[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 221 (Thursday, November 17, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68925-68930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24997]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 221110-0237]
RIN 0648-BL43


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 22 
to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management 
Plan

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action implements approved measures for Amendment 22 to 
the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. 
Amendment 22 was developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 
Council to revise summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass commercial 
and recreational sector allocations. Amendment 22 is intended to ensure 
that the best available science is used to determine commercial and 
recreational sector allocations.

DATES: Effective January 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 22, including the Environmental 
Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared in support of this action 
are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, 
Dover, DE 19901. The supporting documents are also accessible via the 
internet at: https://www.mafmc.org/s/SFSBSB_com_rec_allocation_EA-final_6-24-22.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Keiley, Fishery Policy Analyst, 
(978) 281-9116.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the 
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) cooperatively 
manage the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. The 
Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 
outlines the allocation of quota, for each species, between the 
commercial and recreational fisheries. Amendment 22 reevaluated and 
recommended revisions to the commercial and recreational sector 
allocations in the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP. 
Amendment 22 was initiated, in part, to address the allocation-related 
impacts of the revised recreational catch and landings data provided by 
the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). Specifically, 
Amendment 22 considered:
    1. Changing the allocations between the commercial and recreational 
sectors for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass;
    2. Adding an option to transfer a portion of the allowable landings 
each year between the commercial and recreational sectors, in either 
direction, based on the needs of each sector; and
    3. Adding the option for future additional changes to the 
commercial/recreational allocation and transfer provisions to be 
considered through an FMP addendum/framework action, as opposed to an 
amendment.

[[Page 68926]]

    Amendment 22 was approved by the Council and Commission in December 
2021. A notice of availability (NOA) for the amendment published in the 
Federal Register on August 12, 2022 (87 FR 49796), with a comment 
period ending on October 11, 2022. We published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register on August 11, 2022 (87 FR 49573), with a comment 
period ending on September 12, 2022.
    When a Council approves and then transmits a fishery management 
plan or amendment to NMFS, NMFS publishes a notice of availability in 
the Federal Register announcing a 60-day comment period. Within 30 days 
of the end of the comment period, NMFS must approve, disapprove, or 
partially approve the plan or amendment based on consistency with law. 
After considering public comment on the NOA and proposed rule, we 
approved Amendment 22 on November 7, 2022. This final rule implements 
the management measures in Amendment 22. The details of the development 
of the measures in Amendment 22 were described in the NOA and proposed 
rule, and are not repeated here.

Approved Measures

    This action implements changes to the commercial and recreational 
allocations for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The original 
commercial and recreational allocations for all three species were 
established in the mid-1990s, based on historical proportions of 
landings (for summer flounder and black sea bass) and catch (for scup) 
from each sector.
    In July 2018, MRIP released revised time series of catch and 
harvest estimates based on adjustments to its angler intercept 
methodology, which is used to estimate recreational catch rates, as 
well as changes to its effort estimation methodology, namely, a 
transition from a telephone-based effort survey to a mail-based effort 
survey for the private/rental boat and shore-based fishing modes. These 
revisions collectively resulted in higher recreational catch estimates 
compared to previous estimates, affecting the entire time series of 
data going back to 1981. The revised MRIP estimates were incorporated 
into the stock assessments for summer flounder in 2018 and for scup and 
black sea bass in 2019. This impacted the estimated stock biomass and 
resulting catch limits for these species.
    The revised MRIP time series created a mismatch between the data 
that were used to set the allocations and the data currently used in 
fishery management for setting catch limits. Changes to commercial 
catch data have also been made since the allocations were established. 
The allocation changes approved through Amendment 22 seek to ensure 
that the best available data is used to determine commercial and 
recreational sector allocations.
    Amendment 22 considered a range of allocation alternatives, with 
options that would have maintained the current allocations and a 
variety of options to revise the allocations based on updated data 
using the same or modified ``base years'' (the time periods used to set 
the current allocations). The Council and Board ultimately decided to 
revise the allocations using the original base years updated with new 
data. This approach allows for consideration of fishery characteristics 
in years prior to influence by the commercial/recreational allocations, 
while also using the best scientific information available to 
understand the fisheries in those base years.
    For all three species, these changes result in a shift in 
allocation from the commercial to the recreational sector. However, 
because the summer flounder and black sea bass fisheries are 
transitioning from landings-based to catch-based allocations, the 
original and revised allocations for those species are not directly 
comparable. The approved commercial and recreational sector allocations 
are shown in Table 1.

                              Table 1--Approved Commercial/Recreational Allocations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Commercial     Recreational
                             Species                                Base years      allocation      allocation
                                                                                  percentage (%)  percentage (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer Flounder.................................................       1980-1989              55              45
Scup............................................................       1988-1992              65              35
Black Sea Bass..................................................       1983-1992              45              55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revised Framework Provisions

    This action would also allow future changes to commercial/
recreational allocations, annual quota transfers between sectors, and 
other measures addressed in Amendment 22 to be made through framework 
actions.

Comments and Responses

    We received 10 comments, from 9 unique commenters, on the NOA and 
the proposed rule, including comments from Scandinavian Fisheries 
Incorporated, Viking Yacht Company, and the American Sportfishing 
Association. One comment was not relevant to the proposed rule and is 
not discussed further. One comment supported the changes in 
allocations, and eight opposed the allocation changes. Those opposed to 
the allocation changes were split; four did not think any additional 
quota should be allocated to the recreational fisheries, two felt that 
the allocations should be more reflective of recent catch proportions 
(which would result in more allocation shifting to the recreational 
fishery), and two comments, from one individual, had other concerns 
about the data used.
    Comment 1: Four commenters opposed the change in commercial and 
recreational allocations. These commenters did not want the commercial 
allocations to be reduced. One commenter cited high fuel costs and low 
fish prices and the need to have as much allocation as possible. One 
commenter suggested that allocations should remain status quo. Other 
commenters cited the need for more recreational accountability and 
reporting standards, which are outside the scope of this action.
    Response: Maintaining the status quo allocations between the 
commercial and recreational sectors would mean that those allocations 
were not based on the best available science. The MRIP transition and 
updated time series resulted in significantly different estimates of 
recreational catch. Updates have also been made to the commercial 
fisheries data since the original allocations were made. The revised 
recreational and commercial data have been incorporated into the stock 
assessments and, as a result, the recent quotas for both the commercial 
and recreational fisheries. Leaving the allocations unchanged would 
have created a mismatch between the data

[[Page 68927]]

used to set the allocation of quotas and the data used in the stock 
assessment to set the quotas. Allocations based on data now known to be 
incorrect would be inconsistent with National Standard 2. Therefore, we 
approved the allocation changes that the Council and Board recommended 
to ensure allocations are based on the best scientific information 
available.
    Comment 2: One comment supported the allocation changes, stating 
that it was a more ``accurate reflection of reality.''
    Response: We have approved the proposed allocation changes for 
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass.
    Comment 3: Two commenters opposed the revised allocations. These 
commenters suggested that the new allocations do not reflect the needs 
of the recreational fishery and that the base years selected are not 
fair, equitable, or based on the best available science. One commenter 
stated that anything less than 50 percent of the summer flounder 
allocation is not enough for the recreational sector. Both commenters 
stated that a different approach should have been used and imply that 
the recreational allocations should have been increased more than they 
were in this action.
    Response: This action increases the recreational allocations for 
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass, and reduces the commercial 
fisheries' share. The Council and Board considered a range of 
allocation alternatives for all three species, including options that 
would have shifted more quota from the commercial sector to the 
recreational sector. The selected alternative retains the original 
allocation base years but uses the revised (current) catch or landings 
data from those years. The Council and Board agreed that the original 
base years are the most appropriate basis for the allocations, as they 
are years before the fisheries were notably impacted by management 
measures. Catch and landings percentages from more recent years are 
influenced by many management measures, including the allocations and 
the associated quotas. Basing the allocations on more recent trends in 
catch or landings also raised concerns about fairness due to 
differences in how well the commercial and recreational sectors have 
stayed within their respective quota limits in past years. The Council 
and Board also agreed that the allocations should be updated to reflect 
the most recent available data from the base years, especially as other 
parts of the management process, including the stock assessment and 
catch accounting systems, now rely on newer, improved data compared to 
when the allocations were first established.
    Comment 4: One comment stated that we should disapprove the 
amendment because it was not based on the best scientific information 
available; specifically stating that MRIP data are not reliable.
    Response: The revised MRIP data are the best scientific data 
available for recreational catch and effort. MRIP, including the recent 
transition to the Fishing Effort Survey (FES), has undergone a number 
of peer reviews, including those conducted by the National Academy of 
Sciences, Engineering and Medicine and the Center for Independent 
Experts, as well as reviewers selected by the Atlantic States Marine 
Fisheries Commission and the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, 
and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils. The FES was designed to 
increase response rates, reduce the potential for reporting and recall 
errors, and achieve a more representative sample than the survey it 
replaced. With any sampling methodology there is uncertainty, but 
evidence suggests the FES is a more accurate and efficient way of 
estimating marine recreational fishing trips and are the best available 
data we have for estimating recreational catch and effort for these 
species.
    Comment 5: One comment cited the use of landings for black sea bass 
and summer flounder in the years when complete catch data were not 
available. This comment suggested that the use of more recent data 
would have eliminated this issue, allowed for the consideration of 
discards and, therefore, constitutes the best available science.
    Response: Although the allocation percentages under the preferred 
alternative are based on landings data for two species, they will be 
applied as catch-based allocations. Reliable dead discard data for the 
summer flounder and black sea bass during the selected base years are 
not available. As discussed in the response to Comment 3, the Council 
and Board decided to maintain the original base years for a number of 
reasons. More recent years considered by the Council and Board, when 
discard data are available for both sectors, also correspond to years 
when allocations, and constraining management measures were in place. 
Given the influence of these management measures on fishery catches it 
would be difficult to determine the actual unconstrained needs of each 
fishery. This is further complicated in years when one sector exceeded 
its quota and the other did not. This was a significant point of 
discussion for the Council and Board, given the concerns about such new 
allocations ``rewarding'' recreational sector overages, and whether 
such a result would be fair and equitable. A recent court case, Guindon 
v. Pritzker, 240 F. Supp. 3d 181, (D.D.C. 2017), involving the 
reallocation of red snapper between the commercial and recreational 
fisheries, addresses these concerns. Specifically, the Court's decision 
concluded that NMFS failed to demonstrate that the allocations were 
fair and equitable as required by National Standard 4 where the 
recreational sector was given an increased allocation of red snapper 
based on years of recreational quota overages, while the commercial 
sector's catch during those years remained within its quota limits and 
the commercial allocation was reduced.
    The Council and Board also agreed that catch-based allocations are 
preferable to landings-based allocations for all three species because 
the calculations of sector-specific catch and landings limits allows 
for separation and accounting of sector-specific discards. Because the 
management process has moved toward catch accounting and greater 
consideration of discards since the original allocations were set, 
changing the allocations to be catch-based simplifies the 
specifications process and decreases the influence of discards from one 
sector on the other sector's Annual Catch Limit (ACL). For example, the 
original summer flounder allocation was landings-based. This has 
resulted in each sector receiving a varying percentage of the 
Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), depending on annual sector discard 
trends, meaning that a sector may have received a percentage of the ABC 
that may have been more, or less than their allocation in a given year.
    For the reasons stated about, and in the response to Comment 3, 
given the data constraints during the selected base years, the use of 
landings for summer flounder and black sea bass constitutes the best 
available science, and a reasonable proxy for use in the calculation of 
the allocation percentages.
    Comment 6: One comment in opposition to the amendment questioned 
when managers would start managing fish for food, not fun. This comment 
implied that the allocations would benefit one segment of the 
recreational fishery (private boat anglers) more than shore-side 
``subsistence'' recreational anglers.
    Response: This amendment shifts quota from the commercial fishery 
to

[[Page 68928]]

the recreational fishery for all three species. The recreational 
fishery is inclusive of shore-side anglers, private boat anglers, and 
for-hire vessels. Increasing recreational allocations are likely to 
benefit all anglers including shore-side anglers.
    Comment 7: One comment stated that the amendment should be 
disapproved because we did not provide the number of recreational 
anglers that would benefit from the action. This comment asserts that 
providing the number of saltwater anglers was required by the 2006 
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Response: There is no survey or database that counts the exact 
total number of saltwater anglers. The National Saltwater Angler 
Registry and State Exemption Program was developed over 10 years ago in 
a transparent process that involved a national team that included 
representatives of the States, Councils, Interstate Commissions, and 
stakeholders (the Registry Team). The program the Registry Team 
developed is implemented by Federal rule at 50 CFR 500 Subpart P, and 
was subject to the standard process of Federal rulemaking, including 
public notice and comment. The final rule (73 FR 79585, December 30, 
2008) includes background information that lays out the rationale for 
the program as designed and how it conforms to the requirements of 
Section 401(g)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Currently, all of the 
Atlantic coast states are sending NMFS updated lists of their license 
holders monthly. Therefore, all of those currently-state-licensed 
anglers are exempt from Federal registration. The purpose of the 
section of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that established the national 
saltwater angler registry was not to create a count of all anglers. 
Rather, it was to establish a list of anglers and associated contact 
information for use as a sample frame for surveys of fishing activity, 
as recommended by the National Academies of Science in the 2006 review 
of the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey. The license-
holder lists that the states send monthly are sufficient for that 
purpose and are being used as part of the sample frame for the MRIP 
Fishing Effort Survey.
    Comment 8: One comment suggested that data prior to 1981, as early 
as 1965, was available and demonstrates a greater historical use by the 
recreational fisheries and that the original base years do not, and 
never did, reflect true historical participation by the recreational 
fisheries.
    Response: In 1955, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
(USFWS) added questions about saltwater angling to their survey of 
freshwater fishing and hunting in the United States. These surveys, 
conducted every 5 years, collected data on number of anglers, angler 
expenditures, and fishing activity level. In 1960, 1965, and 1970, 
adjunct surveys also collected information about catch, effort and 
participation. However, when analyzing the results of these surveys, 
peer reviews found response bias and sampling errors. In addition, 
because of the long interval between surveys, it was impossible to 
detect or analyze possible seasonal variation in catch, effort, or 
participation (sampling error). Due to these issues, NMFS developed its 
own recreational survey, the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics 
Survey (MRFSS). It was not until 1981 that data from this survey were 
widely available. Therefore, while there may be information on 
recreational fisheries effort and catch prior to 1981, and prior to the 
original base years, these data are likely not appropriate to use for 
developing allocations given the known biases and sampling issues.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    There are no changes to the measures in this final rule from the 
proposed rule.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS 
Assistant
    Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent 
with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other 
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared for 
this action. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA and a summary of the 
analyses completed to support the action. NMFS did not receive any 
comments that were specifically in response to the IRFA. The FRFA 
incorporates sections of the preamble (SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) and 
analyses supporting this rulemaking, including the Amendment 22 EA (see 
ADDRESSES). A description of the action, why it is being considered, 
and the objectives of and the legal basis for this rule are contained 
in the Amendment 22 EA and preamble to the proposed rule, and are not 
repeated here.

A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response to 
the IRFA, a Summary of the Agency's Assessment of Such Issues, and a 
Statement of Any Changes Made in the Final Rule as a Result of Such 
Comments

    Our responses to all of the comments received on the proposed rule, 
including those that raised significant issues with the proposed action 
can be found in the Comments and Responses section of this rule. In the 
proposed rule, we solicited comments on a revised allocation formula 
for distributing commercial and recreational summer flounder, scup and 
black sea bass quota. There were no comments that specifically 
addressed the IRFA, and no changes from the proposed rule.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which This 
Rule Would Apply

    The entities (i.e., the small and large businesses) that may be 
affected by this action include fishing operations with Federal 
moratorium (commercial) permits and/or Federal party/charter permits 
for summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass. Private recreational 
anglers are not considered ``entities'' under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA). For RFA purposes only, NMFS established a small 
business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, 
whose primary industry is commercial fishing (50 CFR 200.2). A business 
primarily engaged in commercial fishing is classified as a small 
business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in 
its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined 
annual receipts not in excess of $11 million, for all its affiliated 
operations worldwide.
    Vessel ownership data were used to identify all individuals who own 
fishing vessels. Vessels were then grouped according to common owners. 
The resulting groupings were then treated as entities, or affiliates, 
for purposes of identifying small and large businesses which may be 
affected by this action.
    Commercial and recreational for-hire affiliates potentially 
regulated by this action include all those with valid commercial 
fishery permits for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass and any 
for-hire affiliates that reported landing summer flounder, scup, or 
black sea bass in any year between 2018 and 2020, which is the most 
recent calendar year with complete data. A total of 1,522 affiliates 
were identified as being potentially regulated by this action, 1,513 
(99 percent) of which were

[[Page 68929]]

identified as small businesses and 9 (1 percent) of which were 
identified as large businesses based on their average annual revenues 
for 2018-2020.
    Of the total affiliates potentially regulated by this action, 455 
affiliates reported that the majority of their revenues in 2020 came 
from for-hire fishing. Some of these affiliates may have also 
participated in commercial fishing. All 455 of these for-hire 
affiliates were categorized as small businesses based on their average 
annual revenues for 2018-2020. It is not possible to determine what 
proportion of their revenues came from fishing for an individual 
species. Nevertheless, given the popularity of summer flounder, scup, 
and black sea bass as recreational species, revenues generated from 
these species are likely important for many of these affiliates at 
certain times of the year.

Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule

    This final rule contains no information collection requirements 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This 
Proposed Rule

    The action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other 
Federal rules.

Description of Significant Alternatives to the Rule Which Accomplish 
the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any 
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

    The approved measures (i.e., the suite of preferred alternatives) 
includes implementation of a revised commercial/recreational quota 
allocation system for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass 
fisheries.
    When considering the economic impacts of the alternatives under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, consideration should also be given to those 
non-preferred alternatives which would result in higher net benefits or 
lower costs to small entities while still achieving the stated 
objective of the action.
    For summer flounder and scup, only the no action alternatives 
(alternatives 1a-4 and 1b-1, respectively) had greater positive 
expected impacts for the commercial sector than the preferred 
alternatives; however, those alternatives had greater negative impacts 
for the recreational sector than the preferred alternatives. For black 
sea bass, both the no action alternative (alternative 1c-4) and 
alternative 1c-5 were expected to have greater positive impacts for the 
commercial sector than the preferred alternative. However, as with 
summer flounder and scup, those alternatives had greater negative 
impacts for the recreational sector than the preferred alternative. In 
addition, alternative 1c-5 would have maintained a landings-based 
allocation for black sea bass, and the Council and Board supported 
switching to a catch-based allocation. Catch-based allocations were 
supported because they eliminate the current discard apportionment 
process and hold each sector accountable for their own discards.
    All alternatives that had a greater potential for positive impacts, 
or a lesser potential for negative impacts, to the recreational sector 
than the preferred alternatives had a greater magnitude of negative 
expected impacts for the commercial sector. The no action alternative, 
for all three species, did not meet the stated objectives given the 
notable changes in data that have occurred since these allocations were 
first established, and that leaving the allocations unchanged would not 
be based on the best scientific information available.
    The non-preferred alternatives for phase-in, transfers, and 
frameworks/addenda are not expected to have notably different 
socioeconomic impacts than the preferred alternatives.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 10, 2022.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 
648 as follows:

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

0
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. In Sec.  648.100, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.100   Summer flounder Annual Catch Limit (ACL).

    (a) * * *
    (1) Sector allocations. The commercial and recreational fishing 
sector ACLs will be established based on the allocations defined in the 
Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan 
(FMP).
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  648.110, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.110   Summer flounder framework adjustments to management 
measures.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Adjustment process. The MAFMC shall develop and analyze 
appropriate management actions over the span of at least two MAFMC 
meetings. The MAFMC must provide the public with advance notice of the 
availability of the recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and 
economic and biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the 
proposed adjustment(s) at the first meeting and prior to and at the 
second MAFMC meeting. The MAFMC's recommendations on adjustments or 
additions to management measures must come from one or more of the 
following categories: Adjustments within existing ABC control rule 
levels; adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk policy; introduction of 
new AMs, including sub-ACTs; minimum fish size; maximum fish size; gear 
restrictions; gear requirements or prohibitions; permitting 
restrictions; recreational possession limit; recreational seasons; 
closed areas; commercial seasons; commercial trip limits; commercial 
quota system including commercial quota allocation procedure and 
possible quota set asides to mitigate bycatch; recreational harvest 
limit; specification quota setting process; commercial/recreational 
allocations; transfer provisions between the commercial and 
recreational sectors; FMP Monitoring Committee composition and process; 
description and identification of essential fish habitat (and fishing 
gear management measures that impact EFH); description and 
identification of habitat areas of particular concern; regional gear 
restrictions; regional season restrictions (including option to split 
seasons); restrictions on vessel size (LOA and GRT) or shaft 
horsepower; operator permits; changes to the SBRM, including the CV-
based performance standard, the means by which discard data are 
collected/obtained, fishery stratification, the process for 
prioritizing observer sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-
funded observers or observer set aside programs; any other commercial 
or recreational management measures; any other management measures 
currently included in the FMP; and set aside quota for scientific 
research. Issues that require significant departures from previously 
contemplated measures or that are

[[Page 68930]]

otherwise introducing new concepts may require an amendment of the FMP 
instead of a framework adjustment.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  648.120, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.120   Scup Annual Catch Limit (ACL).

    (a) * * *
    (1) Sector allocations. The commercial and recreational fishing 
sector ACLs will be based on the allocations defined in the Summer 
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  648.130, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.130   Scup framework adjustments to management measures.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Adjustment process. The MAFMC shall develop and analyze 
appropriate management actions over the span of at least two MAFMC 
meetings. The MAFMC must provide the public with advance notice of the 
availability of the recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and 
economic and biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the 
proposed adjustment(s) at the first meeting and prior to and at the 
second MAFMC meeting. The MAFMC's recommendations on adjustments or 
additions to management measures must come from one or more of the 
following categories: Adjustments within existing ABC control rules; 
adjustments to the existing MAFMC risk policy; introduction of new AMs, 
including sub-ACTs; minimum fish size; maximum fish size; gear 
restrictions; gear restricted areas; gear requirements or prohibitions; 
permitting restrictions; recreational possession limits; recreational 
seasons; closed areas; commercial seasons; commercial trip limits; 
commercial quota system including commercial quota allocation procedure 
and possible quota set asides to mitigate bycatch; recreational harvest 
limits; annual specification quota setting process; commercial/
recreational allocations; transfer provisions between the commercial 
and recreational sectors; FMP Monitoring Committee composition and 
process; description and identification of EFH (and fishing gear 
management measures that impact EFH); description and identification of 
habitat areas of particular concern; regional gear restrictions; 
regional season restrictions (including option to split seasons); 
restrictions on vessel size (LOA and GRT) or shaft horsepower; operator 
permits; changes to the SBRM, including the CV-based performance 
standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, 
fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer sea-day 
allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set 
aside programs; any other commercial or recreational management 
measures; any other management measures currently included in the FMP; 
and set aside quota for scientific research.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  648.140, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  648.140   Black sea bass Annual Catch Limit (ACL).

    (a) * * *
    (1) Sector allocations. The commercial and recreational fishing 
sector ACLs will be based on the allocations defined in the Summer 
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-24997 Filed 11-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P