Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 11149 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Editorial note: This document was 

received for publication by the Office of the 

Federal Register on January 4, 2021. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as 

follows: 

PART 1—PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 

U.S.C. 2461, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 1.1104 by revising the 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 1.1104 Schedule of charges for 

applications and other filings for media 

services. 

Remit payment for these services 

electronically using the Commission’s 

electronic payment system in 

accordance with the procedures set 

forth on the Commission’s website, 

www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees. 

The asterisk (*) indicates that multiple 

stations and multiple fee submissions 

are acceptable within the same 

payment. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–00050 Filed 2–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1 and 54 

[GN Docket No. 20–32; DA 20–1361; FRS 

17443] 

Office of Economics and Analytics and 

Wireline Competition Bureau Adopt 

Adjustment Factor Values for the 5G 

Fund 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final action. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Office 

of Economics and Analytics (Office) and 

the Wireline Competition Bureau 

(Bureau) adopt adjustment factor values 

for an adjustment factor that will be 

used in bidding in the 5G Fund auctions 

and applied to the methodology for 

disaggregating legacy high-cost support. 

DATES: Effective February 24, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Matraves, Office of Economics and 

Analytics, Economic Analysis Division, 

(202) 391–6272 or Catherine.Matraves@

fcc.gov, or Nicholas Copeland, Office of 

Economics and Analytics, Economic 

Analysis Division, (202) 418–1025 or 

Nicholas.Copeland@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 5G Fund 

Adjustment Values Public Notice in GN 

Docket No. 20–32, DA 20–1361, released 

on November 16, 2020. The full text of 

this document is available on the 

Commission’s website at https://

www.fcc.gov/document/oea-and-wcbadopt-adjustment-factor-values-5g-fund. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities, 

send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Synopsis 

1. The Office of Economics and 

Analytics (Office) and the Wireline 

Competition Bureau (Bureau) adopt 5G 

Fund adjustment factor values to help 

direct more 5G Fund support to harder 

to serve areas. Specifically, the values 

we adopt will increase support levels 

for bids to serve areas where the terrain 

elevation variation raises the expected 

costs of deploying 5G networks, and/or 

where the business case for 5G 

otherwise is likely to be weaker, relative 

to the support for bids for easier to serve 

areas. Likewise, the adjustment factor 

values will also be used in the process 

of disaggregating legacy high-cost 

support to account for differences 

between recipients’ subsidized service 

areas. These adjustment factor values 

will help ensure that additional 5G 

Fund support goes to the areas that need 

it the most. 

2. In the 5G Fund NPRM and Order, 

85 FR 31636, May 26, 2020, 85 FR 

34525, Jun. 5, 2020, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) proposed to distribute up 

to $9 billion in two phases using multiround, descending clock auctions to 

assign support for the deployment of 5G 

service in rural areas. To account for 

differences in the cost of providing 

service and business case considerations 

across eligible areas, the Commission 

proposed incorporating an adjustment 

factor into the 5G Fund auctions that 

would assign a weight to each 

geographic area, which would be 

applied to bidding for support amounts 

to make the areas most difficult to serve 

more attractive to bidders and increase 

the support to such areas. In addition to 

incorporating an adjustment factor into 

the 5G Fund auctions, the Commission 

proposed to apply this adjustment factor 

to the methodology for disaggregating 

legacy high-cost support in the 

transition to 5G Fund support. 

3. Legacy high-cost support is 

currently provided to a competitive 

eligible telecommunications carrier’s 

entire study area, with no attribution to 

particular sub-areas within that study 

area. To illustrate the role of the 

adjustment factor in the disaggregation 

of legacy support, consider a 

hypothetical carrier serving one 

mountainous census tract and one flat 

census tract of equal size in its 

subsidized service area. Such a carrier 

might require 75% of its support to 

serve the mountainous tract and 25% to 

serve the flat tract. Were an 

unsubsidized carrier to enter the flat 

tract, which may be more likely given 

the relatively lower costs in the flat 

tract, if we did not apply the adjustment 

factor in calculating disaggregated 

support, the carrier would lose 50% of 

its funding and would be unable to 

continue serving the mountainous tract. 

However, applying an adjustment factor 

of three to the mountainous area would 

result in the carrier retaining 75% of its 

original support amount and allow it to 

continue serving the mountainous tract. 

4. On June 5, 2020, the Office and 

Bureau released the Adjustment Factor 

Public Notice, 85 FR 36522, Jun. 17, 

2020, which sought comment on the 

proposed adjustment factor values, the 

three analyses that inform the values, 

and the application of the adjustment 

factor to the disaggregation of legacy 

support. 

5. In the 5G Fund Report and Order, 

85 FR 75770, Nov. 25, 2020, the 

Commission adopted its proposal to 

incorporate an adjustment factor into 

the 5G Fund auctions that will assign a 

weight to each geographic area and 

apply that adjustment factor to bidding 

for support amounts; this adjustment 

factor also will be applied to the 

methodology for disaggregating legacy 

high-cost support. For a 5G Fund 

auction, the Commission deferred the 

final determination of the precise 

manner in which the adjustment factor 

will be incorporated into the auction 

mechanism to the pre-auction process. 

We provide herein the adjustment factor 

values, and we discuss the studies 

underlying our decision to adopt these 

values for use in a 5G Fund auction and 

in the methodology for the 

disaggregation of legacy high-cost 

support. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
11150 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

6. Adjustment Factor Values. In the 

5G Fund Adjustment Factor Public 

Notice, we proposed values for an 

adjustment factor that operates along 

two dimensions: Terrain elevation 

variation and demand, using median 

household income as a proxy. These 

two dimensions were included to 

account for differences in network 

deployment costs and business case 

considerations that stem from the 

geographic and economic variations in 

the United States. We proposed that 

areas be sorted into terrain elevation 

variation and demand factor groups 

according to their characteristics. The 

terrain elevation variation dimension is 

intended to address, in part, network 

cost differences across areas, while the 

demand factor is intended to address 

differences in expected revenues across 

areas. Under the approach proposed in 

the 5G Fund Adjustment Factor Public 

Notice, an area’s terrain classification is 

determined by its average standard 

deviation of elevation. Areas are 

separated into one of three categories: 

(1) Flat (standard deviation of 40 meters 

or less); (2) hilly (standard deviation 

between 40 and 115 meters); and (3) 

mountainous (standard deviation greater 

than 115 meters). Similarly, areas’ 

demand classification is determined by 

the areas’ median household income. 

We note that the category thresholds for 

the medium- and high-income 

categories represent 2017 median 

household incomes that are 150% and 

200% of the poverty line for a family of 

three, respectively. Consistent with the 

adjustment factor values we adopt 

herein, we will use the latest available 

data on terrain and median household 

income appropriate for such purposes to 

classify areas into the adjustment factor 

categories concurrent with the 

Commission’s release of the map of final 

areas eligible for 5G Fund Phase I 

support. 

7. We adopt the adjustment factor 

values in Fig. 1, as proposed in the 5G 

Fund Adjustment Factor Public Notice. 

We find that these adjustment factor 

values, informed by the three economic 

analyses laid out in the 5G Fund 

Adjustment Factor Public Notice, 

appropriately reflect the relative cost of 

serving areas with differing terrain 

characteristics, as well as the potential 

business case for each area, with less 

profitable areas receiving greater weight 

and therefore more support. Using these 

values to help distribute 5G Fund 

support to, and disaggregate legacy 

support in, a range of areas across the 

country that are geographically and 

economically diverse serves the public 

interest. 

FIG. 1—ADJUSTMENT FACTOR VALUES

Demand factors 

Terrain elevation variation 

Flat Hilly Mountainous 

Low .............................................................................................................................................. 1.2 2.4 3.8 

Medium ........................................................................................................................................ 1.1 2.3 3.5 

High .............................................................................................................................................. 1.0 2.0 3.0 

8. Use of An Adjustment Factor in 

Bidding. Commenters generally support 

the use of an adjustment factor to 

increase support in higher-cost, lessprofitable areas, and no commenter 

suggests alternative adjustment factor 

values to those proposed in the 5G Fund 

Adjustment Factor Public Notice. 

Although no commenter objects to the 

use of terrain elevation variation and 

median household income in the 

determination of the adjustment factor, 

several commenters suggest that the 

adjustment factor should consider other 

variables, such as differences in the cost 

of labor and transportation to both 

deploy and operate 5G service, 

differences in the cost of utility and 

other operating costs, and the existing 

infrastructure in an area. 

9. We are not persuaded by these 

arguments and decline to increase the 

number of components or categories 

that make up the adjustment factor. We 

acknowledge that terrain elevation 

variation and median household income 

do not exhaust the list of potentially 

relevant variables. Likewise, we 

acknowledge that when we separate 

areas into categories, the areas near the 

midpoint of the category will have their 

relative costs and business cases more 

accurately represented by the 

adjustment factor values than areas at 

the margins. Nevertheless, as noted in 

the 5G Fund Report and Order, the 

adjustment factor adopted by the 

Commission is not intended to fully 

offset the differences inherent in 

providing service to different types of 

areas. Rather, it is intended to ‘‘make 

the most difficult areas to serve more 

attractive at auction in order to 

encourage more bidding for these 

areas.’’ Moreover, we selected terrain 

elevation variation and median 

household income as the two 

dimensions for the adjustment factor 

characteristics because they are 

important factors in characterizing 

deployment costs and business case 

considerations, respectively, and 

because there is more readily available 

and verifiable data with which to apply 

these two factors. As we discussed in 

the 5G Fund Adjustment Factor Public 

Notice, terrain elevation variation 

captures differences in network costs 

because ‘‘wireless network engineering 

principles indicate that greater 

variability of terrain in a given 

geographic area reduces the signal 

strength received by a mobile user, 

which requires wireless carriers to build 

more sites to provide the same quality 

of service.’’ As a result, areas with 

higher terrain elevation variation 

generally have higher capital 

expenditures, operating expenditures, 

and leasing costs. Similarly, we also 

discussed in the 5G Fund Adjustment 

Factor Public Notice the importance of 

demand factors and the role that 

expected revenues play in carriers 

deployment decisions. The Entry Model 

Adjustment Factor study found that, all 

else equal, areas with higher median 

household incomes are more likely to be 

covered, a finding consistent with the 

basic assumption that higher income 

areas are more profitable. 

10. Economic Analyses. To inform the 

proposed adjustment factor values, the 

Office and Bureau included three 

economic analyses. The first analysis 

(the Entry Model) used coverage data to 

estimate the effect that an area’s 

physical and demographic 

characteristics have on carriers’ network 

deployment decisions. The second 

analysis (the Cell Site Density Model) 

examined how cell site spacing changes 

as terrain roughness increases. The third 

analysis (the Auction Bidding Model) 

used Mobility Fund Phase I (Auction 

901) bidding data to estimate how 

terrain roughness and other factors 

affected carriers’ bids. 

11. Discussion of the economic 

analyses in the record is limited, and no 

party submitted an alternative economic 

analysis. Some commenters argue that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 11151 

the Auction Bidding Model should not 

be used to determine the adjustment 

factor values because (1) bidding data 

from the Mobility Fund Phase I auction 

is distorted, (2) the Mobility Fund Phase 

I auction is not an appropriate analogue 

because it provided one-time funding 

for capital expenditures versus longterm support for capital expenditures 

and operational expenses, (3) bidding 

decisions were based on 2012 pricing 

that is not comparable to today’s 

pricing, and (4) at the time of the 

Mobility Fund Phase I auction, carriers 

could still use network equipment from 

low-cost equipment suppliers that have 

since been designated by the 

Commission as national security threats. 

12. We acknowledge the contextual 

differences between the Mobility Fund 

Phase I auction and the upcoming 5G 

Fund auctions, but do not find that such 

differences unduly undermine the 

analysis. While the timing and one-time 

funding nature of the Mobility Fund 

Phase I auction and the presence of 

Huawei and ZTE as low-cost equipment 

options for Mobility Fund Phase I 

support recipients may have influenced 

the absolute bid amounts, the 

commenters fail to explain why the 

relative bid amounts would differ 

significantly compared with a more 

recent long-term funding auction where 

bidders could not use Huawei and ZTE 

equipment. The absolute level of the 

bids does not necessarily affect the 

relative differences across areas. For 

example, if all bids were 20% lower in 

absolute level due to factors related to 

the auction’s context, the ratio of bids 

across areas would be unaffected. We 

find it more likely that the calculated 

adjustment factor should be largely 

invariant to differences in funding type 

and radio equipment costs. There are 

two cases to consider. In the case where 

the costs to build and operate towers are 

the same across terrain types and more 

towers are needed to cover rougher 

terrain, the cost of radio equipment 

would have no effect on the calculated 

adjustment factors. In the case where 

towers cost more to build and operate in 

rougher terrain, the absolute cost of 

radio equipment could affect the 

adjustment factor. However, given that 

radio equipment costs are a very low 

percentage of the overall costs to build 

and operate a network, the change in the 

calculated adjustment factor would be 

negligible. 

13. Similarly, arguments that the 

Mobility Fund Phase I auction is not an 

appropriate point of comparison 

because it did not provide funding for 

both capital and operational 

expenditures likewise do not undermine 

our analysis here because the 

adjustment factor values we adopt are 

meant to capture the relative differences 

in cost and business case for different 

areas. That is, reliance upon bid 

amounts in an auction that did not 

award operational expenses should not 

affect the relative differences in costs 

because bidders in the 5G Fund 

auctions will be able to consider the 

entirety of costs (including both capital 

and operational expenditures). Thus, 

any additional operational expenses 

will be reflected in higher bidding 

values in the auction but the relative 

differences between areas is likely to 

remain the same. Moreover, our 

conclusions about the appropriateness 

of using Mobility Fund Phase I auction 

data are also consistent with all three 

models producing comparable 

adjustment factor estimates. We find 

that the information regarding the 

relative bidding incentives across areas 

produced by the Auction Bidding Model 

outweighs any concerns with the 

absolute levels of the bidding data. 

14. Use of an Adjustment Factor for 

Disaggregation of Legacy High-Cost 

Support. In the 5G Fund Adjustment 

Factor Public Notice, the Office and 

Bureau sought comment on the 

appropriate adjustment factor values for 

the disaggregation of legacy high-cost 

support to account for differences in 

costs across areas and the underlying 

methodologies that could be used to 

develop the values. In cases where the 

transition of legacy support occurs 

across areas of different types, such as 

eligible areas and ineligible areas, the 

adjustment factor would be used to 

scale the actual square kilometers 

associated with each disaggregated area. 

In the 5G Fund Report and Order, the 

Commission concluded that the 

adjustment factor values that are 

adopted by the Office and Bureau for a 

5G Fund auction also would be used for 

the disaggregation of legacy high-cost 

support. Accordingly, we adopt the 

adjustment factor values proposed in 

the 5G Fund Adjustment Factor Public 

Notice, as set forth in Fig. 1 herein, for 

use in the process of disaggregating 

legacy support. 

15. We note that some commenters 

oppose using the adjustment factor in 

the disaggregation process. They 

generally argue that, because the 

adjustment factor does not capture all of 

the characteristics of the particular 

service areas for which legacy support is 

provided (e.g., foliage) and the terrain 

categories are too broad, thereby 

disadvantaging the areas near the 

margins, it is not appropriate to apply 

the factor when disaggregating legacy 

support. They propose instead that the 

Commission rely on service providers’ 

knowledge of their subsidized areas to 

estimate the costs of deploying in those 

areas. 

16. In the 5G Fund Report and Order, 

the Commission rejected the argument 

that the adjustment factor should not be 

applied to the disaggregation of legacy 

support, finding that ‘‘[u]sing an 

adjustment factor is appropriate because 

it will alleviate potential concerns over 

a carrier losing a disproportionate 

amount of its legacy support resulting 

from a disaggregation methodology in 

which more costly areas would be 

treated the same as less costly areas 

with respect to subsidies received.’’ As 

the Commission indicated, this 

approach will help ensure that legacy 

high-cost support is available for harderto-serve areas. 

17. We also note that there are other 

reasons to apply the adjustment factor to 

the disaggregation of legacy high-cost 

support. Using an adjustment factor to 

disaggregate legacy support is preferable 

to the administrative burdens that 

would arise from requiring service 

providers to disaggregate their costs, 

and furthermore, it avoids the potential 

incentive issues associated with service 

providers self-reporting their own costs. 

For example, where part of a legacy 

support recipient’s service area would 

be served by a 5G Fund winner while 

its remaining area would continue to 

receive legacy support, the legacy 

support recipient would have the 

incentive to overestimate the amount of 

high-cost support flowing to the area 

that would continue to receive legacy 

support, thus maximizing the funds it 

would receive through preservation of 

service support. In addition, while we 

acknowledge that the adjustment factor 

does not account for all factors that 

affect network costs, the Commission 

indicated that the adjustment factor is 

meant to give an estimate of how a 

carrier may allocate legacy high-cost 

support within the area for which it 

receives such support. It is not meant to 

reflect the actual cost of deployment in 

that area. We maintain that applying an 

adjustment factor in the disaggregation 

process will lead to a more equitable 

distribution of legacy funding. Applying 

the adjustment factor will better reflect 

the distribution of high-cost support by 

accounting for cost differences arising 

from terrain elevation variation and 

business case differences arising from 

income disparities within a service area. 

Thus, we will use the adjustment factor 

values in Fig. 1 for the disaggregation of 

legacy high-cost support. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
11152 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03420 Filed 2–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 20–155, RM–11856; DA 20– 

1522; FRS 17360] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Edgefield, South Carolina 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: At the request of GeorgiaCarolina Radiocasting Company, LLC, 

the Audio Division amends the FM 

Table of Allotments, by Channel 238A 

at Edgefield, South Carolina, as a first 

local service. A staff engineering 

analysis indicates that Channel 238A 

can be allotted to Edgefield, South 

Carolina, consistent with the minimum 

distance separation requirements of the 

Commission’s rules, using city reference 

coordinates. The reference coordinates 

are 33–48–53 NL 81–56–10 WL. 

DATES: Effective February 24, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 20–155, 

adopted December 21, 2020, and 

released December 23, 2020. The full 

text of this Commission decision is 

available online at http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. This document does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Report and Order in a report to be sent 

to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Nazifa Sawez, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

Editorial note: This document was 

received for publication at the Office of the 

Federal Register on January 4, 2021. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as 

follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 

307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339. 

■ 2. In § 73.202, the table in paragraph 

(b) is amended under South Carolina by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Edgefield’’ to read 

as follows: 

§ 73.202 Table of Allotments. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b) 

[U.S. States] 

Channel No. 

* * * * * 

South Carolina 

Edgefield ............................... 238A 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–00081 Filed 2–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 210211–0019] 

RIN 0648–BJ60 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources in the 

Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region and 

Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of 

Mexico; Possession Limits for 

Federally-Permitted Charter Vessels 

and Headboats 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations to 

implement management measures as 

described in an abbreviated framework 

action to the Fishery Management Plans 

(FMPs) for the Reef Fish Resources of 

the Gulf of Mexico (Reef Fish FMP) and 

the Coastal Migratory Pelagic (CMP) 

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and 

Atlantic Region (CMP FMP), as prepared 

by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council (Gulf Council). 

This final rule modifies the on-board 

multi-day recreational possession limit 

regulations for Federal charter vessel 

and headboat (for-hire) trips in the Gulf 

of Mexico (Gulf). This final rule also 

makes an administrative change to the 

reporting requirement for Gulf’s 

individual fishing quota (IFQ) program 

during catastrophic conditions. The 

purposes of this final rule are to 

promote efficiency in the utilization of 

the reef fish and CMP resources and 

reduce regulatory discards, and to 

update the IFQ reporting requirements. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

26, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

framework action that contain an 

environmental assessment and a 

regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) may 

be obtained from the Southeast Regional 

Office website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

framework-amendment-modify-multiday-trip-possession-limits-federalpermitted-charter. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich 

Malinowski, NMFS Southeast Regional 

Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, or 

email: rich.malinowski@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS and 

the Gulf Council manage reef fish 

resources in the Gulf exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ) under the Reef 

Fish FMP. NMFS, and both the Gulf 

Council and South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Councils) manage 

the CMP fishery under the CMP FMP. 

The Gulf Council prepared the Reef Fish 

FMP and the Councils jointly prepared 

the CMP FMP. NMFS implements the 

FMPs through regulations at 50 CFR 

part 622 under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 

1801, et seq.). 

On July 28, 2020, NMFS published a 

proposed rule for the framework action 

and requested public comment (85 FR 

45363). The proposed rule and the 

framework action outline the rationale 

for the actions contained in this final 

rule. A summary of the management 

measures described in the framework 

action and implemented by this final 

rule is described below. 

Background 

In Gulf Federal waters, each person 

aboard a vessel with a Federal Gulf 

charter vessel/headboat permit for reef 

fish or CMP species (for-hire permit) 

that is on a for-hire trip greater than 24 

hours in duration is allowed to possess 

two daily recreational bag limits for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES