lat., 118[deg]34.08' W long.;
    (3) 32[deg]55.80' N lat., 118[deg]28.92' W long.;
    (4) 32[deg]55.04' N lat., 118[deg]27.68' W long.;
    (5) 32[deg]49.79' N lat., 118[deg]20.87' W long.;
    (6) 32[deg]48.05' N lat., 118[deg]19.62' W long.;
    (7) 32[deg]47.41' N lat., 118[deg]21.86' W long.;
    (8) 32[deg]44.03' N lat., 118[deg]24.70' W long.;
    (9) 32[deg]47.81' N lat., 118[deg]30.20' W long.;
    (10) 32[deg]49.79' N lat., 118[deg]32.00' W long.;
    (11) 32[deg]53.36' N lat., 118[deg]33.23' W long.;
    (12) 32[deg]55.13' N lat., 118[deg]35.31' W long.;
    (13) 33[deg]00.22' N lat., 118[deg]38.68' W long.;
    (14) 33[deg]03.13' N lat., 118[deg]39.59' W long.; and
    (15) 33[deg]04.80' N lat., 118[deg]37.90' W long.
    (c) * * *
    (10) 33[deg]18.14' N lat., 118[deg]27.94' W long.;
    (11) 33[deg]19.84' N lat., 118[deg]32.22' W long.;
    (12) 33[deg]20.81' N lat., 118[deg]32.91' W long.;
    (13) 33[deg]21.94' N lat., 118[deg]32.03' W long.;
    (14) 33[deg]23.14' N lat., 118[deg]30.12' W long.;
* * * * *
    (d) The 100 fm (183 m) depth contour around the northern Channel 
Islands off the state of California is defined by straight lines 
connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
    (1) 34[deg]12.89' N lat., 120[deg]29.31' W long.;
    (2) 34[deg]10.96' N lat., 120[deg]25.19' W long.;
    (3) 34[deg]08.74' N lat., 120[deg]18.00' W long.;
    (4) 34[deg]07.02' N lat., 120[deg]10.45' W long.;
    (5) 34[deg]06.75' N lat., 120[deg]05.09' W long.;
    (6) 34[deg]08.15' N lat., 119[deg]54.96' W long.;
    (7) 34[deg]'07.17 N lat., 119[deg]48.54' W long.;
    (8) 34[deg]05.66' N lat., 119[deg]37.58' W long.;
    (9) 34[deg]04.76' N lat., 119[deg]26.28' W long.;
    (10) 34[deg]02.93' N lat., 119[deg]18.06' W long.;
    (11) 34[deg]00.97' N lat., 119[deg]18.78' W long.;
    (12) 33[deg]59.38' N lat., 119[deg]21.71' W long.;
    (13) 33[deg]58.62' N lat., 119[deg]32.05' W long.;
    (14) 33[deg]57.69' N lat., 119[deg]33.38' W long.;
    (15) 33[deg]57.40' N lat., 119[deg]35.84' W long.;
    (16) 33[deg]56.07' N lat., 119[deg]41.10' W long.
    (17) 33[deg]55.54' N lat., 119[deg]47.99' W long.;
    (18) 33[deg]56.60' N lat., 119[deg]51.40' W long.;
    (19) 33[deg]55.56' N lat., 119[deg]53.87' W long.;
    (20) 33[deg]54.40' N lat., 119[deg]53.74' W long.;
    (21) 33[deg]52.72' N lat., 119[deg]54.62' W long.;
    (22) 33[deg]47.95' N lat., 119[deg]53.50' W long.;
    (23) 33[deg]45.75' N lat., 119[deg]51.04' W long.;
    (24) 33[deg]40.18' N lat., 119[deg]50.36' W long.;
    (25) 33[deg]38.19' N lat., 119[deg]57.85' W long.;
    (26) 33[deg]44.92' N lat., 120[deg]02.95' W long.;

[[Page 62513]]

    (27) 33[deg]48.90' N lat., 120[deg]05.34' W long.;
    (28) 33[deg]51.64' N lat., 120[deg]08.11' W long.;
    (29) 33[deg]58.31' N lat., 120[deg]27.99' W long.;
    (30) 34[deg]03.23' N lat., 120[deg]34.34' W long.;
    (31) 34[deg]09.42' N lat., 120[deg]37.64' W long.; and
    (32) 34[deg]12.89' N lat., 120[deg]29.31' W long.
* * * * *
0
7. Tables 1a through 1c to subpart C are revised to read as follows:

[[Page 62514]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.020


[[Page 62515]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.021


[[Page 62516]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.022


[[Page 62517]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.023


[[Page 62518]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.024


[[Page 62519]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.025


[[Page 62520]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.026

0
6. Tables 2a through 2c to subpart C are revised to read as follows:

[[Page 62521]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.027


[[Page 62522]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.028


[[Page 62523]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.029


[[Page 62524]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.030


[[Page 62525]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.031


[[Page 62526]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.032


[[Page 62527]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.033

0
7. In Sec.  660.140, revise paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(D) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.140   Shorebased IFQ Program.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *

[[Page 62528]]

    (ii) * * *
    (D) Pacific whiting and non-whiting QP shorebased trawl 
allocations. For the trawl fishery, NMFS will issue QP based on the 
following shorebased trawl allocations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.034


[[Page 62529]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.035

* * * * *
0
8. Revise Tables 1 (North) and 1 (South) to subpart D to read as 
follows:

[[Page 62530]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.036


[[Page 62531]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.037

0
9. In Sec.  660.231, revise paragraph (b)(3)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.231   Limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) A vessel participating in the primary season will be 
constrained by the sablefish cumulative limit associated with each of 
the permits registered for use with that vessel. During the primary 
season, each vessel authorized to fish in that season under paragraph 
(a) of this section may take, retain, possess, and land sablefish, up 
to the cumulative limits for each of the permits registered for use 
with that vessel (i.e., stacked permits). If multiple limited entry 
permits with sablefish endorsements are registered for use with a 
single vessel, that vessel may land up to the total of all cumulative 
limits announced in this paragraph for the tiers for those permits, 
except as limited by paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section. Up to 3 
permits may be registered for use with a single vessel during the 
primary season; thus, a single vessel may not take and retain, possess 
or land more than 3 primary season sablefish cumulative limits in any 
one year. A vessel registered for use with multiple

[[Page 62532]]

limited entry permits is subject to per vessel limits for species other 
than sablefish, and to per vessel limits when participating in the 
daily trip limit fishery for sablefish under Sec.  660.232. In 2021, 
the following annual limits are in effect: Tier 1 at 58,649 lb (26,602 
kg), Tier 2 at 26,659 lb (12,092 kg), and Tier 3 at 15,234 lb (6,910 
kg). In 2022 and beyond, the following annual limits are in effect: 
Tier 1 at 55,858 lb (25,337 kg), Tier 2 at 25,390 lb (11,517 kg), and 
Tier 3 at 14,509 lb (6,581 kg).
* * * * *
0
10. Revise Tables 2 (North) and 2 (South) to subpart E to read as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.038


[[Page 62533]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.039

0
11. Revise Tables 3 (North) and 3 (South) to subpart F to read as 
follows:

[[Page 62534]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.040


[[Page 62535]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.041

0
12. Amend Sec.  660.360 by revising paragraphs (c)(1) introductory 
text, (c)(1)(i)(B), (C), and (D), (c)(2)(i)(B) and (D), (c)(3)(i)(A), 
and (c)(3)(ii)(B) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.360   Recreational fishery--management measures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Washington. For each person engaged in recreational fishing off 
the coast of Washington, the groundfish bag limit is 9 groundfish per 
day, including rockfish, cabezon and lingcod. Within the groundfish bag 
limit, there are sub-limits for rockfish, lingcod, and cabezon

[[Page 62536]]

outlined in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(D) of this section. In addition to the 
groundfish bag limit of 9, there will be a flatfish limit of 5 fish, 
not to be counted towards the groundfish bag limit but in addition to 
it. The recreational groundfish fishery will open the second Saturday 
in March through the third Saturday in October for all species. In the 
Pacific halibut fisheries, retention of groundfish is governed in part 
by annual management measures for Pacific halibut fisheries, which are 
published in the Federal Register. The following seasons, closed areas, 
sub-limits and size limits apply:
    (i) * * *
    (B) South coast recreational yelloweye rockfish conservation area. 
Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is allowed within the 
South Coast Recreational YRCA. The South Coast Recreational YRCA is 
defined by latitude and longitude coordinates specified at Sec.  
660.70.
    (C) Westport offshore recreational yelloweye rockfish conservation 
area. Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is allowed within 
the Westport Offshore Recreational YRCA. The Westport Offshore 
Recreational YRCA is defined by latitude and longitude coordinates 
specified at Sec.  660.70.
    (D) Recreational rockfish conservation area. Fishing for groundfish 
with recreational gear is prohibited within the recreational RCA unless 
otherwise stated. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land 
groundfish taken with recreational gear within the recreational RCA 
unless otherwise stated. A vessel fishing in the recreational RCA may 
not be in possession of any groundfish unless otherwise stated. [For 
example, if a vessel participates in the recreational salmon fishery 
within the RCA, the vessel cannot be in possession of groundfish while 
in the RCA. The vessel may, however, on the same trip fish for and 
retain groundfish shoreward of the RCA on the return trip to port.] 
Coordinates approximating boundary lines at the 10- fm (18 m) through 
40-fm (73-m) depth contours can be found at Sec.  660.71. The 
Washington recreational fishing season structure is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.042

* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Recreational rockfish conservation area (RCA). Fishing for 
groundfish with recreational gear is prohibited within the recreational 
RCA, a type of closed area or groundfish conservation area, except with 
long-leader gear (as defined at Sec.  660.351). It is unlawful to take 
and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with recreational gear 
within the recreational RCA, except with long-leader gear (as defined 
at Sec.  660.351). A vessel fishing in the recreational RCA may not be 
in possession of any groundfish. [For example, if a vessel fishes in 
the recreational salmon fishery within the RCA, the vessel cannot be in 
possession of groundfish while within the RCA. The vessel may, however, 
on the same trip fish for and retain groundfish shoreward of the RCA on 
the return trip to port.] Off Oregon, from January 1 through December 
31, recreational fishing for groundfish is allowed in all depths. 
Coordinates approximating boundary lines at the 10-fm (18 m) through 
40-fm (73-m) depth contours can be found at Sec.  660.71.
* * * * *
    (D) In the Pacific halibut fisheries. Retention of groundfish is 
governed in part by annual management measures for Pacific halibut 
fisheries, which are published in the Federal Register. Between the 
Columbia River and Humbug Mountain, during days open to the ``all-
depth'' sport halibut fisheries, when Pacific halibut are onboard the 
vessel, no groundfish, except sablefish, Pacific cod, and other species 
of flatfish

[[Page 62537]]

(sole, flounder, sanddab), may be taken and retained, possessed or 
landed, except with long-leader gear (as defined at Sec.  660.351). 
``All-depth'' season days are established in the annual management 
measures for Pacific halibut fisheries, which are published in the 
Federal Register and are announced on the NMFS Pacific halibut hotline, 
1-800-662-9825.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Recreational rockfish conservation areas. The recreational RCAs 
are areas that are closed to recreational fishing for groundfish. 
Fishing for groundfish with recreational gear is prohibited within the 
recreational RCA, except that recreational fishing for species in the 
Other Flatfish complex, petrale sole, and starry flounder is permitted 
within the recreational RCA as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of 
this section. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land 
groundfish taken with recreational gear within the recreational RCA, 
unless otherwise authorized in this section. A vessel fishing in the 
recreational RCA may not be in possession of any species prohibited by 
the restrictions that apply within the recreational RCA. For example, 
if a vessel fishes in the recreational salmon fishery within the RCA, 
the vessel cannot be in possession of rockfish while in the RCA. The 
vessel may, however, on the same trip fish for and retain rockfish 
shoreward of the RCA on the return trip to port. If the season is 
closed for a species or species group, fishing for that species or 
species group is prohibited both within the recreational RCA and 
shoreward of the recreational RCA, unless otherwise authorized in this 
section. Coordinates approximating boundary lines at the 10- fm (18 m) 
through 40-fm (73-m) depth contours can be found at Sec.  660.71. The 
California recreational fishing season structure and RCA depth 
boundaries by management area and month are as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC20.043

* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Bag limits, hook limits. In times and areas when the 
recreational season for the RCG Complex is open, there is a limit of 2 
hooks and 1 line when fishing for the RCG complex and lingcod. The bag 
limit is 10 RCG Complex fish per day coastwide, with a sub-bag limit of 
5 fish for vermilion rockfish. This sub-bag limit counts towards the 
bag limit for the RCG Complex and is not in addition to that limit. 
Retention of yelloweye rockfish, bronzespotted rockfish, and cowcod is 
prohibited. Multi-day limits are authorized by a valid permit issued by 
California and must not exceed the daily limit multiplied by the number 
of days in the fishing trip.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-21783 Filed 10-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P