[Federal Register: March 7, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 45)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 11181-11232]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07mr03-17]                         


[[Page 11181]]

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

Part II





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



50 CFR Part 660



Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States and in 
the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Annual 
Specifications and Management Measures; Final Rule


[[Page 11182]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 021209300-3048-02; I.D. 112502C]
RIN 0648-AQ18

 
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States 
and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Annual 
Specifications and Management Measures

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement the 2003 fishery 
specifications and management measures for groundfish taken in the U.S. 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and state waters off the coasts of 
Washington, Oregon, and California. Final specifications include the 
levels of the acceptable biological catch (ABC) and optimum yields 
(OYs). Commercial OYs (the total catch OYs reduced by tribal 
allocations and by amounts expected to be taken in recreational and 
compensation fisheries) described herein are allocated between the 
limited entry and open access fisheries. Management measures for 2003 
are intended to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished species, 
minimize incidental catch and discard of overfished and depleted 
stocks, provide equitable harvest opportunity for both recreational and 
commercial sectors, and, within the commercial fisheries, achieve 
harvest guidelines and limited entry and open access allocations to the 
extent practicable.

DATES: Effective March 1, 2003, until the 2004 annual specifications, 
unless modified, superseded, or rescinded through a publication in the 
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 
are available from Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery 
Management Council (Council), 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR 
97220. Copies of the Record of Decision (ROD)final regulatory 
flexibility analysis (FRFA) and the Small Entity Compliance Guide are 
available from D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region 
(Regional Administrator), NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1, 
Seattle, WA 98115-0070.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne deReynier or Becky Renko 
(Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-6140; fax: 206-526-6736; and 
e-mail: yvonne.dereynier@noaa.gov, becky.renko@noaa.gov or Svein 

Fougner (Southwest Region, NMFS), phone: 562-980-4000; fax: 562-980-
4047; and e-mail: svein.fougner@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    This final rule also is accessible via the Internet at the Office 
of the Federal Register's website at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_
docs/aces/aces140.htm.
 Background information and documents are 

available at the NMFS Northwest Region website at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/gdfsh01.htm
 and at the Council's website at 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/gdfsh01.htm and at the Council's website at 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.pcouncil.org.
http://http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.pcouncil.org.

Background

    A proposed rule to implement the 2003 specifications and management 
measures for Pacific Coast groundfish was published on January 7, 2003 
(68 FR 936). NMFS requested public comment on the proposed rule through 
February 7, 2003. During the comment period on the proposed rule, NMFS 
received five letters of comment, which are addressed later in the 
preamble to this final rule. See the preamble to the proposed rule for 
additional background information on the fishery and on this rule.
    The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) requires 
that fishery specifications for groundfish be annually evaluated and 
revised, as necessary, that OYs be specified for species or species 
groups in need of particular protection, and that management measures 
designed to achieve the OYs be published in the Federal Register and 
made effective by January 1, the beginning of the fishing year. To 
ensure that new 2003 fishery management measures were effective January 
1, 2003, NMFS published an emergency rule announcing final management 
measures for January-February 2003 (68 FR 908, January 7, 2003). Annual 
specifications for 2003 and management measures for March-December 2003 
were proposed in a separate rule, also published on January 7, 2003.
    Specifications and management measures announced in this rule for 
2003 are designed to rebuild overfished stocks through constraining 
direct and incidental mortality, to prevent overfishing, and to achieve 
as much of the OYs as practicable for more abundant groundfish stocks 
managed under the FMP.

Comments and Responses

    During the comment period for the 2003 specifications and 
management measures, which ended on February 7, 2003, NMFS received 
five letters of comment. These letters of comment were received 
opposing different portions of the rule: two from non-governmental 
organizations representing environmental interests, two from an 
association of seafood processors, and one from the government of 
Canada.

Comments on Harvest Specifications and Overfished Species Rebuilding

    Comment 1: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that overfished species be rebuilt 
within as short a time as possible. For a number of overfished West 
Coast groundfish species, rebuilding periods have been designated as 
the maximum time possible without any analysis as to why this time 
frame is warranted. Further, the Council and NMFS are overdue in 
preparing formal rebuilding plans (in the form of an FMP, an FMP 
amendment, or Federal regulations) for the nine overfished groundfish 
species.
    Response: In relevant part, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that 
rebuilding periods be as short as possible, taking into account the 
status and biology of the overfished stocks, and the needs of fishing 
communities, and not exceed ten years except in cases where the biology 
of the stock requires more time to rebuild (as is true of most of the 
nine overfished groundfish stocks). Under the National Standard 
Guidelines that implement the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the maximum times 
to rebuild are: 1) for stocks that can be rebuilt within ten years with 
no fishing, ten years, and 2) for stocks that cannot be rebuilt within 
ten years with no fishing, the time to rebuild in the absence of 
fishing, plus one mean generation. In establishing rebuilding periods, 
the Council and NMFS endeavor to meet the conservation requirements 
(National Standard 1) while taking into account the needs of fishing 
communities (National Standard 8).
    The proposed rule defined the rebuilding parameters for each 
species, including: that portion of the stock that has been designated 
as overfished; the biomass estimate from the most recent assessment; 
the maximum allowable time to rebuild (TMAX); rebuilding target 
(TTARGET) years (must have at

[[Page 11183]]

least a 50 percent probability of rebuilding within the specified 
time); the probability of rebuilding within the maximum permissible 
time period (PMAX); and the harvest measures that are being adopted to 
keep the total fishing mortality (typically expressed as the fishing 
mortality rate) within the specified OYs that will achieve TTARGET. 
Policy makers only have control over three of these parameters: 
TTARGET, PMAX and the fishing mortality rate. NMFS disagrees that 
rebuilding periods have been designated as the maximum time possible. 
With the exception of bocaccio rockfish (see response to Comment 2 
regarding need for a sustainability analysis), there are no TTARGET 
periods that are at or above TMAX for the overfished rockfish species.
    The Council is currently preparing Amendment 16, which establishes 
the process and standards for rebuilding plans and incorporates 
rebuilding measures into the FMP. Overfished species are currently 
managed under interim rebuilding strategies, and it is not expected 
that the final rebuilding plans will differ substantially in their 
basic biological parameters, taking into account any changes that would 
be made as a result of new data on overfished stocks' parameters. Thus, 
overfished species are not disadvantaged by not having formal 
rebuilding plans at this time.
    Comment 2: NMFS has proposed a 20 mt OY for the badly overfished 
bocaccio rockfish. This harvest level fails to meet the rebuilding 
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act because it would allow only a 
50 percent chance of rebuilding bocaccio within 170 years. NMFS admits 
that this bocaccio harvest level violates its National Standard 
Guidelines and claims that the Guidelines do not address the bocaccio 
situation. Although we believe that the National Standard Guidelines 
themselves violate the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS cannot simply dismiss 
those Guidelines.
    Response: In the revised bocaccio rebuilding analysis prepared 
following the June 2002 Council meeting, the bocaccio stock failed to 
have a 50 percent probability of rebuilding by TMAX, even in the 
absence of fishing. NMFS subsequently prepared a sustainability 
analysis for bocaccio rockfish to determine the fishing rates that 
would lead to no further decline in abundance over a specified time 
frame. The sustainability analysis shows that a harvest level of <=20 
mt would provide a 50 percent probability for the stock to rebuild in 
170 years, with a high probability (80 percent) of no 
further decline in the spawning biomass over the next 100 years. The 
southern bocaccio rockfish stock has suffered poor recruitment during 
the warm water conditions that have prevailed off Southern California 
since the late 1980s. If a period of good recruitment occurs, the stock 
could be expected to rebuild much faster than estimated.
    The National Standard Guidelines do not address the situation where 
NMFS concludes that a stock cannot rebuild by TMAX, even with zero 
fishing mortality. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the National 
Standard Guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for the bocaccio 
rockfish situation and instead has looked directly to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act for guidance. Section 304(e)(4)(A)(i) states that a 
rebuilding period shall ``be as short as possible, taking into account 
the status and biology of any overfished stocks of fish, the needs of 
fishing communities, recommendations by international organizations in 
which the United States participates, and the interaction of the 
overfished stock of fish within the marine ecosystem.''
    NMFS believes that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the 
Council and NMFS meet the conservation needs of the stock (National 
Standard 1), and also consider the needs of fishing communities 
(National Standard 8). In balancing these considerations NMFS has 
determined that zero fishing mortality is not required for this 
situation. Zero fishing mortality would seriously adversely affect 
fishers and communities in California south of Cape Mendocino because 
commercial fisheries (including fisheries for non-groundfish species) 
and recreational fisheries that incidentally catch bocaccio would be 
severely curtailed or closed altogether for many years into the future.
    Comment 3: NMFS violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act by proposing the 
same cowcod OY as in previous years. NMFS has not adequately assessed 
whether the amount of cowcod discard that is occurring is above or 
below the 4.8 mt OY. Finally, NMFS has failed to address the fact that 
its prohibition of cowcod landing and retention is not being complied 
with in practice the FEIS shows 0.8 mt of cowcod landed in 2001, the 
first year in which cowcod retention and landings were prohibited.
    Response: NMFS believes that the ABC/OY alternatives presented in 
the FEIS represent a reasonable range of alternatives. Under each 
alternative, a full suite of ABC/OYs for all managed species were 
considered. For cowcod, where no new stock assessment information was 
available, the outcome and projections from the previous assessments 
(the best scientific information) and rebuilding analyses were carried 
over into the new fishing year.
    The cowcod OY is based on a constant fishing mortality rate 
rebuilding strategy that is approximately 1 percent of the population 
(See Council documents: Revised Rebuilding Plan for West Coast Cowcod 
Exhibit C.10 Attachment 3, June 2001.) As new assessments are prepared 
for cowcod and as the stock recovers, the annual OY will increase in 
direct proportion to the biomass. These rates are consistent with the 
long term rebuilding goals defined for the individual species and 
recommended by the Council.
    NMFS agrees that further analysis is needed to fully understand how 
prohibiting bottom fishing activities in two Cowcod Conservation Areas 
in the Southern California Bight (estimated to be the most important 
habitats for cowcod) and no retention regulations coastwide affect the 
total mortality of cowcod. Despite these uncertainties, NMFS 
anticipates that efforts to minimize bocaccio fishing-related mortality 
south of Cape Mendocino will provide further protection for cowcod, 
which have a similar latitudinal and depth distribution and reside in 
similar habitats as bocaccio. These measures include: the elimination 
of all directed bocaccio rockfish retention; new depth based management 
measures that will prohibit groundfish-directed bottom trawl; reduced 
limited entry fixed gear and open access fishing opportunities in the 
depths where bocaccio are most commonly found; and the closure of the 
California recreational fisheries south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. from 
January through June 2003.
    Data collected by observers in the commercial fishery support this 
opinion. From September 1, 2001 to August 31, 2002, prior to 
implementing the rockfish conservation area, a total of 322 lb (146 kg) 
of cowcod were weighed by NMFS observers on limited entry trawl trips, 
south of 40[deg]10' N. lat., where some groundfish was retained. When 
expanded to account for sub-sampling of some tows, the estimated total 
cowcod catch on these observed trips is 751 lb (341 kg), in association 
with 745,162 lb (338 mt) of retained groundfish. Using the average tow 
depth recorded by the observers as the measure of fishing depth, 95 
percent of the weighed cowcod and 93 percent of the expanded cowcod 
catch occurred on tows within the depth ranges upon which the 2003 
rockfish conservation area is based. No attempt has been made yet to 
extrapolate these results to the

[[Page 11184]]

entire limited entry trawl fleet, in terms of either the total amount 
or depth distribution of all cowcod bycatch. However, they may serve as 
a general indicator of the depth-distribution of cowcod bycatch and the 
potential effectiveness of the conservation area.
    The source of all 1,764 lb (800 kg) of cowcod landings in 2001 is 
unclear at this time. A small amount (100 lb, 45 kg) of the cowcod 
appear to have been retained during NMFS survey cruises where research 
catch is sold to offset the survey costs. The reminder is most likely 
attributable to fishers mis-identifying the species and landing them as 
part of other market categories. When those categories are sampled for 
species composition and cowcod are found, the ratio of pounds of cowcod 
to total pounds is then applied to the entire market category for that 
sampling unit (gear/period/port group) to estimate the total amount of 
cowcod that were landed. The cowcod landings in 2002 were further 
reduced over 2001.
    Comment 4: One commenter stated that the OY for darkblotched 
rockfish was too low because it was based on an 80 percent probability 
of rebuilding by Tmax, suggesting that a 60 percent probability of 
rebuilding by that date was a reasonable standard for meeting 
rebuilding requirements. Conversely, another commenter stated that the 
OY level for darkblotched was too high because it is higher than catch 
limits that were in force in 2001. This second commenter also notes 
that the 2003 specifications claim a higher likelihood of rebuilding 
than claimed in the 2002 specifications.
    Response: The goals of rebuilding programs are to achieve the 
population size and structure that will support MSY within a specified 
time period while minimizing to the extent practicable, the social and 
economic impacts associated with rebuilding, including adverse impacts 
on fishing communities.
    NMFS guidance on rebuilding plans specifies that the minimum 
possible time to rebuild is the time to rebuild in the absence of 
fishing. For darkblotched rockfish, the minimum time to rebuild is 14 
years (2014). The mean generation time for darkblotched rockfish is 33 
years, therefore the maximum allowable time to rebuild would be 47 
years (2047). In determining the target rebuilding time period NMFS 
guidance recommends that the target rebuilding time be shorter than the 
maximum allowable time. The recommended default in section 3.4 of the 
technical guidance document (Technical Guidance On the Use of 
Precautionary Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NOAA Technical 
Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO- July 17, 1998) is that the 
target rebuilding time not exceed the midpoint between the minimum and 
maximum possible rebuilding times (Tmid).
    A draft rebuilding analysis was prepared in May 2001 and presented 
to the Council at its June 2001 meeting. This draft analysis was 
revised by NMFS in August 2001 and was adopted by the Council at its 
September 2001 meeting. The new analysis indicated that the stock was 
more depleted than originally estimated (12 percent vs 22 percent of 
unfished biomass,) and that the stock could not be rebuilt within 10 
years as was previously thought. Therefore, the OYs since 2002 reflect 
an extended rebuilding trajectory.
    The 2002 OY of 168 mt, was based on a 70 percent probability of 
rebuilding the stock to MSY by TMAX. This is equivalent to a TTARGET of 
2034. The 2003 OY of 172 mt is based on the rebuilding analysis, which 
has a 80 percent probability of rebuilding the stock to MSY by TMAX. 
This is equivalent to a TTARGET of 2030. The Council recommended and 
NMFS agrees, that an OY of 172 mt for 2003 provides a reasonable 
balance between the length of time for rebuilding the stock and the 
adverse economic impacts to the limited entry trawl sector. The 
projected darkblotched biomass increase results in a higher OY even 
though the rebuilding time is shorter.
    Comment 5: The OY for Pacific ocean perch (POP) is too low because 
it was based on a 70 percent probability of rebuilding by Ttarget. A 60 
percent probability of rebuilding by that date is a reasonable standard 
for meeting rebuilding requirements.
    Response: In 2001 the POP rebuilding analysis was updated with the 
most recent scientific information. In 2002, the OY of 350 mt reflected 
a 70 percent probability of rebuilding by the year 2042. For 2003, 
three OYs based on the most recent rebuilding analysis and 
corresponding to 50, 70, and 80 percent probabilities of rebuilding the 
stock by the year 2041 were presented to the Council. The Council 
recommended OY of 377 mt which corresponds to a 70 percent probability 
of rebuilding the stock by 2041. This OY was chosen because it was 
consistent with the interim rebuilding strategy adopted by the Council 
in prior years.
    NMFS agrees with the Council's recommendation, and believes that 
increasing the OY for POP to a level that corresponds to a 60 percent 
probability of rebuilding the stock by 2041 provides little if any 
benefit to fishers. Because POP is a slope species and is found in 
similar areas as darkblotched rockfish, measures to protect 
darkblotched rockfish reduce the availability of POP to the commercial 
fishery. The best available data on December 31, 2002 indicates that 
only about 50 percent of the available OY for POP was landed in 2002. 
With the 2003 conservation areas, there will likely be fewer 
opportunities for vessels to directly or indirectly take POP, therefore 
there would be no benefit to fishers from raising the OY.
    Comment 6: The yelloweye rockfish OY is 63 percent higher than in 
2002. While the agency suggests that yelloweye rockfish is in better 
shape than it was a year ago, the higher OY results in a rebuilding 
period that is 15 years longer than it would have been under 2002 
harvest levels.
    Response: For 2002, the ABC for yelloweye rockfish was set in 
acknowledgment that this stock would be designated as overfished and 
was based on the recommendation from the stock assessment author and 
the Stock Assessment Review Panel that reviewed the assessment. The 
Council adopted a total catch OY for yelloweye rockfish that was based 
on a precautionary adjustment of 50 percent of the specified ABC.
    On January 11, 2002, yelloweye rockfish was declared overfished (67 
FR 1555). At the Council's June 2002 meeting, an initial yelloweye 
rockfish rebuilding analysis, based on the 2001 assessment, was 
prepared and presented. The development of rebuilding measures for 
yelloweye rockfish was hampered in this process because this assessment 
did not cover waters off the coast of Washington. In August 2002, an 
updated assessment was completed in order to incorporate data from 
Washington, an important area of yelloweye rockfish abundance, and to 
incorporate newly available age data.
    The assessment update concluded that the coastwide yelloweye 
rockfish spawning female biomass was at 24.1 percent of its unfished 
biomass at the beginning of 2002. This is in contrast to the 2001 
assessment that estimated that yelloweye rockfish was at about 7 
percent of its unfished biomass in waters off northern California and 
at 13 percent of its unfished biomass in waters off Oregon. A new 
rebuilding analysis was prepared following completion of the 2002 
assessment. Due to the less depleted stock status and higher 
productivity estimated by the updated assessment, the rebuilding period 
is shorter than had been initially estimated. The estimated year to 
rebuild

[[Page 11185]]

in the absence of fishing is 2027, while the target rebuilding year 
associated with a 22 mt OY for 2003 is 2052(TMID). Selecting an OY that 
corresponds to TMID is consistent with NMFS guidance on rebuilding 
plans.
    NMFS believes that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the 
Council and NMFS meet the conservation needs of the stock (National 
Standard 1), and also consider the needs of fishing communities 
(National Standard 8). A lower rebuilding OY, which would further 
reduce the potential income of the fishers is not required.
    Comment 7: One commenter stated that the sablefish should be set 
higher, at 8,187 mt, which would be based on recruitment changes 
affected by environmental conditions, the default MSY proxy, and the 
Council's harvest control rule. Failing to base the sablefish OY on 
environmental conditions ignore the best available science, which show 
that environmental conditions affect stock status. Conversely, another 
commenter stated that the sablefish OY is 30 percent higher than that 
recommended by the Council's Allocation Committee, saying that the 
higher amount is not justified.
    Response: The SSC indicated that the medium and high OYs were 
relatively risk-prone and advised the Council that caution should be 
used when setting the 2003 harvest levels. The 5,000 mt OY, as 
recommended by the Council's ad hoc Allocation Committee, was 
consistent with the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) 
recommendation because it addressed uncertainty in the assessment 
relating to the different states of nature.
    After deliberations, the Council recommended OY of 6,500 mt which 
is a 7,455 mt OY, based on a 40/10 adjustment to the ABC, with an 
additional 1,000 mt precautionary reduction. The Council based its 
recommendation on the SSC's advice to be precautionary because of 
assessment uncertainties, and because the sablefish biomass is within 
the precautionary range. While the OY is higher than that recommended 
by the Allocation Committee, this OY is still considered to be risk 
averse rather than risk neutral. NMFS agrees with the Council's 
recommendation.
    Comment 8: One commenter stated that the whiting OY is too low and 
is set at a harvest rate that is more conservative than the Council's 
default rate, which is unjustified. Another commenter stated that the 
OY is contrary to the scientific advice of the U.S. Canada Review 
Panel. A third commenter stated that the whiting OY was higher than 
recommended by the Council's SSC and that setting the higher OY was 
unjustified.
    Response: In estimating the current biomass, NMFS used a medium 
level recruitment assumption of a recent (1999) large year class. The 
medium recruitment level was considered to be risk neutral. The U.S. 
ABC of 188,000 mt is 80 percent of the coastwide ABC. The U.S. whiting 
OY is 148,200 mt which is 80 percent of the coastwide OY (185,325 mt) 
and is based on the application of an F45% harvest rate, reduced by the 
Council's default rebuilding 40-10 harvest rate policy. Under the 40-10 
harvest rate policy, the OYs of stocks that are below B40% abundance 
are set at increasingly more conservative rates the farther they are 
below B40%.
    The SSC advised the Council to be precautionary when setting the 
Pacific whiting OY and not increase it over the 2002 harvest level 
(U.S. OY for 2002 was 129,600 mt) until a new assessment was conducted. 
However, the Council indicated that the medium harvest level, 148,200 
mt (13 percent increase over 2002), based on the 2003 projected biomass 
with an F45% harvest rate proxy was sufficiently precautionary, because 
the risk neutral medium recruitment assumption and a more conservative 
harvest rate proxy were applied. The ABC for a species or species group 
is generally derived by multiplying the harvest rate proxy by the 
biomass to forecast the amount of harvest available to the fishery. 
Because of expected whiting biomass growth in the coming years, this 
will result in a short-term increase in the OY. However, the more 
precautionary harvest rate proxy is expected to increase the rebuilding 
rate and reduce the risk of declining back into an overfished state 
because whiting is a highly productive species.
    The Joint Canada-U.S. Review Panel on the Stock assessment of the 
Coastal Pacific Hake/Whiting stock met in February 2002 and prepared a 
report, which was used by the Council and SSC in recommending the 
Pacific whiting harvest levels for 2002. While both U.S. and Canadian 
review panel members had a common interest in conducting sound 
technical review, they had different responsibilities in terms of the 
type of advice expected by the Council and Canadian Department of 
Fisheries and Oceans. Specifically, the review panel recommended 
changing the harvest rate to an F45% harvest rate and selecting the 
harvest level bounded by the low and medium recruitment scenarios for 
the 1999 year-class. This was a risk adverse policy recommendation that 
was not adopted by the Council for the reasons previously stated.
    Comment 9: NMFS has failed to compensate for overharvest in past 
years' fisheries in proposing harvest limits for 2003. In its proposed 
rule at 68 FR 953, NMFS discussed overfishing that had occurred in 
2001, but not in 2002, claiming that landings data was not available at 
the time of the publication of the proposed rule. A full month has 
passed since the end of 2002, therefore, NMFS will violate the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act if it fails to consider 2002 catch data in making 
its final decision on the 2003 specifications.
    Response: Each year since 2000, NMFS has provided a brief report 
within the preamble to the proposed rule on whether overfishing 
occurred on any groundfish species in the last year for which data was 
available. This report is not a required part of the preamble to the 
specifications and is simply provided as an update for the public. The 
commenter has taken a sentence from that report and revised its context 
so as to accuse the agency of failing to consider 2002 data in crafting 
specifications and management measures for 2003. The Council and its 
participating state and Federal agencies consider all available data, 
including catch data from the current fishing year when devising 
specifications and management measures for the upcoming fishing year.
    To the extent that they were available, data from fisheries 
conducted during 2002 were used in evaluating 2003 management options 
for all fleets targeting groundfish. Inseason comparison of trawl 
bycatch projections with reported landings during the first four months 
of 2002 resulted in adjustments to the expected target species landings 
of vessels within the 2003 model. Additionally, because trawl landings 
of bocaccio during the first four months exceeded the total bycatch 
projected for that timespan, bocaccio bycatch rates were increased for 
modeling the 2003 trawl fishery. Recommendations for management of the 
fixed gear, daily trip limit fishery for sablefish also incorporated 
landings during the first four months of 2002, in conjunction with 
catch rates over the previous three years. Early season landings in the 
recreational and commercial fixed gear fisheries for nearshore rockfish 
were included in evaluating 2003 management, along with recent years' 
landings. However, in the region north of 40[deg]10' N. lat., 
participation is usually low early in the year due to bad weather. As a 
result, landings during this period are of

[[Page 11186]]

limited use in evaluating the overall adequacy of measures adopted for 
the entire year. While recreational and commercial fixed gear vessels 
are usually more active in the region south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. early 
in the year, these groundfish fisheries were closed during two of the 
first four months of 2002, restricting their usefulness. As data for 
May and June became available during the summer, they were examined, 
and incorporated into 2003 projections where appropriate.
    In this letter of comment, the commenter refers to the Quota 
Species Monitoring (QSM) system, asserting that this system collects 
and reports data within about two weeks of landings and is used for 
inseason management. This comment expresses a common confusion between 
the best available science and the most recently available science. The 
QSM system provides estimates of total landings for managed species 
that are used for inseason fishery monitoring to show managers general 
fishery trends, such as whether a particular species is being landed at 
higher or lower amounts than the previous year or cumulative limit 
period. QSM data is not used in stock assessments because assessments 
require more accurate and specific landings data, data that comes from 
fishtickets. Data from fishtickets is also needed and used to predict 
individual vessel behavior within different management scenarios. 
Information from fishtickets, which detail the landings of individual 
vessels, is not available until several months after the landings 
recorded by those fish tickets were made. Accurate landings data from 
fishtickets represents the best available scientific information about 
how landings of the different groundfish species are distributed 
between various ports coastwide. Landings levels predicted by the QSM 
system represent only the most recently available information on 
general landings trends and cannot substitute for the accuracy and 
specificity of fishticket landings data.
    Stock assessments conducted during 2002 were initiated very early 
in the year, and were completed by April. Catches are specified in the 
models on an annual basis, and given the Council's ability to respond 
to early trends through use of inseason adjustments, it would not have 
been appropriate to have modified the models' assumptions regarding 
expected 2002 catch, based on only 2 months of landings data.
    Comment 10: We disagree with NMFS's statement that ``[N]ew 
leglisative mandates . . . gave highest priority to preventing 
overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks.'' National Standard 1 
requires fisheries management measures to prevent overfishing ``while 
achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery 
for the United States fishing industry.''
    Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act contains ten National Standards 
that characterize the nation's primary objectives for Federal fisheries 
management. National Standard 1 reads as follows: ``Conservation and 
management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a 
continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United 
States fishing industry.'' National Standard 8 reads as follows: 
``Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the 
conservation requirements of this Act (including the prevention of 
overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the 
importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to (A) 
provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to 
the extent practicable, minimize the adverse economic impacts on such 
communities.'' Balancing these two national standards is at the heart 
of the challenge faced by NMFS and the Council in managing West Coast 
groundfish fisheries. National Standard 8 does recognize the importance 
of fishing communities, but it makes that recognition while reminding 
managers of their obligation to prevent overfishing and rebuild 
overfished stocks.

Bycatch and Discard

    Comment 11: The 2003 groundfish management measures are a complex 
combination of trip limits and depth-based closures; however, the 
agency lacks much of the scientific information needed to ensure the 
success of this management scheme. The agency must establish an 
accurate accounting system to measure total catch and must establish a 
monitoring system to measure the depths at which the different species 
are caught. We fully endorse the use of vessel monitoring systems (VMS) 
to both enforce depth-based closures and to provide much-needed data on 
the catch locations for particular species.
    Response: NMFS agrees. The groundfish management measures are 
certainly complex and will require monitoring systems to both enforce 
regulations and to provide scientific information on the effectiveness 
of the regulations at protecting overfished groundfish species. NMFS is 
investigating VMS units and preparing its computer database facilities 
for receiving and organizing VMS data. The agency expects to soon 
publish a proposed rule that would set out requirements for all limited 
entry vessels that fish for groundfish to carry VMS. These proposed 
regulations would undergo public review and comment while the burden of 
increased public reporting duties associated with VMS were also under 
public review and Office of Management and Budget review under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. If NMFS approves final VMS regulations for 
implementation, the agency expects that this system would provide much-
needed data on the locations and depths at which vessels fish. Such 
information would be subject to Magnuson-Stevens Act confidentiality 
restrictions, but is expected to be very useful to NMFS enforcement and 
science centers. Data from the groundfish observer program and from the 
VMS program are expected to notably improve NMFS scientific information 
on West Coast groundfish and groundfish fishing activities. Data from 
the NMFS observer program will enhance the agency's ability to estimate 
the total catch of not only bycatch species, but target species, as 
well. Appropriate application of observer discard data to entire fleets 
requires substantial data review and modeling; this work is now 
underway.
    Comment 12: Three commenters discussed the current model for 
bycatch analysis and suggested that NMFS needs to update and improve 
the data used in that analysis. In particular, the commenters were 
critical of the use of trawl logbook data in the current bycatch 
analysis, saying that the data is old and does not accurately reflect 
current fishing patterns. Commenters also suggested that NMFS 
incorporate observer data into its bycatch rate analyses, and use that 
data to check its bycatch rate assumptions for 2003. One of these 
commenters further noted that the bycatch model only addresses the 
trawl fisheries and asked that NMFS conduct a review of its data 
sources on fishing-related mortality and update the FMP to specify the 
types of data needed to improve estimates of total mortality.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the bycatch model needs to be updated 
and needs to incorporate observer data, and the agency and the Council 
are working toward those ends. On January 27-29, 2003, the Council's 
SSC sponsored a workshop to review the bycatch model and the data 
sources for that model. The SSC plans to evaluate the report of the 
workshop review panel at its March 2003 meeting, which will be held 
concurrently with the Council's March 9-14, 2003 in Sacramento, 
California,

[[Page 11187]]

and provide the Council with its recommendations at the April 2003 
Council meeting. NMFS believes that this SSC review is an important 
step toward improving the bycatch model to better support groundfish 
management.
    NMFS agrees that observer data from the new NMFS West Coast 
groundfish observer program needs to be incorporated into the bycatch 
model. Before using the data for inseason management, NMFS must first 
review the data for potential sources of bias and, in conjunction with 
the SSC, determine the most appropriate methods for incorporating the 
new data into the bycatch model. On January 30, 2003, NMFS released its 
first report on observer program data. The observer program began in 
August 2001 and this new report provides data from the August 2001 
through August 2002 period. NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center is 
currently determining how best to integrate the new observer data into 
the model. Results from the first year of the observer program's 
activities are available online as the West Coast Groundfish Observer 
Program Initial Data Report and Summary Analyses at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/
 fram/ Observer/ datareport.htm.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/ fram/ Observer/ datareport.htm.

    NMFS also agrees that logbook data should not be a primary data 
source for the bycatch rates used in the model, although the agency 
notes that logbook and fish ticket data are likely to remain integral 
to projecting fleet behavior within the bycatch model. One commenter 
noted that fishing strategies have changed since the 1999 logbook data 
used in the model became available. While it is true that fishing 
strategies have changed, the 1999 logbook data are used to show co-
occurrence between the more abundant targeted stocks and overfished 
stocks during a period when fishing was less restricted. Fishery 
managers need to know how co-occurrence ratios looked during less 
restrictive fishing periods in order to better craft fishing 
restrictions that will reduce interceptions of overfished species. 
Another commenter noted that logbooks only show the beginnings of tow 
locations, not the direction and duration of the tows. NMFS and the 
Council need more accurate information on where trawl vessels are 
fishing throughout their tows. However, individual trawl tows may last 
for hours and encompass a wide range of depths. Consequently, even 
complete information regarding the path of any tow would not eliminate 
all ambiguity on where particular species were caught. NMFS also needs 
more information on the fishing locations of the non-trawl and 
recreational fleets in addition to improvements in trawl fishing 
location data. If NMFS is able to approve the VMS system regulations 
discussed above in the response to Comment 11, the agency expects that 
its data on the locations and depths at which vessels fish will be 
markedly improved. While the VMS regulations would initially apply to 
limited entry vessels fishing for West Coast groundfish, NMFS 
anticipates expanding these requirements to commercial passenger 
fishing vessels (recreational charter boats) and to the open access 
groundfish fleet.
    NMFS agrees that the current bycatch model only addresses the 
groundfish trawl fleet. During development of the model, bycatch rate 
data were unavailable for other fleets that catch groundfish. The NMFS 
observer program is collecting data from non-trawl fishery 
participants. As more data become available, it is the agency's intent 
to expand the bycatch model to include other gear types. With respect 
to the comment that NMFS needs to conduct a review of its data sources 
on fishing-related mortality, NMFS refers the public to the NMFS 
Northwest Fisheries Science Center's 2002 Groundfish Research Plan in 
2002, which is available online at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/ fram/ 

2002, which is available online at http://http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/ fram/ 

GFresearchplan.htm. Among other things, the Groundfish Research Plan 
provides planning goals for investigating bycatch and discard, and how 
these contribute to total groundfish mortality.
    Comment 13: NMFS has refused to seriously consider the alternative 
of managing the fishery under a system of discard caps, under which the 
fishery would be closed if a certain amount of discard occurred.
    Response: NMFS has refused to seriously consider the alternative of 
managing the fishery under a system of discard caps, under which the 
fishery would be closed if a certain amount of discard occurred.
    ``Discard caps'' generally refers to a management tool whereby an 
entire fishery, or fishing by an individual vessel, is halted when 
discard quotas for designated species are reached. Administration of 
such a system requires real-time information on discards as the fishery 
progresses, either through comprehensive, direct observation by fishery 
observers, or by a combination of observer and landings data that can 
be extrapolated to yield a reliable estimate of discards. While NMFS 
has not ``refused to seriously consider'' managing the Pacific Coast 
groundfish fishery with a discard caps program, there is no data 
collection system in place, nor is there likely to be in the near 
future, on which to base a system of discard caps. NMFS will be 
analyzing discard caps more fully in its Supplemental Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement, a preliminary draft of which should be 
available for public review in late summer 2003.
    West Coast groundfish management uses a similar management tool 
that has been adapted to account for the relatively data poor 
conditions in the West Coast groundfish fishery. The bycatch model, 
which is currently under scientific review as discussed earlier in this 
section, estimates the amounts of overfished species that will be taken 
in fisheries targeting more abundant stocks. These estimates are 
stratified over the months of the year, because historic data has shown 
that groups of groundfish species are taken in different combinations 
at different times of the year. Estimated bycatch and discard of 
overfished species is monitored through the catch and landings levels 
of targeted species. For example, NMFS will monitor the amounts of 
Dover sole and sablefish landed to estimate the amount of darkblotched 
rockfish discard in that sector of the fishery. Darkblotched rockfish 
is a deepwater rockfish species incidentally taken with Dover sole and 
sablefish. The Council recommends adjustments to the trip limits and/or 
closures of different sectors of the fishery if the OYs for overfished 
species are estimated to be approached. In 2002, for example, the 
Council learned at its June meeting that it had not accounted for 
darkblotched rockfish taken south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. when it 
developed the 2002 specifications and management measures. To prevent 
the deepwater fisheries from exceeding the darkblotched rockfish OY, 
the Council reduced trip limits for deepwater species in July and 
August and recommended area closures in waters where darkblotched 
rockfish is commonly found for September-December. NMFS implemented the 
Council's July-August recommendation, but found in investigating its 
September-December recommendation that darkblotched rockfish are more 
likely to be taken by vessels targeting deepwater species in September 
than in the summer or winter months. Thus, NMFS closed deepwater trawl 
fisheries in September and implemented area closures for October-
December via an emergency rule.
    NMFS began its observer program in August 2001 and, as mentioned 
above,

[[Page 11188]]

has just reported its first results. However, the observer program does 
not have the resources to provide observer data to managers for real-
time fishery management. The agency expects that integrating observer 
data into the bycatch model and recalibrating the model with that data 
will significantly improve NMFS and Council ability to estimate bycatch 
and discard in the West Coast groundfish fishery. These changes will 
still not allow NMFS to implement a discard cap management program, 
which as mentioned earlier, requires real-time observer program data. 
No one management tool is suitable for all fisheries, thus NMFS and the 
Council must craft management tools suitable to the West Coast 
groundfish fisheries and to the scientific information available on 
West Coast groundfish and groundfish fisheries. As suggested by another 
commenter in Comment 12, NMFS should be evaluating its data sources on 
bycatch and discard and setting goals for improving both data gathering 
and data evaluation through models like the bycatch model. In this 
manner, the agency will improve its ability to craft management tools 
specific to the groundfish fishery and its needs.
    Comment 14: The same commenter that stated that NMFS had failed to 
consider discard caps also stated that NMFS has failed to establish 
adequate bycatch assessment requirements for the fishery. This 
commenter noted that there are no bycatch assessment requirements 
contained in the proposed specifications.
    Response: The groundfish specifications and management measures 
annually set harvest limits and management measures that constrain the 
fisheries such that they are permitted to achieve harvest levels for 
more abundant stocks while still ensuring that harvest levels for 
protected stocks are not exceeded. As discussed earlier in this 
section, OYs of more abundant stocks are often not reached because 
harvest is constrained or closed to protect overfished stocks. In any 
case, the annual specifications and management measures process is not 
intended to address every aspect of groundfish fishery management. 
However, it is incorrect to assert that NMFS has failed to address 
bycatch assessment requirements altogether simply because bycatch 
assessment requirements are not part of the annual specifications and 
management measures regulatory package. Bycatch assessment requirements 
are part of NMFS's permanent Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 
660.360, implemented at 66 FR 20609, April 24, 2001, which provide 
groundfish observer program requirements and regulations for the West 
Coast groundfish fishery. For further information on the West Coast 
groundfish observer program, the observer coverage plan, and the first 
year of groundfish observer program data, please see: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/
 fram/ observer/datareport.htm.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/ fram/ observer/datareport.htm.

    Comment 15: One commenter stated that NMFS has failed to take 
adequate account of the bycatch occurring in the pink shrimp and prawn 
fisheries, in order to ensure that total mortality of overfished 
groundfish species does not exceed the level necessary to meet 
overfished species rebuilding requirements. A second commenter 
expressed concern about the potential bycatch of several overfished 
species in the spot prawn trawl fisheries. This commenter also noted 
that these are not federally-managed species and that therefore, the 
NMFS expectation that the spot prawn trawl fisheries will close in 2003 
may not be correct. If the spot prawn trawl fisheries are not closed, 
NMFS and the Council may have underestimated overfished species bycatch 
in those fisheries.
    Response: The second commenter is correct in saying that the pink 
shrimp and spot prawn trawl fisheries are state-managed fisheries. Each 
of the three coastal states has a seat on the Council, however, and is 
an active partner in coastwide efforts to protect overfished groundfish 
fisheries. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) (ODFW) has been 
cooperating with the Oregon shrimp fleet to experiment with different 
types of Bycatch Reduction Devices (BRDs) since 1994. Vessels 
participating in state pink shrimp trawl fisheries are now required to 
carry BRDs to participate in those fisheries, significantly reducing 
their groundfish and other finfish bycatch. NMFS particularly 
appreciates the initiative the states and the pink shrimp industry have 
taken to design and test these BRDs, allowing a lucrative fishery to 
remain open while still reducing its bycatch of overfished groundfish 
species.
    In all three states, spot prawn is taken with pot gear, a gear with 
very low bycatch rates, and has also been targeted with trawl gear. 
Washington State has eliminated its spot prawn trawl fishery. Oregon 
has three vessels participating in the spot prawn trawl fishery, which 
it had allowed as an experimental fishery. ODFW employees have 
indicated that this experimental use of trawl gear would end as of 
January 1, 2004. NMFS understands that the California Fish and Game 
Commission (Commission) is deliberating whether to continue to allow 
spot prawn trawling. The possibility that California may not close its 
spot prawn trawl fishery is of great concern to NMFS. NMFS has sent a 
letter to the Commission reminding it that California Department of 
Fish and Game employees participating in the Council process had 
estimated California's commercial fishery catch of bocaccio on the 
assumption that the spot prawn trawl fishery would no longer exist in 
2003. In that letter, NMFS told the Commission that if it did not 
prohibit fishing for spot prawns with trawl gear, NMFS and the Council 
would be forced to consider additional constraints on California 
groundfish fisheries to offset the bycatch expected if the spot prawn 
trawl fishery continues. In addition, if the spot prawn trawl fishery 
were to occur, it would be prohibited in the trawl Rockfish 
Conservation Areas (RCAs).
    Comment 16: For several fisheries, NMFS and the Council have 
underestimated the amount of bocaccio bycatch that may be expected to 
occur, particularly: the open access fisheries, the California set 
gillnet fisheries, the limited entry flatfish trawl fishery, and the 
California halibut trawl fishery.
    Response: The commenter details several points where data on the 
above-listed fisheries may be insufficient to properly estimate bycatch 
or where historic bycatch estimates are higher than the bycatch levels 
expected in 2003. In discussing the open access fisheries, the 
commenter notes that bocaccio landings by the open access fleet were 
higher in 1999 (22.8 mt) than estimated for all fisheries in 2003. 
Bocaccio were declared overfished in March 1998, with the first 
management measures to reduce bocaccio take introduced in 2000. Since 
bocaccio was declared overfished along with lingcod and Pacific ocean 
perch, six other West Coast groundfish species have been declared 
overfished. West Coast groundfish management in 2003 is radically 
different from that of 1999. NMFS has used 1999 logbook data as a 
reference to how overfished species interact with more abundant species 
during a relatively less restrictive fishing regime. The 2003 fishery 
management regime is considerably more restrictive than that of 1999 
and 1999 bocaccio landings are not an accurate estimate of bocaccio 
harvest expected to occur in 2003. Limited entry and open access 
commercial fisheries and recreational groundfish fisheries have been 
under ever more restrictive management regimes in each year since 1999, 
such that 2003 management measures include more restrictive trip

[[Page 11189]]

limits for co-occurring species, shorter season lengths, higher bycatch 
rate assumptions, and large-scale RCAs where groundfish fishing is 
prohibited or otherwise restricted.
    In the commenter's discussion of the California set gillnet 
fishery, the commenter assumes higher bycatch levels than those 
estimated by NMFS by comparing historic fishery data (1996-1999) with 
those estimates. As the commenter notes, several new fishery 
restrictions have been implemented by California and by NMFS since 
those years. It is not reasonable to expect that overfished species 
catch and discard levels will be the same under the 2003 management 
regime as they were under the significantly less restrictive management 
regimes of the late 1990s.
    In discussing the limited entry flatfish trawl fishery, the 
commenter compares estimates of bocaccio bycatch from a California 
application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) to estimates of the 
bocaccio bycatch in the limited entry flatfish trawl fishery. 
California has decided not to pursue this EFP. Nonetheless, estimates 
of overfished species bycatch for EFPs are intended to be some 
relatively high, liberal amount that would allow the EFP to remain open 
for as long as possible without jeopardizing rebuilding and do not 
necessarily reflect expected bycatch amounts. Estimates of bycatch in 
directed fisheries are based on the bycatch model, which looks at 
historical co-occurrence rates between the more abundant targeted 
stocks and overfished species. Further, directed limited entry trawling 
would occur within a more restricted area than had been planned for the 
flatfish EFP, which would tend to lower bycatch rates for that directed 
fishery.
    The commenter's concerns with the California halibut fishery are of 
interest to NMFS and the Council. The Council has received conflicting 
reports on the type and level of bycatch occurring in this fishery. 
NMFS notes that California halibut trawling would be under the same 
conservation area restrictions as limited entry trawling, which are 
designed to move trawlers away from areas where bocaccio commonly 
occur. These area restrictions are expected to result in lower 
incidental bocaccio take in the California halibut trawl fisheries. In 
its review of bycatch and discard data sources, NMFS will be looking at 
information on all fisheries in which groundfish are taken, including 
the California halibut open access trawl fisheries.

Comments on Fisheries Regulations

    Comment 17: One commenter stated that the groundfish conservation 
areas are not closed to all fishing, providing the example that some 
trawling is allowed in the trawl RCAs and that some nontrawl gear 
fishing is allowed in the nontrawl gear RCAs. This commenter stated 
that NMFS has failed to justify providing these exceptions to the 
conservation area restrictions. Another commenter wrote to support 
depth-based management in general.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the opportunity to clarify this 
situation. The State of California has created the California Rockfish 
Conservation Area (CRCA), which is an area south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. 
that is closed to fishing for groundfish between 50 fm (91 m) and 150 
fm (274 m). The CRCA has several exceptions for different gears in 
different areas and an additional closure in the northern portion of 
the CRCA to protect darkblotched rockfish north of 38[deg] N. lat. 
California proposed this CRCA to the Council and the Council adopted 
the regulatory provisions of the CRCA for recommendation to NMFS as 
part of its 2003 groundfish management measures package. NMFS felt that 
a large closed area with several open areas inside it would be both 
confusing to the public and inconsistent with the Council's management 
recommendations for waters north of 40[deg]10' N. lat. Thus, NMFS has 
implemented a trawl-specific rockfish conservation area (RCA) that is 
bounded between 50 and 250 fm (91 and 457 m) from 40[deg]10' N. lat. 
south to 38[deg] N. lat., between 50 fm and 150 fm (91 and 274 m) from 
38[deg] N. lat. south to 34[deg]27 N. lat., and between 100 fm and 150 
fm (183 and 274 m)from 34[deg]27 south to the U.S. border with Mexico. 
Within that Federal RCA, the only trawling permitted is pink shrimp 
trawling with BRDs. These regulations have the same effect as the 
California recommendation to close all trawling south of 40[deg]10' N. 
lat., except that pink shrimp trawling with BRDs would be allowed and 
that trawling inshore of 50 fm (91 m) would be allowed between 
40[deg]10' N. lat. and 34[deg]27' N. lat. and inshore of 100 fm (183 m) 
south of 34[deg]27' N. lat, and except that trawling would further be 
prohibited between 150 fm (274 m) and 250 fm (457 m) between 40[deg]10' 
N. lat. and 38[deg] N. lat. The NMFS regulations for conservation areas 
south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. are consistent with those for north of 
40[deg]10' N. lat. in that the regulations implement different closed 
areas for trawl and nontrawl vessels.
    The commenter correctly notes that some nontrawl gear fishing is 
permitted in nontrawl gear conservation areas. Albacore and salmon 
fishing with hook-and-line gear are permitted in the conservation 
areas. Bottom longline fisheries like the nontreaty halibut fishery, 
where overfished groundfish species are more likely to be taken, will 
be prohibited within the nontrawl conservation areas. The conservation 
areas are not closed areas wherein all fishing of any type is 
prohibited; rather, they are conservation areas wherein fishing 
activities expected to take overfished species are prohibited or 
restricted.
    Comment 18: We object to fisheries regulations that prohibit the 
possession of fish in excess of trip limits and that force vessels to 
continuously offload their catch. Prohibiting the possession of fish in 
excess of trip limits puts processors in jeopardy of citation. 
Processors must often offload fish in order to determine whether trip 
limits have been exceeded and how to deal with that excess fish. We 
suggest that possession of fish in excess of trip limits be permitted 
in cases where state or Federal officials are alerted to that 
possession within 96 hours of the start of the possession.
    Response: Federal groundfish regulations have prohibited the 
``taking and retaining, possessing or landing'' of groundfish in excess 
of trip limits since the 1980s. Federal regulations do not require 
vessels to continuously offload their catch; rather, the regulations 
require that once offloading is begun, all fish on board the vessel be 
recorded on the same landings receipt and/or fish ticket. Processors 
are not in any more jeopardy of prosecution for possession of trip 
limit overages than they ever have been. NMFS and state enforcement 
officers will continue to expect fishers and processors to report trip 
limit overages and to forfeit those overages to the state in which they 
are landed. Possession of trip limit overages, whether reported or not, 
is a violation of Federal law, but enforcement of that prohibition is 
dealt with far differently for those persons who are found to have 
possessed such overages without reporting them. NMFS and state 
enforcement continue to need an avenue for prosecuting fishers and 
processors that retain trip limit overages without reporting and 
forfeiting those overages. Although the agency appreciates the 
commenter's concern for the ability of processors to comply with 
Federal law, NMFS will not be loosening this Federal restriction.
    Comment 19: The trawl trip limit table for north of 40[deg]10' N. 
lat. lists an incorrect trip limit for yellowtail rockfish when taken 
as bycatch in the

[[Page 11190]]

flatfish fisheries. The currently listed limit of 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) 
per month should be 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) per month. Trip limit tables 
discussed and adopted at the Council's September meeting showed 
incidental yellowtail rockfish catch levels of 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) 
per month. NMFS changed this catch limit after the Council meeting with 
no public scrutiny and no economic analysis of the effects of the 
change.
    Response: In its motion on groundfish management measures, the 
Council adopted the limited entry trawl trip limits shown in the 
Council's Exhibit C.3.v., Supplemental GMT report, at pages 4-5. 
Unfortunately, that table is unclear on the trip limit for yellowtail 
rockfish when taken as bycatch in the flatfish fisheries. The table 
shows the yellowtail rockfish limit when taken in the flatfish 
fisheries as ``3,000?'' The Council never clarified this limit in its 
motion, but the Council's post-meeting newsletter mistakenly listed the 
limit as 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) per month, perhaps based on the 2002 
yellowtail rockfish limit in the winter flatfish fisheries, which was 
30,000 lb (13,608 kg) per 2 months.
    NMFS has reviewed January-April 2002 trawl vessel-month landings of 
yellowtail rockfish in combination with flatfish. A vessel-month 
represents the landings activities of a single vessel in a single 
month. In 97 percent of the vessel-months in which flatfish were landed 
during January-April 2002, the amount of yellowtail rockfish associated 
with those flatfish landings was less than 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) and it 
was zero pounds (0 kg) over 80 percent of the time. Given the lack of 
clarity in the table the Council used for its recommendations and the 
fact that the 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) per month limit accommodated 97 
percent of all yellowtail landings in association with flatfish in 
January-April 2002, NMFS does not believe that an increase to 30,000 lb 
(13,608 kg) per month is warranted at this time. The Council will have 
an opportunity to review groundfish trip limits and other management 
measures at its April 7-11, 2003 meeting in Vancouver, Washington.
    Comment 20: The management measures authorize considerable midwater 
trawling, but NMFS has failed to explain which overfished species may 
be negatively affected by midwater trawling and what those effects 
might be. Apparently the agency believes that midwater trawling will 
not increase the mortality of overfished species beyond the levels 
necessary to rebuild those species as quickly as possible.
    Response: As detailed in the Council's FEIS for this action, the 
vast majority of midwater trawling for groundfish off the West Coast 
targets Pacific whiting. Other than Pacific whiting, there are small 
allowances for yellowtail and widow rockfish when taken with midwater 
gear in association with Pacific whiting. There may also be directed 
yellowtail and widow rockfish fisheries with midwater gear in November-
December 2003, if total catch estimates for these and associated stocks 
show that these fisheries may be held without risk of exceeding the OYs 
of any species. These fisheries will not proceed if there are not 
sufficient portions of the OYs remaining to accommodate expected catch. 
NMFS does expect that midwater trawling will result in widow rockfish, 
an overfished species, being caught and landed. However, NMFS does not 
expect that the take of widow rockfish in the midwater trawl fisheries 
will jeopardize the rebuilding plan for widow rockfish because 
management measures for 2003 have been designed to keep estimated total 
widow rockfish mortality in directed fisheries and as bycatch below the 
widow rockfish OY.
    NMFS regularly documents bycatch in the midwater trawl fisheries. 
The total catch by species in the at-sea whiting fishery has been 
monitored by observers since 1991. Each vessel currently carries two 
observers, so virtually all hauls are directly sampled and are figured 
into the total catch estimates. NMFS provides an aggregation of at-sea 
whiting bycatch in an annual report provided to the public at the April 
Council meeting. EFPs are used in the shorebased whiting fishery and 
the vast majority of shorebased landings are landed unsorted, with a 
census of the catch taken upon landing. Port samplers also monitor 
shorebased whiting processing facilities. The State of Oregon reports 
on bycatch in the coastwide shorebased whiting fishery in an annual 
report, which is available online at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://hmsc.oregonstate.edu/ odfw/ 

finfish/ wh/index.html. As documented in these reports, bycatch of 
overfished species other than widow rockfish is at trace levels (fewer 
than 0.01 kg per mt of whiting taken.)
    Comment 21: NMFS failed to consider an obvious management measure 
to ban the use and carrying of large footrope trawl gear, rather than 
simply banning the landing of shelf rockfish by vessels carrying that 
gear. Large footrope trawl gear may affect deeper-water species, which 
may be low-mobility, long-lived species that are more vulnerable to the 
acute and chronic physical disturbance of trawling. NMFS has failed to 
support its implicit conclusion that large footrope trawling will not 
impact deeper-water overfished species such as darkblotched rockfish.
    Response: The commenter has incorrectly characterized NMFS 
regulations. Large footrope gear may be used only seaward of the trawl 
RCAs and vessels are prohibited from taking, retaining, possessing or 
landing shelf and nearshore rockfish and/or lingcod when large footrope 
gear is on board the vessel. While prohibiting the use of large 
footrope gear even seaward of the conservation areas could improve 
enforceability of the regulations, NMFS concluded that the benefit 
provided by allowing the harvest of Dover sole, sablefish, and 
thornyheads in areas of lowest bycatch of overfished species outweighed 
enforcement difficulties.
    NMFS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the agency has 
implicitly concluded that large footrope trawling in deeper waters will 
not impact deeper-water species. NMFS fully expects that fishing 
activities in deeper waters will result in deeper water species being 
harvested. This expectation is illustrated by the trip limits provided 
for deepwater species such as Dover sole, sablefish, and thornyheads. 
NMFS has been clear and open in stating its expectation that fishing 
activities will result in fish harvest. In fact, the series of trip 
limits and area management implemented by this rule are intended to 
control where and when that harvest occurs. NMFS has also been clear in 
its intent to manage deepwater fisheries so that their interaction with 
overfished deepwater species, darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean 
perch, is minimized. As discussed at length in the preamble to the 
proposed rule for this action, the northern trawl RCA in particular was 
designed to move fishing away from depths where these two species 
congregate, which is why it extends out to 250 fm (457 m) from 38[deg] 
N. lat. to the U.S. border with Canada.
    Comment 22: We oppose the new management measure that prohibits 
vessels from having more than one type of trawl gear on board and from 
having both trawl gear and nontrawl gear on board. This prohibition is 
costly, duplicative, and unnecessary because there are already 
groundfish landings limits based on the types of trawl gear on board.
    Response: NMFS discussed this public request with representatives 
from the Council's Enforcement Consultants, who had originally 
requested the measure to restrict vessels to carrying only a single 
gear type on board. The Enforcement Consultants concluded

[[Page 11191]]

that the combination of restrictions on the species of groundfish that 
could be landed with small versus large footrope gear and the 
requirement that vessels fishing with large footrope gear operate 
offshore of the 250 fm (457 m) depth contour would remove opportunities 
and incentives for vessels to fish for small footrope species with 
large footrope gear. NMFS and Enforcement Consultants representatives 
also agreed with the commenter that there was likely no enforcement 
benefit in prohibiting the carrying of both trawl and non-trawl gear on 
board at the same time. However, NMFS and the Enforcement Consultants 
representatives were still concerned about allowing vessels to carry 
trawl gear permitted for use within the conservation areas on board 
with trawl gear prohibited from use within the conservation areas, 
primarily because these gears are indistinguishable by enforcement 
officers flying over vessels fishing within the conservation areas. 
Therefore, the prohibition against more than one type of trawl gear on 
board has been modified such that vessels fishing within a conservation 
area with allowable trawl gear may not carry any other type of trawl 
gear on board.
    Comment 23: The proposed rule incorrectly states that the 
California recreational fisheries south of 40[deg]10' N. lat will be 
closed entirely from January through June 2003, when in fact they will 
be open in January and February for California scorpionfish from shore 
to the 20 fm (37 m) depth contour. Bocaccio may be caught incidentally 
in these fisheries for California scorpionfish, thus recreational 
fishery management measures should account for this potential mortality 
source.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the preamble to the proposed rule 
incorrectly stated that all recreational groundfish fisheries would be 
closed January-June, neglecting to mention the January-February opening 
for California scorpionfish. The agency's mis-statement in the proposed 
rule preamble, however, does not indicate new and/or unaccounted-for 
recreational fishing activity because this scorpionfish fishing 
activity was accounted for in the Council's development of recreational 
fisheries restrictions.
    The commenter raises an issue that is of concern to NMFS, improving 
estimates of catch and discard in the recreational fisheries. In 2000-
2002, California's recreational fisheries management measures were not 
restrictive enough to adequately constrain the fishery's bocaccio 
catch. In all three years, commercial fisheries had to be closed or 
severely limited in order to limit the overall take of bocaccio. 
Neither NMFS nor the State of California now have a recreational 
fishery catch monitoring system that satisfactorily characterizes 
catches in these fisheries to allow inseason monitoring and regulations 
revisions. However, NMFS is working with all three states to revise the 
current Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey so that it is 
more responsive to fishery management needs.

Changes from the Proposed Rule

    This final rule is revising Pacific Coast Groundfish Specifications 
and Management Measures for March-December 2003 set forth in the 
proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2003 (68 
FR 936). This final rule includes changes made in a correction notice 
to the Specifications and Management Measures implemented via emergency 
rule for January-February 2003 (FR 68 4719, January 30, 2003). Changes 
to the emergency rule included: clarification of commercial and 
recreational trip limits, a re-ordering of Yelloweye Rockfish 
Conservation Area coordinates, and revisions to Rockfish Conservation 
Area boundary coordinates. Because vessels may now, in some 
circumstances, have more than one type of trawl gear on board, NMFS is 
reinstating the 2002 regulation that provides that the most 
constraining trip limit for the gear on board applies to landings made 
on that trip.
    In addition, this final rule makes changes as a result of public 
comments. In response to public comments, NMFS has revised the 
prohibition set out in the proposed rule against the carrying of more 
than one type of trawl gear and/or trawl gear and non-trawl gear on 
board at the same time. Under modified (14)(b)(iv), vessels will be 
permitted to carry both trawl and non-trawl gear on board at the same 
time, but when fishing within a conservation zone with allowable trawl 
gear will not be permitted to carry any other type of trawl gear on 
board. Vessels fishing offshore or shoreward of the conservation areas 
will be permitted to carry both small footrope and large footrope 
bottom trawl gear on board at the same time.
    Tables 3-5 have been modified to provide minor editorial revisions 
and also clarifications to: the trawl trip limit for yellowtail 
rockfish; the allowance for mid-water trawl vessels to fish for whiting 
in the conservation area during the primary whiting season; the minor 
slope rockfish limit in the North so that splitnose rockfish is clearly 
incorporated within that complex. Regulations for open access exempted 
trawl fisheries have been revised to clarify that no trawling for spot 
prawn may take place within the trawl RCAs, regardless of whether 
groundfish is retained during fishing.
    Recreational fisheries regulations have been revised to better 
clarify that bocaccio, cowcod, canary, and yelloweye rockfish are 
prohibited species south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. and to more clearly tie 
recreational fishing regulations to Federal regulations designating the 
coordinate boundaries of the Cowcod Conservation Areas. Federal 
recreational fisheries regulations for California north of 40[deg]10' 
N. lat. have been revised to match more restrictive state recreational 
regulations for bocaccio. In particular, minimum size limits for the 
total length and filet length of retained bocaccio were added. The 
California state regulation has minimum size limits for bocaccio that 
did not change between 2002 and 2003. Federal recreational regulations 
for bocaccio in the north had the same minimum size limits as 
California for 2002, but neglected to include those size limits in the 
2003 proposed recreational regulations. These size limits are included 
in this final rule. A limited recreational fishery for bocaccio may 
exist north of 40[deg]10' N. lat. because the bocaccio stock north of 
40[deg]10' N. lat. is genetically distinct from the overfished bocaccio 
stock south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. as detailed in the 1999 stock 
assessment by McCall et al.
    The Federal regulations at 50 CFR 660.302 provide definitions for 
different terms used in groundfish regulation and management. In this 
final rule, NMFS is revising the definition of ``Trip Limit,'' so that 
the definition at 50 CFR 660.302 better matches the definition at 
Section IV.A.(1) of this document. NMFS has also added new definitions 
for the terms ``Trawl Fishing line'' and ``Footrope'' to clarify gear 
regulations at 50 CFR 660.322, which discuss trawl footrope 
restrictions.
    At 50 CFR 660.304(d), the coordinates listed in the proposed rule 
for the Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area were correct but were 
listed in the incorrect order such that they did not form a 
recognizable ``C'' shape as described. For the final rule, NMFS has re-
ordered the coordinates so that they correctly outline this 
conservation area.
    The States of Washington and California submitted revisions to the 
coordinates designating the boundary lines to the trawl and non-trawl 
RCAs. Changes effective with the correction document to the emergency 
rule affected the following boundary lines:

[[Page 11192]]

 50 fm (91 m) depth contour between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 34[deg]27' 
N. lat., 60 fm (110 m) depth contour between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 
34[deg]27' N. lat., 100 fm (183 m) depth contour north of 40[deg]10' N. 
lat., 100 fm (183 m) depth contour south of 34[deg]27' N. lat., 150 fm 
(274 m) depth contour south of 40[deg]10' N. lat., and the Winter 
Petrale Boundary. NMFS is implementing additional changes to RCA 
boundary coordinates through this final rule. The following boundary 
lines are affected by these revisions: 60 fm (110 m) depth contour 
between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 34[deg]27' N. lat., 75 fm (137 m) depth 
contour north of 40[deg]10' N. lat., 100 fm (183 m) depth contour north 
of 40[deg]10' N. lat., 150 fm depth contour south of 40[deg]10' N. 
lat., 150 fm (274 m) depth contour between 46[deg]16' N. lat. and 
38[deg] N. lat. which may be implemented inseason during 2003, and 250 
fm (457 m) depth contour north of 38[deg] N. lat. used during 
cumulative periods 2-5. Additionally, the State of California plans to 
submit revisions to the boundary line coordinates for the line 
approximating the 50 fm (91 m) depth contour south of 40[deg]10' N. 
lat. and to the Winter Petrale Boundary north of 40[deg]10' N. lat. 
These changes to boundary coordinates were intended to make the 
boundary lines more closely approximate the depth contours they are 
intended to designate. Regulatory language describing the RCAs has been 
revised to better emphasize that while RCAs are generally described by 
fathom lines, the actual boundaries are defined by latitude-longitude 
coordinates. When fishing off the West Coast, fishers must comply with 
the boundaries of the RCAs as designated by the coordinates, not the 
fathom curves.

I. Final Specifications

    Final fishery specifications include ABCs, the designation of OYs 
(which may be represented by harvest guidelines (HGs) or quotas for 
species that need individual management), and the allocation of 
commercial OYs between the open access and limited entry segments of 
the fishery. These specifications include fish caught in state ocean 
waters (0-3 nautical miles (nm) offshore) as well as fish caught in the 
EEZ (3-200 nm offshore).

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

[[Page 11193]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.002


[[Page 11194]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.003


[[Page 11195]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.004


[[Page 11196]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.005


[[Page 11197]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.006


[[Page 11198]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.007


[[Page 11199]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.008


[[Page 11200]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.009


[[Page 11201]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.010

II. Commercial and Recreational Fisheries

    Since 1994, the non-tribal commercial groundfish fishery has been 
divided into limited entry and open access sectors, each with its own 
set of allocations and management measures. Species or species group 
allocations between the two sectors are based on the relative amounts 
of a species or species group taken by each component of the fishery 
during the 1984-1988 limited entry permit qualification period (50 CFR 
660.332). The FMP allows suspension of this allocation formula for 
overfished species when changes to the traditional allocation formula 
are needed to better protect overfished species (FMP, section 5.3.2).
    Historically, groundfish species and/or species groups have not 
been allocated between the commercial and recreational fisheries. 
Fishery managers instead estimated the amount that would be taken in 
the recreational fisheries and set that amount aside before determining 
the allowable harvest for the non-tribal commercial sectors. For 2003, 
the Council has recommended adopting nearshore groundfish allocations 
between the recreational and commercial fisheries. These allocations 
were proposed by the States of Oregon and California for waters off 
their coasts north and south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. and are intended to 
maintain the ratio between recreational and commercial landings 2000. 
Most of the fish subject to the allocation will be taken in state 
waters, but state-Federal management of these nearshore species is 
coordinated through the Council. Commercial groundfish fishing is 
prohibited in Washington State waters.
    Groundfish species or species group allocations and set asides for 
the tribal and non-tribal sectors, and between the different non-tribal 
commercial and recreational sectors, are detailed in Tables 1a and 1b. 
All OYs, allocations and set asides are expressed in terms of total 
catch. The limited entry/open access allocations for bocaccio, canary, 
darkblotched, yelloweye rockfish, and the nearshore rockfish species 
group would be suspended to allow the Council to better develop 
management measures that provide harvest opportunity for more abundant 
stocks while protecting overfished stocks. Estimates of trip-limit 
induced discards are taken ``off the top'' and in accordance with the 
bycatch and discard analysis described in the proposed rule for this 
action at 68 FR 953 (January 7, 2003) before setting the non-tribal 
sector allocations, except for estimates of sablefish discards as 
explained in the footnotes to Table 1a. Landed catch equivalents are 
the harvest goals used when adjusting trip limits and other management 
measures during the season. Estimated bycatch of yellowtail, widow, 
canary, and darkblotched rockfish in the offshore whiting fishery is 
also deducted from the limited entry allocations before determining the 
landed catch equivalents for the target fisheries for widow and 
yellowtail rockfish.

III. 2003 Management Measures

    Management measures for the limited entry fishery are found in 
Section IV. Boundary line coordinates for the RCAs are designated at 
paragraph IV.A.(19). Most cumulative trip limits, size limits, and 
seasons for the limited entry fishery are set out in Tables 3 and 4. 
However, the limited entry nontrawl sablefish fishery, the midwater 
trawl fishery for whiting, and the hook-and-line fishery for black 
rockfish off Washington are managed separately from the majority of the 
groundfish species and are not fully addressed in the tables. The 
management structure for these fisheries has not changed since 2002, 
except for the level of trip limits for sablefish and whiting, which 
are described in paragraphs IV.B.(2) through (4). Similarly, management 
measures for the open access exempted trawl fisheries (California 
halibut, sea cucumber, pink shrimp, spot and ridgeback prawns) are 
described in paragraph IV.C.(2), separately from the open access 
fisheries trip limits set out in Table 5.

IV. NMFS Actions

    For the reasons stated above, the Assistant Administrator for 
Fisheries, NOAA (Assistant Administrator), concurs with the Council's 
recommendations and announces the following management actions for 
2003, including measures that are unchanged from 2002 and new measures.

A. General Definitions and Provisions

    The following definitions and provisions apply to the 2003 
management measures, unless otherwise specified in a subsequent Federal 
Register document:
    (1) Trip limits. Trip limits are used in the commercial fishery to 
specify the amount of fish that may legally be taken and retained, 
possessed, or landed, per vessel, per fishing trip, or cumulatively per 
unit of time, or the number of landings that may be made from a vessel 
in a given period of time, as follows:
    (a) A per trip limit is the total allowable amount of a groundfish 
species or species group, by weight, or by percentage of weight of 
legal fish on board, that may be taken and retained, possessed, or 
landed per vessel from a single fishing trip.
    (b) A daily trip limit is the maximum amount that may be taken and 
retained, possessed, or landed per vessel in 24 consecutive hours, 
starting at 0001 hours local time (l.t). Only one landing of groundfish 
may be made in that 24-hour period. Daily trip limits may not be 
accumulated during multiple day trips.
    (c) A weekly trip limit is the maximum amount that may be taken and 
retained, possessed, or landed per

[[Page 11202]]

vessel in 7 consecutive days, starting at 0001 hours l.t. on Sunday and 
ending at 2400 hours l.t. on Saturday. Weekly trip limits may not be 
accumulated during multiple week trips. If a calendar week includes 
days within two different months, a vessel is not entitled to two 
separate weekly limits during that week.
    (d) A cumulative trip limit is the maximum amount that may be taken 
and retained, possessed, or landed per vessel in a specified period of 
time without a limit on the number of landings or trips, unless 
otherwise specified. The cumulative trip limit periods for limited 
entry and open access fisheries, which start at 0001 hours l.t. and end 
at 2400 hours l.t., are as follows, unless otherwise specified:
    (i) The 2-month periods are: January 1-February 28, March 1-April 
30, May 1-June 30, July 1-August 31, September 1-October 31, and, 
November 1-December 31.
    (ii) One month means the first day through the last day of the 
calendar month.
    (iii) One week means 7 consecutive days, Sunday through Saturday.
    (e) As stated at 50 CFR 660.302 (in the definition of ``landing''), 
once the offloading of any species begins, all fish aboard the vessel 
are counted as part of the landing and must be reported as such.
    (f) The cumulative trip limits in Section IV B. and C., including 
Tables 3-5, of this rule must not be exceeded.
    (2) Fishing ahead. Unless the fishery is closed, a vessel that has 
landed its cumulative or daily limit may continue to fish on the limit 
for the next legal period, so long as no fish (including, but not 
limited to, groundfish with no trip limits, shrimp, prawns, or other 
nongroundfish species or shellfish) are landed (offloaded) until the 
next legal period. Fishing ahead is not allowed during or before a 
closed period (see paragraph IV.A.(7)). See paragraph IV.A.(9) for 
information on inseason changes to limits.
    (3) Weights. All weights are round weights or round-weight 
equivalents unless otherwise specified.
    (4) Percentages. Percentages are based on round weights, and, 
unless otherwise specified, apply only to legal fish on board.
    (5) Legal fish. ``Legal fish'' means fish legally taken and 
retained, possessed, or landed in accordance with the provisions of 50 
CFR part 660, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, any document issued under part 
660, and any other regulation promulgated or permit issued under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    (6) Size limits and length measurement. Unless otherwise specified, 
size limits in the commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries 
apply to the ``total length,'' which is the longest measurement of the 
fish without mutilation of the fish or the use of force to extend the 
length of the fish. No fish with a size limit may be retained if it is 
in such condition that its length has been extended or cannot be 
determined by these methods. For conversions not listed here, contact 
the State where the fish will be landed.
    (a) Whole fish. For a whole fish, total length is measured from the 
tip of the snout (mouth closed) to the tip of the tail in a natural, 
relaxed position.
    (b) ``Headed'' fish. For a fish with the head removed (``headed''), 
the length is measured from the origin of the first dorsal fin (where 
the front dorsal fin meets the dorsal surface of the body closest to 
the head) to the tip of the upper lobe of the tail; the dorsal fin and 
tail must be left intact.
    (c) Filets. A filet is the flesh from one side of a fish extending 
from the head to the tail, which has been removed from the body (head, 
tail, and backbone) in a single continuous piece. Filet lengths may be 
subject to size limits for some groundfish taken in the recreational 
fishery off California (see paragraph IV. D.(1)). A filet is measured 
along the length of the longest part of the filet in a relaxed 
position; stretching or otherwise manipulating the filet to increase 
its length is not permitted.
    (d) Sablefish weight limit conversions. The following conversions 
apply to both the limited entry and open access fisheries when trip 
limits are effective for those fisheries. For headed and gutted 
(eviscerated) sablefish:
    (i) The minimum size for headed sablefish, which corresponds to 20 
inches (51 cm) total length for whole fish, is 14 inches (36 cm).
    (ii) The conversion factor established by the State where the fish 
is or will be landed will be used to convert the processed weight to 
round weight for purposes of applying the trip limit. (The conversion 
factor currently is 1.6 in Washington, Oregon, and California. However, 
the State conversion factors may differ; fishers should contact fishery 
enforcement officials in the State where the fish will be landed to 
determine that State's official conversion factor.)
     (e) Lingcod size and weight conversions. The following conversions 
apply in both limited entry and open access fisheries.
    (i) Size conversion. For lingcod with the head removed, the minimum 
size limit is 19.5 inches (49.5 cm), which corresponds to 24 inches (61 
cm) total length for whole fish.
    (ii) Weight conversion. The conversion factor established by the 
State where the fish is or will be landed will be used to convert the 
processed weight to round weight for purposes of applying the trip 
limit. (The States' conversion factors may differ, and fishers should 
contact fishery enforcement officials in the state where the fish will 
be landed to determine that State's official conversion factor.) If a 
state does not have a conversion factor for headed and gutted lingcod, 
or lingcod that is only gutted; the following conversion factors will 
be used. To determine the round weight, multiply the processed weight 
times the conversion factor.
    (A) Headed and gutted. The conversion factor for headed and gutted 
lingcod is 1.5.
    (B) Gutted, with the head on. The conversion factor for lingcod 
that has only been gutted is 1.1.
    (7) Closure. ``Closure'', when referring to closure of a fishery, 
means that taking and retaining, possessing, or landing the particular 
species or species group is prohibited. (See 50 CFR 660.302.) Unless 
otherwise announced in the Federal Register, offloading must begin 
before the time the fishery closes. The provisions at paragraph 
IV.A.(2) for fishing ahead do not apply during a closed period. It is 
unlawful to transit through a closed area with any prohibited species 
on board, no matter where that species was caught, except as provided 
for in the CCA at IV. A.(19).
    (8) Fishery management area. The fishery management area for these 
species is the EEZ off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California 
between 3 and 200 nm offshore, bounded on the north by the Provisional 
International Boundary between the United States and Canada, and 
bounded on the south by the International Boundary between the United 
States and Mexico. All groundfish possessed between 0-200 nm offshore 
or landed in Washington, Oregon, or California are presumed to have 
been taken and retained from the EEZ, unless otherwise demonstrated by 
the person in possession of those fish.
    (9) Routine management measures. Most trip, bag, and size limits, 
and area closures in the groundfish fishery have been designated 
``routine,'' which means they may be changed rapidly after a single 
Council meeting see 50 CFR 660.323(b). Council meetings in 2003 will be 
held in the months of March, April, June, September, and November. 
Inseason changes to routine management measures are announced in the 
Federal Register. Information concerning changes to routine

[[Page 11203]]

management measures is available from the NMFS Northwest and Southwest 
Regional Offices (see ADDRESSES). Changes to trip limits are effective 
at the times stated in the Federal Register. Once a change is 
effective, it is illegal to take and retain, possess, or land more fish 
than allowed under the new trip limit. This means that, unless 
otherwise announced in the Federal Register, offloading must begin 
before the time a fishery closes or a more restrictive trip limit takes 
effect.
    (10) Limited entry limits. It is unlawful for any person to take 
and retain, possess, or land groundfish in excess of the landing limit 
for the open access fishery without having a valid limited entry permit 
for the vessel affixed with a gear endorsement for the gear used to 
catch the fish (50 CFR 660.306(p)).
    (11) Operating in both limited entry and open access fisheries. The 
open access trip limit applies to any fishing conducted with open 
access gear, even if the vessel has a valid limited entry permit with 
an endorsement for another type of gear. A vessel that operates in both 
the open access and limited entry fisheries is not entitled to two 
separate trip limits for the same species. If a vessel has a limited 
entry permit and uses open access gear, but the open access limit is 
smaller than the limited entry limit, the open access limit cannot be 
exceeded and counts toward the limited entry limit. If a vessel has a 
limited entry permit and uses open access gear, but the open access 
limit is larger than the limited entry limit, the smaller limited entry 
limit applies, even if taken entirely with open access gear.
    (12) Operating in areas with different trip limits. Trip limits for 
a species or a species group may differ in different geographic areas 
along the coast. The following ``crossover'' provisions apply to 
vessels operating in different geographical areas that have different 
cumulative or ``per trip'' trip limits for the same species or species 
group. Such crossover provisions do not apply to species that are 
subject only to daily trip limits, or to the trip limits for black 
rockfish off Washington (see 50 CFR 660.323(a)(1)). In 2003, the 
cumulative trip limit periods for the limited entry and open access 
fisheries are specified in paragraph IV.A(1)(d), but may be changed 
during the year if announced in the Federal Register.
    (a) Going from a more restrictive to a more liberal area. If a 
vessel takes and retains any groundfish species or species group of 
groundfish in an area where a more restrictive trip limit applies 
before fishing in an area where a more liberal trip limit (or no trip 
limit) applies, then that vessel is subject to the more restrictive 
trip limit for the entire period to which that trip limit applies, no 
matter where the fish are taken and retained, possessed, or landed.
    (b) Going from a more liberal to a more restrictive area. If a 
vessel takes and retains a groundfish species or species group in an 
area where a higher trip limit or no trip limit applies, and takes and 
retains, possesses or lands the same species or species group in an 
area where a more restrictive trip limit applies, that vessel is 
subject to the more restrictive trip limit for the entire period to 
which that trip limit applies, no matter where the fish are taken and 
retained, possessed, or landed.
    (c) Operating in two different areas where a species or species 
group is managed with different types of trip limits. During the 
fishing year, NMFS may implement management measures for a species or 
species group that set different types of trip limits (for example, per 
trip limits versus cumulative trip limits) for different areas. If a 
vessel fishes for a species or species group that is managed with 
different types of trip limits in two different areas within the same 
cumulative limit period, then that vessel is subject to the most 
restrictive overall cumulative limit for that species, regardless of 
where fishing occurs.
    (d) Minor rockfish. Several rockfish species are designated with 
species-specific limits on one side of the 40[deg]10 N. lat. management 
line, and are included as part of a minor rockfish complex on the other 
side of the line.
    (i) If a vessel takes and retains minor slope rockfish north of 
38[deg] N. lat., that vessel is also permitted to take and retain, 
possess or land splitnose rockfish up to its cumulative limit south of 
38[deg] N. lat., even if splitnose rockfish were a part of the landings 
from minor slope rockfish taken and retained north of 38[deg] N. lat. 
[Note: A vessel that takes and retains minor slope rockfish on both 
sides of the management line in a single cumulative limit period is 
subject to the more restrictive cumulative limit for minor slope 
rockfish during that period.]
    (ii) If a vessel takes and retains minor slope rockfish south of 
38[deg] N. lat., that vessel is also permitted to take and retain, 
possess or land POP up to its cumulative limit north of 38[deg] N. 
lat., even if POP were a part of the landings from minor slope rockfish 
taken and retained south of 38[deg] N. lat. [Note: A vessel that takes 
and retains minor slope rockfish on both sides of the management line 
in a single cumulative limit period is subject to the more restrictive 
cumulative limit for minor slope rockfish during that period.]
    (iii) If a vessel takes and retains minor shelf rockfish south of 
40[deg]10' N. lat., that vessel is also permitted to take and retain, 
possess, or land yellowtail rockfish up to its cumulative limits north 
of 40[deg]10' N. lat., even if yellowtail rockfish is part of the 
landings from minor shelf rockfish taken and retained south of 
40[deg]10' N. lat. Widow rockfish is included in overall shelf rockfish 
limits for all gear groups. [Note: A vessel that takes and retains 
minor shelf rockfish on both sides of the management line in a single 
cumulative limit period is subject to the more restrictive cumulative 
limit for minor shelf rockfish during that period.]
    (e) ``DTS complex.'' For 2003, there are differential trip limits 
for the ``DTS complex'' (Dover sole, shortspine thornyhead, longspine 
thornyhead, sablefish) north and south of the management line at 
40[deg]10' N. lat. Vessels operating in the limited entry trawl fishery 
are subject to the crossover provisions in this paragraph IV.A.(12) 
when making landings that include any one of the four species in the 
``DTS complex.''
    (f) Flatfish complex. For 2003, there are differential trip limits 
for the flatfish complex (butter, curlfin, English, flathead, petrale, 
rex, rock, and sand soles, Pacific sanddab, and starry flounder) north 
and south of the management line at 40[deg]10' N. lat. Vessels 
operating in the limited entry trawl fishery are subject to the 
crossover provisions in this paragraph IV.A.(12) when making landings 
that include any one of the species in the flatfish complex.
    (13) Sorting. It is unlawful for any person to ``fail to sort, 
prior to the first weighing after offloading, those groundfish species 
or species groups for which there is a trip limit, size limit, quota, 
or commercial OY, if the vessel fished or landed in an area during a 
time when such trip limit, size limit, commercial optimum yield, or 
quota applied.'' This provision applies to both the limited entry and 
open access fisheries. (See 50 CFR 660.306(h).) The following species 
must be sorted in 2003:
    (a) For vessels with a limited entry permit:
    (i) Coastwide--widow rockfish, canary rockfish, darkblotched 
rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, shortbelly rockfish, minor nearshore 
rockfish, minor shelf rockfish, minor slope rockfish, shortspine and 
longspine thornyhead, Dover sole, arrowtooth flounder, rex sole, 
petrale sole, arrowtooth flounder, other flatfish, lingcod, sablefish, 
and

[[Page 11204]]

Pacific whiting [Note: Although both yelloweye and darkblotched 
rockfish are considered minor rockfish managed under the minor shelf 
and minor slope rockfish complexes, respectively, they have separate 
OYs and therefore must be sorted by species.]
    (ii) North of 40[deg]10' N. lat.--POP, yellowtail rockfish, and, 
for fixed gear, black rockfish and blue rockfish;
    (iii) South of 40[deg]10' N. lat.--minor shallow nearshore 
rockfish, minor deeper nearshore rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, 
bocaccio rockfish, splitnose rockfish, and Pacific sanddabs.
    (b) For open access vessels (vessels without a limited entry 
permit):
    (i) Coastwide--widow rockfish, canary rockfish, darkblotched 
rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, minor nearshore rockfish, minor shelf 
rockfish, minor slope rockfish, Dover sole, arrowtooth flounder, 
petrale sole, rex sole, other flatfish, lingcod, sablefish, Pacific 
whiting, and Pacific sanddabs;
    (ii) North of 40[deg]10' N. lat.--black rockfish, blue rockfish, 
Pacific ocean perch, yellowtail rockfish;
    (iii) South of 40[deg]10' N. lat.--minor shall nearshore rockfish, 
minor deeper nearshore rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, bocaccio 
rockfish, splitnose rockfish;
    (iv) South of Point Conception--thornyheads.
    (14) Trawl Gear Restrictions. Limited entry trip limits may vary 
depending on the type of trawl gear that is on board a vessel during a 
fishing trip: large footrope, small footrope, or midwater trawl gear.
    (a) Types of trawl gear. Large footrope, small footrope, and 
midwater or pelagic trawl gears are defined at 50 CFR 660.302 and 
660.322(b). Trawl vessels may include: those vessels registered to a 
limited entry permit with a trawl endorsement; any vessel using trawl 
gear, including exempted trawl gear used to take pink shrimp, spot and 
ridgeback prawns, California halibut, or sea cucumber; or any tribal 
vessel using trawl gear.
    (b) Cumulative trip limits and prohibitions by limited entry trawl 
gear type--(i) Large footrope trawl. If Table 3 does not provide a 
large footrope trawl cumulative or trip limit for a particular species 
or species group, it is unlawful to take and retain, possess or land 
that species or species group if large footrope gear is on board. It is 
unlawful for any vessel using large footrope gear to exceed large 
footrope gear limits for any species or to use large footrope gear to 
exceed small footrope gear or midwater trawl gear limits for any 
species. It is unlawful for any vessel using large footrope gear or 
that has large footrope trawl gear on board to fish for groundfish 
shoreward of the RCAs defined at paragraph (19) of this section. The 
presence of rollers or bobbins larger than 8 inches (20 cm) in diameter 
on board the vessel, even if not attached to a trawl, will be 
considered to mean a large footrope trawl is on board.
    (ii) Small footrope or midwater trawl gear. Cumulative trip limits 
for canary rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, widow rockfish, yellowtail 
rockfish, minor shelf rockfish, minor nearshore rockfish, and lingcod, 
as indicated in Table 3 to section IV, are allowed only if small 
footrope gear or midwater trawl gear is used, and if that gear meets 
the specifications in paragraphs IV.A.(14).
    (iii) Midwater trawl gear. Higher yellowtail and widow rockfish 
cumulative trip limits are available for limited entry vessels using 
midwater trawl gear. Each landing that contains yellowtail or widow 
rockfish is attributed to the gear on board with the most restrictive 
trip limit for those species. Landings attributed to small footrope 
trawl must not exceed the small footrope limit, and landings attributed 
to midwater trawl must not exceed the midwater trawl limit. If a vessel 
has landings attributed to both types of trawls during a cumulative 
trip limit period, all landings are counted toward the most restrictive 
gear-specific cumulative limit.
    (iv) More than one type of trawl gear on board. The cumulative trip 
limits in Table 3 must not be exceeded. A vessel may have more than one 
type of limited entry bottom trawl gear on board, but the most 
restrictive trip limit associated with the gear on board applies for 
that trip and will count toward the cumulative trip limit for that 
gear. [Example: If a vessel has large footrope gear on board, it cannot 
land yellowtail rockfish, even if the yellowtail rockfish is caught 
with a small footrope trawl.] A vessel that is trawling within a GCA 
with trawl gear authorized for use within a GCA may not have any other 
type of trawl gear on board.
    (c) State landing receipts. Washington, Oregon, and California will 
require the type of trawl gear on board to be recorded on the State 
landing receipt(s) for each trip or on an attachment to the State 
landing receipt.
    (d) Gear inspection. All trawl gear and trawl gear components, 
including unattached rollers or bobbins, must be readily accessible and 
made available for inspection at the request of an authorized officer. 
No trawl gear may be removed from the vessel prior to offloading. All 
footropes shall be uncovered and clearly visible except when in use for 
fishing.
    (15) Platooning--limited entry trawl vessels. Limited entry trawl 
vessels are automatically in the ``A'' platoon, unless the ``B'' 
platoon is indicated on the limited entry permit. If a vessel is in the 
``A'' platoon, its cumulative trip limit periods begin and end on the 
beginning and end of a calendar month as in the past. No more than one 
trawl permit may be registered to a vessel unless a permit is endorsed 
for both trawl and either longline or pot gear and is being stacked 
under Sec.  660.335(c) for use in the limited entry fixed gear primary 
sablefish fishery. If a vessel is registered for use with more than one 
permit with a trawl endorsement through the fixed gear permit stacking 
program, then the vessel owner must designate one trawl-endorsed permit 
as his base trawl permit and may only fish in the platoon associated 
with that base trawl permit. If a limited entry trawl permit is 
authorized for the ``B'' platoon, then cumulative trip limit periods 
and the periods for which RCAs are applied will begin on the 16th of 
the month (generally 2 weeks later than for the ``A'' platoon), unless 
otherwise specified.
    (a) For a vessel in the ``B'' platoon, cumulative trip limit 
periods and periods for which RCAs are applied begin on the 16th of the 
month at 0001 hours, l.t., and end at 2400 hours, l.t., on the 15th of 
the month. Therefore, the management measures announced herein that are 
effective on January 1, 2003, for the ``A'' platoon will be effective 
on January 16, 2003, for the ``B'' platoon. The effective date of any 
inseason changes to the cumulative trip limits or RCA boundary line 
coordinates also will be delayed for 2 weeks for the ``B'' platoon, 
unless otherwise specified.
    (b) A vessel authorized to operate in the ``B'' platoon may take 
and retain, but may not land, groundfish from January 1, 2003, through 
January 15, 2003.
    (c) A vessel authorized to operate in the ``B'' platoon will have 
the same cumulative trip limits and RCAs for the November 16, 2003, 
through December 31, 2003, period as a vessel operating in the ``A'' 
platoon has for the November 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003 period.
    (a) For a vessel in the ``B'' platoon, cumulative trip limit 
periods begin on the 16th of the month at 0001 hours, l.t., and end at 
2400 hours, l.t., on the 15th of the month. Therefore, the management 
measures announced herein that are effective on January 1, 2003, for 
the ``A'' platoon will be effective on January 16, 2003, for the ``B'' 
platoon. The effective date of any inseason changes to the cumulative 
trip limits also will be delayed for 2 weeks

[[Page 11205]]

for the ``B'' platoon, unless otherwise specified.
    (b) A vessel authorized to operate in the ``B'' platoon may take 
and retain, but may not land, groundfish from January 1, 2003, through 
January 15, 2003.
    (c) A vessel authorized to operate in the ``B'' platoon will have 
the same cumulative trip limits for the November 16, 2003, through 
December 31, 2003, period as a vessel operating in the ``A'' platoon 
has for the November 1, 2002, through December 31, 2003 period.
    (16) Permit transfers. Limited entry permit transfers are to take 
effect no earlier than the first day of a major cumulative limit period 
following the day NMFS receives the transfer form and original permit 
(50 CFR 660.335(e)(3)). Those days in 2003 are January 1, March 1, May 
1, July 1, September 1, and November 1, and are delayed by 15 days 
(starting on the 16th of a month) for the ``B'' platoon.
    (17) Exempted fisheries. U.S. vessels operating under an exempted 
fishing permit (EFP) issued under 50 CFR part 600 are also subject to 
these restrictions, unless otherwise provided in the permit. EFPs may 
include the collecting of scientific samples of groundfish species that 
would otherwise be prohibited for retention.
     (18) Application of requirements. Paragraphs IV.B. and IV.C. 
pertain to the commercial groundfish fishery, but not to Washington 
coastal tribal fisheries, which are described in Section V. The 
provisions in paragraphs IV.B. and IV.C. that are not covered under the 
headings ``limited entry'' or ``open access'' apply to all vessels in 
the commercial fishery that take and retain groundfish, unless 
otherwise stated. Paragraph IV.D. pertains to the recreational fishery.
    (19) Rockfish Conservation Areas. For 2003, the Council has 
introduced several RCAs and a YRCA and has retained the CCAs used in 
2001 and 2002. Collectively, any closed area intended to protect a 
particular groundfish species or species group or intended to protect a 
complex of species is referred to as a Groundfish Conservation Area. 
The YRCA, the CCAs, and the larger depth-based RCAs are Groundfish 
Conservation Areas. Larger RCAs intended to protect a complex of 
species, such as overfished shelf rockfish species, have boundaries 
defined by a series of latitude and longitude coordinates. The 
boundaries are intended to approximate particular depth contours, such 
as 100 fm (183 m), 150 fm (274 m), 250 fm (457,) etc. Different gear 
types or fishing sectors may have RCAs with differing boundaries.
    (a) Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area. The latitude and 
longitude coordinates defining the boundaries of the YRCA are defined 
at Sec.  660.304(d). Recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited 
within the YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to 
take, retain, possess, or land groundfish inside the YRCA.
    (b) Cowcod Conservation Areas. The coordinates of the Cowcod 
Conservation Areas (CCAs) are defined at Sec.  660.304(c). Recreational 
and commercial fishing for groundfish is prohibited within the CCAs, 
except that recreational and commercial fishing for rockfish and 
lingcod is permitted in waters inside 20 fathoms (36.9 m). It is 
unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish inside the 
CCAs, except for rockfish and lingcod taken in waters inside the 20-
fathom (36.9 m) depth contour, when those waters are open to fishing. 
Commercial fishing vessels may transit through the Western CCA with 
their gear stowed and groundfish on board only in a corridor through 
the Western CCA bounded on the north by the latitude line at 
33[deg]00'30'' N. lat., and bounded on the south by the latitude line 
at 32[deg]59'30'' N. lat.
    (c) Limited Entry Groundfish Trawl Coastwide and Open Access 
Exempted Trawl South of 40[deg]10' N. lat. Rockfish Conservation Area. 
(i) The trawl RCA is closed to limited entry groundfish trawl fishing 
coastwide and to open access exempted trawl fishing (except for pink 
shrimp trawling) south of 40[deg]10' N. lat. Fishing with limited entry 
groundfish trawl gear is prohibited within the trawl RCA north of 
40[deg]10' N. lat. and fishing with any trawl gear is prohibited within 
the trawl RCA south of 40[deg]10' N. lat., unless that vessel is 
trawling for pink shrimp. Coastwide, it is unlawful to take and retain, 
possess, or land groundfish taken with limited entry groundfish trawl 
gear in the trawl RCA. South of 40[deg]10' N. lat., it is unlawful to 
take and retain, possess, or land any species of fish taken with any 
type of trawl gear in the trawl RCA. Trawl vessels may transit through 
the trawl RCA, with or without groundfish on board, provided all 
groundfish trawl gear is stowed either: (1) below deck; or (2) if the 
gear cannot readily be moved, in a secured and covered manner, detached 
from all towing lines, so that it is rendered unusable for fishing; or 
(3) remaining on deck uncovered if the trawl doors are hung from their 
stanchions and the net is disconnected from the doors. The above 
restrictions in this paragraph do not apply to vessels fishing with 
midwater trawl gear for Pacific whiting during the primary season, or 
to taking and retaining yellowtail rockfish or widow rockfish in 
association with Pacific whiting caught with midwater trawl gear during 
the primary whiting season, or to taking and retaining yellowtail or 
widow rockfish with midwater trawl gear when trip limits are authorized 
for those species (November-December 2003.) If a vessel fishes in an 
RCA, it may not participate in any fishing on that trip that is 
inconsistent with the restrictions that apply within the RCA. For 
example, if a vessel participates in the pink shrimp fishery within the 
RCA, the vessel cannot on the same trip participate in the DTS fishery 
outside of the RCA. Nothing in these Federal regulations supercede any 
State regulations that may prohibit trawling shoreward of the 3 nm 
State waters boundary line.
    (ii) Between the U.S. border with Canada and 40[deg]10' N. lat., 
the trawl RCA is defined along its eastern, inshore boundary by 
latitude and longitude coordinates approximating 100 fm (183 m) in 
January through June and October through December, and approximating 75 
fm (137 m) in July and August. Between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and 
34[deg]27' N. lat., the trawl RCA is defined along its eastern, inshore 
boundary by coordinates approximating 50 fm (91 m) in January and 
February and 60 fm (110 m) in March through December. Between 
34[deg]27' N. lat. and the U.S. border with Mexico, along the mainland 
coast of California, the trawl RCA is defined along its eastern, 
inshore boundary by coordinates approximating 100 fm (183 m) throughout 
the year. Between 34[deg]27' N. lat. and the U.S. border with Mexico, 
adjacent to the islands offshore of California, the trawl RCA is 
defined along its inshore boundary by coordinates approximating 20 fm 
(37 m) throughout the year. Specific coordinates that define the 
eastern inshore boundaries of the trawl RCA are provided below at 
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (iii) Between the U.S. border with Canada and 38[deg] N. lat., the 
trawl RCA is defined along its western, offshore boundary by latitude 
and longitude coordinates approximating 250 fm (457 m) in March through 
October, and by coordinates approximating 250 fm (457 m) with some 
modifications to provide open areas to allow winter petrale sole 
fishing in January, February, November, and December. Between 38[deg] 
N. lat. and the U.S. border with Mexico, the trawl RCA is defined along 
its western, offshore boundary by coordinates approximating 150 fm (274 
m) throughout the year. Specific boundary coordinates that define the 
western, offshore boundaries of the trawl RCA

[[Page 11206]]

are provided below at paragraph (e) of this section.
    (d) Non-Trawl Gear (Limited Entry Fixed Gear and Open Access 
Nontrawl Gears) Rockfish Conservation Area. (i) The non-trawl gear RCA 
is closed to fishing for groundfish using non-trawl gear (limited entry 
or open access longline and pot or trap, open access hook-and-line, jig 
gear, pot or trap, gillnet, set net, trammel net and spear). Fishing 
with non-trawl gear is prohibited within the non-trawl gear RCA. It is 
unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with 
non-trawl gear in the non-trawl gear RCA. Limited entry fixed gear and 
open access non-trawl gear vessels may transit through the non-trawl 
gear RCA, with or without groundfish on board. These restrictions do 
not apply to vessels fishing for species other than groundfish with 
non-trawl gear. If a vessel fishes in an RCA, it may not participate in 
any fishing on that trip that is inconsistent with the restrictions 
that apply within the RCA. For example, if a vessel participates in the 
salmon troll fishery within the RCA, the vessel cannot on the same trip 
participate in the sablefish fishery outside of the RCA.
    (ii) Between the U.S. border with Canada and 46[deg]16' N. lat., 
the non-trawl gear RCA extends to the shoreline. Between 46[deg]16' N. 
lat. and 40[deg]10' N. lat., the non-trawl gear RCA is defined along 
its eastern, inshore boundary by latitude and longitude coordinates 
approximating 27 fm (49 m) throughout the year. Between 40[deg]10' N. 
lat. and the U.S. border with Mexico, the non-trawl gear RCA is defined 
along its eastern, inshore boundary by latitude and longitude 
coordinates approximating 20 fm (37 m) throughout the year, except as 
provided for between Point Fermin (33[deg]42' 30'' N. lat.; 118[deg]17' 
30'' W. long.) and the Newport South Jetty (33[deg]35' 37'' N. lat.; 
117[deg]52' 50'' W. long.) Between a line drawn due south from Point 
Fermin (33[deg]42' 30'' N. lat.; 118[deg]17' 30'' W. long.) and a line 
drawn due west from the Newport South Jetty (33[deg]35' 37'' N. lat.; 
117[deg]52' 50'' W. long.,) vessels fishing with hook-and-line and/or 
trap (or pot) gear may operate from shore to a boundary line defined by 
coordinates approximating 50 fm (91 m) in the months of July and 
August. Specific coordinates that define the eastern, inshore 
boundaries of the non-trawl gear RCA are provided below at paragraph 
(e) of this section.
    (iii) Between the U.S. border with Canada and 40[deg]10' N. lat., 
the non-trawl gear RCA is defined along its western, offshore boundary 
by latitude and longitude coordinates approximating 100 fm (183 m) 
throughout the year. Between 40[deg]10' N. lat. and the U.S. border 
with Mexico, the non-trawl gear RCA is defined along its western, 
offshore boundary by coordinates approximating 150 fm (274 m) 
throughout the year. Specific coordinates that define the western, 
offshore boundaries of the non-trawl gear RCA are provided below at 
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (e) RCA Boundary Coordinates. Coordinates for the specific 
boundaries that approximate the depth contours selected for both trawl 
and non-trawl gear RCAs are provided here.
    (i) The 27 fm (49 m) depth contour used between 46[deg]16' N. lat. 
and 40[deg]10' N. lat. as an eastern boundary for the non-trawl RCA is 
defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the 
order stated:
    (1) 46[deg]16.00' N. lat., 124[deg]12.39' W. long.;
    (2) 46[deg]14.85' N. lat., 124[deg]12.39' W. long.;
    (3) 46[deg]03.95' N. lat., 124[deg]03.64' W. long.;
    (4) 45[deg]43.14' N. lat., 124[deg]00.17' W. long.;
    (5) 45[deg]23.33' N. lat., 124[deg]01.99' W. long.;
    (6) 45[deg]09.54' N. lat., 124[deg]01.65' W. long.;
    (7) 44[deg]39.99' N. lat., 124[deg]08.67' W. long.;
    (8) 44[deg]20.86' N. lat., 124[deg]10.31' W. long.;
    (9) 43[deg]37.11' N. lat., 124[deg]14.91' W. long.;
    (10) 43[deg]27.54' N. lat., 124[deg]18.98' W. long.;
    (11) 43[deg]20.68' N. lat., 124[deg]25.53' W. long.;
    (12) 43[deg]15.08' N. lat., 124[deg]27.17' W. long.;
    (13) 43[deg]06.89' N. lat., 124[deg]29.65' W. long.;
    (14) 43[deg]01.02' N. lat., 124[deg]29.70' W. long.;
    (15) 42[deg]52.67' N. lat., 124[deg]36.10' W. long.;
    (16) 42[deg]45.96' N. lat., 124[deg]37.95' W. long.;
    (17) 42[deg]45.80' N. lat., 124[deg]35.41' W. long.;
    (18) 42[deg]38.46' N. lat., 124[deg]27.49' W. long.;
    (19) 42[deg]35.29' N. lat., 124[deg]26.85' W. long.;
    (20) 42[deg]31.49' N. lat., 124[deg]31.40' W. long.;
    (21) 42[deg]29.06' N. lat., 124[deg]32.24' W. long.;
    (22) 42[deg]14.26' N. lat., 124[deg]26.27' W. long.;
    (23) 42[deg]04.86' N. lat., 124[deg]21.94' W. long.;
    (24) 42[deg]00.10' N. lat., 124[deg]20.99' W. long.;
    (25) 42[deg]00.00' N. lat., 124[deg]21.03' W. long.;
    (26) 41[deg]56.33' N. lat., 124[deg]20.34' W. long.;
    (27) 41[deg]50.93' N. lat., 124[deg]23.74' W. long.;
    (28) 41[deg]41.83' N. lat., 124[deg]16.99' W. long.;
    (29) 41[deg]35.48' N. lat., 124[deg]16.35' W. long.;
    (30) 41[deg]23.51' N. lat., 124[deg]10.48' W. long.;
    (31) 41[deg]04.62' N. lat., 124[deg]14.44' W. long.;
    (32) 40[deg]54.28' N. lat., 124[deg]13.90' W. long.;
    (33) 40[deg]40.37' N. lat., 124[deg]26.21' W. long.;
    (34) 40[deg]34.03' N. lat., 124[deg]27.36' W. long.;
    (35) 40[deg]28.88' N. lat., 124[deg]32.41' W. long.;
    (36) 40[deg]24.82' N. lat., 124[deg]29.56' W. long.;
    (37) 40[deg]22.64' N. lat., 124[deg]24.05' W. long.;
    (38) 40[deg]18.67' N. lat., 124[deg]21.90' W. long.;
    (39) 40[deg]14.23' N. lat., 124[deg]23.72' W. long.; and
    (40) 40[deg]10.00' N. lat., 124[deg]17.22' W. long.;
    (ii) The 75 fm (137 m) depth contour used north of 40[deg]10' N. 
lat. as an eastern boundary for the trawl RCA in the months of July and 
August is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following 
points in the order stated:
    (1) 48[deg]16.08' N. lat., 125[deg]34.90' W. long.;
    (2) 48[deg]14.50' N. lat., 125[deg]29.50' W. long.;
    (3) 48[deg]12.08' N. lat., 125[deg]28.00' W. long.;
    (4) 48[deg]09.00' N. lat., 125[deg]28.00' W. long.;
    (5) 48[deg]07.80' N. lat., 125[deg]31.70' W. long.;
    (6) 48[deg]04.28' N. lat., 125[deg]29.00' W. long.;
    (7) 48[deg]02.50' N. lat., 125[deg]25.70' W. long.;
    (8) 48[deg]10.00' N. lat., 125[deg]20.19' W. long.;
    (9) 48[deg]21.70' N. lat., 125[deg]17.56' W. long.;
    (10) 48[deg]24.69' N. lat., 125[deg]05.55' W. long.;
    (11) 48[deg]23.05' N. lat., 124[deg]48.80' W. long.;
    (12) 48[deg]17.10' N. lat., 124[deg]54.82' W. long.;
    (13) 48[deg]05.10' N. lat., 124[deg]59.40' W. long.;
    (14) 48[deg]04.50' N. lat., 125[deg]02.00' W. long.;
    (15) 48[deg]04.70' N. lat., 125[deg]04.08' W. long.;
    (16) 48[deg]05.20' N. lat., 125[deg]04.90' W. long.;

[[Page 11207]]

    (17) 48[deg]06.80' N. lat., 125[deg]06.15' W. long.;
    (18) 48[deg]05.91' N. lat., 124[deg]08.30' W. long.;
    (19) 48[deg]07.00' N. lat., 124[deg]09.80' W. long.;
    (20) 48[deg]06.93' N. lat., 124[deg]11.48' W. long.;
    (21) 48[deg]04.98' N. lat., 124[deg]10.02' W. long.;
    (22) 47[deg]54.00' N. lat., 125[deg]04.98' W. long.;
    (23)47[deg]44.52' N. lat., 125[deg]00.00' W. long.;
    (24)47[deg]42.00' N. lat., 124[deg]58.98' W. long.;
    (25)47[deg]35.52' N. lat., 124[deg]55.50' W. long.;
    (26)47[deg]22.02' N. lat., 124[deg]44.40' W. long.;
    (27)47[deg]16.98' N. lat., 124[deg]45.48' W. long.;
    (28)47[deg]10.98' N. lat., 124[deg]48.48' W. long.;
    (29)47[deg]04.98' N. lat., 124[deg]49.02' W. long.;
    (30)46[deg]57.98' N. lat., 124[deg]46.50' W. long.;
    (31)46[deg]54.00' N. lat., 124[deg]45.00' W. long.;
    (32)46[deg]48.48' N. lat., 124[deg]44.52' W. long.;
    (33)46[deg]40.02' N. lat., 124[deg]36.00' W. long.;
    (34)46[deg]34.09' N. lat., 124[deg]27.03' W. long.;
    (35)46[deg]24.64' N. lat., 124[deg]30.33' W. long.;
    (36)46[deg]19.98' N. lat., 124[deg]36.00' W. long.;
    (37) 46[deg]18.14' N. lat., 124[deg]34.26' W. long.;
    (38) 46[deg]18.72' N. lat., 124[deg]22.68' W. long.;
    (39) 46[deg]14.64' N. lat., 124[deg]22.54' W. long.;
    (40) 46[deg]11.08' N. lat., 124[deg]30.74' W. long.;
    (41) 46[deg]04.28' N. lat., 124[deg]31.49' W. long.;
    (42) 45[deg]55.97' N. lat., 124[deg]19.95' W. long.;
    (43) 45[deg]44.97' N. lat., 124[deg]15.96' W. long.;
    (44) 45[deg]43.14' N. lat., 124[deg]21.86' W. long.;
    (45) 45[deg]34.44' N. lat., 124[deg]14.44' W. long.;
    (46) 45[deg]15.49' N. lat., 124[deg]11.49' W. long.;
    (47) 44[deg]57.31' N. lat., 124[deg]15.03' W. long.;
    (48) 44[deg]43.90' N. lat., 124[deg]28.88' W. long.;
    (49) 44[deg]28.64' N. lat., 124[deg]35.67' W. long.;
    (50) 44[deg]25.31' N. lat., 124[deg]43.08' W. long.;
    (51) 44[deg]17.15' N. lat., 124[deg]47.98' W. long.;
    (52) 44[deg]13.67' N. lat., 124[deg]54.41' W. long.;
    (53) 43[deg]56.85' N. lat., 124[deg]55.32' W. long.;
    (54) 43[deg]57.50' N. lat., 124[deg]41.23' W. long.;
    (55) 44[deg]01.79' N. lat., 124[deg]38.00' W. long.;
    (56) 44[deg]02.16' N. lat., 124[deg]32.62' W. long.;
    (57) 43[deg]58.1