Fisheries Off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Species Fisheries, 22156-22158 [2015-09093]
Download as PDF
22156
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules
be set and what the scope of coverage
should be.
5. Are there any other changes or
refinements that the BLM should
consider to its current oil and gas
bonding, surety and financial
arrangement requirements?
Proposed rule; request for
comments.
ACTION:
Civil Penalty Assessments
The BLM is interested in receiving
feedback on the following questions
related to changes to the current caps on
civil penalty assessments:
1. Should the current regulatory caps
on the amount of civil penalties that
may be assessed be removed?
2. If regulatory caps on the maximum
amount of civil penalty assessments
should remain, at what level should
they be set to adequately deter improper
action—in particular, drilling without
an approved APD or drilling into
Federal leases in knowing or willful
trespass?
Non-Penalty Assessments and Trespass
1. In addition to the caps on civil
penalties set forth at 43 CFR 3163.2,
should the BLM consider revising any of
the assessments set forth in 43 CFR
3163.1? If so, what changes should be
made and on what basis?
2. Should the BLM consider revising
its oil trespass regulations set forth at 43
CFR 9239.5–2? If so, what changes
should be made and on what basis?
In addition to the specific information
requests identified above, the BLM is
also interested in receiving any other
comments you may have regarding
royalty rates, annual rental payments,
minimum acceptable bids, bonding
requirements, or the current regulatory
caps on civil penalty assessments for
BLM-managed oil and gas leases.
Janice M. Schneider,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals
Management.
[FR Doc. 2015–09033 Filed 4–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–84–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
[Docket No. 150305219–5219–01]
RIN 0648–BE78
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Highly Migratory Species Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:28 Apr 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing
to modify the existing Pacific bluefin
tuna (PBF) Thunnus orientalis
recreational daily bag limit in the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off
California, and to establish filleting-atsea requirements for any tuna species in
the U.S. EEZ south of Point Conception,
Santa Barbara County, under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(MSA). This action is intended to
conserve PBF, and is based on a
recommendation of the Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council).
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
must be submitted in writing by May 6,
2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2015–0029, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20150029, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Craig Heberer, NMFS West Coast Region
Long Beach Office, 501 W. Ocean Blvd.,
Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
Include the identifier ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–
2015–0029’’ in the comments.
Instructions: Comments must be
submitted by one of the above methods
to ensure they are received,
documented, and considered by NMFS.
Comments sent by any other method, to
any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period, may not be considered. All
comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be
posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted
voluntarily by the sender will be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Copies of the draft Regulatory Impact
Review (RIR) and other supporting
documents are available via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA–
NMFS–2015–0029, or contact the
Regional Administrator, William W.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Stelle, Jr., NMFS West Coast Regional
Office, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Bldg
1, Seattle, WA. 98115–0070, or
RegionalAdministrator.WCRHMS@
noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Heberer, NMFS, 760–431–9440,
ext. 303.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April
7, 2004, NMFS published a final rule
(69 FR 18444) to implement the Fishery
Management Plan for U.S. West Coast
Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species
(HMS FMP) that included annual
specification guidelines at 50 CFR
660.709. These guidelines establish a
process for the Council to take final
action at its regularly-scheduled
November meeting on any necessary
harvest guideline, quota, or other
management measure and recommend
any such action to NMFS. At their
November 2014, meeting, the Council
adopted a recommendation (https://
www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/
1114decisions.pdf) to modify the
existing daily bag limit regulations at 50
CFR 660.721 for sport caught PBF
harvested in the EEZ off the coast of
California and to promulgate at-sea fillet
regulations applicable south of Santa
Barbara as routine management
measures for the 2014–2015 biennial
management cycle. The Council’s
recommendation and NMFS’ proposed
rulemaking are intended to reduce
fishing mortality and aid in rebuilding
the PBF stock, which is overfished and
subject to overfishing (78 FR 41033, July
9, 2013; 80 FR 12621, March 9, 2015)
and to satisfy the United States’
obligation to reduce catches of PBF by
sportfishing vessels in accordance with
Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission (IATTC) Resolution C–14–
06. (https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/
Resolutions/C-14-06-Conservation-ofbluefin-2015-2016.pdf).
Resolution C–14–06 requires that ‘‘in
2015, all IATTC Members and
Cooperating non-Members (CPCs) must
take meaningful measures to reduce
catches of PBF by sportfishing vessels
operating under their jurisdiction to
levels comparable to the levels of
reduction applied under this resolution
to the EPO commercial fisheries until
such time that the stock is rebuilt.’’ The
proposed daily bag limit of two fish per
day being considered under this
proposed rule would reduce the U.S.
recreational harvest of PBF by
approximately 30 percent, which is
consistent with the IATTC scientific
staff’s conservation recommendation for
a 20–45 percent PBF harvest reduction
and meets the requirements of IATTC
Resolution C–14–06. The filleting-at-sea
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules
measures will assist in the enforcement
of the proposed regulations by enabling
enforcement personnel to differentiate
PBF from other tuna species. This
proposed rule is consistent with
procedures established at 50 CFR
660.709(a)(4) of the implementing
regulations for the HMS FMP.
The proposed regulations would
reduce the existing bag limit of 10 PBF
per day to 2 PBF per day and the
maximum multiday possession limit
(i.e., for trips of 3 days or more) from 30
PBF to 6 PBF. For fishing trips of less
than 3 days, the daily bag limit is
multiplied by the number of days
fishing to determine the multiday
possession limit (e.g., the possession
limit for a 1-day trip would be two fish
and for a 2-day trip, four fish). A day is
defined as a 24-hour period from the
time of departure. Thus a trip spanning
2 calendar days could count as only 1
day for the purpose of enforcing
possession limits.
Most PBF caught by U.S. anglers are
taken in the EEZ of Mexico, both on
private vessels and on Commercial
Passenger Fishing Vessels (CPFV). The
bulk of these trips originate from and
return to San Diego, CA, ports. During
2004 through 2013, approximately 78
percent of the fishing effort for PBF
(measured by angler days) by U.S. West
Coast recreational fishing vessels
occurred in Mexico’s EEZ. Fishing by
U.S. recreational vessels in Mexico’s
EEZ is a permitted activity that is
subject to management by the
Government of Mexico, which has
imposed bag and possession limits.
The daily bag and multiday
possession limits being proposed for the
U.S. EEZ off the coast of California
might be more or less conservative than
Mexico’s limits. The proposed U.S.
recreational limits would not apply to
U.S. anglers while in Mexico’s waters,
but to facilitate enforcement and
monitoring, the limits would apply to
U.S. vessels in the U.S. EEZ or landing
to U.S. ports, regardless of where the
fish were harvested.
The proposed regulations would also
establish requirements for filleting tuna
at-sea (e.g., each fish must be cut into
six pieces placed in an individual bag
so that certain diagnostic characteristics
are left intact), which will assist law
enforcement personnel in accurately
identifying different species given
morphometric and phenotypic
similarities between tuna species,
specifically, yellowfin (Thunnus
albacares) and PBF. These requirements
would apply to any tuna species caught
south of Santa Barbara (i.e., south of a
line running west true from Point
Conception, Santa Barbara County
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:28 Apr 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
(34°27′ N. lat.)) In addition to enhancing
enforcement, the proposed fillet
measures would also assist port
samplers and fishery biologists
conducting fishery surveys in accurately
identifying tuna species.
The State of California has informed
NMFS that it intends to implement
companion regulations to the Federal
regulations being proposed here by
imposing daily PBF bag limits
applicable to recreational angling and
possession of fish in state waters (0–3
nm). Currently, California State
regulations allow, by special permit, the
retention of up to three daily bag limits
for a trip occurring over multiple,
consecutive days. California State
regulations also allow for two or more
persons angling for finfish aboard a
vessel in ocean waters off California to
continue fishing until boat limits are
reached. NMFS and the Council
consider these additional state
restrictions to be consistent with
Federal regulations implementing the
HMS FMP, including this proposed rule
if implemented. The proposed fillet
requirements differ from current State of
California requirements, which allow
tuna filleting as long as a 1-inch square
patch of skin is left on the fillet.
Several comments received during
public scoping for this action called for
an exception to the fillet requirements
for skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis.
The Council recommendation to NMFS
did not provide an exception for
skipjack tuna. However, the California
Fish and Game Commission is
considering a possible exception, such
that skipjack tuna taken from and
possessed aboard a vessel south of Point
Conception (Santa Barbara County) may
be processed by removing the entire
fillet on each side and shall bear the
entire skin attached. Skipjack tuna
possess distinct horizontal bands on
their belly that remain visible and
distinct allowing for accurate
identification, even after the fish or fillet
has been frozen. NMFS is seeking
further guidance from the public on the
issue of a possible exception to the
proposed fillet requirements for skipjack
tuna.
The proposed rule would apply only
to recreational fisheries in Federal
waters off California. Although PBF are
occasionally caught and retained in
Oregon and Washington, the catches are
negligible. Therefore, the benefits
expected from monitoring and
regulating PBF catch in waters off those
states does not justify the administrative
or regulatory burden of doing so.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22157
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the
MSA, the NMFS Assistant
Administrator has determined that this
proposed rule is consistent with the
HMS FMP, other provisions of the Act,
and other applicable law, subject to
further consideration after public
comment.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Council prepared an
environmental assessment (EA) for this
action that discusses the impact on the
environment as a result of this proposed
rule. None of the bag and possession
limit alternatives analyzed in the EA are
expected to jeopardize the sustainability
of the PBF. However, the preferred
alternative, which reflects the action
proposed in this rule, is likely to have
negative economic impacts on the
affected fishing communities. The
alternatives, including the preferred
alternative, for tuna filleting procedures
are not expected to result in significant
socioeconomic impacts.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of
the Department of Commerce certified
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA)
that this proposed rule, if implemented,
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for this
determination under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) is as follows:
The proposed regulations would
reduce the existing bag limit of 10 PBF
per day to 2 PBF per day and the
maximum multiday possession limit
(i.e., for trips of 3 days or more) from 30
PBF to 6 PBF. For fishing trips of less
than 3 days, the daily bag limit is
multiplied by the number of days
fishing to determine the multiday
possession limit (e.g., the possession
limit for a 1-day trip would be two fish
and for a 2-day trip, four fish). These
limits will apply to recreational anglers
in U.S. waters off the West Coast or any
other ocean waters that return to U.S.
waters and/or ports. This rule also
proposes that tunas caught by
recreational anglers to be filleted
according to specified configurations for
bag limit monitoring and enforcement
purposes.
This proposed rule, if implemented,
would not be expected to directly affect
any small entities. This proposed rule
would change the PBF recreational bag
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
22158
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules
limit and the filleting requirements for
caught tuna, which affects only
individual recreational anglers.
Recreational anglers, by definition, may
not sell catch, and thus are not
considered to be a business. Because
recreational anglers are not considered
to be a small entity under the RFA, the
economic effects of this proposed rule
on these anglers are outside the scope of
the RFA. Although the for-hire sector of
the sport fishery may experience
indirect economic impacts due to the
imposition of reduced daily bag and
possession limits, those impacts are not
required elements of the RFA analysis
for this action.
Because this proposed rule, if
implemented, would not be expected to
have a significant direct adverse
economic effect on a substantial number
of small entities, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required and
none has been prepared.
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no new collection-ofinformation requirements associated
with this action that are subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act, existing
collection-of-information requirements
associated with the U.S. West Coast
Highly Migratory Species Fishery
Management Plan still apply. These
existing requirements have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under Control Number
0648–0204.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 15, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 660—FISHERIES OFF THE WEST
COAST STATES
1. The authority citation for part 660
continues to read as follows:
■
Washington and for bluefin tuna in the
U.S. EEZ off the coast of California. In
addition to individual fishermen, the
operator of a U.S. sportsfishing vessel
that fishes for albacore or bluefin tuna
is responsible for ensuring that the bag
and possession limits of this section are
not exceeded. The bag limits of this
section apply on the basis of each 24hour period at sea, regardless of the
number of trips per day. The provisions
of this section do not authorize any
person to take and retain more than one
daily bag limit of fish during 1 calendar
day. Federal recreational HMS
regulations are not intended to
supersede any more restrictive state
recreational HMS regulations relating to
federally-managed HMS.
(a) Albacore Tuna Daily Bag Limit.
Except pursuant to a multi-day
possession permit referenced in
paragraph (c) of this section, a
recreational fisherman may take and
retain, or possess onboard no more than:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Bluefin Tuna Daily Bag Limit. A
recreational fisherman may take and
retain, or possess on board no more than
two bluefin tuna during any part of a
fishing trip that occurs in the U.S. EEZ
off California south of a line running
due west true from the CaliforniaOregon border [42°00′ N. latitude].
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Restrictions on Filleting of Tuna
South of Point Conception. South of a
line running due west true from Point
Conception, Santa Barbara County
(34°27′ N. latitude) to the U.S.-Mexico
border, any tuna that has been filleted
must be individually bagged as follows:
(1) The bag must be marked with the
species’ common name, and
(2) the fish must be cut into the
following six pieces with all skin
attached: the four loins, the collar
removed as one piece with both pectoral
fins attached and intact, and the belly
cut to include the vent and with both
pelvic fins attached and intact.
[FR Doc. 2015–09093 Filed 4–20–15; 8:45 am]
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C.
773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
2. In § 660.721, revise the section
heading, introductory text, paragraph (a)
introductory text and paragraph (b), and
add paragraph (e) to read as follows:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
■
§ 660.721 Recreational fishing bag limits
and filleting requirements.
This section applies to recreational
fishing for albacore tuna in the U.S. EEZ
off the coast of California, Oregon, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:28 Apr 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 665
[Docket No. 140113035–5354–01]
RIN 0648–XD082
Pacific Island Fisheries; 2014–15
Annual Catch Limits and
Accountability Measures; Main
Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed specifications; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes to specify an
annual catch limit (ACL) of 346,000 lb
for Deep 7 bottomfish in the main
Hawaiian Islands (MHI) for the 2014–15
fishing year. If the ACL is projected to
be reached, NMFS would close the
commercial and non-commercial
fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for
the remainder of the fishing year. The
proposed specifications and fishery
closure support the long-term
sustainability of Hawaii bottomfish.
DATES: NMFS must receive comments
by May 6, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2013–0174, by either of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20130174, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Send written comments to
Michael D. Tosatto, Regional
Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands
Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd. Bldg.
176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
Instructions: NMFS may not consider
comments sent by any other method, to
any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period. All comments received are a
part of the public record and will
generally be posted for public viewing
on www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential
business information, or otherwise
sensitive information submitted
voluntarily by the sender will be
publicly accessible. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22156-22158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09093]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 150305219-5219-01]
RIN 0648-BE78
Fisheries Off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Species
Fisheries
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing to
modify the existing Pacific bluefin tuna (PBF) Thunnus orientalis
recreational daily bag limit in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off
California, and to establish filleting-at-sea requirements for any tuna
species in the U.S. EEZ south of Point Conception, Santa Barbara
County, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA). This action is intended to conserve PBF, and is based on a
recommendation of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council).
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be submitted in writing by
May 6, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2015-0029, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0029, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Craig Heberer, NMFS West
Coast Region Long Beach Office, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long
Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier ``NOAA-NMFS-2015-0029'' in the
comments.
Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above
methods to ensure they are received, documented, and considered by
NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be
considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and
will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name,
address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly
accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
Copies of the draft Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and other
supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-2015-0029, or contact the
Regional Administrator, William W. Stelle, Jr., NMFS West Coast
Regional Office, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Bldg 1, Seattle, WA. 98115-
0070, or RegionalAdministrator.WCRHMS@noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Heberer, NMFS, 760-431-9440,
ext. 303.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 7, 2004, NMFS published a final
rule (69 FR 18444) to implement the Fishery Management Plan for U.S.
West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP) that
included annual specification guidelines at 50 CFR 660.709. These
guidelines establish a process for the Council to take final action at
its regularly-scheduled November meeting on any necessary harvest
guideline, quota, or other management measure and recommend any such
action to NMFS. At their November 2014, meeting, the Council adopted a
recommendation (https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/1114decisions.pdf) to modify the existing daily bag limit regulations
at 50 CFR 660.721 for sport caught PBF harvested in the EEZ off the
coast of California and to promulgate at-sea fillet regulations
applicable south of Santa Barbara as routine management measures for
the 2014-2015 biennial management cycle. The Council's recommendation
and NMFS' proposed rulemaking are intended to reduce fishing mortality
and aid in rebuilding the PBF stock, which is overfished and subject to
overfishing (78 FR 41033, July 9, 2013; 80 FR 12621, March 9, 2015) and
to satisfy the United States' obligation to reduce catches of PBF by
sportfishing vessels in accordance with Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission (IATTC) Resolution C-14-06. (https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-14-06-Conservation-of-bluefin-2015-2016.pdf).
Resolution C-14-06 requires that ``in 2015, all IATTC Members and
Cooperating non-Members (CPCs) must take meaningful measures to reduce
catches of PBF by sportfishing vessels operating under their
jurisdiction to levels comparable to the levels of reduction applied
under this resolution to the EPO commercial fisheries until such time
that the stock is rebuilt.'' The proposed daily bag limit of two fish
per day being considered under this proposed rule would reduce the U.S.
recreational harvest of PBF by approximately 30 percent, which is
consistent with the IATTC scientific staff's conservation
recommendation for a 20-45 percent PBF harvest reduction and meets the
requirements of IATTC Resolution C-14-06. The filleting-at-sea
[[Page 22157]]
measures will assist in the enforcement of the proposed regulations by
enabling enforcement personnel to differentiate PBF from other tuna
species. This proposed rule is consistent with procedures established
at 50 CFR 660.709(a)(4) of the implementing regulations for the HMS
FMP.
The proposed regulations would reduce the existing bag limit of 10
PBF per day to 2 PBF per day and the maximum multiday possession limit
(i.e., for trips of 3 days or more) from 30 PBF to 6 PBF. For fishing
trips of less than 3 days, the daily bag limit is multiplied by the
number of days fishing to determine the multiday possession limit
(e.g., the possession limit for a 1-day trip would be two fish and for
a 2-day trip, four fish). A day is defined as a 24-hour period from the
time of departure. Thus a trip spanning 2 calendar days could count as
only 1 day for the purpose of enforcing possession limits.
Most PBF caught by U.S. anglers are taken in the EEZ of Mexico,
both on private vessels and on Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessels
(CPFV). The bulk of these trips originate from and return to San Diego,
CA, ports. During 2004 through 2013, approximately 78 percent of the
fishing effort for PBF (measured by angler days) by U.S. West Coast
recreational fishing vessels occurred in Mexico's EEZ. Fishing by U.S.
recreational vessels in Mexico's EEZ is a permitted activity that is
subject to management by the Government of Mexico, which has imposed
bag and possession limits.
The daily bag and multiday possession limits being proposed for the
U.S. EEZ off the coast of California might be more or less conservative
than Mexico's limits. The proposed U.S. recreational limits would not
apply to U.S. anglers while in Mexico's waters, but to facilitate
enforcement and monitoring, the limits would apply to U.S. vessels in
the U.S. EEZ or landing to U.S. ports, regardless of where the fish
were harvested.
The proposed regulations would also establish requirements for
filleting tuna at-sea (e.g., each fish must be cut into six pieces
placed in an individual bag so that certain diagnostic characteristics
are left intact), which will assist law enforcement personnel in
accurately identifying different species given morphometric and
phenotypic similarities between tuna species, specifically, yellowfin
(Thunnus albacares) and PBF. These requirements would apply to any tuna
species caught south of Santa Barbara (i.e., south of a line running
west true from Point Conception, Santa Barbara County (34[deg]27' N.
lat.)) In addition to enhancing enforcement, the proposed fillet
measures would also assist port samplers and fishery biologists
conducting fishery surveys in accurately identifying tuna species.
The State of California has informed NMFS that it intends to
implement companion regulations to the Federal regulations being
proposed here by imposing daily PBF bag limits applicable to
recreational angling and possession of fish in state waters (0-3 nm).
Currently, California State regulations allow, by special permit, the
retention of up to three daily bag limits for a trip occurring over
multiple, consecutive days. California State regulations also allow for
two or more persons angling for finfish aboard a vessel in ocean waters
off California to continue fishing until boat limits are reached. NMFS
and the Council consider these additional state restrictions to be
consistent with Federal regulations implementing the HMS FMP, including
this proposed rule if implemented. The proposed fillet requirements
differ from current State of California requirements, which allow tuna
filleting as long as a 1-inch square patch of skin is left on the
fillet.
Several comments received during public scoping for this action
called for an exception to the fillet requirements for skipjack tuna,
Katsuwonus pelamis. The Council recommendation to NMFS did not provide
an exception for skipjack tuna. However, the California Fish and Game
Commission is considering a possible exception, such that skipjack tuna
taken from and possessed aboard a vessel south of Point Conception
(Santa Barbara County) may be processed by removing the entire fillet
on each side and shall bear the entire skin attached. Skipjack tuna
possess distinct horizontal bands on their belly that remain visible
and distinct allowing for accurate identification, even after the fish
or fillet has been frozen. NMFS is seeking further guidance from the
public on the issue of a possible exception to the proposed fillet
requirements for skipjack tuna.
The proposed rule would apply only to recreational fisheries in
Federal waters off California. Although PBF are occasionally caught and
retained in Oregon and Washington, the catches are negligible.
Therefore, the benefits expected from monitoring and regulating PBF
catch in waters off those states does not justify the administrative or
regulatory burden of doing so.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant
Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with
the HMS FMP, other provisions of the Act, and other applicable law,
subject to further consideration after public comment.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for this
action that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this
proposed rule. None of the bag and possession limit alternatives
analyzed in the EA are expected to jeopardize the sustainability of the
PBF. However, the preferred alternative, which reflects the action
proposed in this rule, is likely to have negative economic impacts on
the affected fishing communities. The alternatives, including the
preferred alternative, for tuna filleting procedures are not expected
to result in significant socioeconomic impacts.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for this determination under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) is as follows:
The proposed regulations would reduce the existing bag limit of 10
PBF per day to 2 PBF per day and the maximum multiday possession limit
(i.e., for trips of 3 days or more) from 30 PBF to 6 PBF. For fishing
trips of less than 3 days, the daily bag limit is multiplied by the
number of days fishing to determine the multiday possession limit
(e.g., the possession limit for a 1-day trip would be two fish and for
a 2-day trip, four fish). These limits will apply to recreational
anglers in U.S. waters off the West Coast or any other ocean waters
that return to U.S. waters and/or ports. This rule also proposes that
tunas caught by recreational anglers to be filleted according to
specified configurations for bag limit monitoring and enforcement
purposes.
This proposed rule, if implemented, would not be expected to
directly affect any small entities. This proposed rule would change the
PBF recreational bag
[[Page 22158]]
limit and the filleting requirements for caught tuna, which affects
only individual recreational anglers. Recreational anglers, by
definition, may not sell catch, and thus are not considered to be a
business. Because recreational anglers are not considered to be a small
entity under the RFA, the economic effects of this proposed rule on
these anglers are outside the scope of the RFA. Although the for-hire
sector of the sport fishery may experience indirect economic impacts
due to the imposition of reduced daily bag and possession limits, those
impacts are not required elements of the RFA analysis for this action.
Because this proposed rule, if implemented, would not be expected
to have a significant direct adverse economic effect on a substantial
number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required and none has been prepared.
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no new collection-of-information requirements associated
with this action that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act,
existing collection-of-information requirements associated with the
U.S. West Coast Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan still
apply. These existing requirements have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under Control Number 0648-0204.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 15, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 660--FISHERIES OFF THE WEST COAST STATES
0
1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16
U.S.C. 7001 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 660.721, revise the section heading, introductory text,
paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraph (b), and add paragraph
(e) to read as follows:
Sec. 660.721 Recreational fishing bag limits and filleting
requirements.
This section applies to recreational fishing for albacore tuna in
the U.S. EEZ off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington and
for bluefin tuna in the U.S. EEZ off the coast of California. In
addition to individual fishermen, the operator of a U.S. sportsfishing
vessel that fishes for albacore or bluefin tuna is responsible for
ensuring that the bag and possession limits of this section are not
exceeded. The bag limits of this section apply on the basis of each 24-
hour period at sea, regardless of the number of trips per day. The
provisions of this section do not authorize any person to take and
retain more than one daily bag limit of fish during 1 calendar day.
Federal recreational HMS regulations are not intended to supersede any
more restrictive state recreational HMS regulations relating to
federally-managed HMS.
(a) Albacore Tuna Daily Bag Limit. Except pursuant to a multi-day
possession permit referenced in paragraph (c) of this section, a
recreational fisherman may take and retain, or possess onboard no more
than:
* * * * *
(b) Bluefin Tuna Daily Bag Limit. A recreational fisherman may take
and retain, or possess on board no more than two bluefin tuna during
any part of a fishing trip that occurs in the U.S. EEZ off California
south of a line running due west true from the California-Oregon border
[42[deg]00' N. latitude].
* * * * *
(e) Restrictions on Filleting of Tuna South of Point Conception.
South of a line running due west true from Point Conception, Santa
Barbara County (34[deg]27' N. latitude) to the U.S.-Mexico border, any
tuna that has been filleted must be individually bagged as follows:
(1) The bag must be marked with the species' common name, and
(2) the fish must be cut into the following six pieces with all
skin attached: the four loins, the collar removed as one piece with
both pectoral fins attached and intact, and the belly cut to include
the vent and with both pelvic fins attached and intact.
[FR Doc. 2015-09093 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P