[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 239 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79880-79928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27142]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 201204-0325]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes 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 final rule revises 
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 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 final rule implements Amendment 29 to the 
PCGFMP, which designates shortbelly rockfish as an ecosystem component 
species, and changes the trawl and nontrawl 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: This final rule is effective January 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: 

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 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/west-coast 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 also 
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. Harvest Specifications

    This final rule sets 2021-22 harvest specifications and management 
measures for 127 of the 128 groundfish stocks which currently have 
annual catch limits (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. Under Amendment 29, shortbelly rockfish, 
which was managed with harvest specifications in the most recent 
biennium (2019-20), will no longer be managed with harvest 
specifications and will be instead designated as an ecosystem component 
species.
    The overfishing limits (OFLs), acceptable biological catch (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. See Tables 1a and 2a to Part 660, Subpart C in 
the regulatory text supporting this rule for the 2021-22 OFLs, ABCs, 
and ACLs for each stock or stock complex.
    A detailed description of each stock and stock complex for which 
the Council establishes harvest specifications set through this rule 
can be found in the 2020 SAFE document posted on the Council's website 
at http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/safe-documents/. A summary of how 
the 2021-22 harvest specifications were developed, including a 
description of off-the-top deductions for tribal, research, incidental, 
and experimental fisheries, was provided in the proposed rule and is 
not repeated here. Additional information on the development of these 
harvest specifications is also provided in the Analysis.
    For most stocks, the Council recommended harvest specifications 
based on the default harvest control rule used in the prior biennium. 
The Council recommended deviating from the default harvest control rule 
for four stocks in 2021-2022. Table 1 presents a summary of the changes 
to the harvest control rules for these four stocks for the 2021-22 
biennium. Each of these changes was discussed in the proposed rule and 
that discussion is not repeated here.

[[Page 79881]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.023

II. Management Measures

    This section describes management measures (i.e., biennial fishery 
harvest guidelines and set-asides) used to further allocate the ACLs to 
the various sectors of the fishery and to manage the fishery. 
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. Each 
of these changes was discussed in the proposed rule and that discussion 
is not repeated here.

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 exempted fishing permits (EFPs). 
These off-the-top deductions are for individual stocks or stock 
complexes and can be found in the footnotes to Tables 1a and 2a to part 
660, subpart C.

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 2 
provides the Tribal harvest targets for the 2021-22 biennium.

[[Page 79882]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.024

C. Biennial Fishery Allocations

    The Council recommends two-year trawl and nontrawl allocations 
during the biennial specifications process for all 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 trawl and nontrawl 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 part of 
Amendment 29 and were discussed in the Notice of Availability for that 
amendment (85 FR 54529, September 2, 2020).
    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 II, A, 
entitled ``Deductions from the ACLs,'' in this preamble. The trawl and 
nontrawl allocations 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. Trawl and nontrawl 
allocations are detailed in Tables 1b and 2b in the regulatory text for 
this rule.

D. Corrections to Waypoints for Rockfish Conservation Areas

    Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) are large groundfish 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. Table 3 below shows the RCA boundaries by gear type in place 
starting in 2021.
    For the 2021-22 biennium, the Council recommended and NMFS is 
implementing 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 coordinates to define the 100 fm 
line around the Channel Islands (Table 3).

[[Page 79883]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.025

E. Limited Entry Trawl

    The limited entry trawl fishery is made up of the Shorebased IFQ 
Program, which includes both whiting and non-whiting targets, 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 Program. Set-asides are not actively 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 recommended and NMFS is implementing the 
set-asides in Table 4 for the 2021-22 biennium.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.026

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 is implementing the same 
IFQ fishery trip limits for these stocks for the 2021-22 biennium as 
those in place in 2020. For big skate, the Council recommended, and 
NMFS is implementing, an unlimited trip limit at the start of 2021. 
Additionally, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing a trip 
limit for blackgill rockfish within the southern slope rockfish 
complex. The trip limit is unlimited to start the 2021 fishing year. 
The purpose of the blackgill trip limit is to allow the Council to 
reduce targeting

[[Page 79884]]

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 rule. Changes to trip limits 
for the IFQ fishery are considered a routine measure under Sec.  
660.60(c), and may be implemented or adjusted, if determined necessary, 
through inseason action.

F. Limited Entry Fixed Gear and Open Access Nontrawl Fishery

    Management measures for the Limited Entry Fixed Gear (LEFG) and 
Open Access (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 recommended, and NMFS is 
implementing, increased trip limits for almost all LEFG and OA 
fisheries, many of which were first implemented decades ago and do not 
reflect stocks that rebuilt in previous biennium or other 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 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 implementing higher trip limits for the LEFG 
and OA fisheries in 2021. For the portion south of 36[deg]N lat., the 
Council recommended, and NMFS is implementing, 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 2020. The sablefish trip 
limits for 2021-22 are shown in Table 5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.027

LEFG and OA Trip Limits
    The Council recommended, and NMFS is implementing, 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.
    As discussed in the proposed rule for this action (85 FR 62492; 
October 2, 2020), the Council recommended establishing an OA trip limit 
for shortspine and longspine thornyheads in the area between 40[deg]10' 
N lat. and 34[deg]27' N lat. Therefore, NMFS is 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.
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 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 the limits are: 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 and South of 
40[deg]10' N Lat.
    The Council recommended and NMFS is implementing an increase to 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.
    The Council also recommended, and NMFS is implementing, a 
yellowtail rockfish trip limit in the salmon troll fishery south of 
40[deg]10' N lat. of 1 lb (0.45 kg) of yellowtail rockfish for every 2 
lbs (0.9 kg) of Chinook salmon landed, with a cumulative limit of 200 
lb (91 kg) per month, both within and outside of the RCA. This second 
change was included in the regulatory text of the proposed rule. 
However, the description

[[Page 79885]]

of this change was inadvertently left out of the preamble. This was 
highlighted by a commenter during the public comment period. See 
Comment 4 in Section III, entitled ``Response to Comments.''
Removal of Other Flatfish Gear Restriction Off California
    The Council recommended and NMFS is removing the gear restrictions 
for the LEFG and OA fisheries targeting stocks in the Other Flatfish 
complex inside the nontrawl RCA south of 42[deg] N lat.
Nontrawl RCA Adjustments
    In addition to increasing the LEFG and OA trip limits, the Council 
recommended and NMFS is implementing 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 changes, along with the changes to recreational conservation 
areas (discussed in Section II, H., Recreational Fisheries) will 
provide much needed access to these areas for the LEFG and OA fisheries 
to better attain their trip limits. 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 regulatory text of this rule.
New Management Line at 38[deg]57.5' N Lat.
    In order to make some of the changes to the Nontrawl RCA, the 
Council also recommended and NMFS is implementing 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 outlines the recreational fisheries management 
measures for 2021-22. Washington, Oregon, and California each proposed, 
the Council recommended, and NMFS is implementing different 
combinations of seasons, bag limits, area closures, and size limits for 
stocks targeted in recreational fisheries.
Washington
    This rule implements the following season structure in Table 6.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.028
    
    The aggregate groundfish bag limits in waters adjacent to 
Washington will 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 will be five fish, and is not counted 
towards the groundfish bag limit of nine but is in addition to it.
    Consistent with the 2019-20 biennium, the Council recommended and 
NMFS is implementing 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 implementing 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.
Oregon
    The Council recommended, and NMFS is implementing, an all months 
all depths season structure for the Oregon recreational fishery to 
start the 2021 fishing year. The Council recommended, and NMFS is 
implementing, the following aggregate bag and size limits: Three 
lingcod per day, with a minimum size of 22 in (56 cm); 25 flatfish per 
day, excluding

[[Page 79886]]

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).
    As part of the 2021-22 biennium, the ODFW also requested that the 
Council consider allowing longleader gear fishing and ``all-depth'' 
Pacific halibut fishing on the same trip, which is currently 
prohibited. Therefore, the Council recommended, and NMFS is removing 
the prohibition on combining Oregon longleader trips with all depths 
halibut trips.
California
    Table 7 shows the season structure and depth limits by California 
management area for 2021 and 2022.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.029

    The Council recommended, and NMS is implementing, size limits that 
are the same in 2021 as they were for 2020 for all stocks. However, the 
Council recommended and NMFS is eliminating the sub-bag limits for 
black rockfish, canary rockfish, and cabezon, and NMFS is implementing 
a sub-bag limit for vermillion rockfish of five fish.

III. Response to Comments

    NMFS received nine unique comment letters during the public comment 
period on the proposed rule (October 2, 2020 through November 2, 2020). 
Two state agencies submitted comments, the California Department of 
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(ODFW). The letters from the state agencies included requests for 
clarifications on information included in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, noted several small errors and inconsistencies in the regulatory 
text of the proposed rule, and also provided more substantive comments. 
The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) also submitted a comment 
noting an error. NMFS has addressed those small errors and 
inconsistencies in Section IV, ``Corrections to the Proposed Rule.'' 
The more substantive comments are addressed below.
    The seven other comment letters were from private citizens and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs). Two of those letters made comments 
that were outside the scope of this action and are not addressed here. 
Four letters were received from members of industry and made 
substantially similar comments. The responses to these comments have 
been grouped together and addressed below. The remaining comment letter 
contained substantive comments. NMFS addresses all substantive comments 
below. Changes from the proposed rule as a result of substantive 
comments received during the comment period are addressed in Section V, 
``Changes to the Proposed Rule.''
    Comment 1: Two commenters stated their support for the at-sea set-
aside values.
    NMFS Response: We agree and appreciate the collaborative work 
undertaken by the members of different sectors of the Pacific whiting 
fishery to come together to develop a proposal for the at-sea set-aside 
values for the 2021-22 biennium. Collaborative work always delivers a 
better product, and we hope this type of collaboration will continue 
into future harvest specification cycles.
    Comment 2: Three commenters stated their support for Amendment 29 
and the designation of shortbelly rockfish as an ecosystem component 
species based on extensive discussion over several meetings at the 
Council and based on the best available science.
    NMFS Response: We agree that the Council has spent significant time 
over the past two years in order to develop the best approach to 
managing shortbelly rockfish based on the best available science and in 
a way in which it will not significantly impact industry or the 
resource.
    Comment 3: One commenter stated their support for the changes in 
Amendment 29 to the trawl and nontrawl allocations for blackgill 
rockfish south of 40[deg]10 N lat., petrale sole, lingcod south of 
40[deg]10 N lat., and widow rockfish, and for keeping blackgill 
rockfish in the slope rockfish complex south of 40[deg]10 N lat.
    NMFS Response: We agree with the changes in Amendment 29 to the 
trawl and nontrawl allocations for these species. These changes better 
reflect the current distribution of catch and will likely allow more of 
the ACLs for these stocks and the stock complex to be

[[Page 79887]]

caught, resulting in more economic benefit to the fishing communities 
without significantly impacting the resources.
    Comment 4: One commenter stated that the discussion in the proposed 
rule for yellowtail trip limits in the salmon troll fishery north of 
40[deg]10'' N lat. neglected to include any discussion on the change 
for the salmon troll fishery south of 40[deg]10' N lat.
    NMFS response: We agree. The commenter is correct that the 
discussion of the yellowtail trip limits in the salmon troll fishery 
south of 40[deg]10' N lat. was inadvertently left out of the preamble 
of the proposed rule. Therefore, in this final rule, we updated the 
heading and added a discussion of the rationale for the regulatory 
change, as now found above, under the subheading ``Yellowtail Trip 
Limits in the Salmon Troll Fishery North and South of 40[deg]10' N 
lat.'' in Section II, ``Management Measures,'' paragraph ``F. Limited 
Entry Fixed Gear and Open Access Nontrawl Fishery''.
    Comment 5: One commenter stated that the regulatory text of the 
proposed rule for the removal of the gear restriction for other 
flatfish gear in the open access fishery correctly reflected the 
changes in the trip limit tables for south of 40[deg]10' N lat., but 
neglected to include this change in Table 1 for the open access fishery 
between 40[deg]10' and 42[deg] N lat. The Council intended to remove 
this restriction for the entire state of California (south of 42[deg] N 
lat.). Therefore, the change should also be, made in both Tables 2 
North and South for the open access fishery.
    NMFS response: We agree. The proposed rule inadvertently left in 
the gear restrictions for other flatfish gear for the open access 
fishery for the area between 40[deg]10' and 42[deg] N lat. in Table 2 
North. Therefore, Table 2 North in the regulatory text of this final 
rule has been corrected to reflect that this change was made for the 
entire state of California (south of 42[deg] N lat.).
    Comment 6: One commenter stated their concern with allowing vessels 
to fish with hook and line gears, except dinglebar and longline, in the 
RCA between 42[deg] N lat. and 40[deg]10' N lat. and 30 fm to 40 fm. 
The commenter is concerned that having differential gear allowances 
within the nontrawl RCA will complicate enforcement in these areas, 
particularly without the addition of a new declaration to clarify if a 
vessel was fishing with hook and line gear, but not fishing with 
longline or dinglebar gear. Additionally, because the Council is also 
removing the limitation on the number and size of hooks allowed by the 
open access fishery when fishing for other flatfish inside the RCAs off 
California, the commenter is concerned about the compounded impacts by 
removing these two provisions at once.
    NMFS response: We disagree that the change to allow vessels using 
hook and line gears, except dinglebar and bottom longline gear, to fish 
between 30 fm and 40 fms in this area will cause confusion and 
complication amongst members of law enforcement. The Council's 
Groundfish Management Team (GMT) has worked with the Council's 
Enforcement Committee and NMFS' Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) to 
ensure that there are no enforcement issues associated with this 
action. Although the Council did not recommend and NMFS is not 
implementing changes to the declarations so that vessels can declare 
hook and line gear that is not dinglebar or longline, this does not 
appear to be an issue. In recent years, vessels have been notifying 
NMFS OLE when making declarations of the type of hook and line gear 
used when making their declaration for hook and line gears. 
Additionally, in recent years, the total number of vessels that have 
used bottom longline or dinglebar gear versus other types of hook-and-
line gear have been a small proportion of the total landings, because 
other gears are more efficient for the types of species targeted. For 
example, for vessels targeting lingcod between 2017 and 2019, 20.7 
percent of landings by commercial non-trawl gear were taken by bottom 
longline and 78.6 percent were taken by other hook-and-line gears. For 
midwater shelf rockfishes (i.e., yellowtail, canary, widow, vermillion 
and other rockfishes that occur on the shelf), 37.3 percent was taken 
by bottom longline compared to 62.7 percent taken by other hook-and-
line gears. In addition, based on conversations with NMFS OLE, of the 
other hook-and-line gears being used, only about five vessels use 
dinglebar gear annually. Therefore, NMFS also does not have concerns 
over the allowing the use of hook and line gear, except bottom longline 
or dinglebar, in the nontrawl RCA between 42[deg] N lat. and 40[deg]10' 
N lat.
    Comment 7: Two commenters stated their opposition to the Council's 
recommendation and NMFS's proposal to designate shortbelly rockfish as 
an ecosystem component species beginning with the 2021-22 biennium. In 
stating their opposition, the commenters raised multiple issues, and we 
provide a response for each stated issue below.
    Shortbelly Rockfish Issue 1: Shortbelly rockfish must remain in the 
fishery because the species is in need of conservation and management.
    NMFS Response: We disagree. Section 302(h)(1) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act requires a Council to prepare an FMP for each fishery under 
its authority that is in need of conservation and management. 
``Conservation and management'' is defined in section 3(5) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The National Standard guidelines at Sec.  
600.305(c) provide direction for determining which stocks will require 
conservation and management and provide direction to regional councils 
and NMFS for how to consider these factors in making this 
determination. First, NMFS must consider whether the stocks are 
``predominately caught in Federal waters and are overfished or subject 
to overfishing, or likely to become overfished or subject to 
overfishing.'' 50 CFR 600.305(c). Such stocks require conservation and 
management. If a stock is not likely to become overfished or be subject 
to overfishing, Councils may still decide that it is appropriate for 
conservation and management. The guidelines direct regional fishery 
management councils and NMFS to consider a non-exhaustive list of ten 
factors when deciding whether stocks require conservation and 
management. After considering the 10 factors, based on the best 
available science, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing 
designating shortbelly rockfish as an ecosystem component species.
    Conservation and management, as defined under the MSA and the 
National Standard guidelines, is needed when a stock must be rebuilt, 
restored, or to maintain the status of a stock. Shortbelly rockfish is 
not under a rebuilding status, and it is not overfished, subject to 
overfishing or likely to become overfished or subject to overfishing. 
Stock status was estimated during the last stock assessment to be above 
73 percent of the unfished biomass, and less than 20 percent of the ABC 
has been taken annually in the past several years; these metrics 
indicate the stock does not need to be rebuilt or restored. Over the 
past 10 years the population has remained constant and likely has even 
increased in abundance, with new information suggesting that the 
population could be booming. As was discussed in the Analysis, based on 
multiple strong incoming year-classes and as supported by current 
scientific literature, the shortbelly rockfish stock is expected to 
thrive for at least the next decade or so.
    We agree with the commenter that shortbelly rockfish are an 
important forage species and are increasingly caught in federally 
managed fisheries. However, these factors are not

[[Page 79888]]

determinative that a stock is in need of conservation and management as 
defined under the MSA. Nor do these factors disqualify a stock from 
being designated an ecosystem component species. Because there is no 
directed fishing and incidental fishing-related mortality has been low 
in comparison to the ABC, it is very unlikely that catch would exceed 
the overfishing limit for shortbelly rockfish, resulting in shortbelly 
rockfish becoming overfished and in need of rebuilding. There are no 
known conservation concerns for shortbelly rockfish, since they are not 
targeted (shortbelly are primarily caught as bycatch in the Pacific 
whiting fishery), are not profitable, and future uses of shortbelly 
rockfish remain unavailable. Therefore, maintaining shortbelly rockfish 
as a target species in the PCGFMP is not likely to change stock 
condition. As discussed in the Council meetings, Council reports, and 
the Analysis, after reviewing each of the ten factors, the Council 
recommended and NMFS agrees that shortbelly rockfish are not in need of 
conservation and management, as defined by the MSA.
    Finally, we disagree with the requester that designating shortbelly 
rockfish as an ecosystem component species would prevent NMFS from 
addressing bycatch in the future, should that become an issue. As 
stated in the scope of the action in the Analysis, the Council has the 
ability to change the designation of a stock or stock complex every 
biennium based on new information. While we agree that we are unable to 
predict whether or not this fishery will become a target in the future, 
designating shortbelly rockfish as an ecosystem component species does 
not mean that NMFS will not monitor the stock or be unable to revisit 
that designation. Catch of shortbelly rockfish will continue to be 
reported on fish tickets and that catch data is available to the public 
on a daily basis through the Pacific Fisheries Information Network 
(PacFIN) database.\1\ Additionally, the Council has already tasked the 
Council's GMT with providing updates at each Council meeting on the 
current catch of shortbelly rockfish. If bycatch of the stock starts to 
increase or a fishery for the stock were to begin to develop, the 
Council would have the ability to take action to reevaluate the 
designation of shortbelly rockfish. In the event that the stock becomes 
in need of conservation and management, the Council would have the 
obligation to include it in the PCGFMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://reports.psmfc.org/pacfin/f?p=501:1000:13391209073431:::::.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortbelly Rockfish Issue 2: Shortbelly rockfish play a vital role 
in the California current ecosystem.
    NMFS Response: We agree. As discussed in the Analysis, shortbelly 
rockfish is a vital species in the California Current Ecosystem. 
However, while importance in the marine ecosystem is one of the factors 
we consider, it alone is not determinative of whether a stock is in 
need of conservation and management as defined under the MSA. In 
recommending Amendment 29, the Council relied on the best available 
science, which indicated increased stock abundance in recent years, to 
determine that there was a lack of a need for conservation and 
management of this stock in the 2021-22 biennium. Recent scientific 
literature indicates that the increased abundance due to high 
recruitment in 2013 (51 times higher than in 2014) and 2014 (1,750 
times higher than 2005) and the extension of the stock's range into 
more northern waters where Pacific whiting is targeted likely resulted 
in the higher bycatch in 2018 and 2019 (Agenda Item H.6.a, GMT Report 
2, November 2019). Even with the higher bycatch of shortbelly rockfish 
in recent years, total shortbelly rockfish catch has stayed below 50 
percent of the stock's OFL and less than 75 percent of the stock's ABC 
since 2011. There is no evidence to demonstrate that these catch trends 
would increase exponentially under an ecosystem component species 
designation.
    The commenters also stated their specific concerns for the marbled 
murrelet in California, Oregon, and Washington, as the species is 
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and for 
the California least tern, which is listed as endangered. On May 2, 
2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a biological 
opinion (2017 biological opinion) concurring with NMFS that the fishery 
is not likely to adversely affect the marbled murrelet or California 
least tern, among other species, because adverse interactions with 
vessels and forage depletion are extremely unlikely to occur. Notably, 
the FWS concluded that small pelagic rockfish, including shortbelly 
rockfish, are expected to increase in abundance during the continued 
operation of the groundfish fishery. This action is not expected to 
change the conclusions from the 2017 biological opinion, because it 
does not modify the action analyzed in that opinion in a manner or to 
an extent that would cause an effect to listed species or critical 
habitat that was not previously considered =.
    Shortbelly Rockfish Issue 3: NMFS has not shown that reclassifying 
shortbelly rockfish as an ecosystem component species would prevent 
overfishing.
    NMFS Response: We disagree. National Standard 9 provides that 
``[c]onservation and management measures shall, to the extent 
practicable: (1) Minimize bycatch; and (2) To the extent bycatch cannot 
be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.'' Designating 
shortbelly rockfish does not impair the PCGFMP's ability to meet this 
requirement. All of the PCGFMP's bycatch reduction components are 
unaffected by this action. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest 
that bycatch of shortbelly rockfish will increase due to this action.
    There is no evidence to suggest that designating shortbelly 
rockfish as an ecosystem component species would result in a 
significant increase in catch. As has been discussed by members of 
industry at every Council meeting since November 2018, and as was also 
stated in the Analysis, the proposed rule, and the NOA for this action, 
industry has significant incentives not to catch shortbelly rockfish. 
Currently, shortbelly rockfish prices for processing are extremely low 
and often don't cover the cost of the vessel to catch and deliver the 
shortbelly rockfish. Shortbelly rockfish can also clog nets and may 
spoil Pacific whiting catch. There are no known conservation concerns 
for shortbelly rockfish since they are not targeted, are not 
profitable, and future uses of shortbelly rockfish remain unavailable. 
Therefore, the incentives exist to avoid shortbelly rockfish, and there 
is no indication that changing the designation of this stock will alter 
these incentives.
    In the future, if there were indications of bycatch of shortbelly 
rockfish at significantly higher levels than what has been caught in 
recent years, the Council would be able to revisit the ecosystem 
component species designation. The Council has previously done exactly 
this for big skate. The Council designated big skate as an ecosystem 
component species in the 2017-18 biennium, but after catch of big skate 
began to increase, the Council re-designated big skate as a stock that 
is in need of conservation and management in the 2019-20 biennium. As 
discussed above and below, designation of shortbelly rockfish as an 
ecosystem component species does not preclude NMFS or the Council from 
monitoring the stock or taking action to minimize

[[Page 79889]]

bycatch, if necessary. Catch of shortbelly rockfish will continue to be 
reported, and that catch data is available publicly through the PacFIN 
database.
    Shortbelly Rockfish Issue 4: Removing all management measures to 
constrain or reduce shortbelly rockfish bycatch ignores NMFS' ongoing 
mandate to reduce bycatch.
    NMFS Response: We disagree. Designating shortbelly rockfish as an 
ecosystem component species does not preclude the Council from 
monitoring catch of shortbelly rockfish or developing management 
measures to reduce bycatch, if necessary. As stated in the 2020 SAFE 
document and at Sec.  600.305(c)(5), consistent with National Standard 
9, MSA section 303(b)(12), and other applicable MSA sections, 
management measures can be adopted in order to, for example, collect 
data on the ecosystem component species, minimize bycatch or bycatch 
mortality of ecosystem component species, protect the associated role 
of ecosystem component species in the ecosystem, and/or to address 
other ecosystem issues. Further, the PCGFMP clarifies that ecosystem 
component species should be monitored to the extent that any new 
pertinent scientific information becomes available (e.g., catch trends, 
vulnerability, etc.) to determine changes in their status or their 
vulnerability to the fishery. In making its decision in June 2020 to 
recommend designating shortbelly rockfish as an ecosystem component 
species, the Council specifically noted that catch of shortbelly 
rockfish would continue to be monitored by the Council's GMT, and 
inseason catches will be reported out to the Council at each meeting 
using the species scorecard. Therefore, in the event that bycatch of 
shortbelly rockfish does increase significantly in the future, the 
Council will be notified and will have the ability to adopt management 
measures in order to minimize bycatch of shortbelly rockfish while it 
is an ecosystem component species. In designating shortbelly rockfish 
as an ecosystem component species, the Council still has the ability to 
recommend, and NMFS can still implement, management measures for 
shortbelly rockfish to address high bycatch in the future.
    The most recent scientific literature indicates that population 
abundance has increased, accompanied by a northern range expansion. 
These changes are the most likely explanation for the increased bycatch 
levels since 2018. Following the ACL (the ACL is a harvest 
specification) overages in 2018 and 2019, the Council considered this 
issue extensively and was unable to conclude that any specific 
management measure would prevent the ACL overages, largely because the 
stock is not directly targeted and industry already has significant 
incentives to avoid the stock. However, even without effective 
management measures, bycatch of shortbelly rockfish has remained less 
than 50 percent of the stock's OFL. Because of the increasing abundance 
of the stock and the lack of apparent management measures which will 
maintain or improve stock status, the Council recommended, and NMFS is 
implementing, designating shortbelly rockfishas an ecosystem component 
species.
    Shortbelly Rockfish Issue 5: Designating shortbelly rockfish as an 
ecosystem component species ignores the best available science.
    NMFS Response: We disagree. The Council recommended and NMFS is 
implementing designation of shortbelly rockfish as an ecosystem 
component species based on the best available peer-reviewed scientific 
information. The Council and NMFS relied on the most recent and best 
information available to make determinations on the management of 
shortbelly rockfish. This information is extensively documented 
throughout the record of Council meetings discussing shortbelly 
rockfish since 2018, including Council discussions, advisory body 
reports and meeting briefing books, and in the Analysis for this rule.
    Shortbelly Rockfish Issue 6: As applied to shortbelly rockfish, the 
regulations authorizing NMFS to designate ecosystem component species 
violate the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    NMFS Response: We disagree. After extensive analysis and 
consideration of the best available scientific information and public 
comment, the Council recommended, and NMFS is implementing, designation 
of shortbelly rockfish as an ecosystem component species for the 2021-
22 biennium. Since 2018, the Council and its advisory bodies have 
considered this issue extensively, as documented in Council discussion, 
briefing books and advisory body reports. Both the Council and NMFS 
have extensively discussed and analyzed the best way to conserve and 
manage shortbelly rockfish. The most recent information on stock 
abundance, the likely extension of the stock into northern waters, the 
lack of a targeted fishery, and the existing disincentives for industry 
to catch shortbelly rockfish all support the designation of shortbelly 
rockfish as an ecosystem component species. As discussed above, 
designation as an ecosystem species does not preclude the Council from 
monitoring catch of the stock, adopting management measures to reduce 
bycatch, or revisiting the designation.
    Shortbelly Rockfish Issue 7: NMFS must consult on the designation 
of shortbelly rockfish as an ecosystem component species as it may 
affect ESA-listed species.
    NMFS Response: We disagree that additional consultation is needed 
due to the designation of shortbelly rockfish as an ecosystem component 
species for the 2021-22 biennium. As discussed above, the USFWS issued 
the 2017 biological opinion regarding the effects of the continued 
operation of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery (which includes 
shortbelly rockfish) on California least tern, southern sea otter, bull 
trout, marbled murrelet, and short-tailed albatross. This action is not 
expected to change the conclusions of the 2017 biological opinion 
because it does not modify the action analyzed in that opinion in a 
manner or to an extent that would cause an effect to listed species or 
critical habitat that was not previously considered . On December 11, 
2017, NMFS issued a biological opinion finding that the effects of the 
continued operation of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery is likely 
to adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued 
existence of the following listed salmon evolutionarily significant 
units: Puget Sound Chinook, Snake River Fall Chinook, Lower Columbia 
River Chinook, Upper Willamette River Chinook, Snake River spring/
summer Chinook, California Coastal Chinook, Lower Columbia River Coho, 
Oregon Coast Coho, Southern Oregon/Northern California coho, and 
Central California Coast coho. This action does not modify the action 
analyzed in the December 2017 biological opinion in a manner that may 
affect listed species in a manner or to an extent not previously 
considered.
    Shortbelly Rockfish Issue 8: Designating shortbelly rockfish as an 
ecosystem component species could result in the deprioritization of it 
as a stock to be assessed as part of the 2023-24 biennium.
    NMFS Response: We neither agree nor disagree. The Council has 
adopted a list of candidate stocks for assessment in 2023 for which 
shortbelly rockfish is included. The Council will make a final decision 
on this candidate list in June 2022. While we do not know what decision 
the Council will ultimately make, we have no indication that the 
Council will remove shortbelly rockfish from this list based on 
designation as an ecosystem component species. There is no requirement 
that the Council prioritize only those stocks that are in need of 
conservation and management

[[Page 79890]]

for stock assessments. We anticipate that the Council will continue to 
weigh all options and needs when finalizing their prioritized list of 
stocks to be assessed for the 2023-24 biennium.

IV. Corrections to the Proposed Rule

    NMFS received comment letters from the NWFSC, the CDFW, and the 
ODFW noting inaccuracies in information presented in the preamble to 
the proposed rule. NMFS offers the following corrections in this final 
rule. These clarifications and corrections to the information described 
in the preamble to the proposed rule do not change the substance or 
intent of this action. Where necessary, corrections to harvest 
specifications numbers in the preamble have been carried through to the 
regulatory text of this final rule.
    Table 1 in the preamble of the proposed rule was not labeled 
correctly. Instead of being labeled as the ``Old and New [sigma] Values 
for Category 1-3 Stocks Over a 10-Year Period'' the table should have 
been labeled, ``A Comparison of the Old and New Scientific Uncertainty 
Reductions for P*=0.45''. These percentages represent the buffer 
between the OFL, given a P* value of 0.45, and the ABC.
    Table 2 in the preamble, and subsequent discussion thereafter, 
provided incorrect values for the ACLs for sablefish north and south of 
36[deg] N lat. and the coastwide apportionment of the ABC for sablefish 
south of 36[deg] N lat. It was determined during review of the Analysis 
that these errors were the result of typographical errors in the 
Council's background material. The errors were not carried through to 
the calculations for allocations made below the ACLs. The Council 
recommended these technical changes be made at their September 2020 
meeting. Therefore, this final rule corrects the Sablefish ACLs and the 
Sablefish apportionment, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.030

    On page 62495 of the proposed rule, the section header, entitled 
``C. Proposed ACLs for 2019 and 2020'', used the incorrect years; the 
title should have used the correct years, 2021 and 2022.
    On page 62498 of the proposed rule, the section header entitled 
``D. Summary of ACL Changes from 2019 to 2021-22'', used the incorrect 
year. The year 2019 was incorrect and should have read 2020.
    Table 5--ACLs for Major Stocks for 2020, and 2021-22, on page 62499 
of the proposed rule, included incorrect values for the ACL for 
Nearshore Rockfish North. These number should be 79 mt and 77 mt for 
2021 and 2022, respectively.
    In the proposed rule, there were two tables labeled as ``Table 9'': 
Table 9--2021 and 2022 Allocations of Canary Rockfish on page 62502, 
and Table 9--2021 and 2022 Trawl/NonTrawl Allocations of Cowcod on page 
62503. The second Table 9 for cowcod should have been numbered as Table 
10.
    In the proposed rule's Table 9--2021 and 2022 Trawl/NonTrawl 
Allocations of Cowcod on page 62502, the nontrawl and trawl allocation 
values were transposed. They should have been 32 mt for the non-trawl 
fishery and 18 mt for the trawl fishery in both 2021 and 2022. In Table 
10 of this final rule, these values have been updated to reflect the 
correct allocations.
    In the proposed rule's Table 10--2021 and 2022 Trawl/Nontrawl 
Allocations of Lingcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat. on page 62503, the 
allocations for trawl and non-trawl were transposed. The nontrawl 
allocation should be 653.4 mt for 2021 and 695.4 mt for 2022. The trawl 
allocation should be 435.6 mt in 2021 and 463.6 mt in 2022. The correct 
allocations can be found in Table 11 of this final rule.
    In the proposed rule's Table 19--Proposed Season Structure and 
Depth Limits by Management Area for 2021 and 2022 on page 62509, for 
the southern management area, the depth limit was incorrectly listed as 
<50 fm which was the same depth for the two areas north of the southern 
management area (San Francisco and Central management areas). This 
depth was inadvertently carried through to the southern management 
area. However, the depth limit should be <100 fm, as recommended by the 
Council. The correct value is included in Table 20 of this final rule.
    The CDFW and the ODFW also highlighted several technical errors in 
the regulatory text of the proposed rule. These technical errors are 
discussed below, and are corrected in the regulatory text of this final 
rule, but do not change the substance of this final rule.
    In Table 1a, Subpart C--2021 Specifications of OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT, 
and Fishery HG in the regulatory text, in footnote ``h'' for bocaccio 
on page 62515, the nearshore and non-nearshore allocation listed was 
the allocation for 2022 (315.7 mt) instead of for 2021 (320.2 mt). In 
this final rule, the same table contains the corrected allocation, 
320.2 mt for 2021.
    In Table 1a, Subpart C--2021 Specifications of OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT, 
and Fishery HG in the regulatory text of the proposed rule, in footnote 
``aa'' for sablefish south of 36[deg] N. lat. on page 62517, the 
percentage of the coastwide catch was shown as 21.5 percent. This 
number has been corrected in this final rule to be shown as 21.6 
percent, which accurately reflects the Council's recommended allocation 
percentage of sablefish south of 36[deg] N. lat..
    In Table 1b, Subpart C--2021 Allocations by Species or Species 
Group of the regulatory text of the proposed rule on page 62519, the 
trawl allocation for English sole had a comma in the wrong place. In 
this final rule, the value is correctly listed as 8,478.2 mt.

[[Page 79891]]

    In Table 2a, Subpart C--2022 Specifications of OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT 
and Fishery Harvest Guidelines in the regulatory text of the proposed 
rule, in footnote ``h'' for bocaccio on page 62523, there was no listed 
amount for the combined nearshore and non-nearshore fishery. In this 
final rule, footnote ``h'' of this table states that the 2022 combined 
allocation to the nearshore and non-nearshore fishery is 315.7 mt.
    In Table 2a, Subpart C--2022 Specifications of OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT 
and Fishery Harvest Guidelines in the regulatory text of the proposed 
rule, in footnote ``u'' for longspine thornyhead on page 52523, the 
value was incorrectly listed as 77771.8 mt. In this final rule, the 
value has been corrected so that it is 771.8 mt.
    In Table 2a, Subpart C--2022 Specifications of OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT 
and Fishery Harvest Guidelines in the regulatory text of the proposed 
rule, in footnote ``w'' on page 62524, the harvest guideline value for 
Pacific ocean perch was incorrectly listed as 3,829.3 mt. In this final 
rule, the value has been corrected to 3,686.2 mt.
    In Table 2a, Subpart C--2022 Specifications of OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT 
and Fishery Harvest Guidelines in the regulatory text of the proposed 
rule, in footnote ``mm'' for Nearshore Rockfish north of 40[deg]10' N 
lat. on page 62525, the last sentence in the footnote referred to the 
harvest guidelines as recreational harvest guidelines. However, these 
guideline apply to more than just recreational fisheries. Therefore, in 
this final rule this text has been corrected by changing ``Recreational 
HGs are'' to ``State-specific HGs are''.
    In Table 2b, Subpart C--2022 and Beyond, Allocations by Species or 
Species Group, in the regulatory text of the proposed rule on page 
62526, the fishery harvest guideline for yellowtail rockfish was 
incorrectly listed in the proposed rule as 4,793.5 mt. This value has 
been corrected to 4,783.5 mt in this final rule.
    In Table 1 to paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(D) in Sec.  660.140 ``Shorebased 
IFQ Program'' in the regulatory text of the proposed rule on page 
62528, the 2021 and 2022 shorebased trawl allocations for Sablefish 
south of 36[deg] N lat. were incorrectly listed as 782.3 mt and 744.9 
mt, respectively. These values have been corrected to 786 mt and 748 
mt, respectively, in this final rule.
    In Table 1 to paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(D) in Sec.  660.140 ``Shorebased 
IFQ Program'' in the regulatory text of the proposed rule on page 
62528, the 2022 shorebased trawl allocations for Yellowtail Rockfish 
were incorrectly listed as 3,889.4 mt. This value has been corrected to 
3,898.24 mt, in this final rule.
    In Table 3 (North), Subpart F--Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation 
Areas and Trip Limits for Open Access Gears North of 40[deg]10' N lat., 
in the regulatory text of the proposed rule on page 62534, the text 
describing the salmon troll limit in the north was been cut off. In 
this final rule, the table cell has been resized so that all the text 
is shown.
    In Table 3 (South), Subpart F--Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation 
Areas and Trip Limits for Open Access Gears South of 40[deg]10' N lat., 
in the regulatory text of the proposed rule on page 62535, the text of 
the salmon troll trip limit incorrectly stated the area of the limit as 
``This limit is within the 4,000 lbs per 2 month limit for minor shelf 
rockfish between 40[deg]10' N lat. and 24[deg]27' N lat.'' In this 
final rule, the text has been corrected to state that ``This limit is 
within the 4,000 lbs per 2 month limit for minor shelf rockfish between 
40[deg]10' N lat. and 34[deg]27' N lat.''.
    In Table 3 (South), Subpart F--Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation 
Areas and Trip Limits for Open Access Gears South of 40[deg]10' N lat., 
in the regulatory text of the proposed rule on page 62535, the text 
describing the Pink shrimp Nongroundfish Trawl fishery (Line 49) was 
been cut off. In this final rule, the table cell has been resized so 
that all the text is shown.
    In Sec.  660.360(c)(3)(i)(A) in the regulatory text of the proposed 
rule on page 62537, the text inadvertently referenced the coordinates 
approximating the boundary lines at 10-fm (18 m) through 40-fm (73 m) 
depth contours at Sec.  660.71. However, because the recreational 
fisheries extend from 50-fm to 100-fm, the referenced coordinates 
should be at Sec. Sec.  660.72 and 660.73. In this final rule, this 
text has been amended to include reference to the correct sections.
    In Sec.  660.360(c)(3)(ii)(B) in the regulatory text of the 
proposed rule on page 62537, the text states ``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.'' 
Lingcod does not need to be listed here, as it is address in Sec.  
660.360(c)(3)(iii); therefore, the reference has been removed from the 
regulatory text in this final rule.

V. Changes From the Proposed Rule

    As a result of comments received on the proposed rule, NMFS is 
making the following changes to the proposed rule. In addition, one set 
of minor changes is being made to the proposed rule in accordance with 
a November 2020 Council recommendation based on newly updated catch 
data that was not available before the proposed rule was published.
    In Sec.  660.230(d)(10)(i), current regulations include reference 
to the other flatfish gear prohibition on the number and size of hooks 
allowed for the open access fishery. This text was not suggested to be 
deleted in the proposed rule. However, because the Council recommended, 
and NMFS is implementing, changes to this prohibition, conforming 
amendments to this text should also have been proposed to reflect this 
change. Because the text at Sec.  660.230(d)(10)(i) is no longer 
necessary, this final rule removes pargraph Sec.  660.230(d)(10)(i).
    The regulatory text in the proposed rule removed the recreational 
season structure text in Sec.  660.360(c)(3)(i)(A)(1)-(5), and replaced 
it with a table. The CDFW commented that it had concerns with the 
change and felt that it omitted text that was critical for state 
enforcement and which was referenced in state regulations. Based on 
this concern, in this final rule, NMFS has removed Table 2 in this 
section and replaced it with the paragraph structure used in the 2019-
20 biennium. All Council recommendations are reflected in the new 
paragraph structure.
    In Sec.  660.360(c)(3)(i)(A)(1) of the regulatory text in the 
proposed rule, there is only reference to the depth contour 
(``prohibited seaward of the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour along the 
mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts''), without any 
reference to the boundary line. To remain consistent with other 
sections of the regulatory text that describe the boundary lines for 
the recreational fisheries, this final rule is corrected to to read, 
``prohibited seaward of the boundary line approximating the 30 fm (55 
m) depth contour along the mainland coast and along islands and 
offshore seamounts''.
    In Sec.  660.360(c)(3)(i)(A)(2) of the regulatory text in the 
proposed rule, there is only reference to the depth contour, without 
any reference to the boundary line. To remain consistent with other 
section of the regulatory text that describe the boundary lines for the 
recreational fisheries, in this final rule, this text has been updated 
from ``is prohibited seaward of the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour along 
the mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts'' to read, 
``is prohibited seaward of the boundary line approximating the 20 fm 
(37 m) depth contour along the mainland coast and along islands and 
offshore seamounts''.

[[Page 79892]]

    Finally, at its November 2020 meeting, the Council recommended 
changes to the trip limits for the limited entry and open access 
fisheries north and south of 36[deg] N lat. for sablefish and lingcod 
south of 40[deg]10' N lat., and the open access trip limit for 
shortspine and longspine thornyhead south of 34[deg]27' N lat. All 
changes are to increase trip limits as a result of updated catch data 
that show lower than projected attainment for these stocks in the most 
recent fishing season. As a result, trip limits can be raised to allow 
for full attainment of the HG for both of these stocks in 2021. These 
changes were recommended by the Council to NMFS through the inseason 
action process and are incorporated into this final rule for 
implementation for the 2021 fisheries. Because these trip limits are 
within the range of what was previously analyzed, they constitute a 
minor, routine adjustment to the management measures for the 2021 
groundfish fisheries.

VI. Classification

    Pursuant to section 304 (b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is 
consistent with the PCGFMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, and other applicable law.
    NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become 
effective on January 1, 2021. This action establishes the final 
specifications (i.e., annual catch limits) for the Pacific Coast 
groundfish fisheries for the 2021 fishing year, which begins on January 
1, 2021. If this final rule is not effective on January 1, 2021, then 
the fishing year begins using the catch limits and management measures 
from 2020.
    Because this final rule increases the catch limits for several 
species for 2021, leaving 2020 harvest specifications in place could 
unnecessarily delay fishing opportunities until later in the year, 
potentially reducing the total catch for these species in 2021. Thus, a 
delay in effectiveness could ultimately cause economic harm to the 
fishing industry and associated fishing communities or result in 
harvest levels inconsistent with the best available scientific 
information.
    This final rule is not unexpected or controversial. The groundfish 
harvest specifications are published biennially and are intended to be 
effective on January 1 of odd numbered years. Additionally, the subject 
of this final rule has been developed over a series of six public 
meetings of the Council from June 2019 to June 2020. The public is 
given notice of these meetings, and the public is provided opportunity 
to comment on actions through that venue as well as through the 
rulemaking process.
    Because of the potential harm to fishing communities that could be 
caused by delaying the effectiveness of this final rule, and because of 
the previous notification to the regulated public of these changes 
through the Council process, NMFS finds there is good cause to waive 
the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this 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 final rule.
    The Council prepared an environmental assessment for Amendment 29 
to the PCGFMP and the 2021-22 harvest specifications and management 
measures, and concluded that there will be no significant impact on the 
human environment as a result of this rule. A copy of the integrated 
analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    This final rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the 
proposed rule, and is not repeated here. No comments were received 
regarding this certification. As a result, a final regulatory 
flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
    This final rule contains no information collection requirements 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 7, 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 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.


0
2. In Sec.  660.11, revise the introductory text and paragraph 
(2)(xviii) of the definition of ``North-South management area'' to read 
as follows:


Sec.  660.11   General definitions.

* * * * *
    North-South management area means the management areas defined in 
paragraph (1) of this definition, or defined and bounded by one or more 
or the commonly used geographic coordinates set out in paragraph (2) of 
this definition for the purposes of implementing different management 
measures in separate geographic areas of the U.S. West Coast.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (xviii) Point Arena, CA--management line--38[deg]57.50' N lat.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  660.40 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Removing paragraph (a);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (a), and revising newly 
redesignated paragraph (a); and
0
d. Adding and reserving a new paragraph (b).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  660.40   Rebuilding plans.

* * * * *
    (a) Yelloweye rockfish. Yelloweye rockfish was declared overfished 
in

[[Page 79893]]

2002. The target year for rebuilding the yelloweye rockfish stock to 
BMSY is 2029. The harvest control rule to be used to rebuild 
the yelloweye rockfish stock is an annual SPR harvest rate of 65.0 
percent.
    (b) [Reserved]

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 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (o)(133) through (216) as paragraphs 
(o)(135) through (218); and
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (o)(133) and (134) to 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 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2902) and (a)(309) through (315);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(316) through (321);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) through (14);
0
d. Adding paragraph (b)(15);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (c)(10) through (14);
0
f. Redesignatng paragraphs (d) through (l) as paragraphs (e) through 
(m); and
0
g. Adding new paragraph (d).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (290) 34[deg]03.33' N lat., 119[deg]12.93' W long.;
* * * * *
    (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.; and
    (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.;
    (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

[[Page 79894]]

    (32) 34[deg]12.89' N lat., 120[deg]29.31' W long.
* * * * *

0
7. Revise table 1a to subpart C to read as follows:

[[Page 79895]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.031


[[Page 79896]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.032


[[Page 79897]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.033


[[Page 79898]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.034


[[Page 79899]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.035


[[Page 79900]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.036


[[Page 79901]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.037


[[Page 79902]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.038


0
8. Revise Table 1b to subpart C to read as follows

[[Page 79903]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.039


[[Page 79904]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.040


0
9. Revise Table 1c to subpart C to read as follows:

[[Page 79905]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.041

0
10. Revise Table 2a to Subpart C, are revised to read as follows:

[[Page 79906]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.042


[[Page 79907]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.043


[[Page 79908]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.044


[[Page 79909]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.045


[[Page 79910]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.046


[[Page 79911]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.047


[[Page 79912]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.048


[[Page 79913]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.049


0
11. Revise Table 2b to subpart C to read as follows:

[[Page 79914]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.050


[[Page 79915]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.051


0
12. Revise Table 2c to subpart C to read as follows:

[[Page 79916]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.052


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


Sec.  660.140  Shorebased IFQ Program.

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

[[Page 79917]]

    (ii) * * *
    (D) For the trawl fishery, NMFS will issue QP based on the 
following shorebased trawl allocations:

[[Page 79918]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.053


[[Page 79919]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.054

* * * * *

0
14. Revise Tables 1 (North) and 1 (South) to part 660, subpart D to 
read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 79920]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.016


[[Page 79921]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.017


0
14. Amend Sec.  660.230 by removing and reserving paragraph (d)(10)(i) 
and revising paragraph (d)(10)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.230  Fixed gear fishery--management measures.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (ii) Fishing for rockfish and lingcod is permitted shoreward of the 
boundary line approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour within the 
CCAs when trip limits authorize such fishing and provided a valid 
declaration report as required at Sec.  660.13(d) has been filed with 
NMFS OLE. Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 40 fm (73 
m) depth contour are listed in Sec.  660.71.
* * * * *

0
15. 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

[[Page 79922]]

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 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
16. Revise Table 2 (North) and Table 2 (South) to part 660, subpart E, 
to read as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.018


[[Page 79923]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.019

0
17. Revise Table 3 (North) and Table 3 (South) in part 660, subpart F, 
to read as follows:

[[Page 79924]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.020


[[Page 79925]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.021


[[Page 79926]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.022

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

0
18. Amend Sec.  660.360 by:
0
a. Removing paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(D)(1) through (3); and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1) introductory text, (c)(1)(i)(B), 
(c)(1)(i)(C), (c)(1)(i)(D), (c)(2)(i)(B), (c)(2)(i)(D), (c)(3)(i)(A), 
and (c)(3)(ii)(B).
    The revisions 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 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, subpart C.
    (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, subpart C.
    (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 
100-fm (183-m) depth contours can be found at Sec.  660.71 through 
Sec.  660.73. The Washington recreational fishing season structure is 
as follows:

[[Page 79927]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE20.055

* * * * *
    (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 
100-fm (183-m) depth contours can be found at Sec.  660.71 through 
Sec.  660.73.
* * * * *
    (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 (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 100-fm (183-m) depth contours can be found at Sec.  660.71 
through Sec.  660.73. The California recreational fishing season 
structure and RCA depth boundaries by management area and month are as 
follows:
    (1) Between 42[deg] N lat. (California/Oregon border) and 
40[deg]10' N lat. (Northern Management Area), recreational fishing for 
all groundfish (except petrale sole, starry flounder, and ``Other 
Flatfish'' as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section) is 
closed from January 1 through April 30;

[[Page 79928]]

is prohibited seaward of the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour along the 
mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts from May 1 
through October 31 (shoreward of 30 fm is open); and is open at all 
depths from November 1 through December 31.
    (2) Between 40[deg]10' N lat. and 38[deg]57.50' N lat. (Mendocino 
Management Area), recreational fishing for all groundfish (except 
petrale sole, starry flounder, and ``Other Flatfish'' as specified in 
paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section) is closed from January 1 through 
April 30; prohibited seaward of the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour along 
the mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts from May 1 
through October 31 (shoreward of 30 fm is open), and is open at all 
depths from November 1 through December 31.
    (3) Between 38[deg]57.50' N lat. and 37[deg]11' N lat. (San 
Francisco Management Area), recreational fishing for all groundfish 
(except petrale sole, starry flounder, and ``Other Flatfish'' as 
specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section) is closed from 
January 1 through March 31; is prohibited seaward of the boundary line 
approximating the 50 fm (91 m) depth contour along the mainland coast 
and along islands and offshore seamounts from April 1 through December 
31 (shoreward of 50 fm is open). Closures around Cordell Bank (see 
paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C) of this section) also apply in this area.
    (4) Between 37[deg]11' N lat. and 34[deg]27' N lat. (Central 
Management Area), recreational fishing for all groundfish (except 
petrale sole, starry flounder, and ``Other Flatfish'' as specified in 
paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section) is closed from January 1 through 
March 31; and is prohibited seaward of a boundary line approximating 
the 50 fm (91 m) depth contour along the mainland coast and along 
islands and offshore seamounts from April 1 through December 31.
    (5) South of 34[deg]27' N lat. (Southern Management Area), 
recreational fishing for all groundfish (except California 
scorpionfish, ``Other Flatfish,'' petrale sole, and starry flounder) is 
closed entirely from January 1 through the last day of February. 
Recreational fishing for all groundfish (except ``Other Flatfish,'' 
petrale sole, and starry flounder, as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) 
of this section) is prohibited seaward of a boundary line approximating 
the 100 fm (137 m) depth contour from April 1 through December 31 along 
the mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts, except in 
the CCAs where fishing is prohibited seaward of the 40 fm (73 m) depth 
contour when the fishing season is open (see paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) of 
this section).
* * * * *
    (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. 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 value of days in 
the fishing trip.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-27142 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P