Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 82389 

evidence that rebuts that information. 

Impacts that are outside the scope of the 

Service’s expertise include, but are not 

limited to: 

(i) Nonbiological impacts identified 

by federally recognized Indian Tribes, 

consistent with all applicable Executive 

and Secretarial orders; 

(ii) Nonbiological impacts identified 

by State or local governments; 

(iii) Impacts based on national 

security or homeland security 

implications identified by the 

Department of Defense, Department of 

Homeland Security, or any other 

Federal agency responsible for national 

security or homeland security; and 

(iv) Nonbiological impacts identified 

by a permittee, lessee, or contractor 

applicant for a permit, lease, or contract 

on Federal lands. 

(2) When analyzing the benefit of 

including or excluding any particular 

area based on economic impacts or 

other relevant impacts described in 

paragraph (b) of this section, the 

Secretary will weigh such impacts 

relative to the conservation value of that 

particular area. For benefits of inclusion 

or exclusion based on impacts that fall 

within the scope of the Service’s 

expertise, the Secretary will give weight 

to those benefits in light of the Service’s 

expertise. 

(3) When analyzing the benefits of 

including or excluding particular areas 

covered by conservation plans, 

agreements, or partnerships that have 

been authorized by a permit under 

section 10 of the Act, the Secretary will 

consider the following factors: 

(i) Whether the permittee is properly 

implementing the conservation plan or 

agreement; 

(ii) Whether the species for which 

critical habitat is being designated is a 

covered species in the conservation plan 

or agreement; and 

(iii) Whether the conservation plan or 

agreement specifically addresses the 

habitat of the species for which critical 

habitat is being designated and meets 

the conservation needs of the species in 

the planning area. 

(4) When analyzing the benefits of 

including or excluding particular areas 

covered by conservation plans, 

agreements, or partnerships that have 

not been authorized by a permit under 

section 10 of the Act, factors that the 

Secretary may consider include, but are 

not limited to: 

(i) The degree to which the record of 

the plan, or information provided by 

proponents of an exclusion, supports a 

conclusion that a critical habitat 

designation would impair the 

realization of the benefits expected from 

the plan, agreement, or partnership. 

(ii) The extent of public participation 

in the development of the conservation 

plan. 

(iii) The degree to which agency 

review and required determinations 

(e.g., State regulatory requirements) 

have been completed, as necessary and 

appropriate. 

(iv) Whether National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) reviews or similar reviews 

occurred, and the nature of any such 

reviews. 

(v) The demonstrated implementation 

and success of the chosen mechanism. 

(vi) The degree to which the plan or 

agreement provides for the conservation 

of the physical or biological features 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

(vii) Whether there is a reasonable 

expectation that the conservation 

management strategies and actions 

contained in a management plan or 

agreement will be implemented. 

(viii) Whether the plan or agreement 

contains a monitoring program and 

adaptive management to ensure that the 

conservation measures are effective and 

can be modified in the future in 

response to new information. 

(e) If the Secretary conducts an 

exclusion analysis under paragraph (c) 

of this section, and if the Secretary 

determines that the benefits of 

excluding a particular area from critical 

habitat outweigh the benefits of 

specifying that area as part of the critical 

habitat, then the Secretary shall exclude 

that area, unless the Secretary 

determines, based on the best scientific 

and commercial data available, that the 

failure to designate that area as critical 

habitat will result in the extinction of 

the species concerned. 

George Wallace, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks, Department of the Interior. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28033 Filed 12–17–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 200227–0066] 

RTID 0648–XA724 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch 

in the Bering Sea Subarea of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the 

Bering Sea subarea of the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands management area 

(BSAI). This action is necessary to 

prevent exceeding the 2020 Pacific 

Ocean perch total allowable catch (TAC) 

in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local 

time (A.l.t.), December 16, 2020, 

through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 

2020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Whitney, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

BSAI according to the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area (FMP) prepared by 

the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council under authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. 

Regulations governing fishing by U.S. 

vessels in accordance with the FMP 

appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 

and 50 CFR part 679. 

The 2020 Pacific ocean perch TAC in 

the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI is 

12,043 metric tons (mt) as established 

by the final 2020 and 2021 harvest 

specifications for groundfish in the 

BSAI and groundfish reserve release (85 

FR 13553, March 9, 2020). 

The Regional Administrator has 

determined that the 2020 TAC for 

Pacific Ocean perch in the Bering Sea 

subarea of the BSAI will soon be 

reached. Therefore, the Regional 

Administrator is establishing a directed 

fishing allowance of 12,003 mt, and is 

setting aside the remaining 40 mt as 

bycatch to support other anticipated 

groundfish fisheries. Consequently, in 

accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
82390 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for 

Pacific ocean perch in the Bering Sea 

subarea of the BSAI. While this closure 

remains in effect the maximum 

retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) 

apply at any time during a trip. 

Classification 

NMFS issues this action pursuant to 

section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 

part 679, which was issued pursuant to 

section 304(b), and is exempt from 

review under Executive Order 12866. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there 

is good cause to waive prior notice and 

an opportunity for public comment on 

this action, as notice and comment 

would be impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest, as it would prevent 

NMFS from responding to the most 

recent fisheries data in a timely fashion 

and would delay the closure of Pacific 

ocean perch Bering Sea subarea in the 

BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a 

notice providing time for public 

comment because the most recent, 

relevant data only became available as 

of December 14, 2020. 

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

Dated: December 15, 2020. 

Jennifer M. Wallace, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27918 Filed 12–15–20; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES