[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47416-47483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19460]



[[Page 47415]]

Vol. 83

Wednesday,

No. 182

September 19, 2018

Part II





Department of Commerce





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





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





50 CFR Part 660





Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2019-20 Biennial Specifications and 
Management Measures; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2018 
/ Proposed Rules

[[Page 47416]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 180625576-8576-01]
RIN 0648-BH93


Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2019-20 Biennial Specifications and 
Management Measures

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would establish the 2019-20 harvest 
specifications and management measures 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. This proposed rule would also revise the management measures that 
are intended to keep the total catch of each groundfish stock or stock 
complex within the harvest specifications. The proposed measures are 
intended to help prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, 
achieve optimum yield, and ensure that management measures are based on 
the best scientific information available.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than October 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0056, by 
either of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0056, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, 
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
    <bullet> Mail: Submit written comments to Barry Thom, Regional 
Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, 
Seattle, WA 98115-0070.
    Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments if they are sent by 
any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after 
the comment period ends. All comments received are a part of the public 
record and NMFS will post for public viewing on www.regulations.gov 
without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, 
address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise 
sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender is publicly 
accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the 
required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keeley Kent, phone: 206-526-4655, fax: 
206-526-6736, or email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94dff1f1f8f1edbadff1fae0d4fafbf5f5baf3fbe2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="165d73737a736f385d737862567879777738717960">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access

    This rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the 
Federal Register website at https://www.federalregister.gov/. 
Background information and documents including an integrated analysis 
for this action (Analysis), which addresses the statutory requirements 
of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), the National Environmental Policy Act, 
Presidential Executive Order 12866, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
are available at the NMFS West Coast Region website at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/groundfish/index.html and at 
the Pacific Fishery Management Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org. The final 2018 Stock Assessment and Fishery 
Evaluation (SAFE) report for Pacific Coast groundfish, as well as the 
SAFE reports for previous years, are available from the Pacific Fishery 
Management Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org.

Executive Summary

Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    This proposed rule would implement the 2019-20 harvest 
specifications and management measures for groundfish stock taken in 
the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, 
and California. The purpose of this proposed rule is to conserve and 
manage Pacific Coast groundfish fishery resources to prevent 
overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, achieve optimum yield (OY), 
and ensure that management measures are based on the best scientific 
information available. This action proposes harvest specifications for 
2019-20 consistent with existing or revised default harvest control 
rules for all stocks, and establishes management measures designed to 
keep catch within the appropriate limits. The harvest specifications 
are set consistent with the OY harvest management framework described 
in Chapter 4 of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 
(PCGFMP).

Major Provisions

    This proposed rule contains two types of major provisions. The 
first are the harvest specifications (overfishing limits (OFLs), 
acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and annual catch limits (ACLs)), 
and the second are management measures designed to keep fishing 
mortality within the ACLs. The Council developed the harvest 
specifications (OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs) in this rule through a rigorous 
scientific review and decision making process, which is described later 
in this proposed rule.
    The OFL is the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) harvest level and is 
an estimate of the catch level above which overfishing is occurring. 
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scientific and 
Statistical Committee (SSC) recommends OFLs based on the best 
scientific information available. The ABC is an annual catch 
specification that is the stock or stock complex's OFL reduced by an 
estimate of scientific uncertainty. The SSC-recommended method for 
incorporating scientific uncertainty is referred to as the P star-sigma 
approach, which is discussed in detail in the proposed and final rules 
for the 2011-12 (75 FR 67810, November 3, 2010; 76 FR 27508, May 11, 
2011) and 2013-14 (77 FR 67974, November 12, 2012; 78 FR 580, January 
3, 2013) biennial harvest specifications and management measures. The 
ACL is a harvest specification set equal to or below the ABC. The 
Council recommends ACLs at a level that should achieve OY from the 
fishery, which is the amount of fish that will provide the greatest 
overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food 
production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the 
protection of marine ecosystems. The ACLs are based on consideration of 
conservation objectives, socio-economic concerns, management 
uncertainty, and other factors. All known sources of fishing and 
scientific research catch are counted against the ACL. Many stocks are 
further allocated into harvest guidelines (HGs) or annual catch targets 
(ACTs) for the purposes of dividing catch between different gear types 
and sectors or building in a precautionary approach to prevent catch 
from exceeding an ACL.
    This proposed rule includes harvest specifications for the two 
overfished stocks managed under the PCGFMP, yelloweye rockfish and 
cowcod. For the 2019-20 biennium, NMFS proposes changes to the 
yelloweye rockfish rebuilding plan, due to its improved

[[Page 47417]]

stock rebuilding outlook and changes to the needs of fishing 
communities, described under section C of this rule. This proposed rule 
would modify the harvest control rule for this stock and establish 
harvest specifications and management measures consistent with those 
revisions. The other overfished stock, cowcod, continues to have a 
positive rebuilding outlook, and no changes to its rebuilding plan are 
proposed. Therefore, this rule proposes to establish harvest 
specifications consistent with the existing rebuilding plan provisions 
for this stock. Since the 2017-18 biennium, three stocks have been 
declared rebuilt: Darkblotched rockfish, bocaccio rockfish (bocaccio), 
and Pacific ocean perch. The harvest control rules for these stocks 
revert back to those established prior to the stock being declared 
overfished.
    To keep mortality of the stocks managed under the PCGFMP within the 
ACLs, the Council also recommended management measures. Generally 
speaking, management measures are intended to rebuild overfished 
stocks, prevent catch from exceeding the ACLs, and allow for the 
harvest of healthy stocks. Management measures include time and area 
restrictions, gear restrictions, trip or bag limits, size limits, and 
other management tools. Management measures may vary by fishing sector 
because different fishing sectors require different types of management 
to control catch. Most of the management measures the Council 
recommended for 2019-20 were slight variations to existing management 
measures, and do not represent a change from current management 
practices. Additionally, the Council recommended several new management 
measures, including: Establishment of salmon bycatch mitigation 
measures, modifications to depth restrictions in the Western Cowcod 
Conservation Area (CCA), modification of discard mortality rates for 
IFQ lingcod and sablefish, removal of the Shorebased Individual Fishing 
Quota (IFQ) Program daily vessel limits, removal of the automatic 
authority on at-sea set-asides, continuation of the IFQ adaptive 
management pass through, and modification of the retention ratios for 
incidentally caught lingcod in the salmon troll fishery.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Specification and Management Measure Development Process
II. Harvest Specifications
    A. Proposed OFLs for 2019 and 2020
    B. Proposed ABCs for 2019 and 2020
    C. Proposed ACLs for 2019 and 2020
    D. Summary of ACL Changes From 2018 to 2019-20
III. Management Measures
    A. Deductions From the ACLs
    B. Stock Complex Composition Restructuring
    C. Biennial Fishery Allocations
    D. Tribal Fisheries
    E. Routine Modifications to the Boundaries Defining Rockfish 
Conservation Areas (RCAs)
    F. Limited Entry Trawl
    G. Limited Entry Fixed Gear and Open Access Nontrawl Fishery
    H. Recreational Fisheries
    I. Salmon Bycatch Mitigation Measures
    J. Modifications to Depth Restrictions Within the Western CCA
    K. Modification of Lingcod and Sablefish Discard Mortality Rates
    L. Removal of IFQ Daily Vessel Limits
    M. Removal of Automatic Authority for Darkblotched Rockfish and 
Pacific Ocean Perch Set-Asides for At-Sea Sector
    N. Continuation of Adaptive Management Pass Through
    O. Modification of the Incidental Lingcod Retention Ratio in the 
Salmon Troll Fishery
    P. Administrative Actions
IV. Classification

I. Background

    The PCGFMP requires the harvest specifications and management 
measures for groundfish to be set at least biennially. This proposed 
rule is based on the Council's final recommendations made at its June 
2018 meeting, as well as harvest specifications for some stocks adopted 
at the Council's April 2018 meeting.

A. Specification and Management Measure Development Process

    The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) conducted full stock 
assessments in 2017 for 9 of the 128 stocks \1\ included under the 
PCGFMP (Blue/deacon rockfish (CA, WA, OR), California scorpionfish, 
lingcod [north and south], Pacific ocean perch, yellowtail rockfish 
north of 40[deg]10' N lat., yelloweye rockfish). Additionally, the 
NWFSC conducted assessment updates that run new data through existing 
models for eight stocks (arrowtooth flounder, blackgill rockfish south 
of 40[deg]10' N lat., bocaccio S of 43[deg] N lat., darkblotched 
rockfish). The NWFSC did not update assessments for the remaining 
stocks, so harvest specifications for these stocks are based on 
assessments from previous years. The stock assessment reports are 
available on the Council website (https://www.pcouncil.org/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Stocks for which ACLs or ACL contributions to stock complex 
ACLs are calculated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Council's stock assessment review panel (STAR panel) reviews 
the stock assessments, including data moderate assessments, for 
technical merit, and to determine that each stock assessment document 
is sufficiently complete. Finally, the SSC reviews the stock assessment 
and STAR panel reports and makes recommendations to the Council.
    When spawning stock biomass (B) falls below the minimum stock size 
threshold (MSST), a stock is declared overfished, and the Council must 
develop a rebuilding plan that sets the strategy for rebuilding the 
stock to B<INF>MSY</INF> in the shortest time possible, while 
considering needs of fishing communities and other factors. The current 
MSST reference point for assessed flatfish stocks is 12.5 percent of 
initial biomass or B<INF>12.5</INF><not-eq>. For all other assessed 
groundfish stocks, the current MSST reference point is 25 percent of 
initial biomass or B<INF>25</INF><not-eq>. The following overfished 
groundfish stocks would continue be managed under rebuilding plans in 
2019-20: Cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat. and yelloweye rockfish.
    For overfished stocks, in addition to any stock assessments or 
stock assessment updates, the NWFSC may also prepare rebuilding 
analyses. The rebuilding analysis is used to project the future status 
of the overfished resource under a variety of alternative harvest 
strategies and to determine the probability of recovering to 
B<INF>MSY</INF> or its proxy within a specified timeframe.
    The Council considered new stock assessments, stock assessment 
updates, a rebuilding analysis for yelloweye rockfish, public comment, 
and advice from its advisory bodies over the course of six Council 
meetings during development of its recommendations for the 2019-20 
harvest specifications and management measures. At each Council meeting 
between June 2017 and June 2018, the Council made a series of decisions 
and recommendations that were, in some cases, refined after further 
analysis and discussion. Detailed information, including the supporting 
documentation the Council considered at each meeting is available at 
the Council's website, www.pcouncil.org.
    The 2019-20 biennial management cycle was the second cycle 
following PCGFMP Amendment 24 (80 FR 12567, March 10, 2015), which 
established default harvest control rules and included an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS described the ongoing implementation of 
the PCGFMP and default harvest control rules, along with ten-year 
projections for harvest specifications and a range of management 
measures. Under Amendment 24, the default harvest control rules used to 
determine the

[[Page 47418]]

previous biennium's harvest specifications (i.e., OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs) 
are applied automatically to the best scientific information available 
to determine the future biennium's harvest specifications. NMFS 
implements harvest specifications based on the default harvest control 
rules unless the Council makes a different recommendation. Therefore, 
this rule implements the default harvest control rules, consistent with 
Amendment 24, for most stocks, and discusses departures from the 
defaults. The Analysis identifies the preferred alternative harvest 
control rules, new management measures, and other decision points that 
were not described in the 2015 EIS and is posted on the NMFS WCR web 
page (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) along with this proposed rule.
    Information regarding the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs proposed for 
groundfish stocks and stock complexes in 2019-20 is presented below, 
followed by a discussion of the proposed management measures for 
commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries.

II. Harvest Specifications

    This proposed rule would set 2019-20 harvest specifications and 
management measures for all of the 128 groundfish stocks which have 
ACLs or ACL contributions to stock complexes managed under the PCGFMP, 
except for Pacific whiting. Pacific whiting harvest specifications are 
established annually through a separate bilateral process with Canada.
    The proposed OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs are based on the best available 
biological and socioeconomic data, including projected biomass trends, 
information on assumed distribution of stock biomass, and revised 
technical methods used to calculate stock biomass. The PCGFMP specifies 
a series of three categories to define OFLs and ABCs based on the level 
of reliable information available to fishery scientists. Category one 
represents the highest level of information quality available, while 
category three represents the lowest. Category one stocks are the 
relatively few stocks for which the NWFSC can conduct a ``data rich,'' 
quantitative stock assessment that incorporates catch-at-age, catch-at-
length, or other data. The SSC can generally calculate OFLs and 
overfished/rebuilding thresholds for these stocks, as well as ABCs, 
based on the uncertainty of the biomass estimated within an assessment 
or the variance in biomass estimates between assessments for all stocks 
in this category. The set of category two stocks includes a large 
number of stocks for which some biological indicators are available, 
yet status is based on a ``data-moderate'' quantitative assessment. The 
category three stocks include minor stocks which are caught, but for 
which there is, at best, only information on landed biomass. For stocks 
in this category, there is limited data available for the SSC to 
quantitatively determine MSY, OFL, or an overfished threshold. 
Typically, catch-based methods (e.g., depletion-based stock reduction 
analysis (DBSRA), depletion corrected average catch (DCAC), and average 
catches) are used to determine the OFL for category three stocks.

A. Proposed OFLs for 2019 and 2020

    The SSC derives OFLs for groundfish stocks with stock assessments 
by applying the harvest rate to the current estimated biomass. 
Fx<not-eq> harvest rates represent the rates of fishing mortality that 
will reduce the female spawning potential ratio (SPR) to X percent of 
its unfished level. As an example, a harvest rate of 
F<INF>40</INF><not-eq> is more aggressive than F<INF>45</INF><not-eq> 
or F<INF>50</INF><not-eq> harvest rates because F<INF>40</INF><not-eq> 
allows more fishing mortality on a stock (as it allows a harvest rate 
that would reduce the stock to 40 percent of its unfished level).
    For 2019-20, the Council maintained its policy of using a default 
harvest rate as a proxy for the fishing mortality rate that is expected 
to achieve the maximum sustainable yield (F<INF>MSY</INF>). A proxy is 
used because there is insufficient information for most Pacific Coast 
groundfish stocks to estimate stock-specific F<INF>MSY</INF> values. 
Taxon-specific proxy fishing mortality rates are used due to perceived 
differences in the productivity among different taxa of groundfish. A 
lower value is used for stocks with relatively high resilience to 
fishing while higher values are used for less resilient stocks with low 
productivity. In 2019-20, the Council proposed the following default 
harvest rate proxies, based on the SSC's recommendations: 
F<INF>30</INF><not-eq> for flatfish (meaning an SRP harvest rate that 
would reduce the stock to 30 percent of its unfished level), 
F<INF>40</INF><not-eq> for Pacific whiting, F<INF>50</INF><not-eq> for 
rockfish (including longspine and shortspine thornyheads), 
F<INF>50</INF><not-eq> for elasmobranchs, and F<INF>45</INF><not-eq> 
for other groundfish such as sablefish and lingcod. For unassessed 
stocks, the Council recommended using a historical catch-based approach 
(e.g., average catch, depletion-corrected average catch, or depletion-
based stock reduction analysis) to set the OFL.
    Stocks may be grouped into complexes for various reasons, 
including: When stocks in a multispecies fishery cannot be targeted 
independently of one another and MSY cannot be defined on a stock-by-
stock basis; when there is insufficient data to measure the stocks' 
status; or when it is not feasible for fishermen to distinguish 
individual stocks among their catch. Most groundfish stocks managed in 
a stock complex are data-poor stocks without full stock assessments. 
The proposed OFLs for stock complexes are the sum of the OFL 
contributions for the component stocks, when known. In the 2017-18 
harvest specifications, there were eight stock complexes used to manage 
groundfish stocks pursuant to the PCGFMP. These stock complexes were: 
(1) Minor Nearshore Rockfish north; (2) Minor Nearshore Rockfish south; 
(3) Minor Shelf Rockfish north; (4) Minor Shelf Rockfish south (5) 
Minor Slope Rockfish north; (6) Minor Slope Rockfish south; (7) Other 
Flatfish; and (8) Other Fish. This rule proposes the following changes 
to stock complexes: (1) Remove blue/deacon rockfish from the Minor 
Nearshore Rockfish north complex and group with Oregon black rockfish 
to create a new complex (Oregon black rockfish/blue rockfish/deacon 
rockfish); (2) remove Washington kelp greenling from the Other Fish 
complex and pair with Washington cabezon to create a new complex 
(Washington cabezon/kelp greenling); (3) remove Oregon kelp greenling 
from the Other Fish complex and pair with Oregon cabezon to create a 
new complex (Oregon cabezon/kelp greenling). This proposed rule, if 
approved, would increase the total of number of stock complexes from 
eight to eleven.
    A detailed description of the scientific basis for all of the SSC-
recommended OFLs proposed in this rule is included in the Stock 
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) document for 2018, available 
at the Council's website, www.pcouncil.org.

B. Proposed ABCs for 2019 and 2020

    The ABC is the stock or stock complex's OFL reduced by an amount 
associated with scientific uncertainty. The SSC-recommended P star-
sigma approach determines the amount by which the OFL is reduced to 
establish the ABC. Under this approach, the SSC recommends a sigma 
([sigma]) value. The [sigma] value is generally based on the scientific 
uncertainty in the biomass estimates generated from stock assessments. 
After the SSC determines the appropriate [sigma] value, the Council 
chooses a P star (P*) based on its chosen level of risk aversion 
considering the scientific uncertainties. A P* of 0.5 equates to no 
additional reduction for scientific

[[Page 47419]]

uncertainty beyond the sigma value reduction. The PCGFMP specifies that 
the upper limit of P* will be 0.45. In combination, the P* and [sigma] 
values determine the amount by which the OFL will be reduced to 
establish the SSC-endorsed ABC.
    The SSC quantified major sources of scientific uncertainty in the 
estimates of OFLs and generally recommended a [sigma] value of 0.36 for 
category one stocks, a [sigma] value of 0.72 for category two stocks, 
and a [sigma] value of 1.44 for category three stocks. For category two 
and three stocks, there is greater scientific uncertainty in the OFL 
estimate because the assessments for these stock assessments are 
informed by less data than the assessments for category one stocks. 
Therefore, the scientific uncertainty buffer is generally greater than 
that recommended for stocks with quantitative stock assessments. 
Assuming the same P* is applied, a larger [sigma] value results in a 
larger reduction from the OFL. For 2019-20, the Council continued the 
general policy of using the SSC-recommended [sigma] values for each 
stock category. However, the SSC made a few exceptions to the standard 
[sigma] values assigned to each category. For some stocks, the SSC did 
not deem the proxy [sigma] values the best scientific information 
available because the uncertainty in estimated spawning biomass is 
greater than the [sigma] used as a proxy for other stocks in that 
category. For 2019-20, the SSC calculated unique [sigma] values for 
five stocks. For kelp greenling off Oregon, a category 1 stock, the SSC 
calculated a [sigma] value of 0.44, which is more precautionary than 
the standard [sigma] value of 0.36 for this category of stocks. For 
aurora rockfish, also a category 1 stock, the SSC calculated a [sigma] 
value of 0.39. And for California scorpionfish, the SSC calculated a 
[sigma] value of 0.582. The SSC also calculated a [sigma] value of 
0.783 for California blue/deacon rockfish, and a [sigma] value of 0.803 
for Oregon blue/deacon rockfish, both category 2 stocks. These [sigma] 
values are higher than the standard [sigma] value of 0.72 for this 
category of stocks.
    For 2019-20, the Council maintained the P* policies it established 
for the previous biennium for most stocks. As was done in 2015-16 and 
2017-18, the Council recommended using P* values of 0.45 for all 
individually managed category one stock, except sablefish. Combining 
the category one [sigma] value of 0.36 with the P* value of 0.45 
results in a reduction of 4.4 percent from the OFL when deriving the 
ABC. For category two and three stocks, the Council's general policy 
was to use a P* of 0.4, with a few exceptions. The Council recommended 
a P* of 0.45 for all of the stocks managed in the Minor Rockfish 
complexes and the Other Fish complex, as was done in 2017-18. When 
combined with the [sigma] values of 0.72 and 1.44 for category two and 
three stocks, a P* value of 0.40 corresponds to 16.7 percent and 30.6 
percent reductions, respectively. The Council recommended using P* 
values of 0.40 for all individually managed category two and three 
stocks, except those described below. The Council recommended a P* of 
0.45 for big skate, black rockfish off Oregon, cowcod, English sole, 
and yellowtail rockfish south of 40[deg]10' N lat., as was done in 
2015-16 and 2017-18, because there was no new scientific information 
indicating a change in P* value was warranted.

C. Proposed ACLs for 2019 and 2020

    The Council recommends ACLs for each stock and stock complex that 
is ``in the fishery'', as defined in the PCGFMP. Under the PCGFMP, the 
biomass level that produces MSY, or B<INF>MSY</INF>, is defined as the 
precautionary threshold. When the biomass for an assessed category one 
or two stock falls below the precautionary threshold, the ACL is set 
below the ABC using a harvest rate reduction to help the stock return 
to the B<INF>MSY</INF> level, which is the management target for 
groundfish stocks. If a stock biomass is larger than B<INF>MSY</INF>, 
the ACL may be set equal to the ABC. Alternatively, even if a stock 
biomass is larger than B<INF>MSY,</INF> an ACL may be set below the ABC 
to address conservation objectives, socioeconomic concerns, management 
uncertainty, or other factors necessary to meet management objectives.
    Under PCGFMP Amendment 24, the Council set up default harvest 
control rules, which established default policies that would be applied 
to the best available scientific information to set ACLs each biennial 
cycle, unless the Council has reasons to diverge from that harvest 
control rule. A complete description of the default harvest control 
rules for setting ACLs is described in the proposed and final rule for 
the 2015-16 harvest specifications and management measures and PCGFMP 
Amendment 24 (80 FR 687, January 6, 2015; 80 FR 12567, March 10, 2015).
    Many groundfish stocks are managed with stock-specific harvest 
specifications. Often these stocks are category one or category two 
stocks and their stock status is known. The default harvest control 
rule for stocks with biomass estimates above MSY is to set the ACL 
equal to the ABC. The default harvest control rule for stocks with 
biomass estimates below MSY but above the overfished threshold is to 
set the ACL below the ABC using a standard reduction on the harvest 
rate, which is described in the proposed and final rules for the 2015-
16 biennium (80 FR 687, January 6, 2015; 80 FR 12567, March 10, 2015). 
The PCGFMP defines the 40-10 harvest control rule for stocks with a 
B<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of B<INF>40</INF><not-eq> that are in the 
precautionary zone as the standard reduction. The analogous harvest 
control rule with the standard reduction for assessed flatfish stocks 
is the 25-5 harvest control rule. Both ACL harvest control rules are 
applied after the ABC deduction is made. The further the stock biomass 
is below the precautionary threshold, the greater the reduction in ACL 
relative to the ABC, until at B<INF>10</INF><not-eq> for a stock with a 
B<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of B<INF>40</INF><not-eq>, or 
B<INF>5</INF><not-eq> for a stock with a B<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of 
B<INF>25</INF><not-eq>, the ACL would be set at zero. These harvest 
policies foster a quicker return to the B<INF>MSY</INF> level and serve 
as an interim rebuilding policy for stocks that are below the MSST.
    All of the ACLs for stock complexes are less than or equal to the 
summed ABC contributions of each component stock in each complex. 
Default harvest control rules are based on stock status. Thus, when the 
Council revises the stock composition of a stock complex, the default 
harvest control rule may adjust based on status of the stocks that 
remain in the complex.
    Under the PCGFMP, the Council may recommend setting the ACL at a 
different level than what the default harvest control rules specify as 
long as the ACL does not exceed the ABC and complies with the 
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. For many of the stocks or 
stock complexes in the fishery, the Council chose to maintain the 
default harvest control rules from the previous biennial cycle. Table 1 
presents a summary table of the proposed changes to ACL policies for 
certain stocks for 2019-20.

[[Page 47420]]



                         Table 1--Proposed Changes to Harvest Control Rules for 2019-20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Stock                            Alternative                Harvest control rule        ACL \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Scorpionfish S of 34[deg]27' N  Current............................  150 mt constant catch             150 mt
 lat.                              Proposed change....................   ACL.                             313 mt
                                                                        ACL = ABC (P* = 0.45)...
Lingcod N of 40[deg]10' N lat....  Current............................  ACL = ABC (P* = 0.45 in         3,110 mt
                                                                         OR & WA; P* = 0.4 in
                                                                         CA) w/40-10 adj. for
                                                                         the CA contribution to
                                                                         the ABC and ACL Assumes
                                                                         1,000 mt and 750 mt
                                                                         removals for 2017 and
                                                                         2018 in the north and
                                                                         south, respectively and
                                                                         full ACL attainment
                                                                         thereafter.
                                   Proposed change....................  ACL = ABC (P* = 0.45) w/        4,871 mt
                                                                         40-10 adj. for the CA
                                                                         contribution to the ABC
                                                                         and ACL Assumes 40% and
                                                                         75% ACL attainment for
                                                                         2017 and 2018 in the
                                                                         north and south,
                                                                         respectively and full
                                                                         ACL attainment
                                                                         thereafter.
Lingcod S of 40[deg]10' N lat....  Current............................  ACL = ABC (P* = 0.4) w/         1,144 mt
                                                                         40-10 adj. Assumes
                                                                         1,000 mt and 750 mt
                                                                         removals for 2017 and
                                                                         2018 in the north and
                                                                         south, respectively and
                                                                         full ACL attainment
                                                                         thereafter.
                                   Proposed change....................  ACL = ABC (P* = 0.45) w/        1,039 mt
                                                                         40-10 adj. Assumes 40%
                                                                         and 75% ACL attainment
                                                                         for 2017 and 2018 in
                                                                         the north and south,
                                                                         respectively and full
                                                                         ACL attainment
                                                                         thereafter.
Yelloweye Rockfish...............  Current............................  ABC (P* = 0.4), ACL (SPR           20 mt
                                   Proposed change....................   = 76.0%); TTARGET =               48 mt
                                                                         2027.
                                                                        ABC (P* = 0.4), ACL (SPR
                                                                         = 65.0%); TTARGET =
                                                                         2029.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Current ACL is for 2018, Proposed change ACL is for 2019.

    The following sections discuss proposed ACLs for the stocks for 
which the Council's recommended ACLs depart from the existing default 
harvest control rule.
California Scorpionfish
    For the 2017-18 biennium, the default harvest control rule set the 
ACL for California scorpionfish at a constant value of 150 mt rather 
than on a rate-based value. The NWFSC conducted a new assessment of 
California scorpionfish south of 34[deg]27' N lat. in 2017. The 
assessment indicated the stock was healthy at a 54 percent depletion at 
the start of 2017. The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing an 
alternative harvest control rule for California scorpionfish. The 
revised harvest control rule would set the ACL equal to the ABC using a 
P* value of 0.45, consistent with other category one stocks. The 
resulting 2019-20 ACLs would more than double compared to the 2018 ACL 
under this new harvest control rule. The stock is projected to remain 
healthy (i.e., greater than 40 percent depletion) for the next ten 
years under the proposed alternative harvest control rule.
Lingcod
    The NWFSC conducted two assessments for lingcod in 2017--one each 
for the areas north and south of the California/Oregon border at 
42[deg] N lat. Current spawning stock biomass is estimated to be 57.9 
percent in the northern assessment area relative to unfished spawning 
biomass, and has continued to increase over the last five years as a 
result of high recruitment in 2008 and 2013. Current spawning stock 
biomass is estimated to be 32.1 percent in the southern assessment area 
relative to unfished spawning biomass. Although spawning biomass in the 
southern assessment area is estimated to have been increasing in recent 
years, recruitment is estimated to have been well below average over 
the last 10 to 15 years, which suggests that stock biomass is not 
increasing for the southern portion of the stock at the same rate as 
for the northern portion of the stock. The SSC endorsed the 2017 north 
and south lingcod stock assessments as the best scientific information 
available for status determination and management, and designated both 
portions of the stock as category one. The stocks had been previously 
managed as category two stocks. The current harvest control rule sets 
the ACL equal to the ABC for the portion of the northern stock off 
Oregon, but applies the 40-10 precautionary reduction to the portion of 
the northern stock off California (i.e., between 42[deg] and 40[deg]10' 
N lat.), and to the whole of the southern stock using the most recent 
5-year (2012-2016) average percentage of swept area biomass estimates.
    This proposed rule would change the P* value from 0.4 to 0.45 for 
both portions of the stock, reflecting greater confidence in the 
current stock assessments. The resulting 2019 and 2020 ACLs for the 
northern portion of the stock would increase by approximately 64 
percent and 68 percent, respectively, compared to the 2018 ACL under 
this new harvest control rule. The resulting 2019 and 2020 ACL under 
this new harvest control rule for the southern portion of the stock 
would decrease by approximately 9 percent and 24 percent, respectively, 
compared to the 2018 ACL. This proposed action is expected to allow 
moderate growth of the stock under an average recruitment assumption in 
the next ten years.
Overfished Stocks and Changes to Rebuilding Plans
    When a stock has been declared overfished, the Council must develop 
and manage the stock in accordance with a rebuilding plan. For 
overfished stocks in the PCGFMP, this means that the harvest control 
rule for overfished stocks sets the ACL based on the rebuilding plan. 
The proposed rules for the 2011-12 (75 FR 67810, November 3, 2010) and 
2013-14 (77 FR 67974, November 14, 2012) harvest specifications and 
management measures contain extensive discussions on the management 
approach used for overfished stocks, which are not repeated here. In 
addition, the SAFE document posted on the Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/safe-documents/ contains a detailed 
description of each overfished stock, its status and management, as 
well as the SSC's approach for rebuilding analyses. This document 
discusses several previously overfished stocks that have rebuilt since 
the last biennium, as well as provisions for the two remaining 
overfished stocks in the PCGFMP, namely cowcod south of 40[deg]10' N 
lat. and yelloweye rockfish. The Council proposed cowcod ACLs for 2019 
and 2020 based on the current cowcod rebuilding plan, so additional 
details are not repeated here. Appendix F to the PCGFMP contains the 
most recent rebuilding plan parameters, as well as a history of each 
overfished stock, and can be found at http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/fisherymanagement-plan/.

[[Page 47421]]

Stocks Rebuilt Since Last Biennium
    When a stock is determined to be rebuilt, its harvest control rule 
automatically reverts back to the default harvest control rule for the 
next biennium. For the 2019-20 biennium, three stocks were declared 
rebuilt: Bocaccio, Pacific ocean perch, and darkblotched rockfish. In 
addition to the harvest control rules for these stocks reverting back 
to the defaults for the 2019-20 biennium, other requirements for 
overfished stocks are removed. One such change is that these stocks 
would no longer be listed under the priority stock observer reporting 
requirements at Sec.  660.140(h)(1)(i)(3). This proposed change is 
described further under the heading, P. Administrative Actions, in this 
preamble.
Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes Ruberrimus)
    Yelloweye rockfish was declared overfished in 2002. The Council 
adopted a rebuilding plan for the stock in 2004, and revised the 
rebuilding plan in 2011 under Amendment 16-4 to the PCGFMP. The current 
rebuilding plan parameters include an SPR harvest rate of 76 percent 
and a median target time for rebuilding (T<INF>TARGET</INF>) of 2074 
(the year for which there is a 50 percent probability that the stock is 
rebuilt). The NWFSC conducted a new stock assessment for yelloweye 
rockfish in 2017, and the SSC conducted a rebuilding analysis using the 
updated assessment. The rebuilding analysis includes a recalculation of 
rebuilding parameters that inform the Council's decision-making 
process. According to the rebuilding analysis, should the Council 
decide to revise the existing rebuilding plan, the new minimum time to 
rebuild (T<INF>MIN</INF>; the time to rebuild if there was no fishing) 
would be 2026 and T<INF>TARGET</INF> would be changed from 2074 (in the 
2011 assessment) to 2027 (in the 2017 assessment). Under the current 
harvest control rule, the ACL for yelloweye would increase to 29 mt and 
30 mt in 2019 and 2020, respectively, an increase from 20 mt in 2018. 
This improvement in stock status outlook is due to several factors, 
including: Lower than expected catches of yelloweye rockfish in recent 
years; a more optimistic value on stock recruit steepness, which 
corresponds to a more productive stock; and strong year classes 
entering the spawning population in recent years.
    As a result of the improvement in stock outlook, the Council 
recommended, and NMFS is proposing, changing the SPR harvest rate for 
yelloweye rockfish to 65 percent and changing the T<INF>TARGET</INF> to 
2029. This change in the rebuilding plan would allow an ACL for 
yelloweye rockfish of 48 mt in 2019 and 49 mt in 2020. Within the ACL, 
for 2019, the Council recommended a fishery harvest guideline (HG) of 
42.1 mt, of which 3.4 mt is the trawl HG and 38.6 mt is the nontrawl 
HG. For 2020, NMFS proposes a fishery HG of 42.1 mt, of which 3.4 is 
the trawl HG and 39.5 is the nontrawl HG. For more discussion of the 
use of HGs, see section II (Harvest Specifications), C, entitled ``C. 
Biennial Fishery Allocations'' in this preamble.
    Additionally, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, to 
establish Annual Catch Targets (ACTs) within the nontrawl allocation 
HG. The nontrawl sector includes the limited entry fixed gear and open 
access fixed gear fisheries as well as the recreational fisheries for 
Washington, Oregon, and California. The nearshore fisheries occur off 
of Oregon and California and are subject to both Federal and state HGs 
as well as other state-specific management measures. The non-nearshore 
fisheries include the limited entry and federal open access fixed gear 
fleets. Table 2 outlines the harvest specifications that were in place 
for yelloweye rockfish for 2018 for comparison purposes. Tables 3 and 4 
outline the proposed harvest specifications for 2019 and 2020 for 
yelloweye rockfish.

                           Table 2--2018 Harvest Specifications for Yelloweye Rockfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     OFL  (mt)       ABC  (mt)       ACL  (mt)       HG  (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All sectors.....................................              58              48              20              14
    Nontrawl....................................  ..............  ..............  ..............            12.9
        Non-Nearshore...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............             0.7
        Nearshore...............................  ..............  ..............  ..............             2.0
        Washington Recreational.................  ..............  ..............  ..............             3.3
        Oregon Recreational.....................  ..............  ..............  ..............               3
        California Recreational.................  ..............  ..............  ..............             3.9
    Trawl.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............             1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Table 3--2019 Harvest Specifications for Yelloweye Rockfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     OFL  (mt)       ABC  (mt)       ACL  (mt)       HG  (mt)        ACT  (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All sectors.....................              82              74              48              42  ..............
    Nontrawl....................  ..............  ..............  ..............            38.6  ..............
        Non-Nearshore...........  ..............  ..............  ..............             2.0             1.6
        Nearshore...............  ..............  ..............  ..............             6.0             4.7
        Washington Recreational.  ..............  ..............  ..............            10.0             7.8
        Oregon Recreational.....  ..............  ..............  ..............             8.9             7.0
        California Recreational.  ..............  ..............  ..............            11.6             9.1
    Trawl.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............             3.4  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Table 4--2020 Harvest Specifications for Yelloweye Rockfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     OFL  (mt)       ABC  (mt)       ACL  (mt)       HG  (mt)        ACT  (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All sectors.....................              84              77              49              43  ..............

[[Page 47422]]

 
    Nontrawl....................  ..............  ..............  ..............            39.5  ..............
        Non-Nearshore...........  ..............  ..............  ..............             2.1             1.7
        Nearshore...............  ..............  ..............  ..............             6.2             4.9
        Washington Recreational.  ..............  ..............  ..............            10.2             8.1
        Oregon Recreational.....  ..............  ..............  ..............             9.1             7.2
        California Recreational.  ..............  ..............  ..............            11.9             9.4
    Trawl.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............             3.4  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Council recommended using ACTs for the nontrawl sector as a 
precaution. As discussed in the Analysis, because yelloweye rockfish 
catch has been restricted for many years, it is difficult to project 
how encounter rates will change under the proposed higher catch limits 
and the associated suite of management measures that should allow for 
an overall expansion of groundfish fishery effort (see section 4.2.1.3 
of the Analysis). This precautionary approach to higher catch limits 
would allow more access to target fisheries for the nontrawl sector, 
while also managing for the uncertainty and volatility in catch of this 
overfished stock by this sector.
    The Analysis demonstrates how the proposed changes to the 
rebuilding plan select a T<INF>TARGET</INF> that is as short as 
possible, while giving consideration to the status and biology of the 
overfished species and the needs of the fishing communities, consistent 
with Section 303(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (see Appendix B of 
the Analysis). The Council indicated that a new default harvest control 
rule may more appropriately account for the needs of West Coast 
communities by providing greater opportunity in both commercial and 
recreational groundfish sectors and improving income stability for 
dependent communities.
    West Coast fishing communities depend on a portfolio of commercial 
and recreational fisheries to support year-round operations. Recent 
coastwide declines in commercial fisheries for Dungeness crab, salmon, 
sardines, tuna, pink shrimp, halibut, and other non-groundfish stocks 
due to changing environmental conditions and changes in management have 
created considerable instability for many communities. Additionally, 
many of these communities have experienced substantial declines in 
recreational fishing activity, notably for salmon and for tuna (see 
Section B.1.1. of Appendix B). Groundfish fishing activity has 
traditionally helped communities weather cyclical changes in abundance 
in other non-groundfish fisheries. However, the restrictions in catch 
of target groundfish stocks necessary to support rebuilding of 
overfished groundfish stocks over the past 15 years has limited both 
commercial and recreational groundfish fishing opportunities. The loss 
of groundfish fishing opportunities further affects fishing communities 
through loss of processor activity and loss of business for support 
services.
    The proposed change to the yelloweye rockfish rebuilding plan is 
intended to support continued yelloweye rebuilding progress while 
providing more stability for coastal communities through increased 
access to co-occurring target stocks. Yelloweye rockfish bycatch is 
rare and unpredictable, but can occur in sporadic ``lightning strikes'' 
of large magnitude. Because yelloweye rockfish catch is difficult to 
predict, the Council has constrained yelloweye rockfish catch below the 
ACL set in the current rebuilding plan by conservatively managing co-
occurring target stocks. This proposed rebuilding plan would increase 
the estimated T<INF>TARGET</INF> by two years, from 2027 to 2029, which 
is still within the required 10-year rebuilding timeframe specified in 
section 304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but which would more 
than double the yelloweye rockfish ACL in 2019 compared to 2018.
    The higher ACLs resulting from the revised rebuilding plan allow a 
suite of management measures that could expand groundfish fishing 
opportunities. For commercial trawl vessels, this proposed action would 
facilitate more trading of yelloweye rockfish allocation, which should 
allow for less risk-averse fishing strategies and as a result, an 
increase in attainment of underutilized stocks, including lingcod, 
chilipepper rockfish, and Pacific cod (see Section B.5.2.3 of Appendix 
B of the Analysis). For commercial fixed gear vessels, the yelloweye 
rockfish ACL increases could support future actions to consider 
reopening the nontrawl Rockfish Conservation Area or to consider 
increasing trip limits for target stocks such as lingcod (see Section 
B.5.2.2 of Appendix B of the Analysis). In addition, the proposed 
increases in the yelloweye rockfish ACL would allow for additional 
research opportunities to collect much-needed data to better inform 
stock assessments and management decisions (see Section B.1.3 of 
Appendix B of the Analysis).
    Recreational fishing opportunities would have the greatest 
potential for expansion from this proposed action. For the recreational 
sectors in communities off Washington, Oregon, and California, the 
proposed change to the rebuilding plan and higher ACLs would allow 
shorter periods of time with depth restrictions in place and access to 
deeper depths during seasons with depth restrictions. Allowing 
recreational fishermen to access additional fishing grounds should 
allow them to target a broader suite of stocks, such as yellowtail 
rockfish, lingcod, and chilipepper rockfish, while also reducing 
pressure on sensitive nearshore stocks such as black rockfish (see 
Section B.5.3 of Appendix B of the Analysis). This increase in 
recreational effort would especially benefit the communities of Neah 
Bay, WA; Winchester Bay, OR; and Fort Bragg, CA, which are highly 
dependent on recreational opportunities (see Section B.5 of Appendix B 
of the Analysis).

D. Summary of ACL Changes From 2018 to 2019-20

    Table 5 compares the ACLs for major stocks for 2018, 2019, and 
2020. Due to proposed changes in stock complex composition, not all 
stocks are shown below. Many stocks would have higher ACLs in 2019 and 
2020 than in 2018. The only stock that would have an ACL more than 10 
percent below the 2018 ACL is starry flounder. The change in stock 
abundance for starry flounder is largely driven by a change in the way 
the stock is assessed, which better accounts for the uncertainty in the 
stock status of this data poor stock. As a result, for 2019-20, starry 
flounder has a more precautionary OFL, ABC, and ACL. Overall attainment 
of starry flounder has been low in recent years, so this change is not 
expected to have

[[Page 47423]]

a substantial impact on the fleet (see Section A.3.4 of Appendix A of 
the Analysis).

                             Table 5--ACLs for Major Stocks for 2018, 2019, and 2020
                                       [Overfished stocks are capitalized]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Percent change
             Stock                    Area         2018 ACL (mt)   2019 ACL (mt)   2020 ACL (mt)   2018 to 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COWCOD........................  S of 40[deg]10'               10              10              10               0
                                 N lat.
YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH............  Coastwide.......              20              48              49             140
Arrowtooth Flounder...........  Coastwide.......          13,743          15,574          12,750              13
Big Skate.....................  Coastwide.......             494             494             494               0
Black Rockfish................  California (S of             332             329             326              -1
                                 42[deg] N lat.).
Black Rockfish................  Washington (N of             301             298             297              -1
                                 46[deg]16' N
                                 lat.).
Bocaccio a....................  S of 40[deg]10'              741           2,097           2,011             183
                                 N lat.
Cabezon.......................  California (S of             149             147             146              -1
                                 42[deg] N lat.).
California Scorpionfish.......  S of 34[deg]27'              150             313             307             108
                                 N lat.
Canary Rockfish...............  Coastwide.......           1,526           1,450           1,368              -5
Chilipepper Rockfish..........  S of 40[deg]10'            2,507           2,536           2,410               1
                                 N lat.
Darkblotched Rockfish a.......  Coastwide.......             653             765             815              17
Dover Sole....................  Coastwide.......          50,000          50,000          50,000               0
English Sole..................  Coastwide.......           7,537          10,090          10,135              34
Lingcod.......................  N of 40[deg]10'            3,110           4,871           4,541              57
                                 N lat.
Lingcod.......................  S of 40[deg]10'            1,144           1,039             869              -9
                                 N lat.
Longnose skate................  Coastwide.......           2,000           2,000           2,000               0
Longspine Thornyhead..........  N of 34[deg]27'            2,747           2,603           2,470              -5
                                 N lat.
Longspine Thornyhead..........  S of 34[deg]27'              867             822             780              -5
                                 N lat.
Pacific Cod...................  Coastwide.......           1,600           1,600           1,600               0
Pacific Ocean Perch a.........  N of 40[deg]10'              281           4,340           4,229            1444
                                 N lat.
Petrale Sole..................  Coastwide.......           3,013           2,908           2,845              -3
Sablefish.....................  N of 36[deg] N             5,475           5,606           5,723               2
                                 lat.
Sablefish.....................  S of 36[deg] N             1,944           1,990           2,032               2
                                 lat.
Shortbelly Rockfish...........  Coastwide.......             500             500             500               0
Shortspine Thornyhead.........  N of 34[deg]27'            1,698           1,683           1,669              -1
                                 N lat.
Shortspine Thornyhead.........  S of 34[deg]27'              898             890             883              -1
                                 N lat.
Spiny Dogfish.................  Coastwide.......           2,083           2,071           2,059              -1
Splitnose Rockfish............  S of 40[deg]10'            1,761           1,750           1,731              -1
                                 N lat.
Starry Flounder...............  Coastwide.......           1,282             452             452             -65
Widow Rockfish................  Coastwide.......          12,655          11,831          11,199              -7
Yellowtail Rockfish...........  N of 40[deg]10'            6,002           5,997           5,716               0
                                 N lat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Stock was declared rebuilt in 2017.

III. Management Measures

    This section describes biennial fishery harvest guidelines and set-
asides used to further allocate the ACLs to the various components on 
the fishery, routine management measures to control fishing, and new 
management measures proposed for 2019-20. Routine management measures 
for the commercial fishery modify fishing behavior during the fishing 
year to ensure that catch is constrained below the ACL, and include 
trip and cumulative landing limits, time/area closures, size limits, 
and gear restrictions. Routine management measures for the recreational 
fisheries include bag limits, size limits, gear restrictions, fish 
dressing requirements, and time/area closures. New management measures 
proposed for the 2019-20 biennial cycle would work in combination with 
current management measures to control fishing effort/activity.

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 set aside 
fish for certain types of activities. Off the top deductions account 
for four distinct sources of groundfish mortality: 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 proposed for individual stocks or stock 
complexes and can be found in the footnotes to Tables 1a and 2a to part 
660, subpart C.

B. Stock Complex Composition Restructuring

    The Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, modifications to 
the existing stock complexes used for harvest specifications and 
management that would create three new stock complexes. Changes in the 
composition of stock complexes do not affect the underlying harvest 
specifications because the stock complex ACL is simply the sum of the 
constituent stocks' specifications. The stocks in the proposed stock 
complex restructuring are predominately shallow water nearshore stocks 
that occur primarily within state waters. Nearly all the removals for 
these stocks are attributed to the recreational and commercial 
nearshore fisheries that are subject to joint state and Federal 
management.
    The first modification would remove Oregon blue/deacon rockfish 
(BDR) from the Nearshore Rockfish complex north of 40[deg]10' N 
latitude and pair it with Oregon black rockfish to form a new Oregon 
black/BDR complex. The second modification would remove Oregon and 
Washington kelp greenling and Washington cabezon from the Other Fish 
complex to form two new stock complexes: An Oregon Kelp Greenling/

[[Page 47424]]

Cabezon Complex and a Washington Kelp Greenling/Cabezon Complex. The 
objectives of the stock complex proposals are: (1) Better alignment of 
stocks per the complex goals and definitions as defined in the PCGFMP 
and National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act; (2) reduced 
management complexity; and 3) enhanced management flexibility (e.g., 
greater ability to take inseason actions). These proposed changes to 
stock complex composition better comply with the National Standard 1 
guidelines, which recommend stocks managed in a stock complex ``should 
have a similar geographic distribution, life history characteristics, 
and vulnerabilities to fishing pressure such that the impact of 
management actions on the stocks is similar.'' These complex proposals 
pertain primarily to the commercial nearshore and recreational 
fisheries, as these are shallow water stocks infrequently encountered 
by the trawl sectors or other fisheries.
Oregon Black/Blue/Deacon Rockfish Complex
    The Council recommended removing Oregon BDR rockfish from the 
Nearshore Rockfish complex north of 40[deg]10' N. latitude, and pairing 
it with Oregon black rockfish, which is currently managed individually, 
to form a new Oregon black/BDR complex. Note that blue and deacon 
rockfish are separate stocks, but they are referred to collectively 
since they were assessed together and therefore have joint harvest 
specifications. Blue/deacon rockfish are more frequently found in the 
middle of the water column, whereas the other stocks in the Nearshore 
Rockfish complex are more strongly associated with benthic habitats. 
Oregon black rockfish is an important target fishery, especially in the 
recreational sector. As detailed in Section C.3 of Appendix C of the 
Analysis, this proposed action would better align management of Oregon 
BDR rockfish with black rockfish, a stock that is also a midwater stock 
and often co-occurs with BDR rockfish. The proposed action would 
provide more targeted management of Oregon BDR rockfish by moving 
Oregon BDR from a larger stock complex to a much smaller one. However, 
this action could have the potential to provide less targeted 
management for black rockfish by moving it from individual management 
into a complex. The risk of less targeted management would be that 
catch could exceed the stock's ACL contribution while remaining under 
the overall complex ACL.
    As a measure to prevent negative effects on black rockfish as a 
result of moving it into a complex, the Council recommended and NMFS is 
proposing an HG for the stock at its ACL contribution level to the 
complex. For 2019, the HG would be 515.8 mt, and for 2020, 512.2 mt. 
Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.3.1.3 of the Analysis, Oregon 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) intends to implement mitigation 
measures to prevent any change in the risk of overfishing for Oregon 
black rockfish. These measures include establishing and managing catch 
against state harvest guidelines for the component stocks of the new 
BDR complex, shortening the state catch reporting time lag from one 
month to one week to allow for rapid state-level management response, 
and revising ODFW inseason catch projection methods to better monitor 
rapid periodic increases in recreational fishing effort. ODFW has also 
proposed action within its state regulations to reduce its aggregate 
state recreational bag limit from seven to five fish per day, which 
could slow the overall catch rate during the recreational season. 
Finally, NMFS's recent approval of longleader fishing gear for use in 
waters off Oregon (83 FR 13428; March 29, 2018) could shift some 
fishing effort away from black rockfish and towards underutilized 
midwater stocks, primarily widow and yellowtail rockfish. If this 
change to the stock complex structure is approved, these additional 
measures would ensure a level of management scrutiny for black rockfish 
similar to the level it would receive if it were managed individually.
Other Fish Complex
    The Other Fish complex originated as a compilation of stocks that 
did not match well with other complexes. Because the complex is 
composed of biologically dissimilar stocks (e.g., ratfish, skates, 
sharks, grenadier, greenling, cabezon, and codling), the grouping has 
not supported practical management of its component stocks. Over time, 
the Council has redesignated some stocks in the original complex as 
ecosystem components, or has removed some stocks from the complex for 
individual management (e.g., big skate, 82 FR 9634; February 7, 2017). 
This proposed action would remove three stocks from the Other Fish 
complex and incorporate them into two new complexes to allow for more 
accurate management of these stocks. This action would also require the 
addition of scientific sorting requirements for the limited entry 
trawl, limited entry fixed gear, and open access fixed gear. These 
sorting requirements would allow proper accounting of the catch of 
component stock in these new complexes separate from the Other Fish 
complex.
Oregon Kelp Greenling/Cabezon Complex
    This proposed action would remove Oregon kelp greenling from the 
Other Fish complex and pair it with Oregon cabezon, which is currently 
managed individually, to create the Oregon Kelp Greenling/Cabezon 
Complex. This proposed action was recommended because these stocks 
share a greater similarity to each other (e.g., both are solitary 
nearshore stocks that often co-occur) compared to the other stocks 
within the Other Fish complex. As a measure to prevent any increase in 
the risk of overfishing for cabezon as a result of moving it into a 
complex, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing a HG for the 
stock at its ACL contribution level to the complex. For 2019 and 2020, 
the HG would be 46.8 mt. The mitigation measures ODFW intends to 
implement for the Oregon black/BRD complex, described above, would 
similarly help prevent adverse effects on cabezon from moving from 
individual management into a stock complex.
Washington Kelp Greenling/Cabezon Complex
    This proposed action would remove Washington kelp greenling and 
Washington cabezon from the Other Fish complex to form a Washington 
Kelp Greenling/Cabezon Complex. In Washington, kelp greenling and 
cabezon are retained in recreational groundfish fisheries. They are 
nearshore stocks that are generally not targeted and often co-occur. As 
both of the stocks are currently managed within a larger complex, 
moving them to their own complex would provide more targeted 
management. As part of this proposed action, the Washington Department 
of Fish and Wildlife would be better able to implement inseason 
management actions for these stocks, if needed.

C. Biennial Fishery Allocations

    The Council recommends two-year trawl and nontrawl allocations 
during the biennial specifications process for all stocks without long-
term allocations or stocks where the long-term allocation is suspended 
because the stock is declared overfished. For all stocks, except 
sablefish north of 36[deg] N lat., the Council recommends allocations 
for the trawl and nontrawl sectors based on the fishery harvest 
guideline. The fishery harvest guideline is the tonnage that remains 
after subtracting the off-the-top deductions described in section III

[[Page 47425]]

(Management Measures), A, entitled ``Deductions from the ACLs,'' in 
this preamble. The two-year allocations and recreational harvest 
guidelines are designed to accommodate anticipated mortality in each 
sector as well as variability and uncertainty in those mortality 
estimates. Allocations described below are detailed in the harvest 
specification tables appended to 50 CFR part 660, subpart C in the 
regulatory text of this proposed rule.
Big Skate
    The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the allocations shown 
in Table 6 for big skate in 2019 and 2020. These allocations are 
anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of big skate, by 
sector, in 2019-20.

     Table 6--2019 and 2020 Trawl/Nontrawl Allocations of Big Skate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Allocation
                                            Percentage         (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nontrawl................................               5            22.6
Trawl...................................              95           429.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bocaccio
    Bocaccio was declared rebuilt since last biennium. The Council 
recommended and NMFS is proposing the allocations shown in Table 7 for 
bocaccio in 2019 and 2020. These allocations are anticipated to 
accommodate estimates of mortality of bocaccio, by sector, in 2019-20 
and address the stock's newly rebuilt status.

             Table 7--2019 and 2020 Allocations of Bocaccio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2019 HG  (mt)   2020 HG  (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl...................................           800.7           767.1
Non-nearshore...........................           382.0           366.0
Nearshore...............................             4.8             4.6
California recreational.................           863.4           827.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canary Rockfish
    The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the allocations in 
Table 8 for canary rockfish in 2019 and 2020. These allocations are 
anticipated to accommodate estimates of mortality of canary rockfish, 
by sector, in 2019-20, and maintain the same allocation scheme as in 
2018.

          Table 8--2019 and 2020 Allocations of Canary Rockfish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2019 HG  (mt)   2020 HG  (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shorebased IFQ Program..................           953.6           894.3
At-sea Sectors..........................              46              46
    Catcher/processor...................              16              16
    Mothership..........................              30              30
Non-nearshore...........................            43.8            41.2
Nearshore...............................            94.3            88.7
Washington recreational.................            47.1            44.3
Oregon recreational.....................            70.7            66.5
California recreational.................           127.3           119.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cowcod
    For 2019-20, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing setting 
a cowcod ACT at 6 mt, and having it function as a fishery harvest 
guideline similar to the ACT in the 2017-18 biennium; it is the amount 
that would be allocated across groundfish fisheries. Table 9 shows the 
trawl/nontrawl allocations for cowcod for 2019 and 2020. NMFS 
anticipates the proposed allocation structure will keep catch below the 
2019-20 cowcod ACT, and NMFS maintains the same allocation scheme as in 
2018.

       Table 9--2019 and 2020 Trawl/Nontrawl Allocations of Cowcod
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Allocation
                                            Percentage         (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nontrawl................................              36             2.2
Trawl...................................              64             3.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 47426]]

Longnose Skate
    The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the trawl/nontrawl 
allocations for longnose skate in Table 10. The allocation percentages 
reflect historical catch of longnose skate in the two sectors, and NMFS 
maintains the same allocation scheme that was in place for longnose 
skate in 2018.

  Table 10--2019 and 2020 Trawl/Nontrawl Allocations of Longnose Skate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Allocation
                                            Percentage         (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nontrawl................................              10           185.2
Trawl...................................              90         1,666.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minor Nearshore Rockfish
    Harvest specifications for Minor Nearshore Rockfish north of 
40[deg]10' N lat. are proposed to decrease from the 103.2 mt in 2017-18 
to 81 mt in 2019 and 92 mt in 2020 due to the proposed removal of 
Oregon black rockfish from the complex.
    The states intend to manage catch using state-specific harvest 
guidelines: 18.6 mt for Washington; 23.2 mt for Oregon, and 36.6 mt for 
California for 2019. For 2020, 18.3 mt for Washington; 23.0 mt for 
Oregon, and 37.9 mt for California. However, instead of implementing 
state specific harvest guidelines in Federal regulations, the state 
Council representatives from Oregon and Washington committed to 
heightened inseason communication regarding catches of stocks managed 
in the complex, relative to the harvest guidelines, consistent with the 
current state coordinated management. Under state management, landed 
component stocks within the Minor Nearshore Rockfish complex must be 
sorted by stock. Because the states may also take inseason action 
independent of NMFS, the proposed action is not anticipated to result 
in exceeding the complex ACL in 2019-20.
Minor Shelf Rockfish
    Allocations for Minor Shelf Rockfish are recommended by the Council 
and proposed by NMFS for each biennial cycle. The proposed allocations 
for 2019 and 2020 are shown in Table 12. This maintains the same 
allocation percentages as have been in place for the Minor Shelf 
Rockfish complexes since 2011.

       Table 12--Trawl/Nontrawl Allocations for Minor Shelf Rockfish North and South of 40[deg]10' N lat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Percentage        2019 HG         2020 HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Shelf Rockfish north of           Trawl...................            60.2           1,190         1,186.6
 40[deg]10' N lat.                      Nontrawl................            39.8           786.9           784.5
Minor Shelf Rockfish south of           Trawl...................            12.2           188.6           188.6
 40[deg]10' N lat.                      Nontrawl................            87.8         1,357.3         1,357.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minor Slope Rockfish
    Minor Slope Rockfish were allocated between the trawl and nontrawl 
fisheries in PCGFMP Amendment 21. This action applies those Amendment 
21 allocation percentages to the updated 2019-20 fishery harvest 
guidelines. Blackgill rockfish in California was assessed in 2011 and 
has continued to be managed within the Minor Slope Rockfish complex, 
but with a stock-specific HG south of 40[deg]10' N lat. beginning in 
2013. For 2019-20 the Council recommended a blackgill rockfish harvest 
guideline equal to the ABC contribution for the portion of the stock 
south of 40[deg]10' N lat.; this harvest guideline is 159 mt for 2019 
and 2020.

D. Tribal Fisheries

    Tribes implement management measures for Tribal fisheries both 
independently as sovereign governments and cooperatively with the 
management measures in the Federal regulations. The Tribes may adjust 
their Tribal fishery management measures inseason to stay within the 
Tribal harvest targets and estimated impacts to overfished stocks. The 
only change to Tribal harvest targets and management measures proposed 
for the 2019-20 biennium is an increase in the petrale sole harvest 
target from 220 mt to 290 mt.
    The Tribes proposed trip limit management in Tribal fisheries for 
2019-20 for several stocks, including several rockfish stocks and stock 
complexes. This rule proposes maintaining the same trip limits for 
Tribal fisheries as those in place in 2018. For rockfish stocks, Tribal 
regulations will continue to require full retention of all overfished 
rockfish stocks and marketable non-overfished rockfish stocks. The 
Tribes will continue to develop management measures, including depth, 
area, and time restrictions, in the directed Tribal Pacific halibut 
fishery in order to minimize incidental catch of yelloweye rockfish.

E. Routine Modifications to the Boundaries Defining Rockfish 
Conservation Areas

    Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) are large area closures intended 
to reduce the catch of a stock or stock complex by restricting fishing 
activity at specific depths. The boundaries for RCAs are defined by 
straight lines connecting a series of latitude and longitude 
coordinates that approximate depth contours. These sets of coordinates, 
or lines, are not gear or fishery specific, but can be used in 
combination to define an area. NMFS then implements fishing 
restrictions for a specific gear and/or fishery within each defined 
area.
    For the 2019-20 biennium, the Council recommended minor adjustments 
to the 75 fathom (fm) (137 m), 100 fm (183 m), 125 fm (229 m), and 150 
fm (274 m) depth contours off of California to more accurately refine 
the depth contours. These proposed modifications would adjust 
boundaries for RCAs around Santa Cruz Island, Spanish Canyon, Delgada 
Canyon, Cordell Bank, Point Ano Nuevo, San Miguel Island, and Anacapa 
Island.
    Additionally, this proposed rule would correct the coordinates for 
the 125 fm (229 m) depth contour recommended by the Council in June 
2017 around Usal Canyon and Noyo Canyon. The Council recommended

[[Page 47427]]

these modifications to fix errors that were discovered during a 
previous change to the RCA line from 150 fm (274 m) to 125 fm (229 m) 
as part of the 2017-18 harvest specifications and management measures 
(82 FR 9634; February 7, 2017). When NMFS implemented changes to the 
RCA line, it was determined that the latitude and longitude coordinates 
for several areas were crossed over between 125 and 150 fathoms. These 
proposed changes would provide access to canyons that were previously 
open when the 150 fm (274 m) line was in effect, and which were 
intended to be open after the previous changes to the RCA line.

F. Limited Entry Trawl

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 stocks except big skate, this rule proposes maintaining the same 
IFQ fishery trip limits for these stocks for the start of the 2019-20 
biennium as those in place in 2018. For big skate, the Council proposes 
reverting trip limits to those implemented at the start of the 2017-18 
biennium. Trip limits for the IFQ fishery can be found in Table 1 North 
and Table 1 South to part 660, subpart D in the regulatory text of this 
proposed rule. Changes to trip limits are considered a routine measure 
under Sec.  660.60(c), and may be implemented or adjusted, if 
determined necessary, through inseason action.

G. 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 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 
2019-20 biennium, changes to management measures include: changes to 
trip limits for sablefish, minor slope rockfish and darkblotched 
rockfish, canary rockfish, lingcod, shortspine rockfish, and longspine 
rockfish. Proposed 2019-20 trip limits for these changes are specified 
in Table 2 (North), Table 2 (South) to subpart E for LEFG and in Table 
3 (North) and Table 3 (South) to subpart F for OA in the regulatory 
text of this proposed rule.
Sablefish Trip Limits
    Sablefish are managed separately north and south of 36[deg] N lat. 
For the portion of the stock north of 36[deg] N lat., the Council 
recommended and NMFS is proposing raising the trip limits for the LEFG 
fleet from those in 2018 between 75 to 100 lb (34 to 45 kg) a week 
depending on the period of the year. For the OA fleet, the trip limits 
would be the same as in 2018. For the portion south of 36[deg] N lat., 
the Council recommended the limited entry and open access trip limits 
remain the same as those in 2018. The proposed sablefish trip limits 
for 2019-20 are shown in Table 13.

                       Table 13--Sablefish Trip Limits for Limited Entry and Open Access Sectors North and South of 36[deg] N Lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector                               Area             Jan-Feb           Mar-Apr           May-Jun          Jul-Aug          Sept-Oct         Nov-Dec
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited entry................  north of 36[deg]                             1,200 lb/week; not to exceed 3,600 lb bi-monthly.
                                N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               south of 36[deg]                                               2,000 lb/week.
                                N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Access..................  north of 36[deg]          300 lb daily, or one landing per week up to 1,000 lb, not to exceed 2,000 lb bi-monthly.
                                N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               south of 36[deg]           300 lb daily, or 1 landing per week up to 1,600 lb, not to exceed 3,200 lb bimonthly.
                                N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minor Slope Rockfish and Darkblotched Rockfish Trip Limits
    In the 2017-18 biennium, the trip limit for minor slope rockfish 
and darkblotched rockfish for the OA sector was linked to the landed 
weight of sablefish for the trip. The current trip limit for minor 
slope rockfish and darkblotched rockfish north of 40[deg]10' N lat. is 
no more than 25 percent of the landed weight of sablefish per trip, 
which corresponds to a maximum of 500 lb (227 kg) bi-monthly (25 
percent of the 2,000 lb (907 kg) bi-monthly limit of sablefish). This 
is an aggregate limit for all stocks combined. For 2019-20, the Council 
proposed and NMFS is recommending decoupling this limit from the landed 
weight of sablefish and instead creating a stand-alone trip limit for 
minor slope rockfish and darkblotched rockfish of 500 lb (227 kg) per 
month (all stocks combined). The new limit would be double the current 
limit. The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the new trip limit 
structure because it would be simpler for OA participants to abide by 
and would better allow them to retain more, and discard less, of their 
incidental catches.
Canary Rockfish Trip Limits
    The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing that canary rockfish 
retention would be permitted in the LEFG sector between 40[deg]10' N 
latitude and 34[deg]27' N latitude, with a trip limit of 300 pounds per 
two months. For the area south of 34[deg]27' N latitude, the trip limit 
would be the same, except for a closure during Period 2 (March-April). 
For OA, the structure would be similar, with a 150 lb (68 kg) per two 
months limit, and a closure during Period 2 (March-April) south of 
40[deg]10' N latitude. These proposed closures for the canary rockfish 
trip limits would align with the trip limit structure for the Minor 
Shelf Rockfish, Deeper Nearshore Rockfish, Shallow Nearshore Rockfish, 
California scorpionfish, and lingcod south of 40[deg]10' N lat. 
Establishing a canary rockfish bi-monthly trip limit that matches the 
Shelf Rockfish trip limit would provide a uniform approach for 
monitoring, management, and law enforcement. Table 14 shows the 
proposed trip limits for 2019 and 2020 for canary rockfish.

[[Page 47428]]



                                Table 14--Proposed Canary Rockfish Trip Limits for Limited Entry and Open Access Sectors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector                               Area             Jan-Feb           Mar-Apr           May-Jun          Jul-Aug          Sept-Oct         Nov-Dec
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited entry................  N of 40[deg]10'                                               300 lb/2 months.
                                N lat.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               40[deg]10' N                                                  300 lb/2 months.
                                lat.--34[deg]27
                                ' N lat.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               S of 34[deg]27'   300 lb/2 months.  CLOSED..........                            300 lb/2 months.
                                N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Access..................  N of 40[deg]10'                                               150 lb/2 months.
                                N lat.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               S of 40[deg]10'   50 lb/2 months..  CLOSED..........                            150 lb/2 months.
                                N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lingcod Trip Limits
    Lingcod is managed north and south of 40[deg]10[acute] N lat. The 
Council recommends OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, and HGs separately for each of 
these stocks. Historically, the Council has also recommended trip 
limits for LEFG and OA for each of these two stocks. For 2019-20, the 
Council proposed and NMFS is recommending two separate LEFG and OA trip 
limits for lingcod north of 40[deg]10[acute] N lat.: one set of trip 
limits for the area north of 42[deg] N lat., and one set of trip limits 
for the area between 42[deg] N lat. and 40[deg]10[acute] N lat. The new 
latitude break would allow more flexibility for alternative management 
strategies by state agencies to promote fishing opportunity while 
staying within state-specific yelloweye rockfish shares. In addition, 
this new latitude break aligns with the 42[deg] N lat. latitudinal 
break used in the stock assessment (see Section A.2.6 of Appendix A of 
the Analysis). This proposed rule would establish a trip limit for LEFG 
of 2,000 lb (907 kg) per 2 months for the area north of 42[deg] N lat. 
and a trip limit of 1,400 lb (635 kg) per 2 months for the area between 
42[deg] N lat. and 40[deg]10[acute] N lat. For OA, this rule would 
establish a trip limit of 900 lb (408 kg) per 2 months for the area 
north of 42[deg] N lat., and a trip limit of 600 lb (272 kg) per 2 
months for the area between 42[deg] N lat. and 40[deg]10[acute] N lat. 
Overall, the lingcod trip limits proposed for 2019-20 are higher than 
those in place in 2018, which is possible due to higher ACLs for co-
occurring yelloweye rockfish. Table 15 below shows proposed trip limits 
for lingcod north of 40[deg]10[acute] N lat.

                                            Table 15--Proposed Lingcod Trip Limits North of 40[deg]10' N Lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector                               Area             Jan-Feb           Mar-Apr           May-Jun          Jul-Aug          Sept-Oct         Nov-Dec
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited entry................  North of 42[deg]                                             2,000 lb/2 months.
                                N lat.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               42[deg] N Lat.                                               1,400 lb/2 months.
                                to
                                40[deg]10[acute
                                ] N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open access..................  N of 42[deg] N                                                 900 lb/month.
                                lat.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               42[deg] N Lat.                                                 600 lb/month.
                                to
                                40[deg]10[acute
                                ] N lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For lingcod south of 40[deg]10[acute] N lat., ACLs for the 2019-20 
biennium are lower compared to 2018. Therefore, this rule proposes 
reductions to lingcod trip limits for both LEFG and OA. Table 16 below 
shows proposed trip limits.

                                         Table 16--Proposed Lingcod Trip Limits South of 40[deg]10[acute] N Lat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector                               Area             Jan-Feb           Mar-Apr           May-Jun          Jul-Aug          Sept-Oct         Nov-Dec
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited entry................  200 lb/2 months.  CLOSED..........  800 lb/2 months.          1,200 lb/2 months          600 lb/........  300 lb/
                                                                                                                        month..........  month.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Access..................  300 lb/month....  CLOSED..........                                      300 lb/month.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shortspine and Longspine Rockfish Trip Limits
    Retention of shortspine and longspine thornyheads is currently 
prohibited year-round for the OA sector north of 34[deg]27[acute] N 
lat. This proposed rule would provide a 50 lb (23 kg) per month trip 
limit for shortspine and longspine thornyheads north of 
40[deg]10[acute] N lat. only. Retention would continue to be prohibited 
for OA from 40[deg]10[acute] N lat. to 34[deg]27[acute] N lat. The 
Council recommended and NMFS is proposing this trip limit based on an 
industry recommendation to allow retention of incidental catches. The 
current retention prohibition is likely a holdover from when there were 
separate LEFG and OA allocations of thornyheads under the nontrawl 
allocation. OA attainment of longspine and shortspine thornyheads north 
of 34[deg]27[acute] N latitude would be expected to remain low under 
this proposed rule, as they continue to be an incidental catch rather 
than a targeted stock.
Primary Sablefish Tier Limits
    Some limited entry fixed gear permits are endorsed to receive 
annual sablefish quota, or tier limits. Vessels registered

[[Page 47429]]

with one, two, or up to three of these permits may participate in the 
primary sablefish fishery. The proposed tier limits are as follows: in 
2019, Tier 1 at 47,637 lb (21,608 kg), Tier 2 at 21,653 lb (9,822 kg), 
and Tier 3 at 12,373 lb (5,612 kg). In 2020 and beyond, the following 
annual limits are in effect: Tier 1 at 48,642 lb (22,064 kg), Tier 2 at 
22,110 lb (10,029 kg), and Tier 3 at 12,634 lb (5,731 kg).

H. Recreational Fisheries

    This section describes the recreational fisheries management 
measures proposed for 2019-20. The Council primarily recommends depth 
restrictions and groundfish conservation areas (GCAs) to constrain 
catch within the recreational harvest guidelines for each stock. Most 
of the changes to recreational management measures are modifications to 
existing measures.
    Washington, Oregon, and California each proposed, and the Council 
recommended, different combinations of seasons, bag limits, area 
closures, and size limits for stocks targeted in recreational 
fisheries. These measures are designed to limit catch of overfished 
stocks found in the waters adjacent to each state while allowing target 
fishing opportunities in their particular recreational fisheries. The 
following sections describe the recreational management measures 
proposed in each state.
Washington
    The state of Washington manages its marine fisheries in four areas: 
Marine Area 1 extends from the Oregon/Washington border to Leadbetter 
Point; Marine Area 2 extends from Leadbetter Point to the mouth of the 
Queets Rivers; Marine Area 3 extends from the Queets River to Cape 
Alava; and Marine Area 4 extends from Cape Alava to the Sekiu River. 
This proposed rule would align the lingcod season in Marine Area 4 with 
the recreational groundfish season and the lingcod season in Marine 
Areas 1-3. This adjustment would allow for an additional month of 
fishing in Marine Area 4 compared to 2018. Additionally, the proposed 
rule would allow retention of yellowtail and widow rockfish seaward of 
20 fm (37 m) in July and August in Marine Areas 3 and 4. The aggregate 
groundfish bag limits off Washington would continue to be nine fish in 
all areas. However, the sub-bag limit for canary rockfish, previously 2 
fish in all marine areas, would be removed, and the cabezon sub-bag 
limit would be changed from two fish per day to one fish for all marine 
areas. Additionally, this rule proposes removing the 18-in (45.7-cm) 
minimum size limit for cabezon in Marine Area 4. The Council 
recommended these changes, which allow more access to target stocks 
with fewer restrictions, supported by the proposed increases to the 
yelloweye rockfish ACL described in Section C of this rule.
    Consistent with the 2017-18 biennium, the Council proposed 
continuing 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, the South Coast Recreational YRCA, and the Westport 
Offshore YRCA. Coordinates for YRCAs are defined at Sec.  660.70.
Oregon
    The Council proposed that Oregon recreational fisheries in 2019-20 
would operate under the same season structures and GCAs as provided for 
2017-18. This rule also proposes to allow all-depth fishing in April, 
May, and September. The Council's proposed expansions to fishing-depth 
access during these months is supported by the proposed increased 
yelloweye rockfish ACL, described in section II (Harvest 
Specifications) C, entitled, ``Proposed ACLs for 2019 and 2020,'' of 
this preamble. The Council proposed maintaining the 2017-18 aggregate 
bag limits and size limits in Oregon recreational fisheries. The 
proposed limits are: three lingcod per day, with a minimum size of 22 
in (56 cm); 25 flatfish per day, excluding Pacific halibut; and a 
marine fish aggregate bag limit of 10 fish per day, where cabezon have 
a minimum size of 16 in (41 cm).
California
    The Council manages recreational fisheries off of California in 
five separate management areas. Season and area closures differ between 
California management areas to limit incidental catch of overfished 
stocks while providing as much recreational fishing opportunity as 
possible. The Council's proposed California season structure includes 
additional time and depth opportunities, which are supported by the 
proposed increase to the yelloweye rockfish ACL described in Section C. 
Table 17 shows the proposed season structure and depth limits by 
management area for 2019 and 2020.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.000

    The Council recommended that size, bag, and sub-bag limits would 
remain the same as for 2018 for all stocks except for lingcod. To keep 
within allowable limits, the lingcod bag limit would be split into 
separate limits for north (42[deg] N lat. (California/Oregon border) to 
40[deg]10' N lat. (Northern Management Area)) and south (40[deg]10' N 
lat. to the U.S. border with Mexico (Mendocino Management Area, San 
Francisco Management Area, Central Management Area, and Southern 
Management Area)). The Council proposed maintaining the limit in the 
north area at 2 lingcod per day, but recommended reducing the limit in 
the south area to 1 lingcod per day (down from 2 in 2018). 
Additionally, this rule proposes to allow year-round retention of 
California scorpionfish in all management areas, which is supported by 
the proposed increase in the ACL for this stock in 2019-20 described in 
section II (Harvest Specifications), C, entitled ``Proposed ACLs for 
2019 and 2020,'' in this preamble.

[[Page 47430]]

I. Salmon Bycatch Mitigation Measures

    In December 2017, NMFS completed an Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
consultation on the continued implementation of the PCGFMP and 
published a Biological Opinion (available at http://www.pcouncil.org). 
As part of its proposed action for the consultation, the Council 
estimated Chinook and coho catch in the whiting and non-whiting 
groundfish fisheries. The Council estimated that the whiting sector 
(including tribal and non-tribal vessels in the mothership, catcher/
processor (C/P), and Shoreside whiting fleets) would take 11,000 
Chinook salmon and 474 coho salmon, and the non-whiting sector 
(including tribal and non-tribal vessels in the Shoreside trawl, fixed 
gear, and recreational fleets) would take 5,500 Chinook salmon and 560 
coho salmon.
    Additionally, the Council included in its proposed action a reserve 
amount of Chinook, 3,500 fish, in the event that bycatch increases 
unexpectedly. The reserve is a safeguard against catch exceeding the 
total Chinook take estimate, which is an immediate trigger for 
reinitiation under section 7 of the ESA. Either the whiting or non-
whiting sector, or both sectors, may access the reserve in a given 
year, but the reserve is limited to 3,500 Chinook total. Access to the 
reserve is not guaranteed for either sector. Accessing the reserve in 
three out of any five consecutive years will also trigger reinitiation 
of the ESA consultation.
    The incidental take statement (ITS) includes six reasonable and 
prudent measures (RPMs) that require the Council and NMFS to take 
certain actions to minimize take of endangered and threatened Chinook 
and coho salmon in Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries. These RPMs are 
non-discretionary, and were developed based on the Biological Opinion's 
analysis of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery's interactions with 
salmon. The ITS provides terms and conditions (T&C) under each RPM that 
are also non-discretionary, and are required to implement each specific 
RPM. Actions performed in compliance with the terms and conditions of 
the ITS are not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA.
    The Biological Opinion required that specific T&Cs from the ITS 
must be considered within the 2019-20 biennial harvest specifications 
and management measures process. These include: (1) Review existing 
mechanisms in the PCGFMP and regulations for avoiding and reducing 
salmon bycatch to determine if these measures are adequate to allow for 
timely inseason management to keep the sectors from exceeding their 
bycatch guidelines (T&C 2.a); (2) develop and implement initial 
regulations governing the reserve of 3,500 Chinook salmon (T&C 3.a); 
and (3) develop automatic closure mechanisms if sectors exceed their 
bycatch guideline and/or the reserve (T&C 3.c).
    At its March 2018 meeting, the Council's Groundfish Management Team 
(GMT) reviewed current monitoring provisions in the PCGFMP, existing 
mitigation measures, and historical industry bycatch avoidance tactics 
(see Section C.2 of Appendix C of the Analysis). Additionally, the GMT 
investigated salmon bycatch data by area, depth, and time for the 
whiting and non-whiting midwater trawl sectors to determine if depth 
restrictions would be effective for reducing salmon bycatch (see 
Section C.3 of Appendix C of the Analysis). As a result of that review, 
the Council recommended modifications to existing depth-based 
management tools for salmon bycatch mitigation and the creation of new 
depth-based management tools to meet T&C 2.a. The Council proposed: (1) 
Eliminating the Ocean Salmon Conservation Zone (OSCZ); (2) adding a new 
bycatch reduction area (BRA) at the 200 fm (366 m) depth contour for 
vessels using midwater trawl gear; (3) prohibiting the use of midwater 
trawls and require the use of selective flatfish trawls for any bottom 
trawl vessels in the Columbia River Salmon Conservation Zone (CRSCZ) 
and the Klamath River Salmon Conservation Zone (KRSCZ); and (4) 
implementing automatic closure mechanisms for the Chinook salmon 
bycatch guidelines and reserve. The Council and NMFS will continue to 
implement other terms and conditions in future rulemakings.
    The proposed salmon bycatch mitigation measures would protect ESA-
listed salmon species, and help maintain bycatch below the bycatch 
guideline limits described in the proposed action of the Biological 
Opinion. Three of the four proposed measures would benefit salmon by 
managing bycatch in the groundfish fisheries. The Council proposed 
removing the OSCZ because the Analysis suggested that this existing 
provision is ineffective for reducing salmon bycatch.
Ocean Salmon Conservation Zone
    The OSCZ consists of all waters shoreward of a boundary line 
approximating the 100 fm (183 m) depth contour. When NMFS projects that 
the Pacific whiting fishery (tribal and non-tribal) may take in excess 
of 11,000 Chinook salmon within a calendar year, NMFS implements a 
coastwide closure in the OSCZ for all sectors (Pacific whiting IFQ 
fishery, the catcher/processor (C/P) sector, and the mothership sector) 
through automatic action. The OSCZ was first implemented as an 
emergency rule, effective from August 26, 2005, to February 27, 2006 
(70 FR 51682; August 31, 2005) as a means to reduce Chinook salmon 
bycatch rates in nearshore areas. NMFS later permanently added the OSCZ 
as mechanism to limit Chinook salmon interactions in the whiting 
fishery during periods of high bycatch (71 FR 78657; December 29, 
2006). NMFS has used this depth-based management tool only once since 
implementation. On October 20, 2014, NMFS closed the OSCZ to Pacific 
whiting vessels after determining the Pacific whiting fishery took over 
11,000 Chinook salmon.
    The GMT concluded through its review that the OSCZ provision is not 
an effective tool for salmon bycatch mitigation. Catch data from 2004 
to 2017 demonstrates that, even in high bycatch years, Chinook salmon 
catch in the Pacific whiting fishery is not likely to reach the 11,000 
fish threshold until the fall, around October. The C/P sector and the 
mothership sector have not fished in the depths within the OSCZ after 
October since 2011, and the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery has had minimal 
activity within the depths of the OCSZ after the fall (see section 
C.1.4 of Appendix C of the Analysis). Therefore, by the time the OSCZ 
would be triggered by Chinook bycatch in the groundfish fishery, none 
of the sectors would be fishing in the area that would be closed. For 
these reasons, NMFS proposes to remove the OCSZ provision from the 
regulations. Because this provision has limited utility as a bycatch 
management tool, NMFS does not expect any discernable effects from 
removing this provision from the regulations.
Bycatch Reduction Areas (BRAs)
    BRAs are depth-based management provisions used to close waters 
shallower than a specified depth contour to fishing in order to 
minimize impacts to groundfish or any prohibited or protected species, 
such as salmon. Under current regulations, NMFS, in consultation with 
the Council and through the routine management process, can implement 
BRAs to close areas shoreward of the 75-, 100-, and 150-fm (137-, 183-, 
and 274-m) depth contours for a specific sector (i.e., C/P, mothership, 
whiting IFQ, and Shoreside IFQ Program non-whiting midwater).

[[Page 47431]]

BRAs are also available through automatic action if a whiting sector is 
projected to reach or exceed a sector-specific groundfish allocation 
prior to attaining the whiting allocation. However, the 75-, 100-, and 
150-fm (137-, 183-, and 274-m) BRAs are not currently available for 
salmon bycatch mitigation for any of the sectors and are not proposed 
to be modified through this action.
    The Council recommended adding the 200-fm (366-m) depth contour as 
a BRA available for implementation through routine inseason action to 
mitigate salmon bycatch in any of the groundfish midwater trawl 
sectors. The groundfish midwater trawl sectors subject to this area 
closure would be the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, the C/P sector, and 
the mothership sector, as well as the non-whiting midwater trawl 
sector, which primarily targets widow rockfish and yellowtail rockfish. 
If the Council and NMFS implemented the 200-fm (366-m) BRA during a 
fishing season, vessels using midwater trawl gear to target either 
whiting or non-whiting groundfish would be excluded from waters 
shoreward of the 200-fm (366-m) depth contour, but would still be 
allowed to fish in waters seaward of 200-fm (366-m). This action would 
only apply to non-tribal midwater trawl vessels. NMFS expects that the 
Tribes would implement area management measures to mitigate salmon 
bycatch, if necessary.
    The Council and NMFS monitor the salmon bycatch rates of the fleet 
inseason. If any sector's bycatch rates exceed those considered in the 
Biological Opinion, the Council and NMFS could take inseason action to 
implement the BRA for any of the midwater trawl sectors. The effects of 
this proposed action would depend on these sectors' ability to fish in 
areas deeper than 200 fm (366 m). Section C.1.4 of Appendix C of the 
Analysis contains a description of the recent catch data by depth. The 
shoreside whiting trawl sector, and especially the non-whiting midwater 
trawl sector, would likely have limited or no ability to fish seaward 
of 200 fm (366 m) due to horsepower restrictions and because the catch 
targets (canary rockfish, widow rockfish, yellowtail rockfish) are 
primarily found in shallower depths. The sectors that would be unable 
to effectively operate if the proposed BRA were put into place would 
experience negative economic effects from this action. The level of 
economic impacts would depend on when the BRA was implemented. The non-
whiting midwater trawl fishery typically lands a significant portion of 
its catch later in the year. Thus, if NMFS were to implement a BRA 
after October, a prohibition on fishing shoreward of 200 fm (366 m) 
could significantly reduce this fleet's landings of canary, yellowtail, 
and widow rockfish. As discussed in Section 4.3.1.1 of the Analysis, on 
average, the non-whiting midwater trawl fleet lands 25.8 percent of its 
target stocks from October to December.
    The at-sea sectors have historically been able to fish seaward of 
200 fm (366 m), but in limited capacity. The MS sector's capacity to 
fish seaward of 200 fm (366 m) is particularly limited. Additionally, 
data from the C/P and MS sector from 2011 to 2017 has shown higher 
amounts of incidental catch of spiny dogfish, yellowtail rockfish, and 
widow rockfish seaward of 200 fm (366 m), compared to shoreward of 200 
fm (Section C.1.4 of Appendix C of the Analysis). Therefore, if NMFS 
implements the 200-fm (366-m) BRA and sectors choose to fish seaward of 
200 fm (366 m) due to salmon bycatch concerns, there could be increased 
incidental catch of these stocks.
    Incidental catch of widow rockfish by the at-sea sector is managed 
under an allocation, while catch of yellowtail rockfish is managed 
under a set-aside for the sector. Allocations are managed more closely 
than set-asides. If an allocation is exceeded, the fishery is closed. 
Set-asides are generally managed on an annual basis unless there is a 
risk of overall catch exceeding an ACL for the stock, unforeseen 
impacts on another fishery, or conservation concerns, in which case 
inseason action may be taken. The at-sea sector's catch of both of 
these stocks has been at or below allowable amounts in recent years. 
For yellowtail rockfish, the overall attainment of the ACL was around 
50 percent, so even if at-sea catch increased, NMFS does not expect the 
risk of exceeding the ACL to change. Catch of spiny dogfish is managed 
under an HG for the entire Pacific Coast groundfish fishery, which 
ensures catch will remain below the ACL for this stock.
    This proposed action, if approved, would use the existing 
regulations for inseason actions, which allow a single meeting process. 
If the Council and NMFS determine that any of the midwater trawl 
sectors is encountering Chinook salmon at a bycatch rate above that 
analyzed in the Biological Opinion, NMFS could issue a single Federal 
Register notice to implement the BRA, provided that waiver of notice 
and comment meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Columbia River Salmon Conservation Zone and the Klamath River Salmon 
Conservation Zone
    This proposed action would also close the CRSCZ and the KRSCZ to 
all midwater trawling and to bottom trawling, unless vessels are using 
a selective flatfish trawl (SFFT). This action is a term and condition 
of the Biological Opinion. Under current regulations, vessels using 
midwater trawl gear in the Pacific whiting primary season are 
prohibited from fishing in the CRSCZ and the KRSCZ. This proposed 
action would extend the area prohibition to vessels using midwater 
trawl gear to target rockfish, including widow rockfish and yellowtail 
rockfish, a reemerging fishery following the rebuilding of widow 
rockfish in 2012.
    Additionally, this proposed action would maintain protection for 
these areas that is currently included under a blanket requirement that 
groundfish trawl vessels use SFFT gear shoreward of the trawl RCA north 
of 40[deg]10' N lat. Both the CRSCZ and KRSCZ are located inside this 
area. NMFS proposed removing this blanket requirement in a separate 
proposed rule. This proposed action would reestablish the SFFT 
requirement inside the CRSCZ and KRSCZ.
Bycatch Guideline and Reserve Management
    This proposed action would create a provision in the regulations to 
give NMFS automatic authority to close either or both of the whiting 
and non-whiting sector fisheries if: (1) Either sector catches its 
guideline limit and the reserve amount; or (2) either sector reaches 
its guideline limit when the other sector has already taken the reserve 
amount. The closure would be effective until the end of the fishing 
year on December 31. This proposed measure is a term and condition of 
the Biological Opinion. However, the Council and NMFS intend to use 
other available tools, including area management tools, to help manage 
salmon bycatch prior to guideline limits being taken, with the result 
of sectors being closed for the remainder of the fishing year.
    The proposed action organizes the various sectors of the Pacific 
Coast groundfish fishery into one of two groupings: The whiting sector 
and the non-whiting sector. The whiting sector includes the tribal and 
non-tribal Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, the C/P sector, and the 
mothership sector. The non-whiting sector includes the tribal and non-
tribal Shoreside IFQ Program, the LEFG fishery, the OA fishery, and the 
recreational fisheries off of Washington,

[[Page 47432]]

Oregon, and California. The proposed action includes only select 
recreational fisheries that are not accounted for in pre-season salmon 
modeling. The recreational fisheries not accounted for in preseason 
salmon modeling are those occurring outside of the open salmon seasons 
and the Oregon longleader fishery. Any Chinook salmon bycatch in these 
fisheries must be attributed to the non-whiting threshold, and these 
fisheries are subject to potential closures. Chinook salmon bycatch 
from each fishery accrues to the larger sector (i.e., whiting or non-
whiting) level. As described in the Biological Opinion, access to the 
reserve for additional Chinook salmon bycatch above the sector's 
guideline limit is not guaranteed. However, if one sector surpasses its 
guideline limit, it may be allowed to continue fishing, with additional 
salmon bycatch accounted for within the reserve. Under such a scenario, 
if the sector's bycatch reached the reserve limit, all fisheries within 
that sector would be subject to an automatic closure. If one sector is 
allowed to access the reserve in a given calendar year, then the other 
sector, upon reaching its guideline limit, would be subject to an 
automatic closure rather than potentially being able to access the 
reserve.
    Under the existing regulations for automatic actions at Sec.  
660.60(d), a closure notice would be published in the Federal Register 
and be effective immediately for all fisheries within either or both of 
the whiting or non-whiting sectors. NMFS waives notice and comment 
under the Administrative Procedure Act if good cause exists. Section 
C.1.4 of Appendix C of the Analysis describes the effects of this 
proposed action on the whiting and non-whiting sectors under different 
scenarios, based on potential closures lasting from either October or 
December through the remainder of the fishing year. Under any of the 
closure scenarios, the effect on groundfish would be reduced landings 
and underattainment of the ACL for target stocks. The economic effects 
of this action are greatest under an October closure scenario, and are 
least under a December closure scenario.
    The Analysis discusses that both the bottom trawl and non-whiting 
midwater trawl sectors typically have high catch after October. Section 
4.3.1.1 estimates that an October closure would have the greatest 
effect on the C/P fleet because, on average, this fleet catches 45 
percent of its whiting catch between October and the end of the year. 
Under the December closure scenario, the average percentage of target 
catch that could potentially be left unharvested ranges from 0.5 
percent for the Shoreside whiting fleet to 13 percent for the 
nonwhiting midwater trawl fleet. Overall, Section C.4 of Appendix C of 
the Analysis estimates that a closure starting in October could have an 
economic impact of $138.6 million in income and 2,083 jobs for the 
Pacific Coast groundfish fishery as a whole, assuming no fishery effort 
substitutions to offset losses. For the low impact (December only 
closure) scenario, the Analysis estimates the impact to be losses of 
$24.6 million in income and 349 jobs.
    Whether or not there will be an economic impact of a closure 
depends upon the likelihood that a closure would occur. Since 2002, 
when the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP) first began 
monitoring the groundfish fishery, the whiting sector (including the 
at-sea, shorebased, and tribal components) has taken more than 11,000 
Chinook in two years, in 2005 and in 2014. In the non-whiting sector, 
the bottom trawl fleet takes the majority of the salmon bycatch. Since 
2002, the bottom trawl fleet has taken more than 5,500 Chinook twice, 
in 2002 and 2003. Overall, over the last 15 years, there has never been 
a situation where both sectors exceeded their guideline levels at the 
same time. Therefore, NMFS believes that it is unlikely that a closure 
would be triggered. However, the closure mechanisms are a term and 
condition of the Biological Opinion and are, therefore, included in 
this proposed rule. Such a mechanism would serve to limit impact on 
listed salmon in extraordinary circumstances.

J. Modifications to Depth Restrictions Within the Western CCA

    This proposed action would modify the allowed fishing depths from 
20-fm (37-m) to 40-fm (73-m) for the commercial fixed gear fishery and 
the recreational fishery inside the Western Cowcod Conservation Area 
(CCA). This action would also add new waypoints approximating the 30-fm 
(55-m) and 40-fm (73-m) depth contours around Santa Barbara Island, San 
Nicolas Island, Tanner Bank, and Cortes Bank, because waypoints 
approximating these contours do not exist at these depths currently. 
Fisheries are allowed to operate in areas shallower than the depth 
limit. This proposed action is intended to allow additional 
opportunities for commercial fixed gear and recreational vessels to 
target healthy stocks (nearshore rockfish, shelf rockfish, cabezon, 
kelp greenling, California scorpionfish, and lingcod), while still 
closing the depths where the overall density of cowcod is the greatest 
to provide protections as the stock continues to rebuild.
    The Council originally established two CCAs (Western and Eastern) 
in 2001 as area closures to promote cowcod rebuilding. These area 
closures prohibited fishing in the main portion of cowcod's depth range 
(overall distribution 22 to 270-fm (40 to 494-m), with the highest 
density from 100 to 130-fm (183 to 238-m)) to reduce encounters and 
mortality to allow the stock to rebuild more quickly. The Western CCA 
encompasses 5,126-mi\2\ (13,276-km\2\) and is located in the Southern 
California Bight south of Point Conception. The CCA is also expected to 
provide protections for bronzespotted rockfish, a stock with similar 
life history characteristics, habitat associations, and vulnerability 
to fishing as cowcod. Commercial landings of bronzespotted dropped in 
the late 1980s and have remained at low levels from 1990 to present.
    Under the current regulations, 40.4-mi\2\ (104.6 km\2\) (or less 
than 1 percent of the entire CCA) is open to fishing due to the 20-fm 
(37-m) depth restriction. By increasing the depth to a 40-fm (73-m) 
depth restriction, this proposed rule would increase the fishable area 
to 150.4- mi\2\ (389.5-km\2\).
    In the 2009-10 biennial specifications and management measures, the 
Council recommended modifying the recreational depth restrictions 
inside the CCA to 30-fm (55-m). NMFS disapproved this recommendation in 
the final rule (76 FR 27508; May 11, 2011), because there was limited 
information on the impacts of the proposed action on cowcod, especially 
juvenile cowcod, which could delay rebuilding. NMFS also indicated 
that, because the ACL for cowcod was low (4 mt at that time), any 
measures that potentially increased cowcod mortality required better 
information on potential biological and economic effects. At the time 
of NMFS' disapproval, cowcod was at 4.5 percent of unfished biomass 
with a projected time to rebuild of 2071.
    Since the 2009-10 disapproval, the NWFSC conducted a new stock 
assessment for cowcod (assessed in 2013). The 2013 assessment concluded 
that the stock is rebuilding much more quickly than anticipated under 
its rebuilding plan. Cowcod is expected to be rebuilt by 2020, assuming 
full removal of the ACL, which is 48 years ahead of the target end date 
for the rebuilding plan. Over the past several years, cowcod harvest 
has consistently been far below the ACL (see Section C.6 of Appendix C 
of the Analysis). As

[[Page 47433]]

discussed in section III (Management Measures), C, entitled ``Biennial 
Fishery Allocations,'' of this preamble, NMFS is proposing to set the 
cowcod ACT at 6 mt for 2019-20.
    The 2013 cowcod assessment explored ecosystem interactions and 
updated habitat preferences of juvenile cowcod based on research 
published since the previous full assessment in 2007. The stock 
assessment identified young of the year fish as being distributed 
between 52 and 277-m (28-151-fm), with juveniles found slightly deeper. 
NMFS survey data and recent catch data from observed trips inside the 
Western CCA encountered no cowcod (juvenile or adult) within the 
proposed depth openings (see Section C.6 of Appendix C of the 
Analysis). Overall, the proposed measure is not expected to result in 
increased cowcod encounters, because the highest densities of cowcod 
are found outside of the depths in which this measure would allow 
commercial fixed gear and recreational fishing. Additionally, the 
proposed measure is not expected to increase mortality for 
bronzespotted rockfish, because this stock is found between 41-fm (75-
m) and 205-fm (375-m), which is outside the depth range of the proposed 
action.
    The Council recommended this measure because the additional data on 
habitat usage from the 2013 stock assessment, the improved cowcod stock 
trajectory, and the higher ACT for cowcod demonstrate that there would 
be no adverse impacts expected for cowcod from this action. The 
expected benefits of this action for the commercial and recreational 
fleets are described separately below.
Commercial
    This proposed action would allow greater access to valuable and 
underattained stocks in this remote area. Recent commercial fixed gear 
fishing effort has been very low within the Western CCA due to limited 
opportunities within the current depth restrictions. The proposed depth 
changes within the CCA would allow greater access to deeper stocks and 
would create an economic incentive for vessels to make trips to the 
area. NMFS expects that a modest increase in the number of fixed gear 
vessels fishing in this area may occur as a result of this proposed 
action; however the magnitude of increase is difficult to quantify. A 
redistribution of depth of catch is also expected as a result of the 
increased depths available for fishing. The effects on groundfish of 
any increase in effort would be limited through the existing 2-month 
trip limits delineated in Table 2 (South) to part 660.330.
Recreational
    This proposed action would allow recreational fishing within the 
Western CCA out to 40 fathoms (73 m). NMFS expects this measure would 
increase the catch of target stocks, including shelf rockfish, 
bocaccio, deeper nearshore rockfish, and lingcod. The proposed action 
would also be expected to reduce pressure on shallower nearshore 
rockfish stocks by allowing access to currently inaccessible desirable 
nearshore (i.e., copper rockfish) and shelf rockfish (i.e., vermilion 
rockfish) found in deeper waters.
    NMFS expects that this action would result in an increase in the 
number of angler trips, and an increase in the amount of recreational 
catch, and result in a redistribution of depth of catch. Allowing 
access to deeper depths inside the Western CCA is expected to increase 
the number of groundfish trips between 10 percent and 20 percent, 
particularly out of Ventura and Los Angeles, given the proximity of 
these ports to the Western CCA (see Section C.7 of Appendix C of the 
Analysis). This would provide additional revenues to charter boat crews 
in the form of fish processing and tips.

K. Modification of Lingcod and Sablefish Discard Mortality Rates

    This rule proposes to modify the discard mortality rates (DMRs) for 
lingcod and sablefish used to debit IFQ accounts in the Shorebased IFQ 
Program. Currently, NMFS debits IFQ accounts for 100 percent of all 
catch of these stocks, regardless of survival after discarding. The 
Council recommended implementing lower discard mortality rates for 
lingcod and sablefish to match those endorsed by the SSC and used for 
year-end groundfish catch accounting. For many other stocks, the best 
scientific information available does not indicate discard survival 
rates high enough to warrant consideration of a survival credit. The 
DMRs in Table 18 reflect the best scientific information available.

  Table 18--Proposed Discard Mortality Rates for Lingcod and Sablefish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed DMR
               Stock                        Gear             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lingcod...........................  Bottom trawl........              50
                                    Fixed gear \a\......               7
Sablefish.........................  Bottom trawl........              50
                                    Fixed gear \a\......              20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Applies to both pot and hook and line gear.

    By providing IFQ participants with discard survival credits for 
lingcod and sablefish, this action better meets some of the objectives 
of the IFQ program, such as increased attainments of and increased 
value of IFQ stocks, such as Dover sole and thornyheads. In addition, 
this action aligns DMRs with those used in year-end catch accounting, 
which creates consistency in mortality estimates. This proposed action 
would allow modest increases in attainment of co-occurring target 
stocks, and increase marketability and value of retained catch by 
eliminating the need to retain small fish that are not economically 
marketable or desirable. Landings and mortality would be expected to 
increase proportionally by the amount of QP savings/gains the credit 
would provide, which for sablefish could be a gain of one-half the 
bottom trawl discards (9-21 mt per year) and four-fifths the fixed gear 
discards (11-20 mt per year), which could be converted into additional 
landings. Therefore, the resulting gains in landings of sablefish could 
be an extra 5-11 mt for bottom trawl and 9-16 mt for fixed gear, which 
would only be about a 1 percent increase in total coastwide IFQ 
mortality of this stock (see Section C.5 of Appendix C of the 
Analysis).
    As described in Section C.5 of Appendix C of the Analysis, overall, 
this proposed action would not be expected to result in substantial 
changes to discarding behavior because there are operational costs for 
discarding in terms of labor time for sorting catch, extra fishing time 
necessary to replace the

[[Page 47434]]

discarded fish, as well as the potential risk that further fishing will 
not result in catching larger fish. However, the resulting ``savings'' 
of trawl sablefish, due to a decreased deduction for discarded fish, 
could possibly increase landings of co-occurring, underattained stocks, 
such as Dover sole, shortspine thornyheads, and longspine thornyheads 
(see Section C.5 of Appendix C of the Analysis). Although this measure 
could increase attainment, IFQ participants' total fishing mortality 
would continue to be managed to individual and sector allocations, and 
catch would be constrained by the total ACL for each stock.

L. Removal of IFQ Daily Vessel Limits

    Under the Shorebased IFQ Program, a quota share (QS) permit 
authorizes a person or group to own QS. A QS account is an account that 
contains QS allocations registered to the QS permit for IFQ and 
individual bycatch quota (IBQ) stocks. At the beginning of each 
calendar year, NMFS issues quota pounds (QPs) to each QS account based 
on the IFQ or IBQ sector allocation. For QPs to cover catch (landings 
and discards) by a vessel in the shorebased IFQ program, the QS permit 
owner must transfer QPs from the QS account to a vessel account. Vessel 
limits in vessel accounts restrict the amount of QPs that any vessel 
can catch or hold. NMFS calculates annual QP vessel limits, which are a 
set percentage of the total IFQ sector allocation based on formulas set 
through Amendment 20 to the PCGFMP. The annual vessel QP limit 
restricts the amount of used and unused QP in a vessel account during a 
fishing year.
    NMFS also sets daily vessel limits for overfished stocks, which cap 
the amount of overfished stock QPs any vessel account can have 
available in their account on a given day. The Council and NMFS 
established daily vessel limits to prevent a person from acquiring 
additional QP from others before those QP are needed. IFQ sector 
allocations of some overfished stocks are low, which creates a strong 
incentive for hoarding of QP for these stocks to cover unexpected high 
catch events. This daily limit keeps QP of overfished stocks on the 
market and available for trading. The daily limits are set equal to the 
control limits for each stock, which limit the amount of QS and IBQ 
that a person, individually or collectively, may own or control. 
Because daily limits are set at the level of the QS control limits, 
they have no effect on those who only use QP from their own QS account.
    Amendment 20 to the PCGFMP intended for daily limits to apply for 
overfished stocks. This means that when stocks are declared rebuilt, 
the daily limit for that stock must be removed through rulemaking. In 
the 2017-18 biennium, bocaccio (south), darkblotched rockfish, and 
Pacific ocean perch were declared rebuilt, so this action proposes to 
remove the daily limits for these stocks. However, because the daily 
vessel limit has been ineffective for keeping catch available for 
trading, this rule proposes to eliminate the daily limits for all 
stocks. Thus, in addition to bocaccio (south), darkblotched rockfish, 
and Pacific ocean perch, this rule also proposed to remove daily 
vessels limits for cowcod (south), yelloweye rockfish, and Pacific 
halibut.
    As explained in in Section C.5 of Appendix C of the Analysis, there 
may be strategies to circumvent the daily vessel limit. First, vessel 
owners can sign sales contracts in advance, but delay transferring QP 
for a stock until a vessel account's unused QP drops below the daily 
limit. Second, entities can temporarily acquire trawl permits and use 
them to establish a second vessel account in which they can store QP.
    There is also evidence that the daily limit is not constraining for 
several stocks. Table C-65 in the Analysis indicates that for the 
remaining overfished stocks and Pacific halibut, from 2011 through 
2017, there has been only one instance of a vessel landing more than 
the daily limit. For the recently rebuilt stocks, there has generally 
been at least one vessel landing more than the daily limit each year 
for Pacific ocean perch, but this has rarely occurred for bocaccio and 
darkblotched rockfish since the start of the Shorebased IFQ Program. 
Because the daily limits for the remaining overfished stocks and for 
Pacific halibut have not been constraining, NMFS expects that 
eliminating this provision would not have a measurable effect on the 
fishery.

M. Removal of Automatic Authority for Darkblotched Rockfish and Pacific 
Ocean Perch Set-Asides for At-Sea Sector

    Amendment 21 to the PCGFMP (75 FR 60867; October 1, 2010) 
established allocations for darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean 
perch catch in the at-sea sector (C/P and mothership sectors). At that 
time, darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch were overfished, 
and the ACLs and fishery allocations for these stocks were low. NMFS 
has authority to take automatic action to close the at-sea sector, if 
necessary, to ensure that darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch 
stays below the allocation. In recent years, both of the at-sea sectors 
have exceeded their allocations of darkblotched rockfish (the C/P 
sector in 2011, and the mothership sector in 2014). The latter resulted 
in an emergency Council meeting, and NMFS took emergency action to 
reopen the fisheries (79 FR 67095; November 12, 2014). However, because 
the overall attainment of the darkblotched rockfish ACL had been low, 
the Council recommended and NMFS approved Amendment 21-3 to the PCGFMP 
(83 FR 757; January 8, 2018). Amendment 21-3 replaced the at-sea sector 
Pacific ocean perch and darkblotched rockfish allocations with sector-
specific set-asides with a reserve for the C/P and mothership sectors. 
The allocation for the at-sea sectors is a percentage of the trawl 
allocation of each stock.
    Set-asides are managed on an annual basis unless there is a risk of 
catch exceeding a harvest specification (ACL, ACT, or HG) inseason, 
unforeseen impact on another fishery, or conservation concerns, in 
which case inseason action may be taken. Amendment 21-3 also included a 
reserve, or buffer, for set-asides. The buffer is an amount deducted 
from the ACL as part of the process of determining the fishery HG 
(which serves as the basis of allocating between trawl and nontrawl 
fisheries), and is intended to account for higher than expected 
incidental catch. The buffer for darkblotched rockfish and Pacific 
ocean perch was established under Amendment 27 to the PCGFMP (82 FR 
9634; February 7, 2017). NMFS has the authority to close either at-sea 
sector if it is projected to exceed its set-aside value, taking into 
account the buffer, for either darkblotched rockfish or Pacific ocean 
perch.
    Darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch have both been 
declared rebuilt. The proposed 2019-20 ACLs for both stocks are higher, 
reflecting the change in stock status. In addition, because of the 
change in stock status, there is currently no buffer proposed for 2019-
20. Because of these changes, darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean 
perch would be managed as de facto allocations for the at-sea sectors. 
This proposed rule would remove NMFS's automatic authority to close 
either sector if they exceed their set-aside value for these stocks, so 
that they are managed like all other at-sea set-asides in the PCGFMP. 
The Analysis demonstrates that the expected risk of the at-sea sectors 
exceeding their set-aside values for darkblotched rockfish and Pacific 
ocean perch is low, due to low overall attainment in the trawl

[[Page 47435]]

sector in recent years. In addition, because this proposed adjustment 
would remove the risk of shutting down the fishery after reaching the 
set aside, it increases the likelihood that the at-sea sectors could 
attain their Pacific whiting allocation (see Section C.4 of Appendix C 
of the Analysis).

N. Continuation of Adaptive Management Pass Through

    Under the Amendment 20 Trawl Rationalization Program, NMFS reserves 
10 percent of the QS for each of the non-whiting stocks (including 
halibut individual bycatch quota) each year for an adaptive management 
program. While the Council has never used the allocation for this 
purpose, conceptually, an adaptive management program could distribute 
the reserved QP to fishery participants to address adverse effects of 
the Shoreside IFQ program, including impacts to community or processor 
stability, conservation concerns, or other effects. NMFS could also 
distribute the reserved QPs to facilitate new entrants to participate 
in the groundfish fishery. To date, the Council has not recommended 
establishing an adaptive management program. Therefore, NMFS has 
distributed (passed through) these QP to quota shareholders each 
fishing year in proportion to their QS for each stock. This rule 
proposes that NMFS will continue to pass through the QP reserved for 
the adaptive management program until the Council recommends an 
alternative use of adaptive management program QP. This is an 
administrative measure that would not affect fishing opportunity and 
related catch.

O. Modification of the Incidental Lingcod Retention Ratio in the Salmon 
Troll Fishery

    This proposed action would adjust the existing incidental retention 
ratio for landing lingcod based on the number of Chinook landed in the 
ocean salmon troll fishery in the area north of 40[deg] 10' N. 
latitude. The purpose of the ratio is to allow salmon trollers to 
retain incidentally caught lingcod, but to discourage lingcod 
targeting. Currently, participants are allowed to retain 1 lingcod per 
15 Chinook salmon plus 1 lingcod per trip, up to a trip limit of 10 
lingcod, on a trip where any fishing occurs within the nontrawl RCA. 
This limit only applies when lingcod retention is allowed. Vessels 
participating in the ocean salmon troll fishery must be equipped with a 
vessel monitoring system (VMS) to retain incidentally caught 
groundfish. This proposed action would allow retention of 1 lingcod per 
5 Chinook salmon plus 1 lingcod per trip, up to a trip limit of 10 
lingcod, on a trip where any fishing occurs within the RCA. For 2019-
20, the lingcod fishery is proposed to be open year-round for the open 
access groundfish fishery. The Council can adjust the ratio of lingcod 
retention per Chinook landed through inseason adjustments, if 
necessary.
    As Section C.9 of Appendix C of the Analysis notes, this action 
would be the first modification of the ratio since it was implemented 
in 2009 (74 FR 9874; March 6, 2009). The Council recommended this 
measure because there has been an increased rate of lingcod encounters 
as Chinook harvest opportunities have declined. This increased 
encounter rate has resulted in an increase in regulatory discards of 
lingcod. This proposed action would align the lingcod retention limit 
with the true lingcod encounter rate in the salmon troll fishery while 
continuing to discourage lingcod targeting. Salmon trollers would still 
to be subject to the existing overall limit of 10 lingcod per trip and 
the existing requirement to have VMS in order to retain any 
incidentally caught groundfish. NMFS does not expect this proposed 
action will create an incentive for salmon trollers to target lingcod 
because these vessels would still be restricted to an overall limit of 
10 lingcod per trip.

P. Administrative Actions

    NMFS also proposes four minor changes to the regulatory text to 
clarify regulatory intent. NMFS proposes to add big skate to the LEFG 
and OA fixed gear fisheries trip limit tables, Table 2 North and Table 
2 South to Part 660 Subpart E, and Table 3 North and Table 3 South to 
Part 660 Subpart F. Big skate is not currently listed in the trip limit 
table for either the LEFG or OA fisheries, and as such is unlimited. 
Adding it to the trip limit tables would provide clarity on this 
existing management measure.
    This proposed rule would remove an obsolete reference to halibut 
weight provisions at Sec.  660.333(c)(3). The obsolete reference 
originally mirrored a provision in California state regulations, but 
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife removed this provision 
from state regulations in 2004.
    This proposed rule would clarify the application of Amendment 21-3 
set-aside management of darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch 
for the at-sea sector for both years of the biennium in Tables 1b, 2b, 
1d, and 2d to part 660, subpart C.
    Finally, this action would remove the WCGOP priority sampling 
requirement for canary rockfish and bocaccio, formerly overfished 
stocks that were declared rebuilt, as requested by the Council at their 
March 2017 meeting. Under this requirement, observers are required to 
count and weigh these fish on a docked vessel prior to offloading. This 
requirement was implemented to prevent vessels from discarding 
overfished stocks for which they may have low QP at port prior to 
offload. Under 50 CFR 660.60(c)(1), the Council can modify the list of 
stocks subject to this catch monitoring requirement as a routine 
management measure. In March 2017, the Council recommended that the 
priority sampling requirement be removed for canary rockfish and 
bocaccio because these stocks are now rebuilt.

IV. Classification

    Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is 
consistent with the PCGFMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after 
public comment. In making its final determination, NMFS will take into 
account the complete record, including the data, views, and comments 
received during the comment period.
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed 
after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials 
from the area covered by the PCGFMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 
16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council 
must be a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized 
fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In 
addition, regulations implementing the PCGFMP establish a procedure by 
which the tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the 
PCGFMP request new allocations or regulations specific to the tribes, 
in writing, before the first of the two meetings at which the Council 
considers groundfish management measures. The regulations at 50 CFR 
660.324(d) further state, ``the Secretary will develop tribal 
allocations and regulations under this paragraph in consultation with 
the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal 
consensus.'' 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

[[Page 47436]]

developed and proposed by the tribes, are included in this proposed 
rule.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS prepared an integrated Analysis for this action, which 
addresses the statutory requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
National Environmental Policy Act, Presidential Executive Order 12866, 
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The full suite of alternatives 
analyzed by the Council can be found on the Council's website at 
www.pcouncil.org. This Analysis does not contain all the alternatives, 
because an EIS was prepared for the 2015-16 biennial harvest 
specifications and management measures and is available from NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES). This EIS examined the harvest specifications and management 
measures for 2015-16 and ten year projections for routinely adjusted 
harvest specifications and management measures. The ten year 
projections were produced to evaluate the impacts of the ongoing 
implementation of harvest specifications and management measures and to 
evaluate the impacts of the routine adjustments that are the main 
component of each biennial cycle. Therefore, the EA for the 2019-20 
cycle tiers from the 2015-16 EIS and focuses on the harvest 
specifications and management measures that were not within the scope 
of the ten year projections in the 2015-16 EIS. A copy of the EA is 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). This action also announces a 
public comment period on the EA.
    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared for 
this action, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603). The IRFA describes the economic impact this 
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description 
of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this 
action is contained in the SUMMARY section and at the beginning of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble. A summary of the 
IRFA follows. A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES).
    When an agency proposes regulations, the RFA requires the agency to 
prepare and make available for public comment an IRFA that describes 
the impact on small businesses, non-profit enterprises, local 
governments, and other small entities. The IRFA is to aid the agency in 
considering all reasonable regulatory alternatives that would minimize 
the economic impact on affected small entities.
    The RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires government agencies to 
assess the effects that regulatory alternatives would have on small 
entities, defined as any business/organization independently owned and 
operated, not dominant in its field of operation (including its 
affiliates). A small harvesting business has combined annual receipts 
of $11 million \2\ or less for all affiliated operations worldwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On December 29, 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service 
(NMFS) issued a final rule establishing a small business size 
standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses 
primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) 
for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes only (80 FR 
81194, December 29, 2015; 50 CFR part 200). The $11 million standard 
became effective on July 1, 2016, and after that date it is to be 
used in all NMFS rules subject to the RFA. Id. at 81194. This NMFS 
rule is to be used in place of the U.S. Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) current standards of $20.5 million, $5.5 
million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish 
(NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors of 
the U.S. commercial fishing industry, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A small fish-processing business is one that employs 750 or fewer 
persons for all affiliated operations worldwide. NMFS is applying this 
standard to catcher/processors (C/Ps) for the purposes of this 
rulemaking, because these vessels earn the majority of their revenue 
from selling processed fish.
    For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is one that 
has annual receipts not in excess of $7.5 million. A wholesale business 
servicing the fishing industry is a small business if it employs 100 or 
fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at 
all its affiliated operations worldwide.
    For the purposes of this rulemaking, a nonprofit organization is 
determined to be ``not dominant in its field of operation'' if it is 
considered small under one of the following Small Business 
Administration (SBA) size standards: environmental, conservation, or 
professional organizations are considered small if they have combined 
annual receipts of $15 million or less, and other organizations are 
considered small if they have combined annual receipts of $7.5 million 
or less. The RFA defines small governmental jurisdictions as 
governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school 
districts, or special districts with populations of less than 50,000.

Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the 
rule applies, and estimate of economic impacts by entity size and 
industry

    This proposed rule would regulate businesses that participate in 
the groundfish fishery. This rule would directly affect commercial 
vessels in the groundfish fisheries, trawl QS holders and Pacific 
whiting catch history endorsed permit holders (which include shorebased 
whiting processors), tribal vessels, and charterboat vessels. 
Additionally, a provision of this proposed rule would regulate 
commercial vessels in the salmon troll fleet.
    To determine the number of small entities potentially affected by 
this rule, NMFS reviewed analyses of fish ticket data and limited entry 
permit data, information on charterboat, tribal, and open access 
fleets, available cost-earnings data developed by NWFSC, and responses 
associated with the permitting process for the Trawl Rationalization 
Program where applicants were asked if they considered themselves a 
small business based on SBA definitions. This rule would primarily 
regulate businesses that harvest groundfish.
Charter Operations
    There were an estimated 287 active Commercial Passenger Fishing 
Vessels (charter boats) engaged in groundfish fishing in California in 
2017. In 2017, an estimated 49 charter boats targeted groundfish in 
Oregon. There is no Oregon license or tracking of party fishing (or 
``six pack'') vessel businesses that will also be impacted, however in 
one week in August 2017, there were 285 boat trips targeting 
recreational groundfish in Oregon; this number includes the 49 charter 
vessels and is the upper bound of the number of such entities likely to 
be impacted in Oregon. Similarly in Washington, the number of party/
charter vessels likely to be impacted by the proposed rule was 182 in 
2017. All 705 of these vessels are likely to be impacted by changes in 
recreational catch guidelines for groundfish in their respective 
states.
Commercial Vessels
Groundfish
    Entities that are not registered as trusts, estates, governments, 
or non-profits are assumed to earn the majority of their revenue from 
commercial fishing. There are 124 QS permit owners, who collectively 
received 76.5 percent of the QP issued in 2018. Limited entry 
groundfish vessels are required to self-report size across all 
affiliated entities; of the business who earn the majority of their 
revenue from commercial fishing, one self-reported as large. This 
entity owns four groundfish permits and one QS permit. 264 entities 
owning 376 permits self-reported as small. The average small entity 
owns 1.4 permits, with 30 small entities owning between 3-6 permits 
each. Open access groundfish vessel owners are assumed

[[Page 47437]]

to earn the majority of their revenue from fishing and would thus fall 
into this Small Business Administration definition. 186 non-limited 
entry vessels harvested at least $10,000 worth of groundfish in 2017; 
these are likely to be impacted by the proposed rule. This number is 
likely an upper bound, as some entities may own more than one vessel. 
However, these generally small operations are assumed to be independent 
entities; with the top three vessels having coastwide (including non-
groundfish) revenues averaging $585,000. Median revenues were $37,000 
per vessel.
    In addition to benefits from increasing ACLs in the harvest 
specifications, several of the new management measures contained in the 
proposed rule are likely to benefit vessels. Clarifications resulting 
from the stock complex restructuring and updates to Rockfish 
Conservation Area coordinates may streamline management burden for 
vessels. IFQ vessels are expected to benefit from the removal of daily 
vessel quota pounds, which did not appear to constrain operations, but 
which did account for some level of administrative burden for quota 
pound account managers. With the elimination of these limits, managers 
will have greater flexibility in moving and holding quota pounds for 
the remaining overfished species and halibut IBQ. These vessels and 
vessel account operators may also benefit somewhat from changes to the 
discard mortality rates in the IFQ program. Some of the non-trawl fixed 
gear vessels are expected to benefit by the modifications to the 
commercial depths inside the Western Cowcod Conservation area in 
California.
Salmon Trollers
    The proposed rule primarily impacts entities in the groundfish 
fishery. However, one new management measure included the proposed rule 
will likely benefit vessels primarily involved in the salmon troll 
fishery, through a modification in the incidental lingcod retention 
ratio in that fishery. This modification reflects the increased rate of 
lingcod encounters during declining Chinook salmon harvest seasons. 
This modification would allow salmon trollers to retain and sell a 
larger number of lingcod caught incidentally when targeting salmon. The 
level of activity varies substantially, with trips ranging from 500 to 
over 5,500 in a year. The subsector of the fleet expected to benefit 
from the proposed rule is much smaller, as historically a small 
proportion has elected to land lingcod within the previously allowed 
limits. In order to land lingcod, the vessel would have to install VMS, 
which (among other factors) likely deters salmon trollers. Thus, this 
provision of the proposed rule is likely to impact 3 of 220 vessels 
operating in California. In Oregon, between 7 and 85 trollers have 
landed lingcod, and in Washington between 10 and 17 trollers have 
landed lingcod. The proposed rule would confer a small benefit to these 
105 vessels, which landed lingcod on a median of 1-2 trips, with 
vessels in the 90th percentile landing lingcod on 5 trips annually. 
This small positive benefit is not expected to be a substantial impact. 
A substantial number of small entities in the overall salmon troll 
fishery are not likely to be impacted by the proposed rule.
QS Owners
    Because the harvest specifications process determines the amount of 
QP available in the catch share (Shorebased IFQ Program) sector, this 
proposed rule will impact QS. Twenty-two non-whiting QS permit owners 
are estimated to be primarily engaged in seafood product preparation 
and packaging, based on holdings of first receiver permit affiliation 
in the non-public West Coast Region permits database. According to the 
size standard described above, three of the entities that own three of 
these permits are considered small. These small processing entities 
were issued 1.7 percent of the non-whiting QP issued in 2018. Some of 
these small processing entities also own groundfish permits, which are 
required on both catcher vessels and catcher processors, and which 
would be regulated by the proposed rule; three small entities primarily 
engaged in seafood processing own two groundfish permits. Thirty 
groundfish vessel permits are owned by seven entities that are 
considered large, as estimated by NMFS using the standard described 
above, and as estimated by information regarding ownership affiliation 
and self-reported size on groundfish permits and first receiver site 
license permits (self-reported using the standard described above). Six 
of these seven large processing entities were issued 10.2 percent of 
the non-whiting QP issued in 2018 across sixteen QS permits.
Governmental Jurisdictions
    According to the public IFQ Account database as of June 19, 2018, 
the City of Monterey owns QS of ten stocks. The U.S. Census estimates 
the population to be 28,454 as of July 1, 2017, so would be considered 
a small governmental jurisdiction by the RFA standard noted above. The 
City of Monterey received 0.5 percent of the QP issued for 2018, 
according to the public IFQ Account database.
Not-for-Profits
    According to the public IFQ Account database, six not-for-profit 
organizations own QS in the catch share program and would thus be 
impacted by the trawl sector allocation under this proposed rule. Five 
of these would be considered small by the definition noted above (with 
2016 annual receipts as reported on IRS form 990 of $120-500 thousand 
dollars), and one would be considered large (with self-reported fiscal 
year 2017 receipts of $1.1 billion). Collectively, the five small not-
for-profit organizations received 7.2 percent of the non-whiting \3\ QP 
issued in 2018, and the large not-for-profit organization received 0.5 
percent. The large not-for-profit organization also owned four limited 
entry trawl permits which would be impacted by the management measures 
of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Whiting is issued annually through a separate rulemaking 
process resulting from international treaty negotiations. (See 83 FR 
22401 for more information and 2018 allocations.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small Trusts
    Eleven personal or family trusts/estates owned QS permits and would 
thus potentially be impacted by the trawl sector allocation under this 
proposed rule. All of these are assumed to be smaller than the size 
standard noted above. Collectively, these eight small entities received 
4.2 percent of the non-whiting QP issued for 2018.

A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that 
accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that 
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities

    In the event of a fishery closure under the Biological Opinion 
provisions included in this rule (50 CFR 660.60(d)(1)(v) and (vi) of 
this proposed rule), the loss of revenue in groundfish fisheries would 
likely have a substantial negative impact on a significant number of 
small entities, and an equal impact on all large entities in the 
fishery. However, such a closure is not anticipated by NMFS and the 
Council, given historic catch levels and the existence of cooperative 
management structures with extensive inseason monitoring. Because these 
provisions are non-discretionary under the ESA, there are no 
significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would minimize 
adverse economic impacts on small entities.
    The Council considered alternatives to the actions in this proposed 
rule that

[[Page 47438]]

would have a lower level of benefits to small entities. The Council did 
not consider alternatives that would have greater benefits to small 
entities, as these would not have met several primary objectives of the 
rule (the prevention of overfishing, the rebuilding of overfished 
stocks, and ensuring conservation).
    Under the No Action alternative, the default harvest specifications 
and associated routine management measures would be implemented using 
best scientific information available to establish default harvest 
control rules for all groundfish stocks. The Council considered 
alternative specifications for California scorpionfish, lingcod north 
of 40[deg]10' N lat, and yelloweye rockfish. In each case, the Council 
selected the harvest control rule that resulted in the maximum benefits 
to both large and small directly regulated entities. Routine management 
measures are adjusted according to harvest specifications, which also 
impact the new management measures available for implementation.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Determination of No Significant Impact
    The RFA requires Federal agencies to conduct an analysis of the 
impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The proposed rule would 
impact a significant number of small entities, but that these impacts 
are expected to range from neutral to positive, depending on individual 
response to increased harvest guidelines and updated management 
measures. Because there are no anticipated compliance costs or other 
adverse effects, NMFS concludes (subject to review of any pertinent 
public comments) that the rule will not have a substantial adverse 
impact on the significant number of directly regulated entities.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

     Dated: September 4, 2018.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  660.11:
0
a. In the definition of ``Conservation area(s)'', revise paragraph (1); 
and
0
b. In the definition of ``Groundfish'':
0
i. Revise paragraphs (6) and (7)(i) introductory text;
0
ii. Redesignate paragraph (7)(i)(B) as (7)(i)(C);
0
iii. Add new paragraph (7)(i)(B); and
0
iv. Revise paragraph (9).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  660.11   General definitions.

* * * * *

Conservation Area(s) * * *

    (1) Groundfish Conservation Area or GCA means a geographic area 
defined by coordinates expressed in degrees latitude and longitude, 
wherein fishing by a particular gear type or types may be prohibited. 
Regulations at Sec.  660.60(c)(3) describe the various purposes for 
which these GCAs may be implemented. Regulations at Sec.  660.70 define 
coordinates for these polygonal GCAs: Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation 
Areas, Cowcod Conservation Areas, waters encircling the Farallon 
Islands, and waters encircling the Cordell Bank. GCAs also include 
Bycatch Reduction Areas (BRAs), and Rockfish Conservation Areas or 
RCAs, which are areas closed to fishing by particular gear types, 
bounded by lines approximating particular depth contours. RCA 
boundaries may and do change seasonally according to conservation 
needs. Regulations at Sec. Sec.  660.70 through 660.74 define boundary 
lines with latitude/longitude coordinates; regulations at Tables 1 
(North) and 1 (South) of subpart D, Tables 2 (North) and 2 (South) of 
subpart E, and Tables 3 (North) and 3 (South) of subpart F set seasonal 
boundaries. Fishing prohibitions associated with GCAs are in addition 
to those associated with EFH Conservation Areas.
* * * * *

Groundfish * * *

* * * * *
    (6) Roundfish: Cabezon, Scorpaenichthys marmoratus; kelp greenling, 
Hexagrammos decagrammus; lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus; Pacific cod, 
Gadus macrocephalus; Pacific whiting, Merluccius productus; sablefish, 
Anoplopoma fimbria. Species listed below with an area-specific listing 
are managed within a complex in that area-specific listing.
    (i) Between 46[deg]16' N lat. and the U.S. Canada border 
(Washington): Cabezon, S. marmoratus and kelp greenling, H. 
decagrammus.
    (ii) Between 46[deg]16' N lat. and 42[deg] N lat. (Oregon): 
Cabezon, S. marmoratus and kelp greenling, H. decagrammus.
    (7) * * *
    (i) Nearshore rockfish includes black rockfish, Sebastes melanops 
(off Washington) and the following nearshore rockfish species managed 
in ``minor rockfish'' complexes:
* * * * *
    (B) Between 46[deg]16' N lat. and 42[deg] N lat. (Oregon): black 
rockfish, S. melanops, blue rockfish, S. mystinus, deacon rockfish, S. 
diaconus.
* * * * *
    (9) ``Other Fish'': kelp greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus) off 
California and leopard shark (Trakis semifasciata).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  660.40 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraphs (a), (c), and (d);
0
b. Redesignate paragraph (b) as paragraph (a), and paragraph (e) as 
paragraph (b); and
0
c. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (b).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  660.40   Overfished species rebuilding plans.

* * * * *
    (b) Yelloweye rockfish. Yelloweye rockfish was declared overfished 
in 2002. The target year for rebuilding the yelloweye rockfish stock to 
B<INF>MSY</INF> 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.
0
4. In Sec.  660.50, revise paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (f)(6) and add 
paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.50   Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The Tribal allocation is 561 mt in 2019 and 572 mt in 2020 per 
year. This allocation is, for each year, 10 percent of the Monterey 
through Vancouver area (North of 36' N lat.) ACL. The Tribal allocation 
is reduced by 1.5 percent for estimated discard mortality.
* * * * *
    (6) Petrale sole. For petrale sole, treaty fishing vessels are 
restricted to a fleetwide harvest target of 290 mt each year.
* * * * *
    (h) Salmon bycatch. This fishery may be closed through automatic 
action at 660.60(d)(1)(v) and (d)(1)(vi).
0
5. In Sec.  660.55, revise paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) and (B) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 47439]]

Sec.  660.55   Allocations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Darkblotched rockfish. Distribute 9 percent or 25 mt, whichever 
is greater, of the total trawl allocation of darkblotched rockfish to 
the Pacific whiting fishery (MS sector, C/P sector, and Shorebased IFQ 
sectors). The distribution of darkblotched rockfish to each sector will 
be done pro rata relative to the sector's allocation of the commercial 
harvest guideline for Pacific whiting. Darkblotched rockfish 
distributed to the MS sector and C/P sector are managed as set-asides 
at Table 1d and Table 2d, subpart C. The allocation of darkblotched 
rockfish to the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery contributes to the 
Shorebased IFQ allocation. After deducting allocations for the Pacific 
whiting fishery, the remaining trawl allocation is allocated to the 
Shorebased IFQ Program.
    (B) Pacific Ocean Perch (POP). Distribute 17 percent or 30 mt, 
whichever is greater, of the total trawl allocation of POP to the 
Pacific whiting fishery (MS sector, C/P sector, and Shorebased IFQ 
sector). The distribution of POP to each sector will be done pro rata 
relative to the sector's allocation of the commercial harvest guideline 
for Pacific whiting. POP distributed to the MS sector and C/P sector 
are managed as set-asides at Table 1d and Table 2d, subpart C. The 
allocation of POP to the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery contributes to the 
Shorebased IFQ allocation. After deducting allocations for the Pacific 
whiting fishery, the remaining trawl allocation is allocated to the 
Shorebased IFQ Program.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  660.60 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (d)(1)(v);
0
b. Remove paragraph (d)(1)(vii);
0
c. Redesignate paragraph (d)(1)(vi) as paragraph (d)(1)(vii); and
0
d. Add new paragraph (d)(1)(vi).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  660.60  Specifications and management measures.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) Close one or both of the whiting or non-whiting sectors of the 
groundfish fishery upon that sector having exceeded its annual Chinook 
salmon bycatch guideline and the reserve. The whiting sector includes 
the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, MS, and C/P sectors. The non-whiting 
sector includes the midwater trawl, bottom trawl, and fixed gear 
fisheries under the Shorebased IFQ Program, limited entry fixed gear 
fisheries, open access fisheries, and recreational fisheries subject to 
this provision as set out in Sec.  660.360(d).
    (A) The whiting sector Chinook salmon bycatch guideline is 11,000 
fish.
    (B) The non-whiting sector Chinook salmon bycatch guideline is 
5,500 fish.
    (C) The reserve is 3,500 fish.
    (vi) Close the whiting or non-whiting sector of the groundfish 
fishery upon that sector having exceeded its annual Chinook salmon 
bycatch guideline if the other sector has already been closed after 
exceeding its Chinook salmon bycatch guideline and the reserve. The 
whiting sector includes the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, MS, and C/P 
sectors. The non-whiting sector includes the midwater trawl, bottom 
trawl, and fixed gear fisheries under the Shorebased IFQ Program, 
limited entry fixed gear fisheries, open access fisheries, and 
recreational fisheries subject to this provision as set out in Sec.  
660.360(d).
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  660.71 as follows:
0
a. Redesignate paragraphs (k) through (n) as paragraphs (o) through 
(r); and
0
b. Add new paragraphs (k) through (n) and paragraphs (s) through (v).
    The additions read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (k) The 30 fm (55 m) depth contour around Santa Barbara Island off 
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of 
the following points in the order stated:
    (1) 33[deg]30.38' N lat., 119[deg]03.15' W long.;
    (2) 33[deg]29.64' N lat., 119[deg]00.58' W long.;
    (3) 33[deg]27.24' N lat., 119[deg]01.73' W long.;
    (4) 33[deg]27.76' N lat., 119[deg]03.48' W long.;
    (5) 33[deg]29.50' N lat., 119[deg]04.20' W long.; and
    (6) 33[deg]30.38' N lat., 119[deg]03.15' W long.
    (l) The 30 fm (55 m) depth contour around San Nicholas Island off 
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of 
the following points in the order stated:
    (1) 33[deg]18.39' N lat., 119[deg]38.87' W long.;
    (2) 33[deg]18.63' N lat., 119[deg]27.52' W long.;
    (3) 33[deg]15.24' N lat., 119[deg]20.10' W long.;
    (4) 33[deg]13.27' N lat., 119[deg]20.10' W long.;
    (5) 33[deg]12.16' N lat., 119[deg]26.82' W long.;
    (6) 33[deg]13.20' N lat., 119[deg]31.87' W long.;
    (7) 33[deg]15.70' N lat., 119[deg]38.87' W long.;
    (8) 33[deg]17.52' N lat., 119[deg]40.15' W long.; and
    (9) 33[deg]18.39' N lat., 119[deg]38.87' W long.
    (m) The 30 fm (55 m) depth contour around Tanner Bank off the state 
of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the 
following points in the order stated:
    (1) 32[deg]43.02' N lat., 119[deg]08.52' W long.;
    (2) 32[deg]41.81' N lat., 119[deg]06.20' W long.;
    (3) 32[deg]40.67' N lat., 119[deg]06.82' W long.;
    (4) 32[deg]41.62' N lat., 119[deg]09.46' W long.; and
    (5) 32[deg]43.02' N lat., 119[deg]08.52' W long.
    (n) The 30 fm (55 m) depth contour around Cortes Bank off the state 
of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the 
following points in the order stated:
    (1) 32[deg]29.73' N lat., 119[deg]12.95' W long.;
    (2) 32[deg]28.17' N lat., 119[deg]07.04' W long.;
    (3) 32[deg]26.27' N lat., 119[deg]04.14' W long.;
    (4) 32[deg]25.22' N lat., 119[deg]04.77' W long.;
    (5) 32[deg]28.60' N lat., 119[deg]14.15' W long.; and
    (6) 32[deg]29.73' N lat., 119[deg]12.95' W long.
* * * * *
    (s) The 40 fm (73 m) depth contour around Santa Barbara Island off 
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of 
the following points in the order stated:
    (1) 33[deg]30.87' N lat., 119[deg]02.43' W long.;
    (2) 33[deg]29.87' N lat., 119[deg]00.34' W long.;
    (3) 33[deg]27.08' N lat., 119[deg]01.65' W long.;
    (4) 33[deg]27.64' N lat., 119[deg]03.45' W long.;
    (5) 33[deg]29.12' N lat., 119[deg]04.55' W long.;
    (6) 33[deg]29.66' N lat., 119[deg]05.49' W long.; and
    (7) 33[deg]30.87' N lat., 119[deg]02.43' W long.
    (t) The 40 fm (73 m) depth contour around Tanner Bank off the state 
of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the 
following points in the order stated:
    (1) 32[deg]43.40' N lat., 119[deg]08.56' W long.;

[[Page 47440]]

    (2) 32[deg]41.36' N lat., 119[deg]05.02' W long.;
    (3) 32[deg]40.07' N lat., 119[deg]05.59' W long.;
    (4) 32[deg]41.51' N lat., 119[deg]09.76' W long.; and
    (5) 32[deg]43.40' N lat., 119[deg]08.56' W long.
    (u) The 40 fm (73 m) depth contour around San Nicholas Island off 
the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of 
the following points in the order stated:
    (1) 33[deg]19.30' N lat., 119[deg]41.05' W long.;
    (2) 33[deg]19.42' N lat., 119[deg]27.88' W long.;
    (3) 33[deg]14.31' N lat., 119[deg]17.48' W long.;
    (4) 33[deg]12.90' N lat., 119[deg]17.64' W long.;
    (5) 33[deg]11.89' N lat., 119[deg]27.26' W long.;
    (6) 33[deg]12.19' N lat., 119[deg]29.96' W long.;
    (7) 33[deg]15.42' N lat., 119[deg]39.14' W long.;
    (8) 33[deg]17.58' N lat., 119[deg]41.38' W long.; and
    (9) 33[deg]19.30' N lat., 119[deg]41.05' W long.
    (v) The 40 fm (73 m) depth contour around Cortes Bank off the state 
of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the 
following points in the order stated:
    (1) 32[deg]30.00' N lat., 119[deg]12.98' W long.;
    (2) 32[deg]28.33' N lat., 119[deg]06.81' W long.;
    (3) 32[deg]25.69' N lat., 119[deg]03.21' W long.;
    (4) 32[deg]24.66' N lat., 119[deg]03.83' W long.;
    (5) 32[deg]28.48' N lat., 119[deg]14.66' W long.; and
    (6) 32[deg]30.00' N lat., 119[deg]12.98' W long.
0
8. Amend Sec.  660.72 as follows:
0
a. Redesignate paragraphs (k)(15) through (31) as (k)(17) through (33), 
respectively; and
0
b. Add new paragraphs (k)(15) and (16).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  660.72   Latitude/longitude coordinates defining the 50 fm (91 m) 
through 75 fm (137 m) depth contours.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (15) 33[deg]57.77' N lat., 119[deg]33.49' W long.;
    (16) 33[deg]57.64' N lat., 119[deg]35.78' W long.;
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec.  660.73 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(178), (a)(181), (a)(190) through (192), and 
(d)(205) through (354);
0
b. Add paragraphs (d)(355) through (363);
0
c. Revise paragraphs (h)(281) through (313); and
0
d. Add paragraphs (h)(314) through (316).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (178) 40[deg]10.13' N lat., 124[deg]21.92' W long.;
* * * * *
    (181) 40[deg]06.39' N lat., 124[deg]17.26' W long.;
* * * * *
    (190) 40[deg]01.00' N lat., 124[deg]09.96' W long.;
    (191) 39[deg]58.07' N lat., 124[deg]11.81' W long.;
    (192) 39[deg]56.39' N lat., 124[deg]08.69' W long.;
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (205) 40[deg]02.67' N lat., 124[deg]11.83' W long.;
    (206) 40[deg]02.70' N lat., 124[deg]10.57' W long.;
    (207) 40[deg]04.08' N lat., 124[deg]10.09' W long.;
    (208) 40[deg]04.08' N lat., 124[deg]09.10' W long.;
    (209) 40[deg]01.23' N lat., 124[deg]08.91' W long.;
    (210) 40[deg]01.18' N lat., 124[deg]09.92' W long.;
    (211) 39[deg]58.05' N lat., 124[deg]11.87' W long.;
    (212) 39[deg]56.39' N lat., 124[deg]08.70' W long.;
    (213) 39[deg]54.64' N lat., 124[deg]07.31' W long.;
    (214) 39[deg]53.87' N lat., 124[deg]07.95' W long.;
    (215) 39[deg]52.42' N lat., 124[deg]08.18' W long.;
    (216) 39[deg]49.64' N lat., 124[deg]06.05' W long.;
    (217) 39[deg]49.30' N lat., 124[deg]04.60' W long.;
    (218) 39[deg]48.49' N lat., 124[deg]03.86' W long.;
    (219) 39[deg]47.73' N lat., 124[deg]04.59' W long.;
    (220) 39[deg]42.50' N lat., 124[deg]00.60' W long.;
    (221) 39[deg]34.23' N lat., 123[deg]56.82' W long.;
    (222) 39[deg]33.00' N lat., 123[deg]56.44' W long.;
    (223) 39[deg]30.96' N lat., 123[deg]56.00' W long.;
    (224) 39[deg]31.34' N lat., 123[deg]56.71' W long.;
    (225) 39[deg]32.03' N lat., 123[deg]57.44' W long.;
    (226) 39[deg]31.43' N lat., 123[deg]58.16' W long.;
    (227) 39[deg]05.56' N lat., 123[deg]57.24' W long.;
    (228) 39[deg]01.75' N lat., 123[deg]56.83' W long.;
    (229) 38[deg]59.52' N lat., 123[deg]55.95' W long.;
    (230) 38[deg]58.98' N lat., 123[deg]56.57' W long.;
    (231) 38[deg]57.50' N lat., 123[deg]56.57' W long.;
    (232) 38[deg]53.91' N lat., 123[deg]56.00' W long.;
    (233) 38[deg]42.57' N lat., 123[deg]46.60' W long.;
    (234) 38[deg]28.72' N lat., 123[deg]35.61' W long.;
    (235) 38[deg]28.01' N lat., 123[deg]36.47' W long.;
    (236) 38[deg]20.94' N lat., 123[deg]31.26' W long.;
    (237) 38[deg]15.94' N lat., 123[deg]25.33' W long.;
    (238) 38[deg]10.95' N lat., 123[deg]23.19' W long.;
    (239) 38[deg]05.52' N lat., 123[deg]22.90' W long.;
    (240) 38[deg]08.46' N lat., 123[deg]26.23' W long.;
    (241) 38[deg]06.95' N lat., 123[deg]28.03' W long.;
    (242) 38[deg]06.25' N lat., 123[deg]29.70' W long.;
    (243) 38[deg]04.57' N lat., 123[deg]31.37' W long.;
    (244) 38[deg]02.32' N lat., 123[deg]31.09' W long.;
    (245) 37[deg]59.97' N lat., 123[deg]28.43' W long.;
    (246) 37[deg]58.10' N lat., 123[deg]26.69' W long.;
    (247) 37[deg]55.46' N lat., 123[deg]27.05' W long.;
    (248) 37[deg]51.51' N lat., 123[deg]24.86' W long.;
    (249) 37[deg]45.01' N lat., 123[deg]12.09' W long.;
    (250) 37[deg]35.67' N lat., 123[deg]01.56' W long.;
    (251) 37[deg]26.62' N lat., 122[deg]56.21' W long.;
    (252) 37[deg]14.41' N lat., 122[deg]49.07' W long.;
    (253) 37[deg]11.00' N lat., 122[deg]45.87' W long.;
    (254) 37[deg]07.00' N lat., 122[deg]41.97' W long.;
    (255) 37[deg]03.19' N lat., 122[deg]38.31' W long.;
    (256) 37[deg]00.99' N lat., 122[deg]35.51' W long.;
    (257) 36[deg]58.31' N lat., 122[deg]27.56' W long.;
    (258) 37[deg]00.54' N lat., 122[deg]24.74' W long.;
    (259) 36[deg]57.81' N lat., 122[deg]24.65' W long.;

[[Page 47441]]

    (260) 36[deg]58.54' N lat., 122[deg]21.67' W long.;
    (261) 36[deg]56.52' N lat., 122[deg]21.70' W long.;
    (262) 36[deg]55.37' N lat., 122[deg]18.45' W long.;
    (263) 36[deg]52.16' N lat., 122[deg]12.17' W long.;
    (264) 36[deg]51.53' N lat., 122[deg]10.67' W long.;
    (265) 36[deg]48.05' N lat., 122[deg]07.59' W long.;
    (266) 36[deg]47.35' N lat., 122[deg]03.27' W long.;
    (267) 36[deg]50.71' N lat., 121[deg]58.17' W long.;
    (268) 36[deg]48.89' N lat., 121[deg]58.90' W long.;
    (269) 36[deg]47.70' N lat., 121[deg]58.76' W long.;
    (270) 36[deg]48.37' N lat., 121[deg]51.15' W long.;
    (271) 36[deg]45.74' N lat., 121[deg]54.18' W long.;
    (272) 36[deg]45.50' N lat., 121[deg]57.73' W long.;
    (273) 36[deg]44.02' N lat., 121[deg]58.55' W long.;
    (274) 36[deg]38.84' N lat., 122[deg]01.32' W long.;
    (275) 36[deg]35.63' N lat., 122[deg]00.98' W long.;
    (276) 36[deg]32.47' N lat., 121[deg]59.17' W long.;
    (277) 36[deg]32.52' N lat., 121[deg]57.62' W long.;
    (278) 36[deg]30.16' N lat., 122[deg]00.55' W long.;
    (279) 36[deg]24.56' N lat., 121[deg]59.19' W long.;
    (280) 36[deg]22.19' N lat., 122[deg]00.30' W long.;
    (281) 36[deg]20.62' N lat., 122[deg]02.93' W long.;
    (282) 36[deg]18.89' N lat., 122[deg]05.18' W long.;
    (283) 36[deg]14.45' N lat., 121[deg]59.44' W long.;
    (284) 36[deg]13.73' N lat., 121[deg]57.38' W long.;
    (285) 36[deg]14.41' N lat., 121[deg]55.45' W long.;
    (286) 36[deg]10.25' N lat., 121[deg]43.08' W long.;
    (287) 36[deg]07.67' N lat., 121[deg]40.92' W long.;
    (288) 36[deg]02.51' N lat., 121[deg]36.76' W long.;
    (289) 36[deg]01.04' N lat., 121[deg]36.68' W long.;
    (290) 36[deg]00.00' N lat., 121[deg]35.15' W long.;
    (291) 35[deg]57.84' N lat., 121[deg]33.10' W long.;
    (292) 35[deg]45.57' N lat., 121[deg]27.26' W long.;
    (293) 35[deg]39.02' N lat., 121[deg]22.86' W long.;
    (294) 35[deg]25.92' N lat., 121[deg]05.52' W long.;
    (295) 35[deg]16.26' N lat., 121[deg]01.50' W long.;
    (296) 35[deg]07.60' N lat., 120[deg]56.49' W long.;
    (297) 34[deg]57.77' N lat., 120[deg]53.87' W long.;
    (298) 34[deg]42.30' N lat., 120[deg]53.42' W long.;
    (299) 34[deg]37.69' N lat., 120[deg]50.04' W long.;
    (300) 34[deg]30.13' N lat., 120[deg]44.45' W long.;
    (301) 34[deg]27.00' N lat., 120[deg]39.24' W long.;
    (302) 34[deg]24.71' N lat., 120[deg]35.37' W long.;
    (303) 34[deg]21.63' N lat., 120[deg]24.86' W long.;
    (304) 34[deg]24.39' N lat., 120[deg]16.65' W long.;
    (305) 34[deg]22.48' N lat., 119[deg]56.42' W long.;
    (306) 34[deg]18.54' N lat., 119[deg]46.26' W long.;
    (307) 34[deg]16.37' N lat., 119[deg]45.12' W long.;
    (308) 34[deg]15.91' N lat., 119[deg]47.29' W long.;
    (309) 34[deg]13.80' N lat., 119[deg]45.40' W long.;
    (310) 34[deg]11.69' N lat., 119[deg]41.80' W long.;
    (311) 34[deg]09.98' N lat., 119[deg]31.87' W long.;
    (312) 34[deg]08.12' N lat., 119[deg]27.71' W long.;
    (313) 34[deg]06.35' N lat., 119[deg]32.65' W long.;
    (314) 34[deg]06.80' N lat., 119[deg]40.08' W long.;
    (315) 34[deg]07.48' N lat., 119[deg]47.54' W long.;
    (316) 34[deg]08.21' N lat., 119[deg]54.90' W long.;
    (317) 34[deg]06.85' N lat., 120[deg]05.60' W long.;
    (318) 34[deg]07.03' N lat., 120[deg]10.47' W long.;
    (319) 34[deg]08.77' N lat., 120[deg]18.46' W long.;
    (320) 34[deg]11.89' N lat., 120[deg]28.09' W long.;
    (321) 34[deg]12.53' N lat., 120[deg]29.82' W long.;
    (322) 34[deg]09.02' N lat., 120[deg]37.47' W long.;
    (323) 34[deg]01.01' N lat., 120[deg]31.17' W long.;
    (324) 33[deg]58.07' N lat., 120[deg]28.33' W long.;
    (325) 33[deg]53.37' N lat., 120[deg]14.43' W long.;
    (326) 33[deg]50.53' N lat., 120[deg]07.20' W long.;
    (327) 33[deg]45.88' N lat., 120[deg]04.26' W long.;
    (328) 33[deg]38.19' N lat., 119[deg]57.85' W long.;
    (329) 33[deg]38.19' N lat., 119[deg]50.42' W long.;
    (330) 33[deg]42.36' N lat., 119[deg]49.60' W long.;
    (331) 33[deg]53.95' N lat., 119[deg]53.81' W long.;
    (332) 33[deg]55.99' N lat., 119[deg]41.40' W long.;
    (333) 33[deg]58.48' N lat., 119[deg]27.90' W long.;
    (334) 33[deg]59.24' N lat., 119[deg]23.61' W long.;
    (335) 33[deg]59.35' N lat., 119[deg]21.71' W long.;
    (336) 33[deg]59.94' N lat., 119[deg]19.57' W long.;
    (337) 34[deg]04.48' N lat., 119[deg]15.32' W long.;
    (338) 34[deg]02.80' N lat., 119[deg]12.95' W long.;
    (339) 34[deg]02.39' N lat., 119[deg]07.17' W long.;
    (340) 34[deg]03.75' N lat., 119[deg]04.72' W long.;
    (341) 34[deg]01.82' N lat., 119[deg]03.24' W long.;
    (342) 33[deg]59.33' N lat., 119[deg]03.49' W long.;
    (343) 33[deg]59.01' N lat., 118[deg]59.56' W long.;
    (344) 33[deg]59.51' N lat., 118[deg]57.25' W long.;
    (345) 33[deg]58.83' N lat., 118[deg]52.50' W long.;
    (346) 33[deg]58.55' N lat., 118[deg]41.86' W long.;
    (347) 33[deg]55.10' N lat., 118[deg]34.25' W long.;
    (348) 33[deg]54.30' N lat., 118[deg]38.71' W long.;
    (349) 33[deg]50.88' N lat., 118[deg]37.02' W long.;
    (350) 33[deg]39.78' N lat., 118[deg]18.40' W long.;
    (351) 33[deg]35.50' N lat., 118[deg]16.85' W long.;
    (352) 33[deg]32.46' N lat., 118[deg]10.90' W long.;
    (353) 33[deg]34.11' N lat., 117[deg]54.07' W long.;
    (354) 33[deg]31.61' N lat., 117[deg]49.30' W long.;
    (355) 33[deg]16.36' N lat., 117[deg]35.48' W long.;
    (356) 33[deg]06.81' N lat., 117[deg]22.93' W long.;
    (357) 32[deg]59.28' N lat., 117[deg]19.69' W long.;
    (358) 32[deg]55.37' N lat., 117[deg]19.55' W long.;
    (359) 32[deg]53.35' N lat., 117[deg]17.05' W long.;
    (360) 32[deg]53.36' N lat., 117[deg]19.12' W long.;
    (361) 32[deg]46.42' N lat., 117[deg]23.45' W long.;
    (362) 32[deg]42.71' N lat., 117[deg]21.45' W long.; and
    (363) 32[deg]34.54' N lat., 117[deg]23.04' W long.
* * * * *

[[Page 47442]]

    (h) * * *
    (281) 34[deg]07.10' N lat., 120[deg]10.37' W long.;
    (282) 34[deg]11.07' N lat., 120[deg]25.03' W long.;
    (283) 34[deg]09.00' N lat., 120[deg]18.40' W long.;
    (284) 34[deg]13.16' N lat., 120[deg]29.40' W long.;
    (285) 34[deg]09.41' N lat., 120[deg]37.75' W long.;
    (286) 34[deg]03.15' N lat., 120[deg]34.71' W long.;
    (287) 33[deg]57.09' N lat., 120[deg]27.76' W long.;
    (288) 33[deg]51.00' N lat., 120[deg]09.00' W long.;
    (289) 33[deg]38.16' N lat., 119[deg]59.23' W long.;
    (290) 33[deg]37.04' N lat., 119[deg]50.17' W long.;
    (291) 33[deg]42.28' N lat., 119[deg]48.85' W long.;
    (292) 33[deg]53.96' N lat., 119[deg]53.77' W long.;
    (293) 33[deg]55.88' N lat., 119[deg]41.05' W long.;
    (294) 33[deg]59.18' N lat., 119[deg]23.64' W long.;
    (295) 33[deg]59.26' N lat., 119[deg]21.92' W long.;
    (296) 33[deg]59.94' N lat., 119[deg]19.57' W long.;
    (297) 34[deg]03.12' N lat., 119[deg]15.51' W long.;
    (298) 34[deg]01.97' N lat., 119[deg]07.28' W long.;
    (299) 34[deg]03.60' N lat., 119[deg]04.71' W long.;
    (300) 33[deg]59.30' N lat., 119[deg]03.73' W long.;
    (301) 33[deg]58.87' N lat., 118[deg]59.37' W long.;
    (302) 33[deg]58.08' N lat., 118[deg]41.14' W long.;
    (303) 33[deg]50.93' N lat., 118[deg]37.65' W long.;
    (304) 33[deg]39.54' N lat., 118[deg]18.70' W long.;
    (305) 33[deg]35.42' N lat., 118[deg]17.14' W long.;
    (306) 33[deg]32.15' N lat., 118[deg]10.84' W long.;
    (307) 33[deg]33.71' N lat., 117[deg]53.72' W long.;
    (308) 33[deg]31.17' N lat., 117[deg]49.11' W long.;
    (309) 33[deg]16.53' N lat., 117[deg]36.13' W long.;
    (310) 33[deg]06.77' N lat., 117[deg]22.92' W long.;
    (311) 32[deg]58.94' N lat., 117[deg]20.05' W long.;
    (312) 32[deg]55.83' N lat., 117[deg]20.15' W long.;
    (313) 32[deg]46.29' N lat., 117[deg]23.89' W long.;
    (314) 32[deg]42.00' N lat., 117[deg]22.16' W long.;
    (315) 32[deg]39.47' N lat., 117[deg]27.78' W long.; and
    (316) 32[deg]34.83' N lat., 117[deg]24.69' W long.
* * * * *
0
10. Tables 1a to part 660, subpart C through 1d to part 660, subpart C 
are revised to read as follows:
Sec.
* * * * *
Table 1a to Part 660, Subpart C--2019, Specifications of OFL, ABC, 
ACL, ACT and Fishery HG (Weights in Metric Tons)
Table 1b. to Part 660, Subpart C--2019, Allocations by Species or 
Species Group (Weight in Metric Tons)
Table 1c. to Part 660, Subpart C--Sablefish North of 36[deg] N lat. 
Allocations, 2019
Table 1d. to Part 660, Subpart C--At-Sea Whiting Fishery Annual Set-
Asides, 2019
* * * * *

[[Page 47443]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.001


[[Page 47444]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.002


[[Page 47445]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.003


[[Page 47446]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.004


[[Page 47447]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.005


[[Page 47448]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.006


[[Page 47449]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.007


[[Page 47450]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.008


[[Page 47451]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.009


[[Page 47452]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.010


[[Page 47453]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.011


[[Page 47454]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.012


[[Page 47455]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.013


[[Page 47456]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.014

0
11. Tables 2a to part 660, subpart C through 2d to part 660, supbart C 
are revised to read as follows:
Sec.
* * * * *
Table 2a. to Part 660, Subpart C--2020, and Beyond, Specifications 
of OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT and Fishery Harvest Guidelines (Weights in 
Metric Tons)
Table 2b. to Part 660, Subpart C--2020, and Beyond, Allocations by 
Species or Species Group [Weight in Metric Tons]
Table 2c. to Part 660, Subpart C--Sablefish North of 36[deg] N lat. 
Allocations, 2020 and Beyond
Table 2d. to Part 660, Subpart C--At-Sea Whiting Fishery Annual Set-
Asides, 2020 and Beyond
* * * * *

[[Page 47457]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.015


[[Page 47458]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.016


[[Page 47459]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.017


[[Page 47460]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.018


[[Page 47461]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.019


[[Page 47462]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.020


[[Page 47463]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.021


[[Page 47464]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.022


[[Page 47465]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.023


[[Page 47466]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.024


[[Page 47467]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.025


[[Page 47468]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.026


[[Page 47469]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.027


[[Page 47470]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.028

0
12. In Sec.  660.130, add paragraph (c)(2)(ii), revise paragraphs 
(d)(1)(ii) and (e)(6), and add paragraph (e)(8) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.130   Trawl fishery--management measures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The use of selective flatfish trawl gear is required inside 
the Klamath River Salmon Conservation Zone (defined at Sec.  
660.131(c)(1)) and the Columbia River Salmon Conservation Zone (defined 
at Sec.  660.131(c)(2)).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) North of 40[deg]10' N lat. POP, yellowtail rockfish, 
Washington cabezon/kelp greenling complex, Oregon cabezon/kelp 
greenling complex, cabezon off California;
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (6) Bycatch reduction areas (BRAs). Vessels using midwater 
groundfish trawl gear during the applicable Pacific whiting primary 
season may be prohibited from fishing shoreward of a boundary line 
approximating the 75 fm (137 m), 100 fm (183 m), 150 fm (274 m), or 200 
fm (366 m) depth contours.
* * * * *
    (8) Salmon conservation zones. Fishing with midwater trawl gear and 
bottom trawl gear, other than selective flatfish trawl gear, is 
prohibited in the following areas:
    (i) Klamath River Salmon Conservation Zone. The ocean area 
surrounding the Klamath River mouth bounded on the north by 
41[deg]38.80' N lat. (approximately 6 nm north of the Klamath River 
mouth), on the west by 124[deg]23' W long. (approximately 12 nm from 
shore), and on the south by 41[deg]26.80' N lat. (approximately 6 nm 
south of the Klamath River mouth).
    (ii) Columbia River Salmon Conservation Zone. The ocean area 
surrounding the Columbia River mouth bounded by a line extending for 6 
nm due west from North Head along 46[deg]18' N lat. to 124[deg]13.30' W 
long., then southerly along a line of 167 True to 46[deg]11.10' N lat. 
and 124[deg]11' W long. (Columbia River Buoy), then northeast along Red 
Buoy Line to the tip of the south jetty.
* * * * *
0
13. In Sec.  660.131, remove and reserve paragraph (c)(3) and add 
paragraph (i).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  660.131   Pacific whiting fishery management measures.

* * * * *
    (i) Salmon bycatch. This fishery may be closed through automatic 
action at Sec.  660.60(d)(1)(v) and (vi).
0
14. In Sec.  660.140, revise paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(D), (e)(4)(i), 
(g)(1), (h)(1)(i)(A)(3), and (l)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.140   Shorebased IFQ Program.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (D) For the trawl fishery, NMFS will issue QP based on the 
following shorebased trawl allocations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       2019            2020
                                                                                    Shorebased      Shorebased
                  IFQ species                                 Area                     trawl           trawl
                                                                                    allocation      allocation
                                                                                       (mt)            (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowtooth flounder...........................  Coastwide.......................        12,735.1        10,052.3
Bocaccio......................................  South of 40[deg]10' N lat.......           800.7           767.1
Canary rockfish...............................  Coastwide.......................           946.9           887.8
Chilipepper...................................  South of 40[deg]10' N lat.......         1,838.3         1,743.8
COWCOD........................................  South of 40[deg]10' N lat.......             2.2             2.2
Darkblotched rockfish.........................  Coastwide.......................           658.4           703.4
Dover sole....................................  Coastwide.......................        45,979.2        45,979.2
English sole..................................  Coastwide.......................         9,375.1         9,417.9
Lingcod.......................................  North of 40[deg]10' N lat.......         2,051.9         1,903.4
Lingcod.......................................  South of 40[deg]10' N lat.......           462.5           386.0
Longspine thornyhead..........................  North of 34[deg]27' N lat.......         2,420.0         2,293.6
Minor Shelf Rockfish complex..................  North of 40[deg]10' N lat.......         1,155.2         1,151.6
Minor Shelf Rockfish complex..................  South of 40[deg]10' N lat.......           188.6           188.6
Minor Slope Rockfish complex..................  North of 40[deg]10' N lat.......         1,248.8         1,237.5
Minor Slope Rockfish complex..................  South of 40[deg]10' N lat.......         1,049.1           455.4
Other Flatfish complex........................  Coastwide.......................         5,603.7         5,192.4
Pacific cod...................................  Coastwide.......................         1,034.1         1,034.1
Pacific ocean perch...........................  North of 40[deg]10' N lat.......         3,697.3         3,602.2
Pacific whiting...............................  Coastwide.......................             TBD             TBD
Petrale sole..................................  Coastwide.......................         2,453.0         2,393.2
Sablefish.....................................  North of 36[deg] N lat..........         2,581.3         2,636.8
Sablefish.....................................  South of 36[deg] N lat..........           834.0           851.7
Shortspine thornyhead.........................  North of 34[deg]27' N lat.......         1,511.8         1,498.5
Shortspine thornyhead.........................  South of 34[deg]27' N lat.......            50.0            50.0
Splitnose rockfish............................  South of 40[deg]10' N lat.......         1,646.7         1,628.7

[[Page 47471]]

 
Starry flounder...............................  Coastwide.......................           211.6           211.6
Widow rockfish................................  Coastwide.......................         9,928.8         9,387.1
YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH............................  Coastwide.......................             3.4             3.4
Yellowtail rockfish...........................  North of 40[deg]10' N lat.......         4,057.7         3,810.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Vessel limits. For each IFQ species or species group specified 
in this paragraph, vessel accounts may not have QP or IBQ pounds in 
excess of the annual QP vessel limit in any year. The annual QP vessel 
limit is calculated as all QPs transferred in minus all QPs transferred 
out of the vessel account.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Annual QP
                    Species category                       vessel limit
                                                           (in percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowtooth flounder.....................................              20
Bocaccio S of 40[deg]10' N lat..........................            15.4
Canary rockfish.........................................              10
Chilipepper S of 40[deg]10' N lat.......................              15
Cowcod S of 40[deg]10' N lat............................            17.7
Darkblotched rockfish...................................             6.8
Dover sole..............................................             3.9
English sole............................................             7.5
Lingcod:
  N of 40[deg]10' N lat.................................             5.3
  S of 40[deg]10' N lat.................................            13.3
Longspine thornyhead:
  N of 34[deg]27' N lat.................................               9
Minor rockfish complex N of 40[deg]10' N lat:
  Shelf species.........................................             7.5
  Slope species.........................................             7.5
Minor rockfish complex S of 40[deg]10' N lat:
  Shelf species.........................................            13.5
  Slope species.........................................               9
Other Flatfish complex..................................              15
Pacific cod.............................................              20
Pacific halibut (IBQ) N of 40[deg]10' N lat.............            14.4
Pacific ocean perch N of 40[deg]10' N lat...............               6
Pacific whiting (shoreside).............................              15
Petrale sole............................................             4.5
Sablefish:
  N of 36[deg] N lat (Monterey north)...................             4.5
  S of 36[deg] N lat (Conception area)..................              15
Shortspine thornyhead:
  N of 34[deg]27' N lat.................................               9
  S of 34[deg]27' N lat.................................               9
Splitnose rockfish S of 40[deg]10' N lat................              15
Starry flounder.........................................              20
Widow rockfish..........................................             8.5
Yelloweye rockfish......................................            11.4
Yellowtail rockfish N of 40[deg]10' N lat...............             7.5
Non-whiting groundfish species..........................             3.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) General. Shorebased IFQ Program vessels may discard IFQ 
species/species groups, and the discard mortality must be accounted for 
and deducted from QP in the vessel account. With the exception of 
vessels on Pacific whiting IFQ trips engaged in maximized retention, 
prohibited and protected species must be discarded at sea; Pacific 
halibut must be discarded as soon as practicable and the discard 
mortality must be accounted for and deducted from IBQ pounds in the 
vessel account. Non-IFQ species and non-groundfish species may be 
discarded at sea. The sorting of catch, the weighing and discarding of 
any IBQ and IFQ species, and the retention of IFQ species must be 
monitored by the observer.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Is exempt from the requirement to maintain observer coverage as 
specified in this paragraph while remaining docked in port when the 
observer makes available to the catch monitor an Observer Program 
reporting form documenting the weight and number of any overfished 
species listed under a rebuilding plan at Sec.  660.40 retained during 
that trip and which documents any discrepancy the vessel operator and 
observer may have in the weights and number of the overfished species, 
unless modified inseason under routine management measures at Sec.  
660.60(c)(1).
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (2) AMP QP pass through. The 10 percent of non-whiting QS will be 
reserved for the AMP, but the resulting AMP QP will be issued to all QS 
permit owners in proportion to their non-whiting QS until an 
alternative use of AMP QP is implemented.
0
 15. In Sec.  660.150, revise paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.150   Mothership (MS) Coop Program.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Species with set-asides for the MS and C/P Coop Programs, as 
described in Table 1d and Table 2d, subpart C.
* * * * *
0
 16. In Sec.  660.160, revise paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.160   Catcher/processor (C/P) Coop Program.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Species with set-asides for the MS and C/P Programs, as 
described in Table 1d and 2d, subpart C.
* * * * *
0
 17. Revise Tables 1 (North) and 1 (South) to part 660, subpart D to 
read as follows:
    Table 1 (North) to Part 660, Subpart D--Limited Entry Trawl 
Rockfish Conservation Areas and Landing Allowances for non-IFQ Species 
and Pacific Whiting North of 40[deg]10' N Lat.

[[Page 47472]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.029

    Table 1 (South) to Part 660, Subpart D--Limited Entry Trawl 
Rockfish Conservation Areas and Landing Allowances for non-IFQ Species 
and Pacific Whiting South of 40[deg]10' N Lat.

[[Page 47473]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.030

0
18. In Sec.  660.230, revise paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (d)(10)(ii) and 
add paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.230   Fixed gear fishery--management measures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) North of 40[deg]10' N lat.--POP, yellowtail rockfish, cabezon 
(California), Washington cabezon/kelp greenling complex, Oregon 
cabezon/kelp greenling complex;
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (ii) Fishing for rockfish and lingcod is permitted shoreward of 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), subpart C, has been filed with NMFS OLE.
* * * * *

[[Page 47474]]

    (f) Salmon bycatch. This fishery may be closed through automatic 
action at Sec.  660.60(d)(1)(v) and (vi).
0
19. In Sec.  660.231, revise paragraph (b)(3)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.231   Limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) A vessel participating in the primary season will be 
constrained by the sablefish cumulative limit associated with each of 
the permits registered for use with that vessel. During the primary 
season, each vessel authorized to fish in that season under paragraph 
(a) of this section may take, retain, possess, and land sablefish, up 
to the cumulative limits for each of the permits registered for use 
with that vessel (i.e., stacked permits). If multiple limited entry 
permits with sablefish endorsements are registered for use with a 
single vessel, that vessel may land up to the total of all cumulative 
limits announced in this paragraph for the tiers for those permits, 
except as limited by paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section. Up to 3 
permits may be registered for use with a single vessel during the 
primary season; thus, a single vessel may not take and retain, possess 
or land more than 3 primary season sablefish cumulative limits in any 
one year. A vessel registered for use with multiple 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 2019, the 
following annual limits are in effect: Tier 1 at 47,637 lb (21,608 kg), 
Tier 2 at 21,653 lb (9,822 kg), and Tier 3 at 12,373 lb (5,612 kg). In 
2020 and beyond, the following annual limits are in effect: Tier 1 at 
48,642 lb (22,064 kg), Tier 2 at 22,110 lb (10,029 kg), and Tier 3 at 
12,634 lb (5,731 kg).
* * * * *
0
20. Revise Tables 2 (North) and 2 (South) to part 660, subpart E, to 
read as follows:
    Table 2 (North) to Part 660, Subpart E--Non-Trawl Rockfish 
Conservation Areas and Trip Limits for Limited Entry Fixed Gear North 
of 40[deg]10' N Lat.

[[Page 47475]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.031

    Table 2 (South) to Part 660, Subpart E--Non-Trawl Rockfish 
Conservation Areas and Trip Limits for Limited Entry Fixed Gear South 
of 40[deg]10' N Lat.

[[Page 47476]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.032


[[Page 47477]]


0
 21. In Sec.  660.330, revise paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (d)(11)(ii) and 
add paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.330   Open access fishery--management measures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) North of 40[deg]10' N lat.--POP, yellowtail rockfish, cabezon 
(California), Washington cabezon/kelp greenling complex, Oregon 
cabezon/kelp greenling complex;
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (11) * * *
    (ii) Fishing for rockfish and lingcod is permitted shoreward of 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.
* * * * *
    (f) Salmon bycatch. This fishery may be closed through automatic 
action at Sec.  660.60(d)(1)(v) and (d)(1)(vi).
0
22. In Sec.  660.333, revise paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.333   Open access non-groundfish trawl fishery--management 
measures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) The landing includes California halibut of a size required by 
California Fish and Game Code section 8392, which states: ``No 
California halibut may be taken, possessed or sold which measures less 
than 22 in (56 cm) in total length. Total length means the shortest 
distance between the tip of the jaw or snout, whichever extends 
farthest while the mouth is closed, and the tip of the longest lobe of 
the tail, measured while the halibut is lying flat in natural repose, 
without resort to any force other than the swinging or fanning of the 
tail.''
* * * * *
0
 23. Revise Tables 3 (North) and 3 (South) in part 660, subpart F, to 
read as follows:
    Table 3 (North) to Part 660, Subpart F--Non-Trawl Rockfish 
Conservation Areas and Trip Limits for Open Access Gears North of 
40[deg]10' N Lat.

[[Page 47478]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.033


[[Page 47479]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.034

    Table 3 (South) to Part 660, Subpart F--Non-Trawl Rockfish 
Conservation Areas and Trip Limits for Open Access Gears South of 
40[deg]10' N Lat.

[[Page 47480]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.035


[[Page 47481]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE18.036

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
0
24. Amend Sec.  660.360 as follows:
0
 a. Revise paragraphs (c)(1) introductory text, (c)(1)(i)(D)(1) through 
(3), (c)(1)(ii) through (iv), (c)(2)(i)(B), (c)(3)(i)(A) through (C), 
(c)(3)(ii)(D), (c)(3)(iii)(B), (c)(3)(iii)(D), (c)(3)(iv), and 
(c)(3)(v)(A) and (B); and
0
 b. Add paragraph (d).
    The revisions and addition 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 3 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) * * *
    (D) * * *
    (1) West of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line between the U.S. border with 
Canada and the Queets River (Washington state Marine Area 3 and 4), 
recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited seaward of a boundary 
line approximating the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour from June 1 through 
Labor Day, except on days when the Pacific halibut fishery is open in 
this area it is lawful to retain lingcod, Pacific cod, and sablefish 
seaward of the 20 fm (37 m) boundary. Yellowtail and widow rockfish can 
be retained seaward of 20 fm (37 m) in the months of July and August on 
days open to the recreational salmon fishery. Days open to Pacific 
halibut recreational fishing off Washington and days open to 
recreational fishing for salmon are announced on the NMFS hotline at 
(206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825. Coordinates for the boundary line 
approximating the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour are listed in Sec.  
660.71, subpart C.
    (2) Between the Queets River (47[deg]31.70' N lat.) and Leadbetter 
Point (46[deg]38.17' N lat.) (Washington state Marine Area 2), 
recreational fishing for lingcod is prohibited seaward of a boundary 
line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour from the second

[[Page 47482]]

Saturday in March through May 31 with the following exceptions: 
Recreational fishing for lingcod is permitted within the RCA on days 
that the primary halibut fishery is open; recreational fishing for 
lingcod is allowed on Sundays in May, but only if the Pacific halibut 
recreational fishery in this area is scheduled to be open for less than 
four days. In addition to the RCA described above, between the Queets 
River (47[deg]31.70' N lat.) and Leadbetter Point (46[deg]38.17' N 
lat.) (Washington state Marine Area 2), recreational fishing for 
lingcod is prohibited January 1 through May 31, June 16 through August 
31, and September 16 through December 31 seaward of a straight line 
connecting all of the following points in the order stated: 
47[deg]31.70' N lat., 124[deg]45.00' W long.; 46[deg]38.17' N lat., 
124[deg]30.00' W long. with the following exceptions: On days that the 
primary halibut fishery is open lingcod may be taken, retained and 
possessed within the lingcod area closure; if the Pacific halibut 
recreational fishery is scheduled to be open less than four days, 
lingcod may be taken, retained, and possessed within the lingcod area 
closure on Sundays in May. Days open to Pacific halibut recreational 
fishing off Washington are announced on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-
6667 or (800) 662-9825. For additional regulations regarding the 
Washington recreational lingcod fishery, see paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of 
this section. Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 30 fm 
(55 m) depth contour are listed in Sec.  660.71.
    (3) Between Leadbetter Point (46[deg]38.17' N lat.) and the 
Columbia River (46[deg]16.00' N lat.) (Marine Area 1), when Pacific 
halibut are onboard the vessel, no groundfish may be taken and 
retained, possessed or landed, except sablefish, flatfish species 
(except halibut), Pacific cod, and lingcod from May 1 through September 
30. Except that taking, retaining, possessing or landing incidental 
halibut with groundfish on board is allowed in the nearshore area on 
days not open to all-depth Pacific halibut fisheries in the area 
shoreward of the boundary line approximating the 30 fathom (55 m) depth 
contour extending from Leadbetter Point, WA (46[deg]38.17' N lat., 
124[deg]15.88' W long.) to the Columbia River (46[deg]16.00' N lat., 
124[deg]15.88' W long.) and from there, connecting to the boundary line 
approximating the 40 fathom (73 m) depth contour in Oregon. Nearshore 
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 halibut hotline, 1-800-662-9825. Between 
Leadbetter Point (46[deg]38.17' N lat. 124[deg]21.00' W long.) and 
46[deg]33.00' N lat. 124[deg]21.00' W long., recreational fishing for 
lingcod is prohibited year round seaward of a straight line connecting 
all of the following points in the order stated: 46[deg]38.17' N lat., 
124[deg]21.00' W long.; and 46[deg]33.00' N lat., 124[deg]21.00' W 
long.
    (ii) Rockfish. In areas of the EEZ seaward of Washington 
(Washington Marine Areas 1-4) that are open to recreational groundfish 
fishing, there is a 7 rockfish per day bag limit. Taking and retaining 
yelloweye rockfish is prohibited in all Marine areas.
    (iii) Cabezon. In areas of the EEZ seaward of Washington 
(Washington Marine Areas 1-4) that are open to recreational groundfish 
fishing, there is a 1 cabezon per day bag limit.
    (iv) Lingcod. In areas of the EEZ seaward of Washington (Washington 
Marine Areas 1-4) that are open to recreational groundfish fishing and 
when the recreational season for lingcod is open, there is a bag limit 
of 2 lingcod per day. The recreational fishing season for lingcod is 
open from the second Saturday in March through the third Saturday in 
October.
    (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 June 1 through August 31, 
recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited seaward of a 
recreational RCA boundary line approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth 
contour, except that fishing for flatfish (other than Pacific halibut) 
is allowed seaward of the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour when recreational 
fishing for groundfish is permitted. Coordinates for the boundary line 
approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour are listed at Sec.  
660.71.
* * * * *
    (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 ``Other 
Flatfish,'' 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.
    (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; 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. 
Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 30 fm (55 m) depth 
contour are listed in Sec.  660.71.
    (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 20 fm (37 m) depth contour along 
the mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts from May 1 
through October 31 (shoreward of 20 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

[[Page 47483]]

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 1; is prohibited seaward of the 
boundary line approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour along the 
mainland coast and along islands and offshore seamounts from April 1 
through December 31. Closures around Cordell Banks (see paragraph 
(c)(3)(i)(C) of this section) also apply in this area. Coordinates for 
the boundary line approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour are 
listed in Sec.  660.71.
    (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. 
Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 50 fm (91 m) depth 
contour are specified in Sec.  660.72.
    (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 February 28. 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 75 
fm (137 m) depth contour from March 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). Coordinates for the boundary lines approximating the 
depth contours are specified at Sec. Sec.  660.71 through 660.74.
    (B) Cowcod conservation areas. The latitude and longitude 
coordinates of the Cowcod Conservation Areas (CCAs) boundaries are 
specified at Sec.  660.70. In general, recreational fishing for all 
groundfish is prohibited within the CCAs, except that fishing for 
petrale sole, starry flounder, and ``Other Flatfish'' is permitted 
within the CCAs as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section. 
However, recreational fishing for the following species is prohibited 
seaward of the 40 fm (37 m) depth contour when the season for those 
species is open south of 34[deg]27' N lat.: Minor Nearshore Rockfish, 
cabezon, kelp greenling, lingcod, California scorpionfish, and shelf 
rockfish. Retention of yelloweye rockfish, bronzespotted rockfish and 
cowcod is prohibited within the CCA. [Note: California state 
regulations also permit recreational fishing for California sheephead, 
ocean whitefish, and all greenlings of the genus Hexagrammos shoreward-
of the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour in the CCAs when the season for the 
RCG complex is open south of 34[deg]27' N lat.] It is unlawful to take 
and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken within the CCAs, except 
for species authorized in this section.
    (C) Cordell Banks. Recreational fishing for groundfish is 
prohibited in waters less than 100 fm (183 m) around Cordell Banks as 
defined by specific latitude and longitude coordinates at Sec.  660.70, 
subpart C, except that recreational fishing for petrale sole, starry 
flounder, and ``Other Flatfish'' is permitted around Cordell Banks as 
specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (D) Dressing/filleting. Cabezon, kelp greenling, and rock greenling 
taken in the recreational fishery may not be filleted at sea. Rockfish 
skin may not be removed when filleting or otherwise dressing rockfish 
taken in the recreational fishery.
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) Bag limits, hook limits. In times and areas when the 
recreational season for lingcod is open, there is a limit of 2 hooks 
and 1 line when fishing for lingcod. Multi-day limits are authorized by 
a valid permit issued by California and must not exceed the daily limit 
multiplied by the number of days in the fishing trip.
    (1) The bag limit between 42[deg] N lat. (California/Oregon border) 
and 40[deg]10' N lat. (Northern Management Area) is 2 lingcod per day.
    (2) The bag limit between 40[deg]10' N lat. and the U.S. border 
with Mexico (Mendocino Management Area, San Francisco Management Area, 
Central Management Area, and Southern Management Area) is 1 lingcod per 
day.
* * * * *
    (D) Dressing/filleting. Lingcod filets may be no smaller than 14 in 
(36 cm) in length. Each fillet shall bear an intact 1 in (2.6 cm) 
square patch of skin.
    (iv) ``Other Flatfish,'' petrale sole, and starry flounder. 
Coastwide off California, recreational fishing for ``Other Flatfish,'' 
petrale sole, and starry flounder, is permitted both shoreward of and 
within the closed areas described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this 
section. ``Other Flatfish'' are defined at Sec.  660.11, subpart C, and 
include butter sole, curlfin sole, flathead sole, Pacific sanddab, rex 
sole, rock sole, and sand sole. ``Other Flatfish,'' are subject to the 
overall 20-fish bag limit for all species of finfish, of which there 
may be no more than 10 fish of any one species; there is no daily bag 
limit for petrale sole, starry flounder and Pacific sanddab. There are 
no size limits for ``Other Flatfish,'' petrale sole, and starry 
flounder. ``Other Flatfish'', petrale sole, and starry flounder may be 
filleted at sea. Fillets may be of any size, but must bear intact a 
one-inch square patch of skin.
    (v) * * *
    (A) Seasons. When recreational fishing for California scorpionfish 
is open, it is permitted only outside of the recreational RCAs 
described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
    (1) Between 40[deg]10' N lat. and 38[deg]57.50' N lat. (Mendocino 
Management Area), recreational fishing for California scorpionfish is 
open from May 1 through December 31 (i.e., it's closed from January 1 
through April 30).
    (2) Between 38[deg]57.50' N lat. and 37[deg]11' N lat. (San 
Francisco Management Area), recreational fishing for California 
scorpionfish is open from April 15 through December 31 (i.e., it's 
closed from January 1 through April 14).
    (3) Between 37[deg]11' N lat. and 34[deg]27' N lat. (Central 
Management Area), recreational fishing for California scorpionfish is 
open from April 1 through December 31 (i.e., it's closed from January 1 
through March 31).
    (4) South of 34[deg]27' N lat. (Southern Management Area), 
recreational fishing for California scorpionfish is open from January 1 
through December 31.
    (B) Bag limits, hook limits. South of 40[deg]10.00' N lat., in 
times and areas where the recreational season for California 
scorpionfish is open there is a limit of 2 hooks and 1 line, the bag 
limit is 5 California scorpionfish per day. California scorpionfish do 
not count against the 10 RCG Complex fish per day limit. Multi-day 
limits are authorized by a valid permit issued by California and must 
not exceed the daily limit multiplied by the number of days in the 
fishing trip.
* * * * *
    (d) Salmon bycatch. Recreational fisheries that are not accounted 
for within pre-season salmon modeling may be closed through automatic 
action at 660.60(d)(1)(v) and (d)(1)(vi).

[FR Doc. 2018-19460 Filed 9-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>