Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2023 / Proposed Rules 62309 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a state program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

Tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further 

defines the term fair treatment to mean 

that ‘‘no group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The FDEP did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and 

did not consider EJ in this proposed 

action. Due to the nature of the action 

being proposed here, this proposed 

action is expected to have a neutral to 

positive impact on the air quality of the 

affected area. Consideration of EJ is not 

required as part of this proposed action, 

and there is no information in the 

record inconsistent with the stated goal 

of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people 

of color, low-income populations, and 

Indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: September 5, 2023. 

Carol Kemker, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19463 Filed 9–8–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

RIN 0648–BL98 

Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South 

Atlantic Region; Golden Crab Fishery 

of the South Atlantic Region; Dolphin 

and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic; 

Acceptable Biological Catch Control 

Rules 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Announcement of availability of 

fishery management plan amendments; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council has submitted 

amendments to three fishery 

management plans (FMPs) for review, 

approval, and implementation by 

NMFS. If approved by the Secretary of 

Commerce, the amendments would 

revise the FMPs for the SnapperGrouper Fishery and the Golden Crab 

Fishery of the South Atlantic Region, 

and the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of 

the Atlantic, referenced here as the 

Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) 

Control Rule Amendments. The ABC 

Control Rule Amendments would 

modify the ABC control rules, allow 

phase-in of ABC changes, allow for 

some carry-over of an unharvested 

portion of the annual catch limit (ACL) 

to the following fishing year, and 

modify the FMP framework procedures 

to implement carry-overs of ACLs when 

appropriate. The purpose of the ABC 

Control Rule Amendments is to ensure 

catch level recommendations are based 

on the best scientific information 

available, prevent overfishing while 

achieving optimum yield, and increase 

flexibility in setting catch limits. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received no later than November 13, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the ABC Control Rule Amendments, 

identified by ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2023– 

0067,’’ by either of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and enter 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2023–0067’’ in the 

Search box. Click the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Nikhil Mehta, NMFS Southeast Regional 

Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. 

Petersburg, FL 33701. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on https://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments—enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous. 

An electronic copy of the ABC 

Control Rule Amendments, which 

includes an environmental assessment, 

a fishery impact statement, and a 

regulatory impact review, may be 

obtained from the NMFS Southeast 

Regional Office website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

comprehensive-acceptable-biologicalVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:06 Sep 08, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11SEP1.SGM 11SEP1

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
62310 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

catch-abc-control-rule-amendmentrevisions-abc-control. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nikhil Mehta, telephone: 727–824– 

5305, or email: nikhil.mehta@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each 

regional fishery management council to 

submit an FMP or FMP amendment to 

the Secretary of Commerce (the 

Secretary) for review and approval, 

partial approval, or disapproval. The 

Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires 

that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or 

amendment, publish an announcement 

in the Federal Register notifying the 

public that the FMP or amendment is 

available for review and comment. 

The South Atlantic snapper-grouper 

and golden crab fisheries are managed 

under the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper 

Fishery of the South Atlantic (SnapperGrouper FMP) and the Golden Crab 

Fishery of the South Atlantic (Golden 

Crab FMP), respectively. The dolphin 

and wahoo fishery of the Atlantic is 

managed under the Dolphin and Wahoo 

FMP. These three FMPs were prepared 

by the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) and are 

implemented by NMFS through 

regulations at 50 CFR part 622. The 

Council has developed, and submitted 

to NMFS for review and approval, the 

Comprehensive Acceptable Biological 

Catch Control Rule Amendment: 

Revisions to the Acceptable Biological 

Catch Control Rules and Specifications 

for Carry-Overs and Phase-Ins. The 

Council document is composed of 

Amendment 45 to the Snapper-Grouper 

FMP, Amendment 11 to the Golden 

Crab FMP, and Amendment 11 to the 

Dolphin and Wahoo FMP. If approved, 

the ABC Control Rule Amendments 

would be implemented by NMFS 

through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Act. 

Background 

The Council and NMFS manage the 

snapper-grouper and golden crab 

fisheries in Federal waters from North 

Carolina south to the Florida Keys in the 

South Atlantic. The dolphin and wahoo 

fishery is managed in Federal waters 

from Maine south to the Florida Keys. 

The Council’s Scientific and 

Statistical Committee (SSC) developed 

an ABC control rule in 2008, using 

uncertainty and risk traits to determine 

the acceptable risk of overfishing. The 

ABC control rule is the method by 

which the ABC for a stock is set, ideally 

based on an overfishing limit (OFL) 

from a stock assessment but sometimes 

using more data-limited methodology. 

The acceptable risk of overfishing is 

denoted as P-Star (P*) and is applied 

through assessment projections to 

develop the SSC’s ABC 

recommendation. During development 

of the Comprehensive ACL Amendment 

by the Council, the SSC recommended 

adding additional levels of specificity to 

the ABC control rules to better address 

unassessed and data-limited stocks. The 

Comprehensive ACL Amendment 

included the ABC control rules for the 

Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, and 

Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs in 2012 (77 

FR 15916, March 16, 2012). In 2015, the 

ABC control rule for the SnapperGrouper FMP was revised by adding the 

Only Reliable Catch Stocks (ORCS) 

approach for applicable snappergrouper stocks in Amendment 29 to the 

Snapper-Grouper FMP (80 FR 30947, 

June 1, 2015). The ORCS approach was 

recommended by the Council’s SSC for 

calculating ABC values for unassessed 

stocks when only reliable catch 

information is available, and was 

determined to be based on the best 

scientific information available. 

In October 2016, NMFS published a 

final rule to revise the guidelines for 

National Standard 1 (NS1) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act (81 FR 71858, 

October 18, 2016). NS1 states that 

fishery 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. One 

of the objectives of the 2016 NS1 

revisions was to provide additional 

flexibility within current statutory 

limits to address fishery management 

issues. For example, the revised NS1 

guidelines allow for changes in catch 

limits to be phased in over time and is 

also described as ‘‘phase-in’’ in the ABC 

Control Rule Amendments. The revised 

guidelines also allow for some of the 

unused portion of an ACL to be carried 

over from 1 fishing year to the next, 

which is also described as ‘‘carry-over’’ 

in this notice. Fishery management 

councils, NMFS regions, and 

stakeholders have expressed 

considerable interest in using the phasein and carry-over provisions in ABC 

control rules. In 2020, recommendations 

and best practices for how to develop 

and apply these provisions were 

provided in a NOAA Technical 

Memorandum (NMFS–F/SPO–203, July 

2020). The goals of the technical memo 

were to: (1) provide examples of how 

carry-over and phase-in provisions have 

been implemented in fisheries so that 

we can learn from past experiences; (2) 

describe some possible approaches to 

design and implement carry-over and 

phase-in provisions; and (3) identify 

characteristics of fish stocks, fisheries, 

and management approaches that may 

impact the benefits and risks of 

applying carry-over and phase-in 

provisions. If approved, the ABC 

Control Rule Amendments would 

incorporate carry-over and phase-in 

provisions by modifying the existing 

ABC control rules for the SnapperGrouper, Golden Crab, and Dolphin and 

Wahoo FMPs by clarifying the 

incorporation of scientific uncertainty 

and management risk, modifying the 

approach used to determine the 

acceptable risk of overfishing, and 

prioritizing the use of stock rebuilding 

plans for overfished stocks. 

Actions Contained in the ABC Control 

Rule Amendments 

The ABC Control Rule Amendments 

would modify the ABC control rules, 

allow phase-in of ABC changes, allow 

carry-over of unharvested portion of the 

ACL, and modify framework procedures 

to implement carry-overs of ACLs when 

allowed, for Snapper-Grouper, Dolphin 

and Wahoo, and Golden Crab FMPs. 

Modify the ABC Control Rules 

As discussed above, the current ABC 

control rule for the Snapper-Grouper 

FMP was revised by Amendment 29, 

and the Comprehensive ACL 

Amendment implemented the ABC 

control rules for the Golden Crab, and 

Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs in 2012. For 

assessed species, the current ABC 

control rules classify assessments 

according to level 1. Level 1 has tier 

classifications that determine the P* by 

reducing from an initial value of 50 

percent according to uncertainty of 

assessment results and stock 

vulnerability (risk tolerance). ABC is 

determined through projections of 

assessment information using the 

accepted probability of overfishing. For 

unassessed species, ABC is determined 

by levels 2 through 5, applying one of 

the following data-limited methods, as 

data allow (listed from highest to lowest 

priority): Depletion-Based Stock 

Reduction Analysis, DepletionCorrected Average Catch, Only Reliable 

Catch Stocks (only included in the 

Snapper-Grouper FMP as level 5), and a 

decision tree based on species catch 

history. Determination of ABC for 

overfished stocks undergoing rebuilding 

is not specified. Details on the control 

rule levels, tiers, and classifications are 

described in Table 2.1.1.1 of the ABC 

Control Rule Amendments. In summary, 

level 1 is assigned to assessed stocks 

and levels 1 through 4 are assigned to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2023 / Proposed Rules 62311 

unassessed stocks for the Golden Crab, 

and Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs. Level 5 

is assigned to the applicable unassessed 

stocks in the Snapper-Grouper FMP. 

Level 1 has tiers that further 

quantitative classification and 

methodology to calculate the ABC based 

on life-history, catch history, scientific 

uncertainty, stock status, and 

productivity and susceptibility analysis 

(PSA). 

The ABC Control Rule Amendments 

would modify the ABC control rules for 

the Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, and 

Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs by 

categorizing stocks based on the 

available information, scientific 

uncertainty evaluation, and 

incorporation of the Council’s risk 

tolerance policy through an accepted 

P*. The P* would be specified based on 

relative stock biomass and a stock risk 

rating. When possible, the SSC would 

determine the OFL recommendation 

and characterize its uncertainty based 

on, primarily, the stock assessment or, 

secondarily, the SSC’s expert opinion. 

The OFL and its uncertainty would then 

be used to derive and recommend the 

ABC, based on the risk tolerance 

selected by the Council. The step by 

step procedure detailing how the ABC is 

derived for assessed stocks can be found 

in section 2.1.1 of the ABC Control Rule 

Amendments. ABC for unassessed 

stocks would be recommended by the 

SSC based on applicable data-limited 

methods. Unassessed stocks would be 

assigned the moderate biomass level 

unless there is a recommendation from 

the SSC that justifies a different level. 

For overfished stocks, the Council 

would specify a stock rebuilding plan, 

considering recommendations from the 

SSC and the advisory panel (AP) of the 

respective FMP. The ABC while the 

rebuilding plan is in effect would be 

based on recommendations from the 

Council’s SSC. The probability of 

success for rebuilding plans (1 minus 

P*) would be at least 50 percent. Control 

rule categories for assessments are 

described in detail in Table 2.1.1.2 of 

the ABC Control Rule Amendments. 

In summary, four categories would 

facilitate an ABC determination based 

on scientific uncertainty and SSC 

guidance. The Council, with advice 

from the SSC and AP, would evaluate 

management risk for each stock through 

a stock risk rating. Stock risk ratings 

include information currently used in 

the PSA, but also incorporate socioeconomic (for example, potential for 

discard losses, annual commercial 

value, recreational desirability, etc.) and 

environmental attributes (for example, 

climate change) (see Appendix E of the 

ABC Control Rule Amendments for 

more details). These recommendations 

would be revisited when new 

information becomes available (for 

example, in a new stock assessment). 

The Council would then specify the risk 

rating as low, medium, or high risk of 

overfishing. A higher risk of overfishing 

would indicate that risk tolerance (the 

accepted probability of overfishing) 

should be lower. These stock risk 

ratings, along with relative biomass 

levels, would be used to determine the 

Council’s default risk tolerance for each 

stock. Default P* values based on 

relative biomass and stock risk rating 

are shown in Table 2.1.1.3 of the ABC 

Control Rule Amendments. As an 

example, a stock with high biomass and 

medium stock risk rating would have a 

P* of 45 percent. This would be lower 

than the OFL, in accordance with 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. The SSC can 

recommend the Council reconsider the 

stock risk rating. This could happen, for 

example, with the emergence of new 

scientific studies or new information 

discovered through a stock assessment. 

The modified ABC control rules 

would also allow the Council to deviate, 

to a greater or lesser amount, from the 

default accepted probability of 

overfishing by up to 10 percent for an 

individual stock, based on its expert 

judgment, new information, or 

recommendations by the SSC or other 

expert advisors. Accepted probability of 

overfishing may not exceed 50 percent. 

Using a 50 percent probability of 

overfishing implies negligible scientific 

uncertainty and sets OFL equal to ABC. 

At P* equals 0.50, removals above ABC 

caused by deviations in biological 

parameters (e.g., natural mortality (M), 

recruitment) could cause an overfishing 

determination and delay rebuilding 

plans. Therefore, adjusting P* above the 

value recommended by the SSC would 

be infrequent and would need to be well 

justified based on new scientific 

understanding and the Council’s risk 

tolerance. Additionally, when requested 

by the Council, the SSC would 

recommend the ABC for up to 5 years 

as both a constant value across years 

and as individual annual values for the 

same period of years. These options 

provide more flexibility to both the 

Council and SSC in the ABC 

determination. 

The ABC Control Rule Amendments 

would not change the current ABC 

levels for any species managed under 

the Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, and 

Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs. Modifying 

the ABC control rules as proposed 

would give the SSC the ability to 

recommend adjusting or deriving 

uncertainty of future assessment results 

(ultimately impacting projections of 

future catch) if they determine 

uncertainty is not adequately estimated 

through information used in the 

assessment. Evaluation of risk tolerance 

would also be improved by considering 

factors beyond the current PSA and 

expanding the range of reference points 

used to describe and incorporate 

relative biomass. For unassessed stocks, 

the proposed modifications would 

expand the number of methods that 

could be considered for estimating OFL 

and ABC. The addition of economic 

factors in the ABC control rules would 

allow the Council to better consider the 

long-term economic implications when 

examining management risk, which 

could lead to better economic outcomes 

and increase net economic benefits in a 

fishery for a given species. The 

inclusion of social factors in the ABC 

control rules would allow the Council to 

directly consider the importance of a 

given species to fishing communities 

and businesses when determining risk 

tolerance and would have long-term 

social benefits in the form of a more 

appropriate ABC. 

Allow Phase-In of ABC Changes 

Currently, phase-in of ABC changes is 

not allowed in the Snapper-Grouper, 

Dolphin and Wahoo, and Golden Crab 

FMPs. Comprehensive ABC Control 

Rule Amendment would establish 

criteria specifying when phase-in of 

ABC changes would be allowed and 

specify the approach for phase-in of 

ABC changes. 

The ABC Control Rule Amendments 

would allow phase-in of increases to 

ABC as specified by the Council, with 

advice from the SSC and AP. Increases 

to ABC (assuming comparable data 

between assessments) are generally 

indicative of an increase in relative 

biomass and improving stock condition. 

This allows greater consideration of 

ecological, social, and economic effects 

of an increased ABC and flexibility in 

how that change can be implemented. 

Because ABCs during an increasing 

phase-in would be less than those 

initially recommended by the SSC, the 

phase-in time period is not limited (it 

can exceed the maximum timeframe 

specified for phase-in decreases). The 

Council may specify ABC to be less than 

the SSC’s recommended ABC, but may 

not exceed the SSC’s recommendation. 

Phasing in an ABC increase would set 

ABC below the SSC’s recommendation. 

If the phase-in is included in projections 

used to develop the SSC’s ABC 

recommendation, there also may be an 

increase to the recommended long-term 

ABC (the ABC that persists after the 

phase-in is complete). Thus, phasing in 

increases to ABC over a longer time 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
62312 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

period could result in a greater increase 

to long-term ABC, and phasing in 

increases over a shorter period could 

result in a smaller increase to long-term 

ABC. 

Phase-in of ABC decreases are 

allowed, when a new ABC is less than 

80 percent of the existing ABC, and over 

no more than 3 years, which is the 

maximum phase in period allowed by 

the NS1 guidelines. The criterion 

requiring a minimum threshold of 

difference between the current and new 

ABCs to be 20 percent defines a 

significant enough change to merit 

phasing in the change, and is more 

flexible than other minimum threshold 

levels considered in the ABC Control 

Rule Amendments. Phase-ins may be 

used regardless of the stock relative 

biomass. The Council would consider 

whether to apply a phase-in on a caseby-case basis when specifying a stock 

ABC through an amendment after a new 

ABC has been recommended by the 

SSC. A longer phase-in period provides 

more flexibility and allows a more 

gradual change from the existing ABC to 

the new ABC. 

Phase-in of the ABC is an option the 

Council can consider to address the 

social and economic effects from 

management changes. Adopting this 

flexibility does not require the Council 

to phase-in all ABC changes, nor does 

adopting one approach prevent the 

Council from choosing a more 

restrictive schedule of ABC phase-in 

(less than 3 years). When considering 

whether to phase-in an ABC change, the 

Council would compare and contrast 

the risk to the stock against the expected 

social and economic benefits of the 

alternative ABC. Management strategy 

evaluations may be used to quantify 

such trade-offs. The Council would be 

able to consult with its scientific and 

fishery advisors to help develop a 

rationale and implementation plan for 

phase-in. The proposed phase-in of ABC 

changes are consistent with the NMFS 

2020 guidance and incorporates 

flexibility as per the revised NS1 

guidelines into the FMPs for SnapperGrouper, Golden Crab, and Dolphin and 

Wahoo. 

Allow Carry-Over of Unharvested 

Portion of ACLs 

Currently, carry-over of unharvested 

portion of ACLs is not allowed in the 

Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, and 

Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs. The ABC 

Control Rule Amendments would 

establish criteria specifying 

circumstances when an unharvested 

portion of the originally specified sector 

ACL can be carried over from 1 year to 

increase the available harvest in the 

immediate next year. Carry-overs may 

not be delayed, and only amounts from 

the originally specified sector ACL may 

be carried over. Carry-over of the 

unharvested portion of a sector ACL 

would be allowed if the stock status is 

known, the stock is neither overfished 

nor experiencing overfishing, an 

overfishing limit for the stock is 

defined, and: ABC decreases are not 

being phased-in; and there are measures 

that restrict annual landings to the ACL; 

and post-season accountability 

measures (AM) that reduce the ACL in 

the following year according to any 

landings overages in place for that stock 

and sector. 

The ABC Control Rule Amendments 

would also specify limits on how much 

of the unharvested portion of a sector 

ACL may be carried over from 1 year to 

increase the sector ACL in the next year. 

The ABC and the total ACL may be 

temporarily increased to allow this 

carry-over. The temporary ABC may not 

exceed the OFL. The revised total ACL 

may not exceed the temporary ABC or 

the total ACL plus the carried over 

amount, whichever is less. If a stock 

experiences overfishing, either as the 

result of a stock assessment or as 

determined by NMFS’ annual 

evaluation of landings, that stock would 

no longer qualify for carry-over. 

Additional conditions to annually 

qualify for carry-over can be added on 

a stock-by-stock basis. For example, to 

prevent overharvest of other species 

commonly caught with the target 

species (referred to as co-caught species) 

during years with a carried-over ACL, a 

future FMP amendment specifying an 

ABC and ACL with carry-over could 

additionally require that the previous 

year’s harvest for co-caught species also 

be less than or equal to the ACL for 

carry-over to occur. When applicable, 

the Council would specify whether 

fisheries that have split seasons or subsector allocations (such as gear 

allocations) should be eligible for interannual carry-over on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Carry-overs would also be sectorspecific. The Snapper-Grouper and 

Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs have 

commercial and recreational sectors, 

and the Golden Crab FMP includes only 

a commercial sector. Thus if only one 

sector is carrying over unused ACL, the 

carried-over amount would be allocated 

completely to that sector, subject to 

limitations defined above. If more than 

one sector is carrying over unused ACL 

in the same year, each sector carry-over 

amount would be completely allocated 

to the sector from which it was derived, 

unless the sum of all carry-over amounts 

plus the specified total ACL is greater 

than the OFL. In this case, the difference 

between the temporary revised ABC and 

the specified total ACL would be 

allocated using sector allocation 

percentages specified by the FMP. A 

revised sector ACL and revised ABC 

would remain in place for a single 

fishing year. Following a year that 

included carry-over, evaluations of 

carry-over amounts for future years 

would be based on the ABC and sector 

ACLs specified by the FMP, not the 

temporarily revised values. 

The proposed carry-over criteria and 

conditions are consistent with the 

NMFS 2020 guidance. The proposed 

carry-over criteria and conditions would 

also make carry-over applicable to only 

a few stocks managed by the Council 

under the Snapper-Grouper FMP at the 

time this action was developed. 

However, allowing carry-over does 

fulfill Federal guidance on carry-overs 

that requires allowance of this 

management tool to be included in an 

FMP, and provide additional 

management flexibility to better enable 

harvest of optimum yield of a healthy 

stock. 

Modify Framework Procedures 

The current framework procedure for 

the Snapper-Grouper FMP in the 

regulations at 50 CFR 622.194 was 

implemented by Amendment 29 in 

2015. The current framework procedure 

allows for changes via rulemaking to: 

biomass levels, age-structured analyses, 

target dates for rebuilding overfished 

species, maximum sustainable yield 

(MSY) (or proxy), optimum yield (OY), 

ABC, total allowable catch (TAC), 

quotas (including a quota of zero), 

ACLs, annual catch targets (ACTs), 

AMs, maximum fishing mortality 

threshold (MFMT), minimum stock size 

threshold (MSST), trip limits, bag limits, 

size limits, gear restrictions (ranging 

from regulation to complete 

prohibition), seasonal or area closures, 

fishing year, rebuilding plans, 

definitions of essential fish habitat 

(EFH), EFH, EFH habitat areas of 

particular concern (HAPCs), or coral 

HAPCs, restrictions on gear and fishing 

activities applicable in EFH and EFH 

HAPCs, and establish or modify 

spawning special management zones 

(SMZs). 

The current framework procedure for 

the Golden Crab FMP in the regulations 

at 50 CFR 622.252 was implemented by 

the final rule for the original Golden 

Crab FMP in 1996 (61 FR 43952, August 

27, 1996). The current framework 

procedure allows for changes via 

rulemaking to: biomass levels, agestructured analyses, MSY, ABC, TAC, 

quotas (including quotas equal to zero), 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2023 / Proposed Rules 62313 

trip limits, minimum sizes, gear 

regulations and restrictions, permit 

requirements, seasonal or area closures, 

sub-zones and their management 

measures, time frame for recovery of 

golden crab if overfished, fishing year 

(adjustment not to exceed 2 months), 

observer requirements, authority for the 

NMFS Regional Administrator (RA) to 

close the fishery when a quota is 

reached or is projected to be reached, 

definitions of EFH, EFH HAPCs, or 

Coral HAPCs. 

The current framework procedure for 

the Dolphin and Wahoo FMP in the 

regulations at 50 CFR 622.194 was 

implemented by Amendment 5 to the 

Dolphin and Wahoo FMP in 2014 (79 

FR 32878, June 9, 2014). The current 

framework procedure allows for changes 

via rulemaking to: biomass levels, agestructured analyses, target dates for 

rebuilding overfished species, MSY (or 

proxy), OY, ABC, TAC, quotas 

(including a quota of zero), ACLs, ACTs, 

AMs, MFMT, MSST, trip limits, bag 

limits, size limits, gear restrictions 

(ranging from regulation to complete 

prohibition), seasonal or area closures, 

fishing year, rebuilding plans, 

definitions of EFH, EFH HAPCs, or 

Coral HAPCs, restrictions on gear and 

fishing activities applicable in EFH and 

EFH HAPCs, and establish or modify 

spawning SMZs. 

The existing framework procedures 

for the three FMPs affected by the ABC 

Control Rule Amendments already 

enable the Council to ask the SSC to 

consider recommending a temporary, 

higher ABC. However, the existing 

approach is not efficient for changes to 

catch levels and would likely not allow 

the Council and NMFS to develop and 

implement changes to catch levels, 

given the timing of Council and SSC 

meetings, the time required to develop 

a framework action, and the time 

needed for NMFS to implement changes 

to catch levels within a fishing year 

based on landings from the previous 

year. 

The ABC Control Rule Amendments 

would modify the framework 

procedures in the Snapper-Grouper, 

Golden Crab, and Dolphin and Wahoo 

FMPs to allow for the future transfer, if 

pre-qualifying criteria are met, of an 

unharvested portion of a stock, total, or 

sector-specific ACL to the following 

fishing year (details are described in the 

Allow Carry-Over of Unharvested 

Portion of ACLs section of this notice). 

A future stock assessment must 

determine if carry-over is possible for 

that species and specify the appropriate 

catch level. Then, the SSC would 

determine and recommend an ABC to 

the Council, and the Council would 

develop an FMP amendment or 

framework action for the species with 

the option of ACL carry-over. If the 

required rulemaking for a catch level 

change that would follow was 

implemented by NMFS, then that 

species would be eligible for future 

carry-over through a subsequent 

abbreviated framework action under the 

abbreviated framework procedures 

described in the ABC Control Rule 

Amendments. To support potential 

carry-over justification, a Term of 

Reference would be added to each 

future stock assessment to project the 

maximum amount of landings beyond 

the ABC that could be carried over in 1 

year while not resulting in overfishing 

or the stock becoming overfished within 

the projection period. 

When the Council develops a 

subsequent fishery management action 

in response to a stock assessment to 

specify or revise an ABC and ACL for 

a stock or sector, the Council would 

determine whether carry-over would be 

authorized, if annual conditions justify 

a stock or sector ACL carry-over. In 

doing so, the Council would consider 

the potential need for, and benefits of, 

carry-over for a stock according to 

criteria specified in the ABC control 

rule. The Council would also consider 

the duration of time when the specified 

ABC and ACL are effective. An FMP 

amendment or framework action that 

specifies carry-over for a stock or sector 

would include analysis of the relevant 

biological, economic, and social 

information necessary to meet the 

criteria and guidance of the ABC control 

rule. 

Following the conclusion of each 

fishing year, Council staff would notify 

the Council if any stocks and sectors for 

which carry-over is approved qualify 

based on the previous year’s landings, 

and may necessitate using preliminary 

landings estimates from the previous 

year if those landings data are not yet 

finalized. If a stock or sector qualifies 

for carry-over according to 

specifications of the ABC and annual 

landings meet criteria specified in the 

ABC control rule, NMFS would 

implement carry-over of eligible 

landings from the previous year via a 

temporary rule published in the Federal 

Register through the existing FMP 

framework procedure and rulemaking 

process. 

The proposed carry-over procedure 

for eligible fish stocks or fishery sectors 

generally would not require additional 

AP input or SSC recommendation, 

because input relevant to an ABC being 

approved with potential for carry-over 

would be part of the prior development 

process for the FMP amendment or 

framework in which the ABC and ACL 

for a stock or sector are already 

specified. Application of the carry-over 

procedure is expected to be routine and 

formulaic. 

The NMFS RA would review the 

Council’s recommendations and 

supporting information. If the RA 

concurs that the Council’s 

recommendations are consistent with 

the objectives of the applicable FMP, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and all other 

applicable law, the RA would be 

authorized to implement the Council’s 

proposed action through publication of 

appropriate notification in the Federal 

Register. 

If the Council chooses to deviate from 

the criteria and guidance of the 

proposed ABC control rules, this 

abbreviated process would not apply. 

Further details of the proposed 

process can be found in section 2.4.1 

and Appendix J of the ABC Control Rule 

Amendments. An example of the carryover can be found in Appendix H of the 

ABC Control Rule Amendments. 

The proposed process would allow 

carry-overs to occur in a more timely 

manner than that of an FMP amendment 

or framework action. A faster process is 

necessary due to the year-to-year nature 

of carry-overs. Under-harvest of an ACL 

may only be carried over in the 

immediate next year. Therefore, 

defining a stock’s eligibility and the 

amount of ACL being carried over must 

occur fast enough that the fishery has 

time to harvest the carried over amount 

within the fishing year following a year 

of under-harvest. The proposed process 

also provides the Council discretion in 

determining whether carry-over should 

be applied to a potentially eligible stock 

when setting the ABC and ACL. 

As stated earlier, the ABC Control 

Rule Amendments would not change 

current ABCs or ACLs for any species 

managed under the FMPs affected by 

the ABC Control Rule Amendments. 

Proposed Rule for Comprehensive ABC 

Control Rule Amendment 

NMFS has drafted a proposed rule to 

implement the ABC Control Rule 

Amendments. In accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is 

evaluating the proposed rule for the 

ABC Control Rule Amendments to 

determine whether it is consistent with 

the FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

and other applicable law. If that 

determination is affirmative, NMFS will 

publish the proposed rule in the Federal 

Register for public review and 

comment. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
62314 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Consideration of Public Comments 

The Council has submitted ABC 

Control Rule Amendments for the 

Secretary to review. If approved, the 

ABC Control Rule Amendments would 

be implemented by NMFS. Comments 

on the ABC Control Rule Amendments 

must be received no later than 

November 13, 2023. Comments received 

during the respective comment periods, 

whether specifically directed to the ABC 

Control Rule Amendments or the 

proposed rule, will be considered by 

NMFS in the decision to approve, 

partially approve, or disapprove the 

ABC Control Rule Amendments. All 

comments received by NMFS on the 

FMP amendments or the proposed rule 

during their respective comment 

periods will be addressed in a final rule. 

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

Dated: September 6, 2023. 

Jennifer M. Wallace, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19507 Filed 9–8–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1