Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 58331 

§ 3000.12, move paragraph (b) to below 

the table on page 332. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24034 Filed 9–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Transportation Security Administration 

49 CFR Part 1503 

[Docket No. TSA–2009–0013] 

RIN 1652–AA62 

Revision of Enforcement Procedures 

AGENCY: Transportation Security 

Administration, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) issues this final 

rule regarding TSA’s investigative and 

enforcement procedures. TSA makes 

several minor changes to the final rule 

TSA issued on July 21, 2009. TSA 

extends the time for parties to reply to 

a petition for reconsideration or 

modification of a final decision and 

order of the TSA decision maker on 

appeal from 10 days after service to 30 

days after service. Similarly, TSA 

extends the time for parties to reply to 

a motion from 10 to 30 days after 

service. Finally, TSA corrects an 

incorrect section reference. 

DATES: Effective September 24, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emily Su, Office of Chief Counsel, TSA– 

2, Transportation Security 

Administration, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, VA 20598–6002; telephone 

(571) 227–2305; facsimile (571) 227– 

1380; e-mail emily.su@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Rulemaking Document 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by— 

(1) Searching the electronic Federal 

Docket Management System (FDMS) 

Web page at http://www.regulations.gov; 

(2) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html; or 

(3) Visiting TSA’s Security 

Regulations Web page at http:// 

www.tsa.gov and accessing the link for 

‘‘Research Center’’ at the top of the page. 

In addition, copies are available by 

writing or calling the individual in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. Make sure to identify the docket 

number of this rulemaking. 

Small Entity Inquiries 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires TSA to comply with small 

entity requests for information and 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within TSA’s 

jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a 

question regarding this document may 

contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Persons can 

obtain further information regarding 

SBREFA on the Small Business 

Administration’s Web page at http:// 

www.sba.gov/advo/laws/law_lib.html. 

Good Cause for Immediate Effective 

Date 

This rule will be effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register. The 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

553, allows an agency, upon finding 

good cause, to make a rule effective 

immediately. There is good cause for 

making this final rule effective 

immediately. A final rule, published on 

July 21, 2009, is already in effect. 74 FR 

36030. There is no need to provide 

advance notice that this final rule will 

become effective because this final rule 

is substantively the same as the July 21, 

2009, final rule; the only changes in this 

final rule expand the period of time in 

which a party may respond to motions 

and final decision from 10 to 30 days. 

Summary of the Rulemaking 

On July 21, 2009, TSA published a 

final rule in the Federal Register (74 FR 

36030) reorganizing and amending its 

Investigative and Enforcement 

Procedures. When TSA published the 

rule, TSA invited public comments on 

the rule until September 21, 2009. TSA 

received one letter to the public docket 

that raised a number of comments. This 

final rule responds to the comments and 

makes one minor procedural change and 

corrects a section reference, discussed 

below. 

Response to Comments 

Informal Conferences: The commenter 

stated that permitting an Informal 

Conference with an agency attorney or 

another agency official, as § 1503.421 

provides, is beneficial for expedited 

resolution of cases. However, the 

commenter cautioned that agency 

personnel authorized to conduct such 

informal conferences must understand 

the TSA regulations and their intent and 

expressed the view that sometimes they 

do not. 

TSA trains its attorneys and other 

agency officials so that they are well 

versed in any regulations at issue in an 

informal conference. TSA equips its 

attorneys and agency officials with 

proper knowledge and skills to address 

any relevant concerns at informal 

conference. 

Enforcement of ‘‘TSA Requirements’’: 

Another comment recommended that 

TSA amend the regulation to make it 

clear that individuals may only be 

charged with violations of regulations or 

agency orders as to which ‘‘proper 

notice has been given pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedure Act.’’ The 

commenter stated that, if TSA seeks to 

hold individuals responsible through 

the enforcement process for violating 

non-regulatory ‘‘TSA requirements’’ 

such as agency orders, Subpart G should 

be amended to make clear that 

§ 1503.607 does not preclude the 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) from 

making a full factual record as to 

whether the ‘‘TSA requirement’’ at issue 

was properly applicable to the 

individual charged, including whether 

the individual charged received legally 

sufficient actual or constructive notice 

of the binding nature of the TSA 

requirement. 

TSA agrees that persons must have 

notice of a requirement before TSA can 

enforce it. In the case of violation of a 

statutory provision, the provision’s 

inclusion in the public laws of the 

United States establishes notice. In the 

case of a regulation published in the 

Federal Register, filing the document 

with the Office of the Federal Register 

establishes notice. In the case of another 

enforceable requirement, such as an 

agency order, the person charged must 

have had adequate notice of the 

requirement; an ALJ proceeding could 

include resolution of this issue. 

Warning Notices, Letters of 

Correction: Another comment focused 

on language in § 1503.301 providing 

that, if TSA determines that an alleged 

violation does not require assessment of 

a civil penalty, an appropriate official 

may take administrative action, such as 

warning notices and letters of 

correction, in disposition of the case. 

The rule provides: ‘‘The issuance of a 

Warning Notice or Letter of Correction 

is not subject to appeal under this part.’’ 

The commenter expressed the following 

objections to the absence of an appeal 

process for Warning Notices: 

1. TSA has made mistakes in 

interpreting its rules, resulting in the 

incorrect adjudication of matters under 

investigation, leading to TSA issuing 

Warning Notices to innocent parties. 

2. Improperly issued Warning Notices 

can result in future negative 

consequences, such as increased civil 

penalties, if the recipient of the Warning 

Notice is the subject of future 

enforcement actions. The commenter 

referenced the language of Subpart E— 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
58332 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act 

of 1990, Public Law 101–410, Oct. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 

890, as amended by the Debt Collection 

Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104–134, title 

III, Sec. 31001(s)(1), Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321– 

373; the Federal Reports Elimination Act of 1998, 

Public Law 105–362, title XIII, Sec. 1301(a), Nov. 

10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3293. 

Assessment of Civil Penalties by TSA, 

§ 1503.425, Compromise Orders, (b)(5) 

to support the position that an 

improperly-issued Warning Notice may 

have negative consequences. 

Specifically, the commenter referenced 

the following statement: ‘‘A compromise 

order contains the following: (5) A 

statement that the compromise order 

will not be used as evidence of a prior 

violation in any subsequent civil 

penalty proceeding.’’ The commenter 

suggested that, if TSA does not allow 

formal or informal appeals of Warning 

Notices, at a minimum TSA should 

incorporate similar language declaring 

that such Warning Notices will not be 

used as evidence of a prior violation in 

any subsequent civil proceeding. 

3. The inability to seek redress of an 

improperly issued Warning Notice 

presents future risk to other innocent 

individuals; TSA errors may lead to 

similar actions against other individuals 

who may be accused, erroneously, of the 

same type of alleged violation. 

TSA believes that the Warning Notice 

process is adequate to address these 

concerns. A Warning Notice does not 

constitute a legal finding of a violation; 

therefore, no formal appeal process is 

required. TSA generally affords persons 

the opportunity to respond to an 

investigation before TSA takes 

enforcement action, including the 

issuance of a Warning Notice. The most 

efficient and effective means for 

resolving allegations of noncompliance 

is for the person to respond to TSA 

inquiries promptly and thoroughly. 

Penalties Against Individuals: The 

commenter acknowledged that TSA has 

the statutory authority to raise the 

maximum civil penalties assessed 

against individuals, but objected to 

TSA’s doing so now in view of the 

recession, high unemployment rates, 

and stagnant economic growth. The 

commenter added that airline workers, 

including pilots, have suffered 

significant wage reductions. The 

commenter, a trade association that 

represents airline workers, expressed its 

view that airline workers are more likely 

to be the subject of penalties than other 

individuals because of the amount of 

time they spend at airports and 

transiting checkpoints; these activities 

might lead to potential charges of a 

violation of TSA regulations. The 

commenter recommended that TSA take 

these factors into account when TSA 

considers mitigating factors for purposes 

of proposing penalties. The comment 

noted that this should be the case 

particularly in regard to proposed 

penalties for first-time offenders. 

As explained in the preamble to the 

rule published on July 21, 2009, TSA 

has adjusted the penalty amounts as 

required by statute. See 74 FR 36034. 

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

Adjustment Act of 1990 (Adjustment 

Act), as amended,1 includes a detailed 

formula for inflation adjustments. TSA 

recognizes that many parties may 

experience financial hardship due to the 

current economic environment. Hence, 

TSA always considers multiple factors, 

including financial distress, when 

assessing civil penalties. TSA uses a 

publicly available sanctions policy in 

assessing penalties. See http:// 

www.tsa.gov/research/laws/ 

editorial_1504.shtm. Finally, TSA 

disagrees with the view that airline 

workers’ occupation should be 

considered a mitigating factor for 

assessing penalties. Individuals who 

spend considerable time in the aviation 

environment should be aware of TSA’s 

requirements and take particular care to 

comply with them. 

Formal Complaints: The commenter 

raised objections to the procedures for 

formal complaints in subpart I, 

§ 1503.801. This provision of the rule 

allows any person to file a complaint 

with the TSA Administrator with 

respect to ‘‘any act or omission by any 

person in contravention of’’ any rules, 

regulations or provisions administered 

by the TSA. Paragraph (d) of that section 

provides that TSA will place complaints 

that meet the tests of Subpart I on its 

Complaint Docket, mail a copy to each 

person named in the complaint and, per 

paragraph (f), the person named in the 

complaint ‘‘must file an answer within 

20 days after service of a copy of the 

complaint.’’ Pursuant to paragraph (k), 

TSA maintains in the public docket ‘‘the 

complaint and other pleadings and 

official TSA records relating to the 

disposition of the complaint.’’ 

The commenter questioned TSA’s 

legal authority for these procedures. The 

commenter also recommended that TSA 

consider adding a provision allowing 

TSA to assess penalties for those who 

file ill-founded, baseless or false charges 

against individuals, as well as a 

provision that would allow the 

individuals who are the subject of these 

charges to seek compensation for 

attorneys’ fees and other economic 

losses incurred as a result of responding 

to false complaints. 

TSA has legal authority for the 

provision stated in § 1503.801. The 

provision is based on 49 U.S.C. 46101, 

as amended by section 140(b) of the 

Aviation and Transportation Security 

Act, Public Law. 107–71 (ATSA). 

Moreover, § 1503.801(a) through (k) is 

substantively the same as § 1503.5(a) 

through (k) of the preceding regulation. 

If TSA were to conclude that a formal 

complaint consisted of false or baseless 

charges, TSA would dismiss the 

complaint and send written notification 

of the dismissal to the complainant and 

the person(s) named in the complaint. 

Amendment of 49 CFR 1503.629, 

Motions and 49 CFR 1503.659, Petition 

To Reconsider or Modify a Final 

Decision and Order of the TSA Decision 

Maker on Appeal 

Previously, § 1503.629(d) provided 

that parties must reply to motions not 

later than 10 days after service of the 

motion on the party. Similarly, 

§ 1503.659(e) required a party to reply to 

a Petition to Reconsider or Modify a 

Final Decision and Order of the TSA 

Decision Maker on appeal within 10 

days after service of the petition on that 

party. These time periods did not afford 

parties a sufficient time to reply, partly 

because parties often receive mail well 

after the date on which the regulations 

presume service. Moreover, the 10-day 

periods were inconsistent with other 

time periods in the regulation, such as 

§ 1503.609 (30 days to file a Complaint), 

§ 1503.611 (30 days to answer a 

Complaint), and § 1503.657(e) (35 days 

to file a reply brief in an appeal from an 

initial decision by TSA). For these 

reasons, TSA amends §§ 1503.629(d) 

and 1503.659(e) to provide that parties 

will have 30 days from service to reply. 

Correction of Section Reference in 

§ 1503.631(c)(2), Interlocutory Appeals 

In the July 2009 rule, TSA reorganized 

part 1503 and moved § 1503.215 to 

§ 1503.623, Withdrawal of complaint or 

request for hearing. TSA inadvertently 

did not change the section reference in 

§ 1503.631(c)(2) to the appropriate 

section. In this rule, TSA replaces the 

incorrect reference to § 1503.215 with 

the correct reference to § 1503.623. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501. et seq.) requires 

that TSA consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public and, under the provisions of PRA 

section 3507(d), obtain approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for each collection of 

information it conducts, sponsors, or 

requires through regulations. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 58333 

TSA has determined that there are no 

current or new information collection 

requirements associated with this rule. 

Economic Impact Analyses 

Regulatory Evaluation Summary 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), directs each 

Federal agency to propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 

amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA) of 1996) requires agencies to 

analyze the economic impact of 

regulatory changes on small entities. 

Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 

U.S.C. 2531–2533) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. Fourth, 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation). 

Because this rule does not add any 

requirements to those in the July 21, 

2009, final rule, TSA has not performed 

a cost/benefit analysis. 

Executive Order 12866 Assessment 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) provides for making 

determinations as to whether a 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the Order. Executive 

Order 12866 classifies a rule as 

significant if it meets any one of a 

number of specified conditions, 

including economic significance, which 

is defined as having an annual impact 

on the economy of $100 million. A 

regulation is also considered a 

significant regulatory action if it raises 

novel legal or policy issues. 

This regulation is not significant 

under E.O. 12866. This final regulation 

will have no economic impact because 

the regulation makes no substantive 

changes to 49 CFR part 1503. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), requires agencies to perform a 

review to determine whether a proposed 

or final rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities when the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

requires notice and comment 

rulemaking. TSA has not assessed 

whether this rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, as defined in 

the RFA. When an agency publishes a 

rulemaking without prior notice and an 

opportunity for comment, the RFA 

analysis requirements do not apply. 

This rulemaking is a final rule that 

follows a final rule that TSA issued on 

July 21, 2009. Therefore, no RFA 

analysis is provided. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

establishing any standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Legitimate domestic objectives, such as 

safety, are not considered unnecessary 

obstacles. The statute also requires 

consideration of international standards 

and, where appropriate, that they be the 

basis for U.S. standards. TSA has 

assessed the potential effect of this 

rulemaking and has determined that it 

will not create any unnecessary 

obstacles to foreign commerce. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 is intended, among other things, 

to curb the practice of imposing 

unfunded Federal mandates on State, 

local, and tribal governments. Title II of 

the Act requires each Federal agency to 

prepare a written statement assessing 

the effects of any Federal mandate in a 

proposed or final agency rule that may 

result in a $100 million or more 

expenditure (adjusted annually for 

inflation) in any one year by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector; such a mandate 

is deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ 

This rulemaking does not contain 

such a mandate. The requirements of 

Title II of the Act, therefore, do not 

apply and TSA has not prepared a 

statement under the Act. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

TSA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of E.O. 

13132, Federalism. We have determined 

that this action will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, or 

the relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

have determined that this action does 

not have federalism implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

TSA has reviewed this action for 

purposes of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 

4321–4347) and has determined that 

this action will not have a significant 

effect on the human environment. 

Energy Impact Analysis 

The energy impact of the action has 

been assessed in accordance with the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA), Public Law 94–163, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 6362). We have determined 

that this rulemaking is not a major 

regulatory action under the provisions 

of the EPCA. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1503 

Administrative Practice and 

Procedure, Investigations, Law 

enforcement, Penalties, Transportation. 

The Amendments 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Transportation Security 

Administration amends Chapter XII of 

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 

PART 1503—INVESTIGATIVE AND 

ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1503 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 6002; 28 U.S.C. 2461 

(note); 49 U.S.C. 114, 20109, 31105, 40113– 

40114, 40119, 44901–44907, 46101–46107, 

46109–46110, 46301, 46305, 46311, 46313– 

46314; Sec. 1413(i), Public Law 110–53, 121 

Stat. 414 (6 U.S.C. 1142). 

Subpart G—Rules of Practice in TSA 

Civil Penalty Actions 

■ 2. In § 1503.629 revise paragraph (d) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1503.629 Motions. 

* * * * * 

(d) Reply to motions. Any party may 

file a reply, with affidavits or other 

evidence in support of the reply, not 

later than 30 days after service of a 

written motion on that party. When a 

motion is made during a hearing, the 

reply may be made at the hearing on the 

record, orally or in writing, within a 

reasonable time determined by the ALJ. 

At the discretion of the ALJ, the moving 

party may file a response to the reply. 

* * * * * 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
58334 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 1503.631 [Amended] 

■ 3. In § 1503.631(c)(2) remove the 

reference ‘‘§ 1503.215’’ and add in its 

place the reference ‘‘§ 1503.623’’. 

■ 4. In § 1503.659 revise paragraph (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1503.659 Petition to reconsider or modify 

a final decision and order of the TSA 

decision maker on appeal. 

* * * * * 

(e) Reply petitions. Any other party 

may reply to a petition to reconsider or 

modify, not later than 30 days after 

service of the petition on that party, by 

filing a reply with the Enforcement 

Docket Clerk. A party must serve a copy 

of the reply on each party. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on 

September 17, 2010. 

John S. Pistole, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23985 Filed 9–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 970730185–7206–02] 

RIN 0648–XY73 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; ReOpening of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico 

Recreational Red Snapper Season 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; re-opening. 

SUMMARY: NMFS re-opens the 

recreational red snapper component of 

the reef fish fishery in the exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of 

Mexico (Gulf). NMFS previously 

determined the recreational red snapper 

quota would be reached by 12:01 a.m., 

local time, July 24, 2010. However, due 

to the Deepwater Horizon MC252 oil 

spill and the associated large-area 

fishery closure (fishery closed area) in 

the north-central Gulf where a 

substantial portion of the recreational 

red snapper fishing efforts occurs, the 

latest landings estimates indicate the 

quota was not reached by that date. 

Therefore, NMFS will re-open the 

recreational red snapper season, for 

eight consecutive weekends (Friday 

through Sunday), beginning October 1, 

2010. The intent of this action is to 

provide fishermen the opportunity to 

harvest the recreational red snapper 

quota, and the opportunity to achieve 

the optimum yield for the fishery, thus 

enhancing social and economic benefits 

to the fishery. 

DATES: The re-opening is effective each 

weekend, from 12:01 a.m., local time, 

Fridays, through 12:01 a.m., local time, 

Mondays, beginning October 1, 2010, 

until 12:01 a.m., local time, November 

22, 2010. The season will then be closed 

until it reopens on June 1, 2011, the 

beginning of the 2011 recreational 

fishing season. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Branstetter, telephone 727–824– 

5305, fax 727–824–5308, e-mail 

Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf 

reef fish fishery is managed under the 

Fishery Management Plan for the Reef 

Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico 

(FMP). The FMP was prepared by the 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council (Council) and is implemented 

through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). 

On June 2, 2010, NMFS implemented 

a recreational quota for Gulf red snapper 

of 3.403 million lb (1.544 million kg) 

and a commercial quota of 3.542 million 

lb (1.607 million kg) through a 

regulatory amendment (75 FR 23186, 

May 3, 2010). These quotas are based on 

the Councils( recommended total 

allowable catch of 6.945 million lb 

(3.150 million kg) for 2010 and 

subsequent fishing years, and the 

allocation ratios in the FMP. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires 

NMFS to close the recreational red 

snapper component of the Gulf reef fish 

fishery in Federal waters when the 

quota is met or projected to be met. 

Finalized 2009 recreational landings 

data indicated the recreational quota 

was projected to be met on or by July 

23, 2010. Therefore, in the rule that 

published May 3, 2010 (75 FR 23186), 

NMFS announced the recreational red 

snapper fishing season would close at 

12:01 a.m., local time, July 24, 2010, 

which constituted a 53-day fishing 

season. 

Because of the Deepwater Horizon 

MC252 oil spill, NMFS subsequently 

closed a large area in the north-central 

Gulf to fishing (fishery closed area), 

resulting in lower than expected 

landings for recreational red snapper. 

Because the fishery closed area is 

located where a substantial portion of 

the recreational red snapper fishing 

occurs, the Council did not expect the 

recreational red snapper quota to be met 

by July 23rd. Therefore, at its June 2010 

meeting, the Council requested NMFS 

publish emergency rulemaking to 

authorize the RA to re-open the 

recreational red snapper season after 

September 30th, the end of the fishing 

season. A proposed rule was published 

on August 16, 2010 (75 FR 49883) and 

NMFS requested public comment 

through August 31, 2010. NMFS 

published a final rule in the same issue 

of the Federal Register, authorizing the 

RA to re-open the recreational red 

snapper fishing season after September 

30th. 

Based on the most recent landings 

data, NMFS has determined that 32 

percent of the available recreational 

quota was landed by the July 23rd 

closure date. Based on landings rates 

and the remaining recreational quota of 

approximately 2.3 million lb (1.1 

million kg), NMFS has determined the 

recreational red snapper season can reopen. At its August 2010 meeting, the 

Council voted to re-open the season on 

eight consecutive Fridays, Saturdays, 

and Sundays, beginning at 12:01 a.m., 

local time, on October 1, 2010 and 

closing at 12:01 a.m., local time, on 

Monday, November 22, 2010 (24 fishing 

days). In the interim, weekend openings 

would start at 12:01 a.m., local time, on 

Fridays and stay open through 12:01 

a.m., local time, on Mondays. The 

season will then be closed until 12:01 

a.m., local time, June 1, 2011, the 

beginning of the 2011 recreational 

fishing season. 

During the open period, the bag and 

possession limit for recreational Gulf 

red snapper is two fish. However, no red 

snapper may be retained by the captain 

and crew of a vessel operating as a 

charter vessel or headboat. The bag limit 

for such captain and crew is zero. 

During the closed period, the bag and 

possession limit for recreational Gulf 

red snapper is zero. A person aboard a 

vessel for which a Federal charter 

vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish 

has been issued, must also abide by 

these closure provisions in state waters 

if Federal regulations are more 

restrictive than applicable state law. 

Classification 

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Allowing prior 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES