22156 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

be set and what the scope of coverage 

should be. 

5. Are there any other changes or 

refinements that the BLM should 

consider to its current oil and gas 

bonding, surety and financial 

arrangement requirements? 

Civil Penalty Assessments 

The BLM is interested in receiving 

feedback on the following questions 

related to changes to the current caps on 

civil penalty assessments: 

1. Should the current regulatory caps 

on the amount of civil penalties that 

may be assessed be removed? 

2. If regulatory caps on the maximum 

amount of civil penalty assessments 

should remain, at what level should 

they be set to adequately deter improper 

action—in particular, drilling without 

an approved APD or drilling into 

Federal leases in knowing or willful 

trespass? 

Non-Penalty Assessments and Trespass 

1. In addition to the caps on civil 

penalties set forth at 43 CFR 3163.2, 

should the BLM consider revising any of 

the assessments set forth in 43 CFR 

3163.1? If so, what changes should be 

made and on what basis? 

2. Should the BLM consider revising 

its oil trespass regulations set forth at 43 

CFR 9239.5–2? If so, what changes 

should be made and on what basis? 

In addition to the specific information 

requests identified above, the BLM is 

also interested in receiving any other 

comments you may have regarding 

royalty rates, annual rental payments, 

minimum acceptable bids, bonding 

requirements, or the current regulatory 

caps on civil penalty assessments for 

BLM-managed oil and gas leases. 

Janice M. Schneider, 

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09033 Filed 4–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 150305219–5219–01] 

RIN 0648–BE78 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Highly Migratory Species Fisheries 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing 

to modify the existing Pacific bluefin 

tuna (PBF) Thunnus orientalis 

recreational daily bag limit in the 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off 

California, and to establish filleting-atsea requirements for any tuna species in 

the U.S. EEZ south of Point Conception, 

Santa Barbara County, under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA). This action is intended to 

conserve PBF, and is based on a 

recommendation of the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council). 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

must be submitted in writing by May 6, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2015–0029, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- 

0029, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Craig Heberer, NMFS West Coast Region 

Long Beach Office, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., 

Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. 

Include the identifier ‘‘NOAA–NMFS– 

2015–0029’’ in the comments. 

Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted by one of the above methods 

to ensure they are received, 

documented, and considered by NMFS. 

Comments sent by any other method, to 

any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period, may not be considered. All 

comments received are a part of the 

public record and will generally be 

posted for public viewing on 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

Copies of the draft Regulatory Impact 

Review (RIR) and other supporting 

documents are available via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA– 

NMFS–2015–0029, or contact the 

Regional Administrator, William W. 

Stelle, Jr., NMFS West Coast Regional 

Office, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Bldg 

1, Seattle, WA. 98115–0070, or 

RegionalAdministrator.WCRHMS@

noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Heberer, NMFS, 760–431–9440, 

ext. 303. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

7, 2004, NMFS published a final rule 

(69 FR 18444) to implement the Fishery 

Management Plan for U.S. West Coast 

Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species 

(HMS FMP) that included annual 

specification guidelines at 50 CFR 

660.709. These guidelines establish a 

process for the Council to take final 

action at its regularly-scheduled 

November meeting on any necessary 

harvest guideline, quota, or other 

management measure and recommend 

any such action to NMFS. At their 

November 2014, meeting, the Council 

adopted a recommendation (http://

www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/

1114decisions.pdf) to modify the 

existing daily bag limit regulations at 50 

CFR 660.721 for sport caught PBF 

harvested in the EEZ off the coast of 

California and to promulgate at-sea fillet 

regulations applicable south of Santa 

Barbara as routine management 

measures for the 2014–2015 biennial 

management cycle. The Council’s 

recommendation and NMFS’ proposed 

rulemaking are intended to reduce 

fishing mortality and aid in rebuilding 

the PBF stock, which is overfished and 

subject to overfishing (78 FR 41033, July 

9, 2013; 80 FR 12621, March 9, 2015) 

and to satisfy the United States’ 

obligation to reduce catches of PBF by 

sportfishing vessels in accordance with 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna 

Commission (IATTC) Resolution C–14– 

06. (http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/

Resolutions/C-14-06-Conservation-ofbluefin-2015-2016.pdf). 

Resolution C–14–06 requires that ‘‘in 

2015, all IATTC Members and 

Cooperating non-Members (CPCs) must 

take meaningful measures to reduce 

catches of PBF by sportfishing vessels 

operating under their jurisdiction to 

levels comparable to the levels of 

reduction applied under this resolution 

to the EPO commercial fisheries until 

such time that the stock is rebuilt.’’ The 

proposed daily bag limit of two fish per 

day being considered under this 

proposed rule would reduce the U.S. 

recreational harvest of PBF by 

approximately 30 percent, which is 

consistent with the IATTC scientific 

staff’s conservation recommendation for 

a 20–45 percent PBF harvest reduction 

and meets the requirements of IATTC 

Resolution C–14–06. The filleting-at-sea 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22157 

measures will assist in the enforcement 

of the proposed regulations by enabling 

enforcement personnel to differentiate 

PBF from other tuna species. This 

proposed rule is consistent with 

procedures established at 50 CFR 

660.709(a)(4) of the implementing 

regulations for the HMS FMP. 

The proposed regulations would 

reduce the existing bag limit of 10 PBF 

per day to 2 PBF per day and the 

maximum multiday possession limit 

(i.e., for trips of 3 days or more) from 30 

PBF to 6 PBF. For fishing trips of less 

than 3 days, the daily bag limit is 

multiplied by the number of days 

fishing to determine the multiday 

possession limit (e.g., the possession 

limit for a 1-day trip would be two fish 

and for a 2-day trip, four fish). A day is 

defined as a 24-hour period from the 

time of departure. Thus a trip spanning 

2 calendar days could count as only 1 

day for the purpose of enforcing 

possession limits. 

Most PBF caught by U.S. anglers are 

taken in the EEZ of Mexico, both on 

private vessels and on Commercial 

Passenger Fishing Vessels (CPFV). The 

bulk of these trips originate from and 

return to San Diego, CA, ports. During 

2004 through 2013, approximately 78 

percent of the fishing effort for PBF 

(measured by angler days) by U.S. West 

Coast recreational fishing vessels 

occurred in Mexico’s EEZ. Fishing by 

U.S. recreational vessels in Mexico’s 

EEZ is a permitted activity that is 

subject to management by the 

Government of Mexico, which has 

imposed bag and possession limits. 

The daily bag and multiday 

possession limits being proposed for the 

U.S. EEZ off the coast of California 

might be more or less conservative than 

Mexico’s limits. The proposed U.S. 

recreational limits would not apply to 

U.S. anglers while in Mexico’s waters, 

but to facilitate enforcement and 

monitoring, the limits would apply to 

U.S. vessels in the U.S. EEZ or landing 

to U.S. ports, regardless of where the 

fish were harvested. 

The proposed regulations would also 

establish requirements for filleting tuna 

at-sea (e.g., each fish must be cut into 

six pieces placed in an individual bag 

so that certain diagnostic characteristics 

are left intact), which will assist law 

enforcement personnel in accurately 

identifying different species given 

morphometric and phenotypic 

similarities between tuna species, 

specifically, yellowfin (Thunnus 

albacares) and PBF. These requirements 

would apply to any tuna species caught 

south of Santa Barbara (i.e., south of a 

line running west true from Point 

Conception, Santa Barbara County 

(34°27′ N. lat.)) In addition to enhancing 

enforcement, the proposed fillet 

measures would also assist port 

samplers and fishery biologists 

conducting fishery surveys in accurately 

identifying tuna species. 

The State of California has informed 

NMFS that it intends to implement 

companion regulations to the Federal 

regulations being proposed here by 

imposing daily PBF bag limits 

applicable to recreational angling and 

possession of fish in state waters (0–3 

nm). Currently, California State 

regulations allow, by special permit, the 

retention of up to three daily bag limits 

for a trip occurring over multiple, 

consecutive days. California State 

regulations also allow for two or more 

persons angling for finfish aboard a 

vessel in ocean waters off California to 

continue fishing until boat limits are 

reached. NMFS and the Council 

consider these additional state 

restrictions to be consistent with 

Federal regulations implementing the 

HMS FMP, including this proposed rule 

if implemented. The proposed fillet 

requirements differ from current State of 

California requirements, which allow 

tuna filleting as long as a 1-inch square 

patch of skin is left on the fillet. 

Several comments received during 

public scoping for this action called for 

an exception to the fillet requirements 

for skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis. 

The Council recommendation to NMFS 

did not provide an exception for 

skipjack tuna. However, the California 

Fish and Game Commission is 

considering a possible exception, such 

that skipjack tuna taken from and 

possessed aboard a vessel south of Point 

Conception (Santa Barbara County) may 

be processed by removing the entire 

fillet on each side and shall bear the 

entire skin attached. Skipjack tuna 

possess distinct horizontal bands on 

their belly that remain visible and 

distinct allowing for accurate 

identification, even after the fish or fillet 

has been frozen. NMFS is seeking 

further guidance from the public on the 

issue of a possible exception to the 

proposed fillet requirements for skipjack 

tuna. 

The proposed rule would apply only 

to recreational fisheries in Federal 

waters off California. Although PBF are 

occasionally caught and retained in 

Oregon and Washington, the catches are 

negligible. Therefore, the benefits 

expected from monitoring and 

regulating PBF catch in waters off those 

states does not justify the administrative 

or regulatory burden of doing so. 

Classification 

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the 

MSA, the NMFS Assistant 

Administrator has determined that this 

proposed rule is consistent with the 

HMS FMP, other provisions of the Act, 

and other applicable law, subject to 

further consideration after public 

comment. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Council prepared an 

environmental assessment (EA) for this 

action that discusses the impact on the 

environment as a result of this proposed 

rule. None of the bag and possession 

limit alternatives analyzed in the EA are 

expected to jeopardize the sustainability 

of the PBF. However, the preferred 

alternative, which reflects the action 

proposed in this rule, is likely to have 

negative economic impacts on the 

affected fishing communities. The 

alternatives, including the preferred 

alternative, for tuna filleting procedures 

are not expected to result in significant 

socioeconomic impacts. 

Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

that this proposed rule, if implemented, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The factual basis for this 

determination under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) is as follows: 

The proposed regulations would 

reduce the existing bag limit of 10 PBF 

per day to 2 PBF per day and the 

maximum multiday possession limit 

(i.e., for trips of 3 days or more) from 30 

PBF to 6 PBF. For fishing trips of less 

than 3 days, the daily bag limit is 

multiplied by the number of days 

fishing to determine the multiday 

possession limit (e.g., the possession 

limit for a 1-day trip would be two fish 

and for a 2-day trip, four fish). These 

limits will apply to recreational anglers 

in U.S. waters off the West Coast or any 

other ocean waters that return to U.S. 

waters and/or ports. This rule also 

proposes that tunas caught by 

recreational anglers to be filleted 

according to specified configurations for 

bag limit monitoring and enforcement 

purposes. 

This proposed rule, if implemented, 

would not be expected to directly affect 

any small entities. This proposed rule 

would change the PBF recreational bag 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22158 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

limit and the filleting requirements for 

caught tuna, which affects only 

individual recreational anglers. 

Recreational anglers, by definition, may 

not sell catch, and thus are not 

considered to be a business. Because 

recreational anglers are not considered 

to be a small entity under the RFA, the 

economic effects of this proposed rule 

on these anglers are outside the scope of 

the RFA. Although the for-hire sector of 

the sport fishery may experience 

indirect economic impacts due to the 

imposition of reduced daily bag and 

possession limits, those impacts are not 

required elements of the RFA analysis 

for this action. 

Because this proposed rule, if 

implemented, would not be expected to 

have a significant direct adverse 

economic effect on a substantial number 

of small entities, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required and 

none has been prepared. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

There are no new collection-ofinformation requirements associated 

with this action that are subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, existing 

collection-of-information requirements 

associated with the U.S. West Coast 

Highly Migratory Species Fishery 

Management Plan still apply. These 

existing requirements have been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under Control Number 

0648–0204. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: April 15, 2015. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF THE WEST 

COAST STATES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 660 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 

773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 660.721, revise the section 

heading, introductory text, paragraph (a) 

introductory text and paragraph (b), and 

add paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 660.721 Recreational fishing bag limits 

and filleting requirements. 

This section applies to recreational 

fishing for albacore tuna in the U.S. EEZ 

off the coast of California, Oregon, and 

Washington and for bluefin tuna in the 

U.S. EEZ off the coast of California. In 

addition to individual fishermen, the 

operator of a U.S. sportsfishing vessel 

that fishes for albacore or bluefin tuna 

is responsible for ensuring that the bag 

and possession limits of this section are 

not exceeded. The bag limits of this 

section apply on the basis of each 24- 

hour period at sea, regardless of the 

number of trips per day. The provisions 

of this section do not authorize any 

person to take and retain more than one 

daily bag limit of fish during 1 calendar 

day. Federal recreational HMS 

regulations are not intended to 

supersede any more restrictive state 

recreational HMS regulations relating to 

federally-managed HMS. 

(a) Albacore Tuna Daily Bag Limit. 

Except pursuant to a multi-day 

possession permit referenced in 

paragraph (c) of this section, a 

recreational fisherman may take and 

retain, or possess onboard no more than: 

* * * * * 

(b) Bluefin Tuna Daily Bag Limit. A 

recreational fisherman may take and 

retain, or possess on board no more than 

two bluefin tuna during any part of a 

fishing trip that occurs in the U.S. EEZ 

off California south of a line running 

due west true from the CaliforniaOregon border [42°00′ N. latitude]. 

* * * * * 

(e) Restrictions on Filleting of Tuna 

South of Point Conception. South of a 

line running due west true from Point 

Conception, Santa Barbara County 

(34°27′ N. latitude) to the U.S.-Mexico 

border, any tuna that has been filleted 

must be individually bagged as follows: 

(1) The bag must be marked with the 

species’ common name, and 

(2) the fish must be cut into the 

following six pieces with all skin 

attached: the four loins, the collar 

removed as one piece with both pectoral 

fins attached and intact, and the belly 

cut to include the vent and with both 

pelvic fins attached and intact. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09093 Filed 4–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. 140113035–5354–01] 

RIN 0648–XD082 

Pacific Island Fisheries; 2014–15 

Annual Catch Limits and 

Accountability Measures; Main 

Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed specifications; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to specify an 

annual catch limit (ACL) of 346,000 lb 

for Deep 7 bottomfish in the main 

Hawaiian Islands (MHI) for the 2014–15 

fishing year. If the ACL is projected to 

be reached, NMFS would close the 

commercial and non-commercial 

fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for 

the remainder of the fishing year. The 

proposed specifications and fishery 

closure support the long-term 

sustainability of Hawaii bottomfish. 

DATES: NMFS must receive comments 

by May 6, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2013–0174, by either of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013- 

0174, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Send written comments to 

Michael D. Tosatto, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands 

Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd. Bldg. 

176, Honolulu, HI 96818. 

Instructions: NMFS may not consider 

comments sent by any other method, to 

any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. All comments received are a 

part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential 

business information, or otherwise 

sensitive information submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS