79778 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

corrections to a final rule. The 

document being corrected is the 

regulations governing the Takes of 

Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the New 

England Wind Project, Offshore 

Massachusetts, published on June 21, 

2024. 

DATES: Effective on March 27, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karolyn Lock, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

NMFS published a final rule in the 

Federal Register on June 21, 2024 (89 

FR 52222) announcing the promulgation 

of regulations governing the incidental 

take of marine mammals incidental to 

Avangrid Renewables, LLC’s (Avangrid), 

construction of the New England Wind 

Project in Federal and State waters 

offshore Massachusetts, specifically 

within the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) Commercial Lease 

of Submerged Lands for Renewable 

Energy Development on the Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Areas 

(OCS–A 0534 and OCS–A 0561) and the 

southwest (SW) portion of Lease Area 

OCS–A 0501 (collectively referred to as 

the Lease Area), and along an export 

cable routes to sea-to-shore transition 

points (collectively, the Project Area), 

valid for 5 years from the date of 

effectiveness. 

The regulations, which allow for the 

issuance of a Letter of Authorization to 

Avangrid for the incidental take of 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities within the specified 

geographical region during the effective 

dates of the regulations, prescribe the 

permissible methods of taking and other 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on marine mammal 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

NMFS refers the reader to the final rule 

(89 FR 52222, June 21, 2024) for 

background information concerning the 

regulations. 

The following corrections are being 

made: 

• The regulations contained an 

inconsistency between the headings for 

50 CFR 217.325 wherein the heading in 

the table of contents did not agree with 

the text of the section, necessitating 

relabeling. 

• 50 CFR 217.324(c)(15)(xiv) was 

promulgated twice (i.e., two different 

measures were both designated as 50 

CFR 217.324(c)(15)(xiv), necessitating 

renumbering). 

Correction 

Subpart GG [Corrected] 

■ 1. In rule document 2024–12085 at 89 

FR 52222 in the issue of June 21, 2024, 

on page 52301, in the first column, in 

the table of contents for Subpart GG, 

correct the entry for 50 CFR 217.325 to 

read as 50 CFR 217.325 Monitoring and 

reporting requirements. 

§ 217.324 [Corrected] 

■ 2. On page 52308, in the first column, 

the second paragraph (c)(15)(xiv) is 

corrected to read as follows: (xv) LOA 

Holder must conduct SFV 

measurements during turbine operations 

to estimate turbine operational source 

levels and transmission loss rates, in 

accordance with a NMFS-approved SFV 

Plan. 

Dated: September 24, 2024. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22307 Filed 9–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 240924–0251] 

RIN 0648–BL45 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; 

Amendment 23 to the Summer 

Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass 

Fishery Management Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action implements the 

approved trigger for the in-season 

closure accountability measure 

contained in Amendment 23 to the 

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea 

Bass Fishery Management Plan. 

Amendment 23 was developed by the 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council in conjunction with the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission to address the allocationrelated impacts of the significant 

changes in the distribution of black sea 

bass that have occurred since the 

original allocations were implemented. 

This rule implements a measure that 

allows a buffer before triggering a 

closure to the coastwide commercial 

fishery to address negative economic 

impacts of coastwide closures on states 

that have not fully harvested their 

commercial black sea bass state 

allocations. 

DATES: Effective January 1, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 23, 

including the Environmental 

Assessment, the Regulatory Impact 

Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis prepared in support of this 

action are available from Dr. 

Christopher M. Moore, Executive 

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, Suite 201, 800 

North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. 

The supporting documents are also 

accessible via the internet at: https://

www.mafmc.org/actions/bsbcommercial-allocation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emily Keiley, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

(978) 281–9116, emily.keiley@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) and the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission (Commission) 

cooperatively manage the black sea bass 

fishery. Amendment 23 considered 

changes to the management of the 

commercial black sea bass fishery. 

Specifically, Amendment 23 

considered: 

1. Adjusting the commercial black sea bass 

state allocations; 

2. Adding the state allocations and payback 

provisions to the Federal fishery management 

plan (FMP) and regulations; and, 

3. Changes to the Federal in-season closure 

regulations for black sea bass. 

The Council and the Commission’s 

Black Sea Bass Board (Board) initially 

approved their respective amendment 

and addendum during a joint meeting 

on February 1, 2021. However, in 

response to a remand from the 

Commission’s Policy Board, the two 

management bodies revisited their 

previous recommendations and voted to 

revise the commercial state quota 

allocations. A notice of availability 

(NOA) for the amendment was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 4, 2023 (88 FR 28456), with a 

comment period ending on July 3, 2023. 

NMFS published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register on May 15, 2023 (88 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 79779 

FR 30938), with a comment period 

ending on June 14, 2023. 

When a Council approves and then 

transmits an FMP or amendment to 

NMFS, NMFS publishes an NOA in the 

Federal Register announcing a 60-day 

comment period. Within 30 days of the 

end of the comment period, NMFS must 

approve, disapprove, or partially 

approve the plan or amendment based 

on consistency with law. After 

considering public comment on the 

NOA and proposed rule, NMFS partially 

approved Amendment 23 on August 2, 

2023. This final rule implements the 

approved management measure in 

Amendment 23 regarding the in-season 

closure trigger. The details of the 

development of the measures in 

Amendment 23 were described in the 

NOA and proposed rule, and are not 

repeated here. 

Approved Measure 

Federal Commercial In-Season Closure 

Trigger 

Previously, the Federal FMP required 

a commercial coastwide in-season 

closure for all federally permitted 

vessels and dealers, regardless of state, 

once the coastwide quota was projected 

to be landed. This amendment changes 

the trigger so that the closure will occur 

once landings are projected to exceed 

the coastwide quota plus an additional 

buffer of up to 5 percent. The Council 

and Board will agree to the appropriate 

buffer and make a recommendation to 

NMFS for the upcoming year through 

the specifications process. The 

Council’s Monitoring Committee and 

the Commission’s Technical Committee 

would provide advice on the 

appropriate buffer based on 

considerations such as stock status, the 

quota level, and recent fishery trends. 

This change is being implemented to 

help minimize the negative economic 

impacts of coastwide closures on states 

that have not fully harvested their 

allocations. It is not expected to create 

an incentive for quota overages because 

the Commission’s Interstate FMP would 

still require states to close when their 

state-specific quotas are reached and to 

pay back quota overages. 

Disapproved Measures 

Our review of Amendment 23 

concluded that the record supporting 

the Council’s recommendations did not 

support a decision to approve 

incorporating the state-by-state 

allocations into the Federal FMP and 

regulations. By virtue of their reliance 

on the state allocations, the proposed 

state payback provisions and the state 

allocation formula were also 

disapproved. Specifically, NMFS 

concluded that the disapproved 

provisions of Amendment 23 are not 

consistent with: 

• National Standard 4, which requires 

fishery conservation and management 

measures to avoid discrimination 

between residents of different states and 

to allocate or assign fishing privileges 

among various United States fishermen 

in a manner that is fair and equitable to 

all such fishermen, reasonably 

calculated to promote conservation, and 

carried out in such manner that no 

particular individual, corporation, or 

other entity acquires an excessive share 

of such privileges; 

• National Standard 5, which requires 

that fishery conservation and 

management measures, where 

practicable, consider efficiency in the 

utilization of fishery resources and not 

have economic allocations as their sole 

purpose; 

• National Standard 6, which requires 

fishery conservation and management 

measures to take into account and allow 

for variations among, and contingencies 

in, fisheries, fishery resources, and 

catches; and 

• National Standard 7, which requires 

fishery conservation and management 

measures, where practicable, to 

minimize costs and avoid unnecessary 

duplication. 

Council Management of State 

Allocations 

Amendment 23 proposed adding the 

commercial fishery state-by-state quota 

allocations to the Federal FMP and 

regulations. This change would have 

increased the administrative burden and 

cost of monitoring state quotas and 

processing state quota transfers for 

NMFS and the states, without providing 

a conservation benefit. Adding the 

allocations to the Federal FMP would 

have also required a joint action of the 

Council and Commission to make 

changes to the state-by-state allocations 

in the future. 

Overages and State Payback 

Requirements 

Under the Commission’s Interstate 

FMP, overages of state-specific quotas 

are required to be paid back by a state 

when the coastwide quota has been 

exceeded. If the state allocations were 

included in the Federal FMP, the 

Council and Black Sea Bass Board’s 

preferred alternative was to implement 

this payback provision in the Federal 

regulations. NMFS disapproved the 

incorporation of the state payback 

provision in the Federal FMP, as it is 

not necessary given our disapproval of 

incorporating the state allocations in the 

Federal FMP. However, the 

Commission’s use of this payback 

process is not affected by our decision 

with regard to the Federal FMP. 

Commercial State Allocation Formula 

This joint action considered changes 

to the allocation formula for the 

distribution of commercial black sea 

bass quota among the states. The 

Commission adopted and implemented 

a new allocation formula in its Interstate 

FMP, and the Council recommended 

that NMFS approve and implement the 

same allocation approach in the Federal 

FMP. Because NMFS disapproved the 

state-by-state allocations as a measure in 

the Federal FMP and regulations, it is 

not necessary to incorporate an 

allocation formula in the Federal FMP, 

so it was also disapproved. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received 14 comments in 

response to the NOA and the proposed 

rule. Seven individuals submitted 

comments that were not germane to the 

alternatives in the proposed rule; their 

comments focused on state management 

measures, individual state allocations, 

the effects of offshore wind farms, and 

quotas. One individual commercial 

fisherman generally opposed the 

proposed amendment as making things 

more complicated and worse for 

fishermen. The comments relevant to 

the proposed action focused on five 

general topics regarding the addition of 

the state commercial allocations to the 

Federal FMP: The burden on NMFS and 

the affected state fishery management 

agencies; the perceived benefits of the 

action; the National Standards of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act); encumbering 

the process to adjust allocations; and 

state representation issues, including 

addressing climate change. 

Administrative Burden 

Comment 1: Three commenters 

suggested that the administrative 

burden of adding the state allocations 

would be minor or would be mitigated 

by using processes developed for other 

fisheries. One commenter also suggested 

that this shift would reduce the burden 

on the Commission to manage state 

quotas. 

Response: While NMFS does manage 

some species’ commercial quotas (e.g., 

summer flounder) at a state level, 

adding black sea bass state quota 

management would require additional 

resources (time and staff) to conduct all 

of the necessary tasks. Adding the state 

commercial allocations in the Federal 

FMP would require NMFS to monitor 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
79780 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the landings of commercial quotas at a 

state-by-state level—as opposed to 

overall coastwide landings—throughout 

the season, implement state closures 

when triggered, and manage all quota 

transfers between states. The increased 

workload on NMFS staff would reduce 

agency capacity for other priorities. 

This change would also reduce 

efficiency by requiring the states to 

request transfers from NMFS in addition 

to the Commission and wait for NMFS’s 

approval before the transfers are 

effective. This is not merely a shift in 

administrative burden. Rather, it 

increases the administrative burden for 

both NMFS and the states without 

eliminating the administrative burden 

for the Commission. The Commission is 

unlikely to end its practice of 

monitoring transfers and posting them 

on its website, so states would continue 

to bear the burden of the Commission’s 

state management processes, along with 

the added requirement to submit 

transfer requests to NMFS. Comments 

from the Massachusetts Division of 

Marine Fisheries (MADMF) and the 

Rhode Island Department of 

Environmental Management (RIDEM) 

also noted these concerns (see Comment 

2). 

Comment 2: Comments from RIDEM 

and MADMF stated that including the 

state commercial black sea bass 

allocation in the Federal FMP would 

increase the administrative burden for 

NMFS and create additional 

complications for the states. MADMF 

noted that state and Federal closures for 

species such as bluefish and summer 

flounder have not always aligned. 

MADMF states that ‘‘. . . Landings data 

and projections often differ between 

state and Federal monitoring, as does 

the time requirement for [MADMF] and 

NMFS to close a fishery. [MADMF’s] 

frequent and direct outreach to dealers 

as quotas near full utilization generally 

allows for more accurate landings tallies 

and projections, which [MADMF] can 

respond to nimbly. [MADMF’s] ability 

to close a fishery within 24 hours is not 

matched by NMFS.’’ These differences 

can result in different closure dates and 

different impacts to state and Federal 

permit holders. 

Response: NMFS agrees with these 

comments and has disapproved the 

addition of the commercial state black 

sea bass allocations to the Federal FMP. 

Comment 3: One commenter 

highlighted that the restrictions on lateseason transfers due to the Federal 

rulemaking process would have 

minimal impacts and would not justify 

disapproving the addition of the state 

allocations to the Federal FMP. 

Response: The Commission currently 

allows transfers at any time up to 45 

days after the last day of the fishing 

season. If NMFS were to manage 

transfers under the same process 

currently used for summer flounder and 

bluefish, transfers in the last 2 weeks of 

the year would only be allowed for 

unforeseeable circumstances such as 

vessel failure or bad weather. Postseason transfers would not be allowed. 

NMFS does not disagree that the impact 

of this particular restriction would be 

relatively small. However, the 

magnitude of this potential impact does 

not change our determination that 

adding the state allocations to the 

Federal FMP is inconsistent with the 

National Standards (see Disapproved 

Measures). This decision was based on 

a holistic review of the amendment and 

its consistency with the MagnusonStevens Act. It did not hinge on the 

impact of post-season transfer 

limitations. 

Perceived Benefits 

Comment 4: Four commenters 

disagreed with our statement that there 

is no clear benefit from adding the state 

allocations to the Federal FMP, arguing 

that this change provides a greater level 

of Federal oversight, protection, and 

accountability. They stated that any 

changes to the allocations would be 

made through the Council process, 

which is thorough, transparent, and 

bound by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), and other applicable laws. 

According to these comments, the 

Commission process does not always 

provide the same safeguards. 

Response: The Council and 

Commission have successfully comanaged black sea bass quotas through 

a two-tiered system since 2003, with the 

state quotas managed through the 

Commission’s Interstate FMP and the 

overall coastwide quota managed by the 

Council and NMFS. While the Interstate 

FMP is not bound by the MagnusonStevens Act and the Federal rulemaking 

process, the Commission process is not 

without its own legal requirements and 

safeguards. The Atlantic Coastal 

Fisheries Cooperative Management Act 

(Atlantic Coastal Act) requires the 

Commission to manage fisheries 

throughout their range based on the best 

available science and with adequate 

opportunity for public participation and 

to establish adequate standards and 

procedures to do so. In compliance with 

the Atlantic Coastal Act, the 

Commission process is bound by the 

‘‘Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission Compact and Rules and 

Regulations’’ and ‘‘Interstate Fishery 

Management Program Charter.’’ Under 

the Charter, the Commission’s 

management must meet conservation 

and equity requirements. When states 

believe a Commission decision has not 

met these requirements, the 

Commission provides a formal appeals 

process. 

Further, the Council manages the 

Federal black sea bass fishery with all 

of the safeguards and requirements of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NEPA, and 

other applicable laws. This includes 

oversight of the various catch limits 

designed to prevent overfishing, which 

are established through a joint process 

with the Commission. The coastwide 

commercial quota addresses the 

conservation requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and when state 

quota overages could result in a 

coastwide overage, NMFS has the 

authority to close the entire fishery to 

prevent overfishing. Duplication of the 

state commercial allocations in the 

Federal FMP will not further any 

conservation benefit because the 

allocations are already in place and 

successfully managed through the 

Interstate FMP and the Federal 

regulations and specifications process 

are sufficient to address coastwide 

overages. 

Comment 5: One commenter argued, 

‘‘If this management plan remained 

within the [Commission], there would 

be no ability for any New York 

commercial fisherman to contest any 

portion of it by judicial review, because 

it is not considered an agency of the 

Federal government.’’ The commenter 

believed including the state commercial 

allocations in the Federal FMP would 

allow better redress. 

Response: While the Commission is 

not a Federal agency, it provides a 

venue for deciding issues of interstate 

fishery management with equal 

representation of all interested states. As 

noted in response to Comment 4, the 

Commission is guided by the ‘‘Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission 

Compact and Rules and Regulations’’ 

and ‘‘Interstate Fishery Management 

Program Charter.’’ States can appeal 

Commission decisions through a formal 

appeals process when the decision is 

inconsistent with the rules and 

regulations, the Charter, the 

Commission’s other guiding documents, 

or the goals and objectives of the 

Interstate FMP; is based on insufficient 

technical information; or results in 

unforeseen impacts. The appeals 

process may result in corrective action, 

providing a process for redress for 

Commission decisions. The efficacy of 

this appeals process is demonstrated by 

New York’s successful appeal of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 79781 

Commission’s changes to the black sea 

bass state allocations, which resulted in 

an increase to New York’s proportion of 

the black sea bass commercial quota. In 

addition, interested parties still have the 

option to contest Federal management 

measures developed through the joint 

management process described in 

response to Comment 4 pursuant to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act’s judicial review 

provisions. 

Comment 6: One commenter stated 

that adding the state commercial 

allocations to the Federal FMP would 

provide the benefit of bringing the 

allocations in line with ‘‘most other 

aspects of the management program.’’ 

Response: The Council and the 

Commission have successfully comanaged the black sea bass fishery for 

decades, as described in response to 

Comment 4. 

Most aspects of the management 

program have implications for the 

coastwide fishery and are addressed in 

the Federal FMP. However, subdividing 

the coastwide commercial quota into 

state-specific allocations directly affects 

fishing opportunities at the state level 

and is an issue of interstate fishery 

management. The Commission provides 

a venue for interstate management 

decision-making with representation 

from all of the Atlantic states. States 

may join the management boards for any 

species in which they have an interest. 

Conversely, the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

determines state representation on the 

Council. As a result, the limited 

representation on the Council poses a 

challenge when making allocation 

decisions that directly affect the states. 

Continued changes in the stock 

distribution toward states that are not 

represented on the Council would 

exacerbate these challenges. Adding the 

allocations to the Federal FMP to make 

them consistent with other co-managed 

elements of the FMP would fail to 

recognize the unique, state-oriented 

nature of allocation decisions and the 

Commission’s lead role in interstate 

fisheries management and would not 

further any conservation objective. 

Future Allocation Decisions and the 

National Standard Requirements 

Comment 7: Two commenters 

contended that the NOA speculates 

‘‘about future actions involving 

‘potentially inadequate consideration of 

northern states’ fisheries’ ’’ without 

evidence in the administrative record to 

support such speculation, particularly 

‘‘without providing any examples of 

actual present-day outcomes harming 

any particular state.’’ These commenters 

go on to note that future allocations 

would need to meet the requirements of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including 

the requirement under National 

Standards 4 and 6 (described under 

Disapproved Measures) and National 

Standard 8—that measures provide for 

the sustained participation of all fishing 

communities. The second of these 

commenters argued that the current 

commercial state allocations were 

agreed on by the Council and Board and 

reflect recent biomass proportions. The 

commenter did not understand how the 

same decision-making process could 

potentially result in unfair outcomes in 

the future because the Council and 

Board work together to achieve 

consensus on joint actions and differing 

decisions between the two bodies are 

rare. 

Response: The commenters are correct 

that NMFS cannot approve any changes 

to the Federal FMP that do not meet the 

requirements of the National Standards. 

While NMFS has concerns that adding 

the state allocations to the Federal FMP 

would result in an inequitable 

allocation process because not all 

interested states are represented on the 

Council, NMFS did not disapprove the 

changes based on future decisions being 

inconsistent with the National 

Standards. NMFS disapproved the 

addition of the state allocations in the 

Federal FMP because that action lacked 

conservation benefits, reduced 

management efficiency, lacked 

adaptability to variations and 

contingencies, increased costs, and 

unnecessarily duplicated management 

measures, which is inconsistent with 

National Standards 4, 5, 6, and 7. 

State Representation, Fairness, and 

Equity 

Comment 8: MADMF agreed with 

NMFS that equity of representation is 

vitally important to the particular issue 

of state-by-state allocations. Its comment 

provided additional context and an 

example of how the vote to add the state 

allocations to the Federal FMP resulted 

in unequal representation among the 

states. After an initial motion was made 

and seconded by participants of both 

the Council and Board, a substitute 

motion not to add the state allocations 

to the Federal FMP was made and 

seconded by northern-state and NMFS 

representatives. The Council voted first, 

and the majority of Council members 

voted against the substitute motion. 

Without the Commission membership 

from New Hampshire through North 

Carolina being able to affirm their 

position, the substitute motion failed. 

The main motion received a passing 

vote from the Commission on a slim 

margin after the substitute motion failed 

in the Council vote and another option 

was not available. The Council and 

Commission voted along a geographical 

divide, with the northern states voting 

against the allocations in the Federal 

FMP. This illustrates that the limited 

representation on the Council by all 

states with an interest in the fishery 

poses a challenge when making state 

allocation decisions. 

The Commission includes 

representation from all Atlantic states 

and provides an equitable process when 

making changes to commercial state 

allocations. MADMF asserted that the 

Commission, where every coastal state 

with an interest in a species is 

represented, is the more appropriate 

venue for determining state allocations. 

Response: NMFS agrees that limited 

representation by all states in the 

Council poses a challenge in state 

allocation decisions and that the 

Commission, which includes 

representations from all Atlantic states, 

provides a more equitable process in 

commercial state allocations. 

Comment 9: Two commenters 

asserted that the joint decision-making 

process is fair and equitable and that the 

states on the Council do not have a 

disproportionate role in the decisionmaking process. The commenters 

disagreed with the assertion that the 

lack of voting representation from the 

New England states on the Council 

creates ‘‘inequity in representation’’ in 

the joint decision-making process. 

These commenters believed that the 

special voting procedures and the 

broader representation on the Board 

make up for the lack of northern states’ 

representation on the Council. 

Response: A different comment letter 

from MADMF disputed these 

comments, as summarized in Comment 

8. As one of the states in question and 

with authority on the matter, MADMF 

argued that the special voting 

procedures are not equivalent to full 

representation and that adding the state 

allocations to the Federal FMP would 

not result in an equitable allocation 

process. NMFS agrees with MADMF. 

Comment 10: One commenter argued 

against concerns that the northern 

states’ lack of representation on the 

Council has implications regarding the 

National Standard requirements and 

equity, stating that the Mid-Atlantic 

states lack representation on the New 

England Fishery Management Council 

and are regulated on groundfish, 

whiting, and scallops without 

representation. The commenter asserted 

that joint decision-making between the 

Council and the Commission, which 

represents all coastal states, has worked 

for other fisheries. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
79782 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: NMFS agrees that comanagement works here—the Council 

and the Commission successfully comanage the black sea bass fishery. As 

previously described, the Council and 

Commission specifications processes 

establish annual coastwide catch limits 

and the Commission manages the 

commercial state allocations through the 

Interstate FMP because the state 

allocations have a direct impact on 

fishing opportunities at the state level. 

This co-management process provides 

equitable representation and greater 

flexibility because it does not require 

Council action in addition to 

Commission action to change the state 

allocations. This is particularly relevant 

in the black sea bass fishery, as it is 

foreseeable that black sea bass could 

become a commercially viable species 

as far north as Maine due to the ongoing 

and expected changes in the 

distribution of the black sea bass stock 

from the effects of climate change. The 

successful management of other species 

using different processes does not 

negate these facts nor the history of 

successful co-management of the black 

sea bass fishery. Furthermore, the 

fisheries referenced in the comment— 

groundfish, whiting, and scallops—are 

not managed with state-by-state quota 

allocations, but with a coastwide quota. 

This is consistent with the Federal 

management of the black sea bass 

fishery. 

Comment 11: Three commenters 

argued that the Council should have a 

more substantive role in the allocationsetting process because the majority of 

commercial black sea bass landings 

come from Federal waters. 

Response: The Council plays a 

significant role in black sea bass 

management, with coastwide 

management measures set in the Federal 

FMP through the Council process, as 

previously described. State quota 

allocations have a direct impact on 

fishing opportunities at the state level. 

Given the lack of northern state 

representation on the Council, the 

commercial quota state allocations are 

appropriately managed through the 

Commission’s Interstate FMP. While 

adding the state allocations to the 

Federal FMP would not eliminate the 

Commission’s role in the process, a 

comment letter from MADMF provides 

evidence that the special voting 

procedures used during joint decisionmaking do not necessarily result in 

equal representation of all states with 

commercial quota allocations, as 

described in Comment 8. 

In addition, adding the state 

commercial quota allocations to the 

Federal FMP would then require NMFS 

to manage the state allocations, which 

would increase costs, reduce efficiency, 

and add complexity, as described 

throughout the comments and 

responses. The Commission’s equal 

representation of all impacted states and 

the increased efficiency, timeliness, and 

reduced administrative burden for inseason monitoring activities support 

maintaining the Commission’s primary 

role in this aspect of black sea bass 

management, with the Council 

maintaining the lead role in coastwide 

management. 

Climate Impacts 

Comment 12: One commenter 

contended that climate concerns are not 

unique to the black sea bass fishery and 

the Council manages other fisheries 

with changing distributions and 

geographic ranges beyond its member 

states. It noted that the Council is 

required to manage stocks as a unit 

throughout their range to the extent 

practicable under National Standard 3. 

The commenter was not aware of any 

provision under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act or other applicable laws that would 

preclude the incorporation of state 

allocations in the Council FMP. 

Response: While climate impacts are 

a concern for a number of fisheries, this 

action considers the management of 

black sea bass. Under the requirements 

of National Standard 3, the Council is 

required to manage the black sea bass 

stock as a unit throughout its range and 

does so when it sets coastwide 

management measures under the 

Federal FMP. These coastwide limits, 

including the commercial quota, satisfy 

the requirements of National Standard 

3. However, inconsistencies with the 

requirements under National Standards 

4, 5, 6, and 7 do preclude the addition 

of the state allocations to the Federal 

FMP. These inconsistencies are 

described under Disapproved Measures 

and throughout the comments and 

responses in this document. 

Comment 13: One commenter claimed 

that formalizing the Council’s role in the 

state commercial allocation-setting 

process would increase the Council’s 

adaptive capacity and ability to respond 

to changes in the black sea bass fishery 

efficiently, thus supporting the goal of 

building resilient, climate-ready 

fisheries. 

Response: Amendment 23 does not 

identify how duplicating the state 

commercial allocations in the Federal 

FMP and regulations and requiring the 

Council and Federal rulemaking 

processes to change the state 

commercial allocations would increase 

adaptive capacity, efficiency, or 

responsiveness in black sea bass 

management. According to the National 

Standard Guidelines at § 600.335(d), 

unpredictable events, such as 

unexpected climatic conditions or 

resource surges or failures, are best 

handled by establishing a flexible 

management regime that contains a 

range of management options through 

which it is possible to act quickly 

without amending the FMP or even its 

regulations. The current system of 

managing state commercial allocations 

through the Commission’s Interstate 

FMP provides an efficient, responsive, 

and equitable process that does not 

require amending the FMP or 

regulations. 

Continued changes in the stock 

distribution would exacerbate the 

already challenging allocation 

deliberations of the Council if the state 

allocations were added to the Federal 

FMP. Rapid changes and increased 

uncertainties in stock distribution, 

particularly in response to the effects of 

climate change, highlight the need for a 

flexible and responsive management 

system. Because the proposed measure 

to incorporate state-by-state quota 

allocations into the Federal FMP and 

regulations would create a less flexible 

and less responsive management system 

than the status quo, NMFS finds this 

aspect of Amendment 23 to be 

inconsistent with National Standard 6. 

Comment 14: Three commenters 

agreed with NMFS that climate change 

and the shifting distribution of the stock 

exacerbate concerns regarding unequal 

representation. MADMF stated that 

every state with an interest in a species 

is represented on the Commission and 

moving the state commercial allocation 

to the Council FMP would uproot ‘‘the 

northern states’ equal footing inherent’’ 

in the Commission process. It went on 

to say, ‘‘The mid-Atlantic states feel no 

similar repercussions from maintaining 

the allocations solely in the interstate 

plan; they are well represented by their 

delegates to the [Commission]. As the 

Council letter points out, this is the first 

time the allocations have been revised 

in the [Commission] plan since their 

original implementation in 2003, 

demonstrating that the [Commission] 

member states do not take the matter 

lightly. While distinct, the 

[Commission] processes are equally 

transparent, robust, and deliberative as 

the Council’s.’’ 

MADMF also noted that regional 

climate change scenario planning 

efforts, supported by the Council, have 

included consideration of more joint 

management and greater flexibility as 

stocks shift. Another commenter echoed 

MADMF’s concerns regarding equity 

and adaptability in the face of shifting 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 79783 

stocks and suggested that the allocations 

should be managed solely by the 

Commission or jointly by the MidAtlantic and New England Councils. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

Commission should retain management 

of the state commercial allocations to 

ensure an equitable process and have 

disapproved the addition of the 

commercial state black sea bass 

allocations into the Federal FMP. 

General Comments 

Comment 15: MADMF fully 

supported NMFS’ rationale, as provided 

in 88 FR 28456 (May 4, 2023), for 

disapproving the addition of the 

commercial black sea bass state 

allocations into the Federal FMP. 

Response: NMFS agrees and has 

disapproved the addition of the 

commercial state black sea bass 

allocations into the Federal FMP. 

Comment 16: One commenter stated 

that NMFS’ proposal will complicate 

things for fishermen and black sea bass 

issues should have been addressed two 

decades ago. 

Response: NMFS agrees that 

duplicating the state allocations in the 

Federal FMP would create a more 

complicated process for black sea bass 

fishermen and have disapproved this 

measure. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule included all of the 

Council’s recommended changes to the 

FMP and proposed implementing 

regulations deemed necessary by the 

Council. As described above, NMFS has 

determined that the adjustment to the 

process for setting the state allocations 

and the addition of the state allocations 

and payback provisions to the Council’s 

(Federal) FMP were inconsistent with 

the National Standards and disapproved 

those measures. The final rule only 

implements the proposed change to the 

commercial in-season closure trigger, 

and removes the disapproved measures 

that were in the proposed rule’s 

regulatory text. 

Classification 

Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS 

Assistant Administrator has determined 

that this final rule is consistent with the 

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea 

Bass FMP, other provisions of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable law. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

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. 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: September 24, 2024. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 

648 as follows: 

PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE 

NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 648 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 648.142, revise paragraph (a) 

introductory text and add paragraph 

(a)(15) to read as follows: 

§ 648.142 Black sea bass specifications. 

(a) Specifications. Commercial quota, 

recreational landing limit, research setaside, 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: 

* * * * * 

(15) A commercial quota overage 

buffer, of up to 5 percent, that would be 

used to determine when a Federal inseason closure would be triggered. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 648.143, revise paragraph (a) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 648.143 Black sea bass accountability 

measures. 

(a) Commercial sector fishery closure. 

The Regional Administrator will 

monitor the harvest of commercial quota 

based on dealer reports, state data, and 

other available information. All black 

sea bass landed for sale in the states 

from North Carolina through Maine by 

a vessel with a moratorium permit 

issued under § 648.4(a)(7) shall be 

applied against the commercial annual 

coastwide quota, regardless of where the 

black sea bass were harvested. All black 

sea bass harvested north of 35°15.3′ N. 

lat., and landed for sale in the states 

from North Carolina through Maine by 

any vessel without a moratorium permit 

and fishing exclusively in state waters, 

will be counted against the quota by the 

state in which it is landed, pursuant to 

the FMP for the black sea bass fishery 

adopted by the ASMFC. The Regional 

Administrator will determine the date 

on which the annual coastwide quota, 

plus a buffer up to 5 percent as specified 

in the annual specifications, is projected 

to be harvested; and beginning on that 

date and through the end of the calendar 

year, the EEZ north of 35°15.3′ N lat. 

will be closed to the possession of black 

sea bass. The Regional Administrator 

will publish a notification in the 

Federal Register advising that, upon 

and after that date, no vessel may 

possess black sea bass in the EEZ north 

of 35°15.3′ N lat. during a closure, nor 

may vessels issued a moratorium permit 

land black sea bass during the closure. 

Individual states will have the 

responsibility to close their ports to 

commercial landings of black sea bass 

during a closure, pursuant to the FMP 

for the black sea bass fishery adopted by 

the ASMFC. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–22233 Filed 9–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 240304–0068; RTID 0648– 

XE302] 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone off Alaska; Several Groundfish 

Species in the Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Management Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES