Rule2023-04588
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Framework Adjustment 17 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, and Framework Adjustment 6 to the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 9, 2023
Effective
March 9, 2023
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
This action implements Framework Adjustment 17 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan and Framework Adjustment 6 to the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan. This framework was developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in conjunction with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to revise the process for setting recreational management measures and recreational accountability measures for summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish. Recreational management and accountability measures prevent overfishing while balancing recreational fishing opportunities.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 46 (Thursday, March 9, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14499-14512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04588]
[[Page 14499]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 230301-0057]
RIN 0648-BL65
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Framework
Adjustment 17 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery
Management Plan, and Framework Adjustment 6 to the Bluefish Fishery
Management Plan
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action implements Framework Adjustment 17 to the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan and
Framework Adjustment 6 to the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan. This
framework was developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
in conjunction with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to
revise the process for setting recreational management measures and
recreational accountability measures for summer flounder, scup, black
sea bass, and bluefish. Recreational management and accountability
measures prevent overfishing while balancing recreational fishing
opportunities.
DATES: Effective March 9, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Framework Adjustment 17 to the Summer Flounder,
Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan and Framework
Adjustment 6 to the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan, 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: <a href="https://www.mafmc.org/actions/hcr-framework-addenda">https://www.mafmc.org/actions/hcr-framework-addenda</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Keiley, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978) 281-9116, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#82e7efebeefbace9e7ebeee7fbc2ecede3e3ace5edf4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8beee6e2e7f2a5e0eee2e7eef2cbe5e4eaeaa5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) cooperatively
manage the summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish
fisheries. The Council submitted Framework Adjustment 17 to the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and
Framework Adjustment 6 to the Bluefish FMP (collectively referred to as
the Recreational Harvest Control Rule (HCR) Framework) to us for
consideration of approval. This final rule approves and implements the
Recreational HCR Framework, which establishes a new process for setting
recreational measures (i.e., bag, size, and season limits), and
modifies the recreational accountability measures (AM). This Framework/
Addenda establishes a process for setting recreational measures that:
Prevents overfishing; is reflective of stock status; appropriately
accounts for uncertainty in the recreational data; takes into
consideration angler preferences; and provides an appropriate level of
stability and predictability in changes from year to year.
Recreational Management Measure Setting Process: The Percent Change
Approach
This action modifies the process for setting recreational
management measures for summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and
bluefish, including how to determine when management measures need to
be changed, the percent change required if changes are made, and the
timing of the overall process. This process will apply to stocks not in
a rebuilding plan; when a stock is in a rebuilding plan, recreational
measures will be determined based on the requirements of that plan.
Bluefish is in a rebuilding plan, so this approach is not currently
applicable. The new process, referred to as the Percent Change
Approach, uses two factors to determine if recreational management
measures can remain status quo, can be liberalized, or must be
restricted. These factors are:
1. Comparison of a confidence interval (CI) around an estimate of
expected harvest under status quo measures to the average recreational
harvest limit (RHL) for the upcoming 2 years; and,
2. Biomass compared to the target level, as defined by the most
recent stock assessment.
Considered together, the harvest and biomass comparisons determine
the appropriate degree of change, defined as a percentage change in
expected harvest, as summarized in Table 1. For example, when the
future 2-year average RHL is greater than the upper bound of the
harvest estimate CI (i.e., an RHL underage is expected under status quo
measures) and biomass is below the target level, measures would be
modified to achieve no more than a 10-percent liberalization in
harvest. In this scenario, the liberalization is capped at 10 percent
even if the difference between the RHL and expected harvest is greater
than 10 percent. Note that this is a more conservative approach than
the previous process, which would have allowed liberalization up to the
full difference between the estimated harvest and the RHL, even for
stocks in decline and below the target biomass. Additional information
on the process is contained in the proposed rule and is not repeated
here.
Table 1--Management Response Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factors to determine recommended change
--------------------------------------------------
(2) Stock biomass Recommended change in
(1) Future RHL vs harvest compared to the harvest
estimate target stock size
(B/BMSY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future 2-year average RHL is Very high (at Liberalization:
greater than the upper bound least 150% of percent based on the
of the harvest estimate the target stock difference between
confidence interval (harvest size). the harvest estimate
is expected to be lower than and the 2-year
the RHL). average RHL, not to
exceed 40 percent.
High (between the Liberalization:
target and 150% percent based on the
of the target difference between
stock size). the harvest estimate
and the 2-year
average RHL, not to
exceed 20 percent.
Low (below the Liberalization: 10
target stock percent.
size).
[[Page 14500]]
Future 2-year average RHL is Very high (at Liberalization: 10
within the confidence least 150% of percent.
interval of the harvest the target stock No change: 0 percent.
estimate (harvest is expected size).
to be close to the RHL). High (between the
target and 150%
of the target
stock size).
Low (below the Reduction: 10
target stock percent.
size).
Future 2-year average RHL is Very high (at Reduction: 10
less than the lower bound of least 150% of percent.
the harvest estimate the target stock Reduction: percent
confidence interval (harvest size). based on the
is expected to exceed the High (between the difference between
RHL). target and 150% the harvest estimate
of the target and the 2-year
stock size). average RHL, not to
exceed 20 percent.
Low (below the Reduction: percent
target stock based on the
size). difference between
the harvest estimate
and the 2-year
average RHL, not to
exceed 40 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Terms
<bullet> Biomass (B): The size of a stock of fish measured in
weight. For summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish, the
biomass levels and biomass targets used in management are based on
spawning stock biomass.
<bullet> Biomass target (B<INF>MSY</INF>): The stock size (B)
associated with maximum sustainable yield (MSY), as defined by a stock
assessment. MSY is the largest average catch that can be taken from a
stock at B<INF>MSY</INF> over time under existing environmental
conditions without negatively impacting the reproductive capacity of
the stock.
<bullet> Confidence Interval: the upper and lower bound around a
point estimate to indicate the range of probable values given the
uncertainties around the estimate.
<bullet> Recreational Harvest Limit (RHL): The total allowable
annual recreational fishery harvest; set based on information from the
stock assessment, considerations about scientific and management
uncertainty, allocations between the commercial and recreational
sectors, and assumptions about dead discards.
Timing
The previous process considered adjustments to recreational
management measures annually. This presented a number of associated
challenges, given the timing of Marine Recreational Information Program
(MRIP) data availability and the fishing seasons. The Percent Change
Approach shifts the timing to a 2-year cycle, adjusting measures in
sync with the setting of catch and landings limits in response to
updated stock assessment information. Updated stock assessments will be
available every other year for all four species. In the interim year,
measures will be reviewed, and may be modified if new data suggest a
major change in the expected impacts of those measures on the stock or
the fishery.
Sunset Provision
The Percent Change Approach to setting recreational management
measures is an improvement over the status quo process because it
allows for management measures to be set for 2 years, includes the
explicit consideration of the best estimate of the current biomass of
the stock compared to the target level, and requires the consideration
of the variability in harvest estimates. However, the Council and
Commission's Policy Board intend for the Percent Change Approach to be
an interim process, which will sunset no later than December 31, 2025,
with the goal of implementing additional improvements to recreational
fisheries management by fishing year 2026. These improvements will be
developed through a separate, future management action. In the absence
of additional action to revise the recreational management measure-
setting process or continue the Percent Change Approach by the sunset
date, the process for establishing recreational measures will revert to
the methodology previously used by the Council, which is part of the
FMP but not set forth in regulatory text.
Recreational Accountability Measures
When a reactive AM has been triggered by a recreational Annual
Catch Limit (ACL) overage and the most recent biomass estimate is
between the target and the threshold, consideration would also be given
to the most recent estimate of fishing mortality (F) relative to the
fishing mortality associated with MSY (F<INF>MSY</INF>) in the year(s)
when the overage(s) occurred. The AM response would be more restrictive
if F<INF>MSY</INF> was exceeded in addition to the ACL (e.g., a payback
would be required). If only the recreational ACL was exceeded but not
F<INF>MSY</INF>, the AM response would be less strict (e.g., measures
would be revised but a payback would not be required).
Estimates of fishing mortality during the years relevant to the
evaluation may not always be available as these estimates are provided
through the stock assessment, which is not updated every year. When the
relevant fishing mortality estimates are not available, this comparison
would default to a comparison of total catch relative to the ABC.
These recreational accountability measures will not sunset in 2025.
Comments and Responses
We received 10 comments on the proposed rule. Five individuals
provided comments on specific State recreational regulations and how
these regulations were too restrictive, have resulted in economic
hardship, and have eroded trust in the fishery management process. One
individual also suggested imposing more restrictions on the commercial
fishery. These comments are not directly relevant to the rulemaking and
are not discussed further. One comment letter from five organizations
(the American Sportfishing Association, Center for Sportfishing Policy,
Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation,
and the National Marine Manufacturers Association) supported the
implementation of the framework. One individual and four conservation
organizations (Conservation Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Ocean Conservancy, and the Marine Fish Conservation Network),
through three comment letters, opposed the implementation of the
framework. These letters primarily asserted that the
[[Page 14501]]
Percent Change Approach violated National Standards 1, 2, and 4;
responses to the specific issues raised in these comments are provided
below.
One of the major themes of the comments in opposition to the
implementation of the framework was that the Percent Change Approach is
an attempt to circumvent the system of Annual Catch Limits (ACL),
increasing the risk of overfishing, and creating a de facto
reallocation of quota to the recreational sector. The nature of these
comments suggest there is a misunderstanding of the purpose and intent
of this rule. The framework, and the Percent Change Approach as
currently configured, is intended to be an interim approach to setting
recreational management measures (i.e., bag, size, and season) while
the Council and Board continue to work on a number of recreational
management issues, including a continued evaluation of how to set
recreational management measures, recreational accountability and
reporting, and how best to manage the private and for-hire components
of the fishery. The Percent Change Approach implemented by this final
rule will sunset no later than December 31, 2025, and will either be
replaced by a new process or the previous approach to setting
recreational management measures will be reinstated.
The Percent Change Approach is not intended to, and does not,
eliminate the system of ACLs. We will, through the Council process,
continue to set an Allowable Biological Catch (ABC), ACLs, and an RHL
for all four species. The Percent Change Approach does not eliminate
the use of the RHL. In fact, the evaluation of projected harvest
compared to the upcoming RHLs remains a critical component of the
process. The intent of the Percent Change Approach is to iteratively
adjust measures as necessary to prevent overfishing and more closely
monitor the impact that recreational harvest has on a stock. The
potential annual adjustments are constrained within certain percentages
in order to minimize the social and economic impact of the large
adjustments sometimes implemented under the previous system that were
driven by large statistical fluctuations in the data used to estimate
catch. Recreational data are highly variable and uncertain due, in
part, to the sampling protocols used to separately collect effort and
catch data. Catch estimates, even under consistent management measures,
vary substantially from year to year. An effective system of managing
the recreational fishery needs to acknowledge and address this
variability and uncertainty. From 2018 to 2021, recreational management
measures for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass remained
unchanged, yet the estimated harvest varied by as much as 45 percent
from year to year. For example, estimated black sea bass recreational
catch ranged from 10.20 million lb to 16.17 million lb (4,626 to 7,335
metric tons) from 2018 to 2021 despite nearly all management measures
remaining the same. Such significant differences in estimated catch
under the same management measures (input controls) has made setting
management measures in a manner that will precisely reach, but not
exceed, a specific catch limit in any given year extremely challenging.
Reacting to these large, uncertain swings in estimated harvest, by
liberalizing or reducing those management controls in the subsequent
year in an attempt to achieve a specific harvest target, has been
unsuccessful by all standards. This has been particularly difficult
with robust stocks, such as scup and black sea bass, which continue to
grow even in situations where harvest has exceeded previously set
limits. Such stocks that are readily and widely available to the
recreational fishery because of their high abundance will continue to
be harvested, even with very restrictive management measures, and the
current recreational measures-setting process will continue to chase a
target that becomes ever more difficult to reach. The Percent Change
Approach allows managers to consider additional scientific information
when setting recreational measures beyond simply an uncertain catch
estimate, to achieve optimum yield. Based on an evaluation of the
current harvest levels compared to the upcoming RHLs, and the biomass
relative to the target, the Percent Change Approach prescribes the
degree of change necessary to be achieved by the recreational
management measures. When a stock is at a low biomass (below the
biomass target) the management responses are more precautionary. For
example, even when harvest is expected to be close to the upcoming RHL,
a 10-percent reduction is required for a stock in the low biomass
category. For stocks with a very high biomass (at least 150 percent of
the biomass target), a liberalization of no more than 10 percent would
be allowed when harvest is close to the RHL. When harvest is expected
to be higher than the RHL, a reduction is required regardless of stock
size, but it may be more significant for stocks at lower stock sizes (a
10-percent reduction is required for stocks at very high biomass, and
stocks at a high and low biomass are required to take a reduction based
on the difference between the harvest estimate and RHL). This is
because the conservation risk associated with overages is greater for
stocks that are less abundant, whereas stocks that are well above their
target biomass are more robust to higher levels of fishing mortality.
The overall goal of the Percent Change Approach is to iteratively
adjust management measures to achieve the RHL, while minimizing
potential overreaction (overcorrection) to annual variability in the
harvest estimates.
National Standard 1
National Standard 1 states that 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.
Comment 1: Three comments expressed concern about the
``disconnect'' between the process for setting recreational management
measures, the recreational ACL, and RHL. One comment suggested that the
framework, ``. . . seeks to circumvent the well-established framework
for annual catch limits that Congress mandated for all Federal
fisheries in the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act''.
Response: As stated above, the Percent Change Approach does not
eliminate the recreational ACL or RHL, and continues to use both in the
process of setting measures, and evaluating accountability measures.
The approach in this rule attempts to balance the need to constrain
harvest in order to prevent overfishing while acknowledging that
recreational catch estimates are uncertain and often highly variable.
The Percent Change Approach makes incremental adjustments and reduces
the tendency of management measures to ``chase'' after the highs and
lows, by either liberalizing or restricting measures too much in any
given year in reaction to swings in catch estimates. The rule's
approach also builds in more precaution for stocks at lower biomass
levels (biomass levels and the target are taken directly from the
approved and peer-reviewed stock assessment that occur every other year
for all four species). Consider that when a stock biomass is in
decline, it often becomes less available to the recreational fishery
and, therefore, catch estimates may decline relative to the RHL; prior
to this rule, management measures would be liberalized, sometimes
significantly, while catch fell due to a declining biomass, increasing
fishing pressure on a declining stock. Conversely, as healthy stocks
increase, sometimes far above the
[[Page 14502]]
target biomass level, such as with black sea bass and scup, the fish
become more available to the fishery, even under restrictive measures,
resulting in catch estimates that exceed the RHL. However, what appear
to be overages often have no negative impact on abundant stocks as we
continue to see increases in biomass through a subsequent stock
assessment.
The comment letters focused on the scenario where a stock is at a
very high biomass (150 percent or more above the biomass target) and
the harvest is projected to be greater than the upcoming RHL. This is
the ``bin'' that black sea bass falls into for 2023--and it therefore
requires more conservative measures to achieve a 10-percent reduction
in harvest. The conservation risk of this temporary approach, which
reduces the magnitude of a needed reduction compared to what would
occur with the current approach, on a stock that is over 150 percent of
its biomass target is negligible. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines
overfishing as the ``rate or level of fishing mortality that
jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum
sustainable yield on a continuing basis (emphasis added).'' This
scenario, where a stock continues to maintain a biomass significantly
above the target, does not constitute overfishing.
The system the Percent Change Approach is replacing utilized the
same criteria, and allowed for the same degree of changes to management
measures, whether a stock biomass was considered overfished (less than
50 percent of its maximum sustainable yield target) or over 200 percent
of its target level. The Percent Change Approach also considers the
estimated harvest compared to the RHL, but, in contrast to the previous
approach, also incorporates information about stock status to determine
whether, and how much, to either liberalize or restrict management
measures, ensuring more conservative responses for stocks in low
biomass conditions while allowing potentially more liberal responses
only for stocks at very high biomass levels.
Another scenario that the comments did not address relates to
summer flounder in 2023. Because summer flounder is at a ``low'' stock
size (approximately 80 percent of its biomass target), the Percent
Change Approach calls for a 10-percent reduction in harvest, even
though such harvest is projected to be below the RHL. The approaches in
these two instances were designed to require more precaution in
developing recreational measures when a stock is at lower levels of
biomass, and more measured, stepwise reductions in recreational
measures when a stock is at very high levels of biomass. In either
scenario, if the reduction taken does not result in harvest that is
expected to achieve upcoming RHLs, additional reductions will follow in
subsequent years--with this cycle continuing until the management
measures result in catch that is expected to achieve, but not exceed,
the RHL. Using a more gradual, iterative approach to constraining
harvest for stocks at very high levels of abundance is a reasonable
balance given the significant socioeconomic impacts of the reductions
on the recreational sector in a situation involving increasing stocks
with low risk of overfishing. This is also not an unprecedented
approach. When rebuilding plans are implemented, they sometimes have a
tiered or multi-year phase-in to needed reductions.
The comment letters focused on the Percent Change Approach for
setting the management measures, but that is only one component of the
management system. Accountability Measures (AM) remain a critical part
of management, which, while slightly modified through this rule, are
not being eliminated or relaxed. The revised AMs incorporate the
explicit consideration of fishing mortality to determine if overfishing
occurred, which has the effect of more accurately reflecting when more
stringent adjustments to management measures are needed.
Comment 2: One of the comment letters stated that, ``while
recreational harvest may be projected to exceed an RHL, this does not
always, and often has not, resulted in overfishing. Given that the OFL
is fully allocated, one of the few ways this statement can be true is
if commercial under harvest exists and is relied upon to offset
recreational exceedances.''
Response: It is true that the impact from recreational overages may
be ``balanced'' by a commercial underage or vice versa in the
evaluation of overfishing. This is not a new feature of this approach,
nor is it unique to these fisheries. This approach does not take away
quota from the commercial fishery or prevent commercial vessels from
harvesting their entire allocated quota, and thus does not represent a
de facto reallocation of quota. It is simply the reality of overfishing
and overfished statuses being determined based on all mortality and not
sector-specific considerations. To the extent that there is overfishing
as a result of a recreational overage, AMs would be applied to the
recreational fishery, not the commercial fishery.
Another reason that the OFL may be exceeded, despite the fact that
overfishing is not occurring, could be that the catch limits (OFL, ABC,
ACLs) were not set at the correct level. When a stock assessment is
rerun and updated, it is often the case that our perception of the
stock size has changed. Black sea bass has recently experienced a
retrospective pattern that has revealed that stock assessments have
routinely underestimated stock size and overestimated fishing
mortality, resulting in the stock size subsequently being higher than
originally estimated, and fishing mortality lower, when a new/updated
assessment is conducted. The outcome of this pattern is catch limits
that are set lower than what is actually available to the fishery and
years where even restrictive management measures result in higher than
anticipated harvest, often with increasing levels of discards, even
without overfishing occurring.
Comment 3: One commenter stated that, ``Under the new system, the
ACL would only be relevant to recreational management in an indirect
manner, through post-hoc comparisons of rolling average ACLs to average
recreational catches. In short, the ACL no longer would be a meaningful
forward-looking limit.''
Response: This statement is inaccurate. Recreational and commercial
ACLs will be set for all four species annually. The specifications
process will also set RHLs for each species. The RHL, which is derived
from the OFL, ABC, and recreational ACL, will then be used in
conjunction with stock size, to determine the required percent change
in recreational harvest.
Comment 4: Two commenters stated that the framework does not
provide a ``reasonably high level of confidence'' that measures will
not result in overfishing.
Response: The Percent Change Approach is a new, temporary approach
that will improve the process for setting recreational management
measures (i.e., bag, size, and season) for stocks that are not under a
rebuilding plan. The approach uses the stock size compared to the
target stock size, and the projected harvest compared to the harvest
target, to determine the management response. Depending on the stock
size (i.e., very high, high, or low), the possible outcomes are
limited. For example, because summer flounder is in the ``low'' stock
size bin, a 10-percent reduction in harvest must be implemented, even
when harvest is expected to be close to the RHL (within the CI). The
only scenario where a
[[Page 14503]]
liberalization can be implemented for a stock in the ``low'' biomass
bin is when the RHL is greater than the upper bound of the harvest
estimate. This is a more conservative approach than the prior approach
for setting recreational fishing measures, which only compared the
estimated catch to the new RHL, and did not incorporate stock status
into the decision-making process. For 2023, the application of the
Percent Change Approach to summer flounder resulted in a harvest target
below the RHL. When stocks are very healthy (i.e., ``very high''), the
Percent Change Approach creates more opportunities to liberalize
management measures, or allows for a lesser reduction, due to the very
large stock size and minimized risk to the stock.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines the terms ``overfishing'' and
``overfished'' as a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes
the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a
continuing basis. Scup and black sea bass are stocks in the ``very
high'' bin, meaning the biomass is over 150 percent of their respective
biomass targets--the level of biomass associated with maximum
sustainable yield. In plain language, stocks in this bin are at least
1.5 times larger than is ideal for maximizing long-term benefits. In
theory, for such stocks, fishing at F<INF>MSY</INF> should gradually
fish the stock back down to the biomass target. Fishing above
F<INF>MSY</INF> for a year may increase the rate at which this is
achieved, but would not jeopardize the long-term sustainability of the
stock. Adding to the complexity of this is the retrospective pattern
observed in the black sea bass stock assessment, as described above.
Essentially, when the stock assessment is updated and compared to
previous assessments, the stock biomass is higher than previously
estimated, and the fishing mortality is lower. This bias results in
biomass-based targets (OFL, ABC, ACL, RHL) being set lower than, in
retrospect, they should have been.
Comment 5: Two commenters referenced the actions taken at the
December 13, 2022, meeting of the Council and Board, where the proposed
framework was applied to set recreational management measures for 2023.
These comments suggest that the measures adopted for 2023 provide
evidence that the framework does not provide adequate assurance that
overfishing will not occur, and the very first application of the
approach could result in overfishing of scup and black sea bass.
Response: The specific 2023 management measures set for summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass will be discussed and evaluated in a
subsequent rulemaking and are not discussed in detail here. However, it
is worth noting that the Percent Change Approach, when applied to black
sea bass, called for a 10-percent harvest reduction compared to status
quo measures, resulting in a harvest target of 7.14 million lb (3,238
mt). The 2023 RHL is 6.57 million lb (2,980 mt), and the ACL is 9.16
million lb (4,155 mt). A harvest target of 7.14 million lb (3,238 mt)
allows for more than 2 million lb (907 mt) of dead discards before
exceeding the recreational ACL. Even if the recreational ACL was
exceeded, the commercial fisheries catch would also factor into the
overall fishing mortality on the stock. In 2021, the commercial black
sea bass fishery caught 59 percent of the commercial ACL, an underage
of 3.9 million lb (1,782 mt). Given recent commercial underages, and
how close the Percent Change Approach estimated harvest is to the
actual RHL, it is very unlikely that the OFL would be exceeded or, more
importantly, that overfishing would occur. Recreational catches have
been significantly above the ACL for many years and, despite this, the
black sea bass stock is over 150 percent of its biomass target, and
overfishing is not occurring according to the most recent stock
assessment. The most recent 2021 management track stock assessment-
estimated fishing mortality was estimated to be 0.39 compared to the
target (F<INF>40</INF><not-eq>) of 0.46, meaning that fishing mortality
has actually been lower than the optimal level. The biomass of black
sea bass was estimated to be 29,769 mt; 2.1 times the biomass target.
Comment 6: One commenter stated that the Environmental Assessment
(EA) ``badly understated the severity of the problem'' and how often
the annual landings targets mandated by the Percent Change Approach
would diverge from the RHLs, the landings limits generated by use of
the best scientific information available.
Response: We do not yet know by how much, and how often, the
harvest target will be different from the RHL. For a stock like summer
flounder that has a low stock size (below the target), the 2023 harvest
target is lower than the RHL. This is a precautionary approach
purposely built into the Percent Change Approach when stocks are below
their target biomass levels. The 2023 targets for scup and black sea
bass are higher than the 2023 RHLs but, in both cases, reductions to
harvest are being required. When the 2023 stock assessments and 2024
ACLs and RHLs are available, everything will be reanalyzed and
additional reductions or liberalizations will be implemented, as
appropriate. This iterative process allows managers to make incremental
changes, and evaluate the impacts of those changes on the stock, using
the best scientific information available (i.e., the stock assessment)
and then make necessary adjustments moving forward. For species such as
scup and black sea bass, where subsequent assessments have revealed
that prior stock sizes had been underestimated and projected fishing
mortality overestimated, the approach implemented in this rule can help
avoid drastic changes to recreational measures that later prove to have
been unnecessary.
During the development of the Percent Change Approach, the Plan
Development Team/Fishery Management Action Team (PDT/FMAT) evaluated
what changes would have been required for summer flounder and black sea
bass in the past, if the Percent Change Approach had been applied. This
analysis was part of the process for determining the appropriate
percentages for each bin (additional details on this analysis can be
found in the response to Comment 13). The percent changes that were
selected were based on the historical reductions and liberalizations
that have been required.
This commenter seems to imply that the implementation of the
Percent Change Approach constitutes a serious conservation concern; yet
this approach will only be in place for a maximum of 3 years, does not
apply to stocks in rebuilding plans, and requires more precautionary
measures when stocks are below their target biomass. As noted under
Comment 1, the Percent Change Approach requires more restrictive
recreational management measures for summer flounder in 2023, where the
prior approach would have allowed for liberalization of management
measures.
Comment 7: One commenter cited a statement made by the Regional
Administrator about the requirements specific to ACLs. Specifically,
that ``neither an RHL nor a recreational sector-specific ACL are
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. While an overall ACL as well
as AMs are required, these are designed to prevent overfishing at the
stock level.'' The comments suggested that such statements imply an
intent to create a de facto reallocation between the recreational and
commercial fishing sectors, because the only way that the recreational
sector can exceed its ACL, without also causing the overall ACL to be
exceeded, is if the commercial sector does not achieve its ACL. Thus,
if the Percent Change Approach is designed to
[[Page 14504]]
allow the recreational sector to exceed its ACL under certain
circumstances, it is also designed to shift the allocation in favor of
the recreational sector, and to do so without the need for any
allocation-specific management document, or the opportunity for
meaningful public input.
Response: The statements made by the Regional Administrator are
factual--sector-specific ACLs and the RHL are not required by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act or the National Standard Guidelines. As discussed
in response to comment 14 below, the Percent Change Approach is not
designed to, and does not, shift allocation to the recreational sector.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements are designed to prevent and
evaluate overfishing at a stock level. Thus, a sector-specific
(recreational or commercial) ACL overage may not be a conservation
issue, if overall fishing mortality does not exceed the target. The
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass commercial accountability
measures include a provision, when the stock biomass is very high, that
reduces the severity of the response to a potential overage, so as not
to unduly restrict a fishery because the catch limits are not
necessarily reflective of the biological status of the stock. Likewise,
there could be, in this scenario, a commercial fishery overage and a
recreational fishery underage, but this does not mean we are
``reallocating'' fish from one sector to another. These types of
allowances and flexibilities, when the stock size is very high, help to
balance the needs of the fisheries in an effort to achieve optimal
yield, without causing unnecessarily severe social and economic
disruptions that do not address a corresponding biological need.
Comment 8: One commenter suggested that the Percent Change Approach
would cause the AMs to be unable to effectively prevent ACLs, including
sector ACLs, from being exceeded, and would be unable to correct the
problems that caused the overage in as short a time as possible.
Response: The role of AMs is to mitigate the overages and correct
the problem that caused them as soon as possible. This rule does not
eliminate the AMs, or change their structure or function. The current
recreational AMs for these four species are structured such that the AM
response is different depending on the stock biomass, and the degree of
the overage, and this remains the case with the approach of this rule.
If the stock biomass is low (i.e., below the threshold, in a rebuilding
plan, or reference points are unknown) a pound-for-pound payback is
required for overages. Moreover, stocks in this category (e.g., a stock
in a rebuilding plan such as bluefish) are not eligible for the Percent
Change Approach, thus this element of the framework has no impact on
the function of the AMs for such stocks. If a stock is above the
threshold, but below the target, such as summer flounder, the AM
depends on if there was a recreational ACL overage, or if the overall
fishing mortality is above the target, with the response being more
severe if overfishing was occurring. In that scenario, a payback is
required for overages. When a stock is above the biomass target, such
as scup and black sea bass, the current AMs call for ``adjustments to
the recreational management measures, taking into account the
performance of the measures and conditions that precipitated the
overage.'' This rule does not eliminate or change this requirement. If
AMs are triggered, the Council and Board will be required to satisfy
those AMs and, if they fail to do so, NMFS will adjust measures as
needed. There is no evidence provided in the comment that explains how
the use of a new method to set the recreational management measures
makes the AMs ineffective.
Comment 9: One commenter pointed out that the application of the
Percent Change Approach can direct the Council to set an annual
landings target that exceeds the sector ACL, and might even ensure that
AMs will have to be invoked in a subsequent season. The letter goes on
to point out that ``. . . it occurred at the December 13 Meeting, the
very first time the [Percent Change Approach] was used to set an annual
landings target, when it set the 2023 annual landings target for scup
at 12.88 million pounds (5,842 mt), approximately 20 percent above the
sector ACL. Even if 2023 recreational landings merely approach, but do
not exceed, such a landings target, AMs will inevitably be invoked . .
.'' The comment suggests that under such circumstances, there is no
meaningful chance that AMs will not have to be invoked after the 2023
scup season.
Response: This is not a result of the Percent Change Approach. The
previous overages that occurred under the previously applied approach
were so large that, even if the recreational harvest in 2023 was set to
the RHL, the AM would be triggered. In fact, even if there was no scup
harvest in 2023, the AM would be triggered. Thus, it is not logical to
suggest that the AM being triggered in 2024 was due to the Percent
Change Approach.
National Standard 2
Comment 10: Two commenters made statements about continuing to use
the previously applied ``science-based'' approach to setting
recreational management measures, suggesting that this approach was
better than the process proposed in the framework.
Response: The previous approach to setting recreational management
measures was based on reacting to the highly variable and uncertain
annual catch estimates of recreational harvest in a given year. Often,
the approach relied on ad hoc approaches developed by the Monitoring/
Technical Committee to smooth out the data across multiple years to
achieve the RHL. This approach was regularly unsuccessful at accurately
predicting harvest that would not exceed the RHL, particularly for
black sea bass and other stocks with very large stock sizes. Using that
approach, the black sea bass RHL was exceeded every year from 2012
through 2021, except 2017. During that time, estimated recreational
harvest ranged from 97 to 241 percent of the RHL. The previous approach
was also unsuccessful with respect to social and economic objectives.
There has been widespread angler dissatisfaction as continuously more-
restrictive measures were implemented, despite increasing stock size
and therefore increasing availability to the fishery. The black sea
bass stock is more than 150 percent of the biomass target, yet
management measures are the most restrictive they have ever been. The
same scenario has been occurring for scup in recent years, and in 2022,
we proposed (April 18, 2022, 87 FR 22863) a closure of the Federal scup
fishery despite the high stock levels. The previous regulations
required that we take that drastic action, not because the stock was at
risk, but because the measures proposed by the Council would not fully
constrain harvest to the RHL. For context, the scup biomass is about
two times larger than the biomass target. Ultimately, given the
biological, social, and economic considerations, we did not implement
the closure. Additional details can be found in the final rule (87 FR
35112, June 9, 2022) for the 2022 recreational management measures. The
fact that the previous process and regulations often resulted in a
required restrictive action that was not based on an actual risk of
overfishing highlights the necessity for change. The Percent Change
Approach implemented by this action is part of an iterative process to
build a management system that recognizes the limitations of
recreational data, while ensuring long-term sustainability of the
stock. The
[[Page 14505]]
sunset provision will require the Council and Board to examine the
efficacy of the Percent Change Approach over three years, and to
develop changes or improvements to the recreational measure-setting
process as needed.
Comment 11: Three commenters stated that the framework was not
based on the best available science because recreational management
measures would not be set based on the RHL.
Response: The Percent Change Approach incorporates the best
scientific information available, including fishing mortality estimates
and stock size from approved stock assessments, in conjunction with
estimates of annual harvest, to better understand the impacts of
recreational harvest on stocks. This approach allows managers to make
more informed decisions, constrains those decisions to minimize the
biological risk to stocks at lower stock levels, and reduces the
socioeconomic impact to fisheries that depend on stocks at higher stock
levels.
Comment 12: Two commenters cited excerpts from an SSC peer review
that was conducted during the development of the range of alternatives
in the framework.
Response: Two comments quoted the SSC report, specifically the
comments of one individual, and staff commentary at the working
meetings, which were part of the deliberative process. It is important
to note that these reviews occurred during the development of the
framework, and were more broadly considering the full range of
alternatives in this action, including those that were not selected by
the Council and Board. At the time the reviews were completed, the EA
had not been drafted, nor had the alternatives been fully developed.
Further refinement to the approaches considered in this action and
additional analyses occurred after these meetings, in response to many
of the SSC's comments.
Comment 13: Two commenters questioned the rationale behind the
selection of the percentages used in the percent change approach,
claiming that they were completely arbitrary.
Response: The PDT/FMAT conducted a number of analyses of the
Percent Change Approach including an evaluation of the percentages, and
a post-hoc evaluation of what changes would have been needed in the
past compared to the changes that were implemented. The percentages
ultimately selected were not random or arbitrary; these percentages
were selected based on an FMAT/PDT analysis that evaluated past
differences between the RHL and estimated harvest values (i.e., derived
from MRIP). These percent differences represent historically required
reductions or liberalizations to achieve, but not exceed, the next
year's RHL. A percentile approach was applied to the distribution of
these required liberalizations and reductions over the history of each
fishery. The percent change was set equal to the average of the
absolute values of the 40th and 60th percentiles, 25th and 75th
percentiles, and the 10th and 90th percentiles of the ``required''
liberalizations or reductions. Summer flounder and black sea bass
behave similarly in these analyses, scup was excluded from the analysis
because the majority of the scup measures over the last decade could
have been liberalized to a greater degree but were mostly held status
quo causing a continued high degree of difference between RHL and MRIP
landing estimates. Using the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles for
summer flounder and black sea bass were roughly equivalent to the 10-,
20-, and 40-percent changes used in the approach.
National Standard 4
Comment 14: Three commenters were concerned that the Percent Change
Approach, constitutes an illegal de facto reallocation between sectors.
One letter specifically stated that ``Although NMFS just recently
approved revised allocations that increase the recreational share of
the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries, NMFS appears
to be tacitly increasing again the recreational allocation through the
Proposed Rule. By allowing the recreational fishery to exceed its RHL
and ACL, the agency would create a further reallocation of summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass (and potentially bluefish) from the
commercial sector to the recreational sector.''
Response: As stated in National Standard 4, an ``allocation'' or
``assignment'' of fishing privileges is a direct and deliberate
distribution of the opportunity to participate in a fishery among
identifiable, discrete user groups or individuals. Any management
measure (or lack of management) may have incidental allocative effects,
but only those measures that result in direct distributions of fishing
privileges will be judged against the allocation requirements of
National Standard 4. Unlike the commercial/recreational allocation
amendment referenced in the comment, this action does not constitute a
direct distribution of fishing privileges.
This action will not constrain or otherwise penalize or hold the
commercial fishery accountable for the recreational sector's catch. If
recreational overages occur, as they have under the previous process,
the recreational fishery would be held accountable as prescribed by the
AMs.
As noted, the Council and Board recently reviewed, and ultimately
revised, the commercial and recreational allocations for summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass. Throughout the allocation process,
we encouraged the Council and Board to consider options that excluded
recreational overages from determining revisions to allocations, as
using those overages as the basis for an increase in recreational
allocation would be inappropriate. If this process, like the previous
method to setting recreational management measures, results in ACL
overages, those overages should likewise not be used as a justification
for increased recreational quota in future consideration of
allocations.
Other
Comment 15: Two commenters stated that a framework adjustment is
not the appropriate vehicle for such significant changes, and suggested
that a ``more inclusive and thorough fishery management plan (FMP)
amendment process'' should have been used to consider the changes
proposed. One comment stated that the ``fast-tracked'' nature of the
framework did not allow for public scoping or public comments.
Response: The Percent Change Approach considered through this
framework has been a part of an extensive effort (i.e., the
Recreational Reform Initiative) to address many of the challenges
associated with recreational fisheries management. The initiative began
in March 2019, when a steering committee was established to develop
strategies to increase management flexibility and stability for jointly
managed recreational fisheries. The Council and Board spent several
years planning and developing ideas, and then ultimately prioritized
the Harvest Control Rule action February 2021. Throughout 2021 and
2022, the Council and Board met jointly six times to discuss the
framework (and discussed the Recreational Reform Initiative an
additional six times). The Commission hosted a series of public
hearings and collected comments in March and April 2022. A subset of
the Council's SSC conducted two reviews of the process/models. While a
framework can be a more abbreviated process than an amendment, this
framework was not. The development of the Harvest Control Rule was a
multi-year process with numerous opportunities for public
participation, through the Council and
[[Page 14506]]
Board meetings, public hearings, SSC reviews, and PDT/FMAT meetings.
Moreover, this action is limited to a 3-year implementation, after
which it will be replaced or rescinded, or modified and extended
Comment 16: One commenter suggested that implementing the framework
would not be ``an effective or appropriate response'' to any of the
challenges managing recreational fisheries. This letter instead
suggests that we should ``continue to apply established principles of
fisheries management, including managing stocks for sustainability and
abundance, using ecosystem-based approaches, addressing climate impacts
directly, making improvements to data systems, and managing to achieve
the greatest benefit to the nation.''
Response: Use of ecosystem-based approaches, addressing climate
impacts, and making improvements to data systems are all important
considerations for the management, both commercial and recreational, of
these species moving forward. In fact, the Recreational Demand Model,
being used in conjunction with the Percent Change Approach, was
developed as part of the Council's Ecosystem Approach to Fishery
Management's Management Strategy Evaluation. The stock assessment for
black sea bass is currently undergoing a research track assessment to
further improve the stock assessment model for this species. While
these are some steps that are already being taken, they are not short-
term solutions, as they require significant time and resources. Given
the number of challenges managing recreational fisheries, and the need
for additional time to work on longer-term solutions, this framework is
being implemented to respond to those challenges in a timely manner.
The sunset of the Percent Change Approach also requires the Council and
Board to explicitly review this action and is intended to allow for
further improvements to recreational management.
Comment 17: Two commenters suggested that the current challenges
faced by managers of these recreational fisheries have been caused by
the Council's failure to follow the guidelines on management
uncertainty. The comment suggests that incorporation of management
uncertainty would have solved an array of problems, i.e., ``better
prevented overfishing, addressed uncertainty and variability in
recreational data, and provided more stable and predictable
regulations, without the need to abandon the current data-based
management process . . .''
Response: Including management uncertainty into the process for
setting recreational management measures would result in setting a
recreational harvest target below the RHL, and even more restrictive
recreational management measures. This would exacerbate the disconnect
between what anglers are observing (e.g., high levels of abundance of
black sea bass and scup) and the increasingly restrictive management
measures. Implementing a larger buffer, and further reducing the quota,
does not recognize that uncertainty applies in both directions--catch
and biomass may be higher or lower than estimated. Simply restricting
recreational fisheries more is not solving the fundamental problem,
particularly when considering the lack of success in continually
attempting to constrain harvest to a specific limit that, in
retrospect, was lower than needed.
Comment 18: One commenter stated that when asked to evaluate
whether the best available data required a 10-percent increase or a 10-
percent decrease in summer flounder landings, the Council made the
arbitrary decision not to employ the Percent Change Approach at all.
Response: The discussions referenced in this comment were specific
to the 2023 recreational management measures, which will be addressed
in a separate, forthcoming action. In addition, at the joint December
2022 meeting, the Council and Board were evaluating various models used
in support of the development of management measures, and not the
fundamentals of the approach being implemented through this action.
Comment 19: One commenter asked about the information that was used
during the development of the proposed approach, specifically
concerning the input from fishermen that was received and utilized as
this action was being formulated.
Response: This action is part of the broader Recreational Reform
Initiative, which is an effort of the Council and Commission to improve
management of the recreational fisheries for summer flounder, scup,
black sea bass, and bluefish. This initiative aims to address a range
of challenges in recreational fisheries management. These challenges
include widespread angler dissatisfaction with some recreational
management measures, stakeholder perceptions that measures are not
reflective of stock status, and concerns about how MRIP data are used
to manage these fisheries.
The overarching Harvest Control Rule approach was originally
brought forward as a proposal from six recreational fishing
organizations through scoping comments on the Summer Flounder, Scup,
and Black Sea Bass Commercial/Recreational Allocation Amendment. While
it was not pursued through that action, the Council and Board expressed
interest in further pursuing the ideas relative to setting recreational
management measures, which they did, through this framework. After
initiation of this action in February 2021, a series of public meetings
and hearings were held to solicit comments and information from the
public, including the fishing industry. A complete history of the
action, the data used, and analyses conducted can be found in the EA
(see ADDRESSES).
Comment 20: One comment letter from five organizations (the
American Sportfishing Association, Center for Sportfishing Policy,
Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation,
and the National Marine Manufacturers Association) supported the
implementation of the framework. Specifically, the comment letter
stated that the framework ``. . . aims to address numerous challenges
currently facing recreational fishery management, including limitations
of the MRIP data, the need to change measures (sometimes annually)
based on those data, and recreational measures (bag, size and season)
not reflecting stock status. Most recently, the 2022 fisheries
specification process exemplified these challenges and demonstrates the
need to implement alternative approaches to setting bag, size, and
season limits in 2023, and beyond''.
Response: We agree, and have approved the framework as proposed.
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
Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is
consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass, and
Bluefish FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson Stevens Act, and other
applicable law.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of effectiveness
period for this rule, to ensure that the final management measures are
in place as soon as possible.
[[Page 14507]]
The Council and Board adopted this Framework/Addendum in June 2022,
and indicated their intention that this new process would be used for
development of the 2023 recreational management measures. In December
of 2022, they used the new process to recommend recreational management
measures for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. We cannot
implement the recommended 2023 recreational management measures until
the process implemented through this rule is effective. A delay in the
effectiveness in this rule would create additional challenges and
confusion about the 2023 recreational management measures. The summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass fishing year began on January 1,
2023. This is the earliest this rule could be completed. The Council
submitted the revised framework document on November 21, 2022, and the
proposed rule was published on December 15, 2022, this final rule is
being issued as soon as possible.
The Federal coastwide regulatory measures for recreational summer
flounder and black sea bass fishing that were codified last year (87 FR
35112, June 9, 2022) remain in effect until the decision to waive
Federal measures for 2023 is made. Because the Council and Board-
recommended measures are based on the approach implemented in this
rule, the states have already developed and have begun implementing
their conservationally equivalent 2023 measures. Inconsistencies
between the states' measures and the Federal measures could lead to
misunderstanding of the applicable regulations and could increase the
likelihood of noncompliant landings. Additionally, the Federal summer
flounder measures currently in place are more restrictive than many of
the measures in State waters, which unnecessarily disadvantage
federally permitted vessels who are subject to these more restrictive
measures until the 2023 recreational measures are put in place.
The measures currently in place for scup and black sea bass are
more liberal than the measures that will be implemented for 2023. A
delay in effectiveness of this rule, and a resulting delay of the
implementation of the 2023 measures, will increase the likelihood that
the 2023 RHLs and recreational ACLs will be exceeded. We are required
to implement measures to constrain recreational harvest to prevent
overfishing.
In response to this action, unlike actions that require an
adjustment period to comply with new rules, recreational and charter/
party operators will not have to purchase new equipment or otherwise
expend time or money to comply with the new management process.
Additionally the Council and Board already took action, in December
2022, to recommend recreational management measures based on the new
process.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the
proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received
regarding this certification, and to our knowledge, there are no
changed circumstances. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis
was not required and none was prepared.
This final rule contains no information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 1, 2023.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended
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 paragraphs (a) introductory text, (b)
introductory text, and (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.100 Summer flounder Annual Catch Limit (ACL).
(a) Annual catch limits. The Monitoring Committee shall recommend
to the MAFMC separate ACLs for the commercial and recreational summer
flounder fisheries, the sum total of which shall be equal to the ABC
recommended by the SSC.
* * * * *
(b) Performance review. The Monitoring Committee shall conduct a
detailed review of fishery performance relative to the sector ACLs at
least every 5 years.
(1) If one or both of the sector-specific ACLs is exceeded with a
frequency greater than 25 percent (i.e., more than once in 4 years or
any 2 consecutive years), the Monitoring Committee will review fishery
performance information and consider whether changes in measures are
needed.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 648.101, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1),
and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.101 Summer flounder Annual Catch Target (ACT).
(a) Annual catch target. The Monitoring Committee shall identify
and review the relevant sources of management uncertainty to recommend
ACTs for the commercial and recreational fishing sectors as part of the
summer flounder specification process. The Monitoring Committee
recommendations shall identify the specific sources of management
uncertainty that were considered, technical approaches to mitigating
these sources of uncertainty, and any additional relevant information
considered in the ACT recommendation process.
(1) Sectors. Commercial and recreational specific ACTs shall be
less than or equal to the sector-specific ACLs. The Monitoring
Committee shall recommend any reduction in catch necessary to address
sector-specific management uncertainty, consistent with this paragraph
(a).
* * * * *
(b) Performance review. The Monitoring Committee shall conduct a
detailed review of fishery performance relative to ACTs in conjunction
with any ACL performance review, as outlined in Sec. 648.100(b)(1)
through (3).
0
4. In Sec. 648.102, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(6)
and (11), (b), and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.102 Summer flounder specifications.
(a) Commercial quota, recreational landing limits, research set-
asides, and other specification measures. The Monitoring Committee
shall recommend to the MAFMC, through the specifications process, for
use in conjunction with each ACL and ACT, a sector-specific research
set-aside, estimates of sector-related discards, a recreational harvest
limit, and a commercial quota, along with other measures, as needed to
prevent overages of the applicable specified limits or targets for each
sector, as prescribed in
[[Page 14508]]
the FMP. The measures to be considered by the Monitoring Committee are:
* * * * *
(6) Recreational possession limit set from a range of 0 to 15
summer flounder.
* * * * *
(11) Modification of existing accountability measures and ACT
control rules utilized by the Monitoring Committee.
(b) Specification fishing measures. The MAFMC shall review the
recommendations of the Monitoring Committee and, based on the
recommendations and any public comment, recommend to the Regional
Administrator measures that are projected to constrain the sectors to
the applicable limit or target as prescribed in the FMP. The MAFMC's
recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate,
concerning the environmental and economic impacts of the
recommendations. The Regional Administrator shall review these
recommendations and any recommendations of the ASMFC.
* * * * *
(d) Recreational specification measures. The MAFMC shall review the
recommendations of the Monitoring Committee and, based on the
recommendations and any public comment, recommend to the Regional
Administrator measures that are projected to prevent overages of the
applicable recreational target, as prescribed in the FMP, for an
upcoming fishing year or years. The MAFMC's recommendations must
include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the
environmental and economic impacts of the recommendations. The MAFMC
and the ASMFC will recommend that the Regional Administrator implement
either:
(1) Coastwide measures. Annual, or multi-year, coastwide management
measures projected to achieve the applicable recreational target as
prescribed in the FMP, or
(2) Conservation equivalent measures. Individual states, or regions
formed voluntarily by adjacent states (i.e., multi-State conservation
equivalency regions), may implement different combinations of minimum
and/or maximum fish sizes, possession limits, and closed seasons that
achieve equivalent conservation as the coastwide measures established
under paragraph (e)(1) of this section. Each State or multi-State
conservation equivalency region may implement measures by mode or area
only if the proportional standard error of recreational landing
estimates by mode or area for that State is less than 30 percent.
(i) After review of the recommendations, the Regional Administrator
will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register as soon as
possible to implement the overall recreational target for the fishing
year(s), and the ASMFC's recommendation concerning conservation
equivalency, the precautionary default measures, and coastwide
measures.
(ii) The ASMFC will review conservation equivalency proposals and
determine whether or not they achieve the necessary adjustment to
recreational landings. The ASMFC will provide the Regional
Administrator with the individual State and/or multi-State region
conservation measures for the approved State and/or multi-State region
proposals and, in the case of disapproved State and/or multi-State
region proposals, the precautionary default measures that should be
applied to a State or region. At the request of the ASMFC,
precautionary default measures would apply to federally permitted
party/charter vessels and other recreational fishing vessels harvesting
summer flounder in or from the EEZ when landing in a State that
implements measures not approved by the ASMFC.
(iii) After considering public comment, the Regional Administrator
will publish a final rule in the Federal Register to implement either
the State or regional conservation equivalency measures or coastwide
measures to ensure that the applicable specified target is not
exceeded.
(iv) The ASMFC may allow states or regions assigned the
precautionary default measures to resubmit revised management measures.
The ASMFC will detail the procedures by which the State or region can
develop alternate measures. The ASMFC will notify the Regional
Administrator of any resubmitted State or regional proposals approved
subsequent to publication of the final rule and the Regional
Administrator will publish a document in the Federal Register to notify
the public.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 648.103, revise paragraphs (c), (d)(1), and (d)(2)(ii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 648.103 Summer flounder accountability measures.
* * * * *
(c) Recreational ACL Evaluation. The recreational sector ACL will
be evaluated based on a 3-year moving average comparison of total catch
(landings and dead discards). Both landings and dead discards will be
evaluated in determining if the 3-year average recreational sector ACL
has been exceeded.
(d) * * *
(1) If biomass is below the threshold, the stock is under
rebuilding, or biological reference points are unknown. If the most
recent estimate of biomass is below the BMSY threshold (i.e., B/BMSY is
less than 0.5),), the stock is under a rebuilding plan, or the
biological reference points (B or BMSY) are unknown, and the
recreational ACL has been exceeded, then the exact amount, in pounds,
by which the most recent 3-year average recreational catch estimate
exceeded the most recent 3-year average recreational ACL will be
deducted, in the following fishing year, or as soon as possible,
thereafter, once catch data are available, from the recreational ACT.
This payback may be evenly spread over 2 years if doing so allows for
use of identical recreational management measures across the upcoming 2
years.
(2) * * *
(ii) If the fishing mortality (F) has exceeded FMSY (or the proxy).
If the most recent estimate of total fishing mortality exceeds FMSY (or
the proxy), then an adjustment to the recreational ACT will be made as
soon as possible, once catch data are available, as described in
paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) of this section. If an estimate of total
fishing mortality is not available for the most recent complete year of
catch data, then a comparison of total catch relative to the ABC will
be used.
(A) Adjustment to Recreational ACT. If an adjustment to the
following year's Recreational ACT is required, then the ACT will be
reduced by the exact amount, in pounds, of the product of the overage,
defined as the difference between the most recent 3-year average
recreational catch and the most recent 3-year recreational ACL, and the
payback coefficient, as specified in paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of this
section. This payback may be evenly spread over 2 years if doing so
allows for use of identical recreational management measures across the
upcoming 2 years.
(B) Payback coefficient. The payback coefficient is the difference
between the most recent estimate of biomass and B<INF>MSY</INF> (i.e.,
B<INF>MSY</INF>-B) divided by one-half of B<INF>MSY</INF>.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 648.120, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text, (b)
introductory text, and (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.120 Scup Annual Catch Limit (ACL).
(a) Annual catch limits. The Monitoring Committee shall recommend
[[Page 14509]]
to the MAFMC separate ACLs for the commercial and recreational scup
fisheries, the sum total of which shall be equal to the ABC recommended
by the SSC.
* * * * *
(b) Performance review. The Monitoring Committee shall conduct a
detailed review of fishery performance relative to the sector ACLs at
least every 5 years.
(1) If one or both of the sector-specific ACLs is exceeded with a
frequency greater than 25 percent (i.e., more than once in 4 years or
any 2 consecutive years), the Monitoring Committee will review fishery
performance information and consider whether changes to measures are
needed.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 648.121, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1),
and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.121 Scup Annual Catch Target (ACT).
(a) Annual catch targets. The Monitoring Committee shall identify
and review the relevant sources of management uncertainty to recommend
ACTs for the commercial and recreational fishing sectors as part of the
scup specification process. The Monitoring Committee recommendations
shall identify the specific sources of management uncertainty that were
considered, technical approaches to mitigating these sources of
uncertainty, and any additional relevant information considered in the
ACT recommendation process.
(1) Sectors. Commercial and recreational specific ACTs shall be
less than or equal to the sector-specific ACLs. The Monitoring
Committee shall recommend any reduction in catch necessary to address
sector-specific management uncertainty, consistent with this paragraph
(a).
* * * * *
(b) Performance review. The Monitoring Committee shall conduct a
detailed review of fishery performance relative to ACTs in conjunction
with any ACL performance review, as outlined in Sec. 648.120(b)(1)
through (3).
0
8. In Sec. 648.122, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(7)
and (14), and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.122 Scup Specifications.
(a) Commercial quota, recreational landing limits, research set-
asides, and other specification measures. The Monitoring Committee
shall recommend to the MAFMC and the ASMFC through the specifications
process, for use in conjunction with each ACL and ACT, a sector-
specific research set-aside, estimates of sector-related discards, a
recreational harvest limit, and a commercial quota, along with other
measures, as needed, to prevent overages of the applicable specified
limits or targets for each sector, as prescribed in the FMP. The
measures to be considered by the Monitoring Committee are as follows:
* * * * *
(7) Recreational possession limit set from a range of 0 to 50 scup.
* * * * *
(14) Modification of existing AM measures and ACT control rules
utilized by the Monitoring Committee.
(b) Specification of fishing measures. The MAFMC shall review the
recommendations of the Monitoring Committee. Based on these
recommendations and any public comment, the MAFMC shall recommend to
the Regional Administrator measures necessary to prevent overages of
the appropriate specified limits or targets for each sector, as
prescribed in the FMP. The MAFMC's recommendation must include
supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental
and economic impacts of the recommendations. The Regional Administrator
shall review these recommendations and any recommendations of the
ASMFC. After such review, NMFS will publish a proposed rule in the
Federal Register to implement a commercial quota, specifying the amount
of quota allocated to each of the three periods, possession limits for
the Winter I and Winter II periods, including possession limits that
result from potential rollover of quota from Winter I to Winter II, the
percentage of landings attained during the Winter I fishery at which
the possession limits will be reduced, a recreational harvest limit,
and additional management measures for the commercial and recreational
fisheries.
* * * * *
0
9. In Sec. 648.123, revise paragraphs (c), (d) introductory text,
(d)(1), (d)(2)(ii) introductory text, and (d)(2)(ii)(A) to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.123 Scup accountability measures.
* * * * *
(c) Recreational ACL. The recreational sector ACL will be evaluated
based on a 3-year moving average comparison of total catch (landings
and dead discards). Both landings and dead discards will be evaluated
in determining if the 3-year average recreational sector ACL has been
exceeded.
(d) Recreational AMs. If the recreational ACL is exceeded, then the
following procedure will be followed:
(1) If biomass is below the threshold, the stock is under
rebuilding, or biological reference points are unknown. If the most
recent estimate of biomass is below the BMSY threshold (i.e., B/BMSY is
less than 0.5), the stock is under a rebuilding plan, or the biological
reference points (B or BMSY) are unknown, and the recreational ACL has
been exceeded, then the exact amount, in pounds, by which the most
recent 3-year average recreational catch estimate exceeded the most
recent 3-year average recreational ACL will be deducted in the
following fishing year, or as soon as possible, thereafter, once catch
data are available, from the recreational ACT. This payback may be
evenly spread over 2 years if doing so allows for use of identical
recreational management measures across the upcoming 2 years.
(2) * * *
(ii) If the fishing mortality (F) has exceeded FMSY (or the proxy).
If the most recent estimate of total fishing mortality exceeds FMSY (or
the proxy), then an adjustment to the recreational ACT will be made as
soon as possible once catch data are available, as described in
paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) of this section. If an estimate of total
fishing mortality for the most recent complete year of catch data is
not available, then a comparison of total catch relative to the ABC
will be used.
(A) Adjustment to Recreational ACT. If an adjustment to the
following year's Recreational ACT is required, then the ACT will be
reduced by the exact amount, in pounds, of the product of the overage,
defined as the difference between the most recent 3-year average
recreational catch and the most recent 3-year average recreational ACL,
and the payback coefficient, as specified in paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of
this section. This payback may be evenly spread over 2 years if doing
so allows for use of identical recreational management measures across
the upcoming 2 years.
* * * * *
0
10. In Sec. 648.140, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text, (b)
introductory text, and (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.140 Black sea bass Annual Catch Limit (ACL).
(a) Annual Catch Limits. The Monitoring Committee shall recommend
to the MAFMC separate ACLs for the commercial and recreational scup
fisheries, the sum total of which shall be equal to the ABC recommended
by the SSC.
* * * * *
[[Page 14510]]
(b) Performance review. The Monitoring Committee shall conduct a
detailed review of fishery performance relative to the sector ACLs at
least every 5 years.
(1) If one or both of the sector-specific ACLs is exceeded with a
frequency greater than 25 percent (i.e., more than once in 4 years or
any 2 consecutive years), the Monitoring Committee will review fishery
performance information and consider whether changes to measures are
needed.
* * * * *
0
11. In Sec. 648.141, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1),
and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.141 Black sea bass Annual Catch Target (ACT).
(a) Annual Catch Targets. The Monitoring Committee shall identify
and review the relevant sources of management uncertainty to recommend
ACTs for the commercial and recreational fishing sectors as part of the
black sea bass specification process. The Monitoring Committee
recommendations shall identify the specific sources of management
uncertainty that were considered, technical approaches to mitigating
these sources of uncertainty, and any additional relevant information
considered in the ACT recommendation process.
(1) Sectors. Commercial and recreational specific ACTs shall be
less than or equal to the sector-specific ACLs. The Monitoring
Committee shall recommend any reduction in catch necessary to address
sector-specific management uncertainty, consistent with this paragraph
(a).
* * * * *
(b) Performance review. The Monitoring Committee shall conduct a
detailed review of fishery performance relative to ACTs in conjunction
with any ACL performance review, as outlined in Sec. 648.140(b)(1)
through (3).
0
12. In Sec. 648.142, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(7)
and (10), (b), (d) introductory text, (d)(1), and (d)(2)(i) through
(iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.142 Black sea bass specifications.
(a) Specifications. Commercial quota, recreational landing limit,
research set-aside, and other specification measures. The Monitoring
Committee will recommend to the MAFMC and the ASMFC, through the
specification process, for use in conjunction with the ACL and ACT,
sector-specific research set-asides, estimates of the sector-related
discards, a recreational harvest limit, a commercial quota, along with
other measures, as needed, that are projected to prevent overages of
the applicable specified limits or targets for each sector as
prescribed in the FMP. The following measures are to be considered by
the Monitoring Committee:
* * * * *
(7) A recreational possession limit.
* * * * *
(10) Recreational State conservation equivalent and precautionary
default measures utilizing possession limits, minimum fish sizes, and/
or seasons.
* * * * *
(b) Specification fishing measures. The MAFMC shall review the
Monitoring Committee recommendations and, based on the recommendations
and public comment, make recommendations to the Regional Administrator
on measures projected to constrain the sectors to the applicable limit
or target as prescribed in the FMP. Included in the recommendation will
be supporting documents, as appropriate, concerning the environmental
and economic impacts of the final rule. The Regional Administrator will
review these recommendations and any recommendations of the ASMFC.
After such review, the Regional Administrator will publish a proposed
rule in the Federal Register to implement a commercial quota, a
recreational harvest limit, and additional management measures for the
commercial fishery.
* * * * *
(d) Recreational specification measures. The Monitoring Committee
shall recommend to the MAFMC and ASMFC measures that are projected to
prevent overages of the applicable recreational target as prescribed in
the FMP. The MAFMC shall review these recommendations and, based on the
recommendations and any public comment, recommend recreational
management measures to the Regional Administrator. The MAFMC's
recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate,
concerning the environmental and economic impacts of the
recommendations. The MAFMC and the ASMFC will recommend that the
Regional Administrator implement either:
(1) Coastwide measures. Annual coastwide management measures that
constrain the recreational black sea bass fishery to the recreational
target as specified in the fishery management plan, or
(2) * * *
(i) After review of the recommendations, the Regional Administrator
will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register as soon as
possible to implement the overall recreational target required for the
fishing year(s), and the ASMFC's recommendation concerning conservation
equivalency, the precautionary default measures, and coastwide
measures.
(ii) The ASMFC will review conservation equivalency proposals and
determine whether or not they achieve the necessary recreational
target. The ASMFC will provide the Regional Administrator with the
individual State and/or multi-State region conservation measures for
the approved State and/or multi-State region proposals and, in the case
of disapproved State and/or multi-State region proposals, the
precautionary default measures that should be applied to a State or
region. At the request of the ASMFC, precautionary default measures
would apply to federally permitted party/charter vessels and other
recreational fishing vessels harvesting black sea bass in or from the
EEZ when landing in a State that implements measures not approved by
the ASMFC.
(iii) After considering public comment, the Regional Administrator
will publish a final rule in the Federal Register to implement either
the State or regional conservation equivalency measures or coastwide
measures to ensure that the applicable specified target is not
exceeded.
(iv) The ASMFC may allow states or regions assigned the
precautionary default measures to resubmit revised management measures.
The ASMFC will detail the procedures by which the State or region can
develop alternate measures. The ASMFC will notify the Regional
Administrator of any resubmitted State or regional proposals approved
subsequent to publication of the final rule and the Regional
Administrator will publish a document in the Federal Register to notify
the public.
* * * * *
0
13. In Sec. 648.143, revise paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.143 Black sea bass accountability measures.
* * * * *
(c) Recreational ACL Evaluation. The recreational sector ACL will
be evaluated based on a 3-year moving average comparison of total catch
(landings and dead discards). Both landings and dead discards will be
evaluated in determining if the 3-year average recreational sector ACL
has been exceeded.
(d) Recreational AMs. If the recreational ACL is exceeded, then the
following procedure will be followed:
[[Page 14511]]
(1) If biomass is below the threshold, the stock is under
rebuilding, or biological reference points are unknown. If the most
recent estimate of biomass is below the BMSY threshold (i.e., B/BMSY is
less than 0.5), the stock is under a rebuilding plan, or the biological
reference points (B or BMSY) are unknown, and the recreational ACL has
been exceeded, then the exact amount, in pounds, by which the most
recent 3-year average recreational catch estimate exceeded the most
recent 3-year average recreational ACL will be deducted in the
following fishing year, or as soon as possible thereafter, once catch
data are available, from the recreational ACT. This payback may be
evenly spread over 2 years if doing so allows for use of identical
recreational management measures across the upcoming 2 years.
(2) If biomass is above the threshold, but below the target, and
the stock is not under rebuilding. If the most recent estimate of
biomass is above the biomass threshold (B/B<INF>MSY</INF> is greater
than 0.5), but below the biomass target (B/B<INF>MSY</INF> is less than
1.0), and the stock is not under a rebuilding plan, then the following
AMs will apply:
(i) If the Recreational ACL has been exceeded. If the Recreational
ACL has been exceeded, then adjustments to the recreational management
measures, taking into account the performance of the measures and
conditions that precipitated the overage, will be made in the following
fishing year, or as soon as possible thereafter, once catch data are
available, as a single-year adjustment.
(ii) If the fishing mortality (F) has exceeded FMSY (or the proxy).
If the most recent estimate of total fishing mortality exceeds FMSY (or
the proxy) then an adjustment to the recreational ACT will be made as
soon as possible once catch data are available, as described in
paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) of this section. If an estimate of total
fishing mortality for the most recent complete year of catch data is
not available, then a comparison of total catch relative to the ABC
will be used.
(A) Adjustment to Recreational ACT. If an adjustment to the
following year's Recreational ACT is required, then the ACT will be
reduced by the exact amount, in pounds, of the product of the overage,
defined as the difference between the most recent 3-year average
recreational catch and the most recent 3-year average recreational ACL,
and the payback coefficient, as specified in paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of
this section. This payback may be evenly spread over 2 years if doing
so allows for use of identical recreational management measures across
the upcoming 2 years.
(B) Payback coefficient. The payback coefficient is the difference
between the most recent estimate of biomass and B<INF>MSY</INF> (i.e.,
B<INF>MSY</INF>-B) divided by one-half of B<INF>MSY</INF>.
(3) If biomass is above BMSY. If the most recent estimate of
biomass is above B<INF>MSY</INF> (i.e., B/B<INF>MSY</INF> is greater
than 1.0), then adjustments to the recreational management measures,
taking into account the performance of the measures and conditions that
precipitated the overage, will be made in the following fishing year,
or as soon as possible thereafter, once catch data are available, as a
single-year adjustment.
* * * * *
0
14. In Sec. 648.160, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.160 Bluefish Annual Catch Limit (ACL).
* * * * *
(b) Performance review. The Bluefish Monitoring Committee shall
conduct a detailed review of fishery performance relative to the ACL at
least every 5 years.
(1) If the ACL is exceeded with a frequency greater than 25 percent
(i.e., more than once in 4 years or any 2 consecutive years), the
Bluefish Monitoring Committee will review fishery performance
information and consider whether changes to measures are needed.
(2) The MAFMC may specify more frequent or more specific ACL
performance review criteria as part of a stock rebuilding plan
following the determination that the bluefish stock has become
overfished.
(3) Performance reviews shall not substitute for annual reviews
that occur to ascertain if prior year ACLs have been exceeded, but may
be conducted in conjunction with such reviews.
0
15. In Sec. 648.162, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text and (c)
to read as follows:
Sec. 648.162 Bluefish specifications.
(a) Recommended measures. Based on the annual review and requests
for research quota as described in paragraph (h) of this section, the
Bluefish Monitoring Committee shall recommend to the MAFMC and the
ASMFC the following measures to ensure that the ACL specified by the
process outlined in Sec. 648.160(a) will not be exceeded:
* * * * *
(c) Annual fishing measures. The MAFMC shall review the
recommendations of the Bluefish Monitoring Committee. Based on these
recommendations and any public comment, the MAFMC shall recommend to
the Regional Administrator by September 1 measures necessary to prevent
overages of the applicable specified limits or targets for each sector
as prescribed in the FMP. The MAFMC's recommendations must include
supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental,
economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. The Regional
Administrator shall review these recommendations and any
recommendations of the ASMFC. After such review, NMFS will publish a
proposed rule in the Federal Register as soon as practicable to
implement ACLs, ACTs, research quota, a coastwide commercial quota,
individual State commercial quotas, a recreational harvest limit, and
additional management measures for the commercial and recreational
fisheries to prevent overages of the applicable specified limits or
targets for each sector as prescribed in the FMP. After considering
public comment, NMFS will publish a final rule in the Federal Register.
* * * * *
0
16. In Sec. 648.163 revise paragraphs (a), (d), and (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.163 Bluefish Accountability Measures (AMs).
(a) ACL overage evaluation. The ACLs will be evaluated based on a
single-year examination of total catch (landings and dead discards).
Both landings and dead discards will be evaluated in determining if the
ACLs have been exceeded.
* * * * *
(d) Recreational landings AM when the recreational ACL is exceeded
and no sector-to-sector transfer of allowable landings has occurred. If
the recreational ACL is exceeded and no transfer between the commercial
and recreational sector was made for the fishing year, as outlined in
Sec. 648.162(b)(2), then the following procedure will be followed:
(1) If biomass is below the threshold, the stock is under
rebuilding, or biological reference points are unknown. If the most
recent estimate of biomass is below the B<INF>MSY</INF> threshold
(i.e., B/B<INF>MSY</INF> is less than 0.5), the stock is under a
rebuilding plan, or the biological reference points (B or
B<INF>MSY</INF>) are unknown, and the recreational ACL has been
exceeded, then the exact amount, in pounds, by which the most recent
year's recreational catch estimate
[[Page 14512]]
exceeded the most recent year's recreational ACL will be deducted from
the following year's recreational ACT, or as soon as possible
thereafter, once catch data are available. This payback may be evenly
spread over 2 years if doing so allows for use of identical
recreational management measures across the upcoming 2 years.
(2) If biomass is above the threshold, but below the target, and
the stock is not under rebuilding. If the most recent estimate of
biomass is above the biomass threshold (B/B<INF>MSY</INF> is greater
than 0.5), but below the biomass target (B/B<INF>MSY</INF> is less than
1.0), and the stock is not under a rebuilding plan, then the following
AMs will apply:
(i) If the recreational ACL has been exceeded. If the recreational
ACL has been exceeded, then adjustments to the recreational management
measures, taking into account the performance of the measures and
conditions that precipitated the overage, will be made in the following
fishing year, or as soon as possible thereafter, once catch data are
available, as a single-year adjustment.
(ii) If the fishing mortality (F) has exceeded FMSY (or the proxy).
If the most recent estimate of total fishing mortality exceeds FMSY (or
the proxy) then an adjustment to the recreational ACT will be made as
soon as possible once catch data are available. If an estimate of total
fishing mortality for the most recent complete year of catch data is
not available, then a comparison of total catch relative to the ABC
will be used.
(A) Adjustment to Recreational ACT. If an adjustment to the
following year's Recreational ACT is required, then the ACT will be
reduced by the exact amount, in pounds, of the product of the
recreational ACL overage and the payback coefficient, as specified in
paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of this section. This payback may be evenly
spread over 2 years if doing so allows for use of identical
recreational management measures across the upcoming 2 years.
(B) Payback coefficient. The payback coefficient is the difference
between the most recent estimates of B<INF>MSY</INF> and biomass (i.e.,
B<INF>MSY</INF>- B) divided by one-half of B<INF>MSY</INF>.
(3) If biomass is above BMSY. If the most recent estimate of
biomass is above BMSY (i.e., B/BMSY is greater than 1.0), then
adjustments to the recreational management measures, taking into
account the performance of the measures and conditions that
precipitated the overage, will be made in the following fishing year,
or as soon as possible thereafter, once catch data are available, as a
single-year adjustment.
* * * * *
(f) Non-landing AMs. In the event that the fishery-level ACL has
been exceeded and the overage has not been accommodated through the AM
measures in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, then the exact
amount, in pounds, by which the fishery-level ACL was exceeded shall be
deducted, as soon as possible, from subsequent, single fishing year
ACTs. The payback will be applied to each sector's ACT in proportion to
each sector's contribution to the overage.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-04588 Filed 3-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 9, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.