        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0008; 4500030113]
        RIN 1018-AZ34
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sharpnose Shiner and Smalleye Shiner

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on the August 6, 2013, proposed designation of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) and smalleye shiner (N. buccula) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation of critical habitat for sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner and an amended required determinations section of the proposal. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed critical habitat rule, the associated DEA, and the amended required determinations section. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:

          We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before April 3, 2014. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

          ADDRESSES:

            Document availability: You may obtain a copy of the proposed critical habitat rule and the associated draft economic analysis at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0008, or by mail from the Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

            Written Comments: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments on the critical habitat proposal and associated DEA by searching for FWS-R2-ES-2013-0008, which is the docket number for the critical habitat proposed rulemaking.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit comments on the critical habitat proposal and associated DEA by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2013-0008; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

          We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Debra Bills, Field Supervisor, Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office, 2005 NE Green Oaks Blvd., Suite 140, Arlington, Texas 76006, by telephone (817-277-1100), or by facsimile (817-277-1129). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Public Comments

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner that was published in the Federal Register on August 6, 2013 (78 FR 47612), our DEA of the proposed designation, and the amended required determinations provided in this document. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

        (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent.
        (2) Specific information on:

        (a) The distribution of the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner;
        (b) The amount and distribution of sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner habitat; and
        (c) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain features essential for the conservation of the species we should include in the critical habitat designation and why; and
        (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why.
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their probable impacts on proposed critical habitat.
        (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner and proposed critical habitat.
        (5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation; in particular, the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
        (6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the DEA is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts.
        (7) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
        (8) Whether any areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
        (9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
        If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule during the initial comment period from August 6, 2013, to October 7, 2013, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record and will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed as critical habitat are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
        If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0008 or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background
        On August 6, 2013, we published in the Federal Register proposed rules to list the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner as endangered species (78 FR 47582) and designate critical habitat for both species (78 FR 47612). For more information on the species and the species' habitat, refer to the June 2013 Draft Species Status Assessment Report for the Sharpnose Shiner and Smalleye Shiner (SSA Report; Service 2013), available online at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0083 in association with the proposed listing rule. We proposed to designate as critical habitat approximately 1,002 river kilometers (623 river miles) in Baylor, Crosby, Fisher, Garza, Haskell, Kent, King, Knox, Stonewall, Throckmorton, and Young Counties in the upper Brazos River basin of Texas. Those proposals had 60-day comment periods, ending October 7, 2013. We will submit for publication in the Federal Register a final listing determination and critical habitat designation for sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner on or before August 6, 2014.
        Critical Habitat
        Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
        When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.

        When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies.
        We have not considered any areas for exclusion in our proposed critical habitat designation.
        Consideration of Economic Impacts
        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a proposed designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the result of the species being listed under the Act versus those attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this particular species.
        The probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat (e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated). The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs. These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of critical habitat should we choose to conduct an optional section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
        For this particular designation, we developed an Incremental Effects Memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner (IEc 2014, entire). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which the critical habitat designation is unlikely to result in probable incremental economic impacts.
        In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable economic impacts where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of the species. The screening analysis filters out particular areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. The screening analysis also assesses whether units are unoccupied by the species and may require additional management or conservation efforts as a result of the critical habitat designation for the species which may incur incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis combined with the information contained in our IEM are what we consider our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner and is summarized in the narrative below.
        Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and reasonable. We assess, to the extent practicable, the probable impacts, if sufficient data are available, to both directly and indirectly impacted entities. As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner, first we identified, in the IEM dated September 12, 2013, probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following categories of activities: (1) Water management, including flood control and drought protection operations; (2) in-stream projects; (3) transportation activities, including bridge construction; (4) oil and natural gas exploration and development; and (5) utilities projects, including water and sewer lines.
        We considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner are present, Federal agencies will be required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the consultation process. Therefore, disproportionate impacts to any geographic area or sector are not likely as a result of this critical habitat designation.

        In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the effects that will result from the species being listed and those attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., the difference between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the sharpnose and smalleye shiners' critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat for sharpnose shiners and smalleye shiners was proposed concurrently with the listing. In our experience with such simultaneous rulemaking actions, discerning which conservation efforts are attributable to the species being listed and which will result solely from the designation of critical habitat is difficult. However, the following specific circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical and biological features identified for critical habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any actions that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute jeopardy to the sharpnose shiner or smalleye shiner would also likely adversely affect the essential physical and biological features of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this species. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this proposed designation of critical habitat.
        We proposed to designate as critical habitat approximately 1,002 river kilometers (623 river miles) in the upper Brazos River basin of Texas and a 30 meter lateral buffer beyond the bankfull width of the river on both side of the river in the following Texas counties: Baylor, Crosby, Fisher, Garza, Haskell, Kent, King, Knox, Stonewall, Throckmorton, and Young. Only areas currently occupied by the species were proposed for designation as critical habitat. No unoccupied river segments were proposed as critical habitat. The proposed critical habitat encompasses the last areas where potentially viable populations of smalleye and sharpnose shiners remain. All stream segments included in the proposed critical habitat (the stream beds, including the small, seasonally dry, portions of the stream beds between the bankfull width, where vegetation occurs, and the wetted channel) are managed by the State, while to the best of our knowledge all adjacent riparian areas are privately owned.
        The economic cost of implementing the rule through section 7 of the Act will most likely be limited to additional administrative effort to consider adverse modification. Areas proposed for critical habitat designation are remote and experience low levels of economic activity. The human population of all eleven counties containing proposed critical habitat totals only 52,613. Because these areas are so remote, we anticipate low levels of consultation due to the designation of critical habitat. All proposed units are considered occupied. Therefore, any activities with a Federal nexus will be subject to section 7 consultation requirements regardless of critical habitat designation. Further, most proposed actions that would adversely affect the physical or biological features would also likely constitute take of the species. For example, activities that fragment occupied riverine habitat or substantially alter its flow regime to the extent that critical habitat would be adversely affected would also result in the decline of sharpnose and smalleye shiner populations.. The Service anticipates that project modifications recommended to avoid adverse modification will likely be the same as those recommended to avoid jeopardy because the species is so closely dependent on its habitat for the life requisites of the species. Thus, based on the substantial baseline protections afforded the smalleye and sharpnose shiners and the close relationship between adverse modification and jeopardy in occupied habitat, we do not forecast any incremental costs associated with project modifications. When section 7 consultations occur, costs are likely to be limited to the additional administrative effort to consider adverse modification during the consultation process.
        The additional administrative cost of addressing adverse modification during the section 7 consultation process ranges from approximately $410 to $5,000 per consultation, depending upon the type of consultation. Based on a review of the consultation history for the shiners, no more than 2 formal consultations, 28 informal consultations, and 16 technical assistances are expected annually. Thus, the incremental administrative burden resulting from the designation is likely to be less than $84,000 in a given year. The incremental administrative burden resulting from the designation is unlikely to reach $100 million in a given year based on the small number of anticipated consultations and pre-consultation costs.
        Due to data availability limitations, we are unable to assign costs to specific units. Rather, we provide estimates of potential costs across the entire proposed critical habitat designation. We note that, of the 11 counties where critical habitat is located, Young County contains more than one-third of the overall human population. Thus, the amount of economic activity generated in this area may be larger than in the more remote counties. We did identify specific projects in Subunits 1 and 6 that would likely require section 7 consultation, but in both cases the only additional incurred incremental costs would likely be limited to administrative costs.
        In some cases, proposed critical habitat may provide new information to project proponents who otherwise would not have consulted with the Service, thus resulting in incremental economic impacts. We cannot predict where or when these situations may occur, but anticipate that consultations of this nature will be infrequent. The designation of critical habitat is not expected to trigger additional requirements under State or local regulations, nor is the designation expected to have perceptional effects on markets. Additional section 7 efforts to conserve the species are not predicted to result from the designation of critical habitat. Thus, the designation is unlikely to exceed $100 million in a given year.
        As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
        Required Determinations—Amended

        In our August 6, 2013, proposed rule to designate critical habitat (78 FR 47612), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and executive orders until we had evaluated the probable effects on landowners and stakeholders and the resulting probable economic impacts of the designation. Following our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner, we have amended or affirmed our determinations below. Specifically, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). However, based on our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner, we are amending our required determination concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and E.O. 12630.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
        Following recent court decisions, the Service's current understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as amended, is that Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking only on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the Agency is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat. Under these circumstances, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Therefore, it is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. Federal agencies are not small entities, and there is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Therefore, because no small entities are directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
        E.O. 12630 (Takings)
        In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner in a takings implications assessment. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat affects only Federal actions. Although private parties that receive Federal funding or assistance or require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
        The economic analysis found that no significant economic impacts are likely to result from the designation of critical habitat for sharpnose shiners and smalleye shiners. The Act's critical habitat protection requirements apply only to Federal agency actions, few conflicts between critical habitat and private property rights should result from this designation. Based on information contained in the DEA and described within this document, economic impacts to a property owner are unlikely to be of a sufficient magnitude to support a takings action. Therefore, the takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical habitat for sharpnose shiners and smalleye shiners does not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the proposed designation.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office, Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: February 19, 2014.
          Rachel Jacobson,
          Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2014-04465 Filed 3-3-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 041307D]
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Resources; Notice of Limited Access Privilege Program Public Workshop

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notification of public workshop.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS will present a public workshop on the proposed program to implement the Amendment 80 Program (Program) for potentially eligible participants and other interested parties. The Program would implement a limited access privilege program (LAPP) for specific groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). At the workshop, NMFS will provide an overview of the proposed Program, discuss the key proposed Program elements, and answer questions. NMFS is conducting this public workshop to provide assistance to fishery participants in understanding and reviewing this proposed Program.

          DATES:
          The workshop will be held on Wednesday, May 23, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Pacific standard time.

          ADDRESSES:
          The workshop will be held at the Leif Erikson Lodge, 2245 NW 57th Street, Seattle, WA 98119.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or glenn.merrill@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS intends to publish a proposed rule that would implement a LAPP for Amendment 80 to the Fishery Management Plan for BSAI Groundfish (FMP). Among other things, Amendment 80 would allocate specific BSAI groundfish resources among a defined group of harvesters under a LAPP; limit the bycatch of halibut and crab resources; assign Amendment 80 quota share (QS) that could be used to yield an exclusive harvest privilege on an annual basis; allow Amendment 80 QS holders to form a cooperative with other Amendment 80 QS holders on an annual basis to receive an exclusive harvest privilege; implement use caps to limit the amount of Amendment 80 QS a person could hold; limit the total amount of catch in other groundfish fisheries that could be taken by participants in the Program; ensure minimum retention of groundfish while fishing in the BSAI; and establish necessary monitoring and enforcement standards. Amendment 80 was approved by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) on June 9, 2006.
        In addition to other laws, the Program is specifically designed to meet the requirements of:
        • Section 219 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (Public Law 108-447; December 8, 2004), which defined the Amendment 80 sector and implemented a capacity reduction program for several catcher/processor sectors;
        • Section 416 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-241; July 11, 2006), which amended provisions of the Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA); and
        • The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Public Law 109-479, January 12, 2007), which modified provisions related to the CDQ Program and instituted other measures applicable to LAPPs.

        NMFS anticipates that a proposed rule implementing the Program will be published by mid-May. NMFS is conducting this public workshop to provide assistance to fishery participants in understanding and reviewing the proposed requirements. At the workshop, NMFS will provide an overview of the proposed Program, and discuss the key Program elements, including: quota share application; cooperative and limited access participation provisions; cooperative quota transfer provisions; measures to establish sideboard limits to protect non-LAPP fishery participants, the appeals process; catch accounting; monitoring and enforcement; and electronic reporting. Additionally, NMFS will answer questions from workshop participants. For further information on the Program, please visit the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
        Special Accommodations

        This workshop is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations should be directed to Glenn Merrill (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 5 working days before the workshop date.

          Dated: May 11, 2007.
          James P. Burgess
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E7-9530 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 120907427-3403-01]
        RIN 0648-BC51
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Reef Fish Management Measures

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this rule would revise the vermilion snapper recreational bag limit, revise the yellowtail snapper stock annual catch limit (ACL), and remove the requirement for reef fish vessels to have onboard and use a venting tool. This proposed rule is intended to help achieve optimum yield (OY) and prevent overfishing of vermilion and yellowtail snappers, reduce the regulatory burden to fishers associated with venting reef fish, and minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before June 6, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0038”, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0038, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 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 www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 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). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/GrouperSnapperandReefFish.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone 727-824-5305; email: Peter.Hood@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The reef fish fishery of the Gulf is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, OY from federally managed fish stocks. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that management measures shall, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality. The reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended through January 12, 2007, requires the councils to establish ACLs for each stock/stock complex as well as accountability measures (AMs) to ensure that these ACLs are not exceeded. This proposed rule addresses these requirements by: (1) Establishing a 10-vermilion snapper recreational bag limit within the 20-fish aggregate reef fish bag limit; (2) increasing the Gulf yellowtail snapper ACL from 725,000 lb (328,855 kg), round weight, to 901,125 lb (408,743 kg), round weight; and (3) removing the requirement to have onboard and use venting tools when releasing reef fish. All weights discussed in this proposed rule are in round weight.
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule would revise the yellowtail snapper stock ACL, revise the vermilion snapper recreational bag limit, and remove the requirement for a Gulf reef fish vessel to have a venting tool onboard and for it to be used for venting reef fish.
        Vermilion Snapper Recreational Bag Limit
        Vermilion snapper are currently included within the Gulf reef fish aggregate recreational bag limit of 20 fish. The Council's Reef Fish Advisory Panel (RFAP) recommended that the Council take action to constrain the recreational harvest of vermilion snapper because of significant recent increases in recreational landings. In 2011, recreational landings were approximately 1.15 million lb (521,631 kg), compared to 457,000 lb (207,292 kg) in 2010. The Council decided that the vermilion snapper bag limit should be restricted to 10 fish within the overall 20-fish aggregate reef fish bag limit to help constrain vermilion snapper recreational harvest.
        The Council reasoned that while the proposed 10-fish bag limit would not necessarily reduce the current overall recreational harvest of vermilion snapper, it would serve to prevent the recreational harvest from increasing at a rate that could result in the vermilion snapper stock ACL being met before the end of the fishing year. If this occurred, AMs would be triggered that would close the recreational sector for vermilion snapper for the remainder of the fishing year. Additionally, this proposed bag limit is consistent with the vermilion snapper bag limit implemented by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The revised bag limit would help to constrain recreational harvests to minimize the opportunity for ACL to be exceeded by slowing the rate of potential future increases in the recreational harvest.
        Yellowtail Snapper ACL
        In the Gulf, the yellowtail snapper ACL is not allocated between the commercial and recreational sectors but is managed with a single stock ACL. Additionally, because yellowtail snapper in the U.S. comprise a single stock, landings from both the South Atlantic and Gulf regions are combined for stock assessment purposes. The resulting acceptable biological catch (ABC) is allocated among both regions with 75 percent of the ABC assigned to South Atlantic jurisdiction and 25 percent of the ABC to Gulf jurisdiction. Currently, the stock ABC is 2.9 million lb (1.3 million kg), with 725,000 lb (328,855 kg) allocated to the Gulf. This Gulf ABC value is used to determine the Gulf yellowtail snapper stock ACL, where the ACL is equal to the ABC, which was established through the Gulf's Generic ACL/AM Amendment (76 FR 82044, December 29, 2011).
        In 2012, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) conducted a benchmark stock assessment of yellowtail snapper. The assessment was reviewed by the Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) of both the Gulf Council and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The assessment indicated that the yellowtail snapper stock was not overfished or undergoing overfishing. As a result of that stock status and the fact that the yellowtail snapper biomass is greater than what is needed to support harvesting at the maximum sustainable yield, both Councils SSCs determined the yellowtail snapper ABC would be based on equilibrium harvest levels that remain constant and do not fluctuate from year to year. Therefore, the SSCs agreed to set the overall stock ABC at 4.05 million lb (1.94 million kg). Using the 25 percent Gulf allocation of the overall stock ABC, the ABC for the Gulf was determined to be 1.0125 million lb (0.4593 million kg).
        The Council considered three alternatives in setting the Gulf yellowtail snapper ACL. These were: (1) Maintaining the ACL at its current level; (2) setting the ACL equal to the Gulf allocation of the ABC; or (3) applying the Council's ACL control rule to the ABC to account for management uncertainty. The Council decided to apply the ACL control rule which reduced the ACL by 11 percent from the Gulf allocation of the ABC. This resulted in a proposed Gulf stock ACL of 901,125 lb (408,743 kg).
        Venting Tools
        A venting tool is a device intended to deflate the abdominal cavity of a fish in order to release the fish with minimal damage. Currently, Gulf reef fishermen must possess venting tools onboard and use them when releasing reef fish. This measure was implemented through Amendment 27 to the FMP (73 FR 5117, January 29, 2008). The venting tool requirement was implemented to reduce bycatch and discard mortality in the reef fish fishery. However, several recent scientific studies have questioned the usefulness of venting tools in preventing discard mortality in fish, particularly those caught in deep waters. In addition, some fish caught in shallow waters may not need to be vented, and attempts at venting may damage fish by improper venting techniques and increased handling time while the fish are out of the water. Finally, the current requirement to use a venting tool may prevent fishermen from using other devices such as fish descenders, which are devices that take the fish back to depth without puncturing them. Because of these factors, the Council voted to remove the venting tool requirement for the Gulf reef fishery. This would provide fishermen with more discretion when they release reef fish but does not prohibit the use of venting tools or other release devices by fishers.
        Additional Management Measure Contained in the Framework Action
        Vermilion snapper are not allocated between the commercial and recreational sectors in the Gulf and are managed with a single stock ACL. The current ACL for the Gulf vermilion snapper stock is 3.42 million lb (1.55 million kg) and was set through the the Gulf's Generic ACL/AM Amendment (76 FR 82044, December 29, 2011). This ACL was established based on 1999-2008 landings data and was adjusted to account for scientific and management uncertainty per the Council's ABC and ACL control rules developed in the Generic ACL/AM Amendment.

        In 2011, a vermilion snapper update stock assessment was performed through the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process (SEDAR Update 2011c). This assessment used data up through 2010. The assessment indicated that the stock was not overfished nor undergoing overfishing. Based on the SEDAR update assessment, the Council's SSC recommended that the vermilion snapper stock ABC be set at 4.41 million lb (2.00 million kg) in 2013, 4.34 million lb (1.97 million kg) in 2014, and 4.33 million lb (1.96 million kg) in 2015, 2016, and subsequent years.
        The Council reviewed several alternatives for setting the Gulf vermilion snapper stock ACL that ranged from maintaining it at the current 3.42 million lb (1.55 million kg) to setting it equal to the ABC. The RFAP and public testimony from vermilion snapper fishermen to the Council indicated that the stock condition appeared to be declining in recent years. Given this information, and considering that the last year of data used in the update assessment was 2010, the Council recommended, as a precaution, not to increase the vermilion snapper stock ACL at this time. Therefore the vermilion snapper stock ACL will remain at 3.42 million lb (1.55 million kg).
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed 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 (SBA) that this rule, if implemented, would not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:
        The purposes of this rule are: (1) To adjust the ACL for the yellowtail snapper stock consistent with the ABC recommendations of the SSC; (2) set the vermilion snapper recreational bag limit at a level that minimizes the risk of overfishing by the recreational sector; and (3) modify the regulations requiring possession and use of venting tools by the reef fish fishery to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality. The framework action also considered adjusting the ACL for vermilion snapper; however, the Council voted to retain the current ACL for this species. The need for the proposed actions is to prevent overfishing while achieving the OY of vermilion and yellowtail snapper on a continuing basis and to the extent practicable, and to minimize bycatch and the mortality of released fish in the reef fish fishery. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the proposed action.
        No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.
        The rule would apply directly to businesses in the Finfish Fishing Industry (NAICS 114111) that harvest vermilion snapper and yellowtail snapper in Gulf Federal waters. As of November 2012, there were 814 individuals with a Gulf of Mexico Commercial Reef Fish Permit. These 814 individuals are presumed to represent 814 businesses in the Finfish Fishing Industry that would be affected by this rule. According to SBA Size Standards, a business in the Finfish Fishing Industry is a small business if its annual receipts are less than $4 million. NMFS presumes for this rule that a substantial number of the 814 businesses are small businesses.
        This rule would not establish any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The preferred alternative (the no action alternative) for the action to revise the vermilion snapper stock ACL would maintain the vermilion snapper ACL at its current value; therefore, this action would have no beneficial or adverse economic impact beyond the status quo. The preferred alternative for the action to revise the vermilion snapper recreational bag limit would reduce the number of vermilion snapper that recreational fishermen can land within the daily aggregate reef fish recreational bag limit, so it would have no direct impact on commercial fishing businesses. The preferred alternative for the action to revise the yellowtail snapper stock ACL would increase the yellowtail snapper stock ACL from 725,000 lb (328,855 kg) to 901,125 lb (408,743 kg), an increase of 176,125 lb (79,889 kg, which would allow for increased landings of and revenues from yellowtail snapper. The preferred alternative for the reef fish venting tool requirement action would remove the need to have a venting tool onboard and to be used when releasing reef fish. This would then eliminate the time and cost of acquiring, learning how to use, and using a venting tool. Consequently, the combined proposed actions would not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses because they are expected to generate a net economic benefit to small businesses.
        The alternatives the Council did not select for the action to revise the vermilion snapper stock ACL would increase the ACL for vermilion snapper, which would generate larger short-term economic benefits, but likely smaller long-term economic benefits than the preferred alternative.
        One considered but rejected alternative for the action to revise the yellowtail snapper stock ACL would allow for smaller increases in yellowtail snapper landings, and therefore, would generate smaller potential net economic benefits than the preferred alternative. Another considered but rejected alternative would have allowed for larger increases in yellowtail snapper landings, and would have generated larger potential net economic benefits in the short-run; however, it could have smaller net economic benefits in the long-run.
        Lastly, the considered but rejected alternatives for the reef fish venting tool requirements, would retain all or part of the economic costs of complying with the current venting requirement, and therefore would have less economic benefit than the preferred alternative.
        This rule would not be expected to significantly reduce the profits of any small entities. Because this rule, if implemented, is not expected to have significant economic impact on any small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Incorporation by reference, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.

          Dated: April 30, 2013.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 622.30, paragraph (c) is removed and the introductory paragraph is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.30
          Required fishing gear.
          For a person on board a vessel to fish for Gulf reef fish in the Gulf EEZ, the vessel must possess on board and such person must use the gear as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

        3. In § 622.38, paragraph (b)(5) is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.38
          Bag and possession limits.

          (b) * * *
          (5) Gulf reef fish, combined, excluding those specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) and paragraphs (b)(6) through (b)(7) of this section—20. In addition, within the 20-fish aggregate reef fish bag limit, no more than 2 fish may be gray triggerfish and no more than 10 fish may be vermilion snapper.

        4. In § 622.41, the second sentence of paragraph (n) is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.41
          Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

          (n) * * * The stock ACL for yellowtail snapper is 901,125 lb (408,743 kg), round weight.

      [FR Doc. 2013-10699 Filed 5-6-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 170816768-7768-01]
        RIN 0648-BH14
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Modifications to Greater Amberjack Allowable Harvest and Rebuilding Plan

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this proposed rule would revise the commercial and recreational annual catch limits (ACLs) and annual catch targets (ACTs), and modify the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic zone. The purpose of this proposed rule and the framework action is to adjust the rebuilding time period, to revise the sector ACLs and ACTs, and to incorporate updated stock status information to end overfishing and rebuild the greater amberjack stock in the Gulf.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before December 5, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0116” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0116, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Kelli O'Donnell, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 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 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).
          Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at

            http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/2017/GAJ_Framework/gaj_framework.pdf.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Kelli O'Donnell, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: Kelli.ODonnell@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes greater amberjack, is managed under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Steven Act) through regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
        Background
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and to achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation.
        The greater amberjack resource in the Gulf was declared overfished by NMFS on February 9, 2001. Secretarial Amendment 2 established a greater amberjack rebuilding plan which started in 2003 and ended in 2012 (68 FR 39898; July 3, 2003). In 2006, a Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) benchmark stock assessment (SEDAR 9) was completed for greater amberjack and was subsequently updated in 2010 (SEDAR 9 Update). In response to results from SEDAR 9 that showed the stock continued to be overfished and undergoing overfishing, the rebuilding plan was revised in Amendment 30A to the FMP (73 FR 38139; July 3, 2008). Results from the SEDAR 9 Update showed the stock continued to be overfished and undergoing overfishing, thereby necessitating further adjustment of the greater amberjack rebuilding plan, implemented in Amendment 35 to the FMP (77 FR 67574; December 13, 2012). However, after the time period for rebuilding the stock that was put in effect through the final rule for Secretarial Amendment 2 ended in 2012, NMFS determined in a 2014 stock assessment (SEDAR 33) that the stock was not rebuilt, and remained overfished and was undergoing overfishing. In response to the results of SEDAR 33, the rebuilding plan was revised and the catch levels were reduced in a 2015 framework action (80 FR 75432; December 2, 2015). The current rebuilding time period, established by the 2015 framework action, ends in 2019.
        A 2016 update to SEDAR 33 (SEDAR 33 Update) indicated the Gulf greater amberjack stock remained overfished and was undergoing overfishing, and would not rebuild by 2019, as previously estimated. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed this assessment at their March 2017 meeting and provided the Council new overfishing limits (OFL) and acceptable biological catches (ABC) for a period of 3 years beginning in 2018. The ABCs recommended by the Council's SSC are: 1,182,000 lb (536,146 kg) for 2018; 1,489,000 lb (675,399 kg) for 2019; and 1,794,000 lb (813,744 kg) for 2020. All weights described in this proposed rule are in pounds round weight. Constraining catch to the ABC (equivalent to 75 percent of the maximum fishing mortality threshold) is expected to end overfishing and rebuild the stock by 2027.
        In May 2017, pursuant to paragraph (7) of section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)), NMFS notified the Council of the 2016 SEDAR 33 Update results that indicated that the greater amberjack stock continued to be overfished and undergoing overfishing. Following that notification, the Council was required under section 304(e)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prepare regulations within 2 years to end overfishing immediately and rebuild the greater amberjack stock.

        The Council decided to set the stock ACL equal to the SSC's ABC recommendation for 2018 through 2020, keeping the stock ACL for 2020 in effect for subsequent years unless changed. The Council did not consider any change to the allocation of the stock ACL, which is 72 percent to the recreational sector and 27 percent to the commercial sector. To account for management uncertainty, the Council applied the ACL/ACT control rule from the Generic Annual Catch Limits/Accountability Measures Amendment (76 FR 82044; December 29, 2011)(using landings from 2013 through 2016) and established a 13 percent buffer between the commercial ACL and ACT and a 17 percent buffer between the recreational ACL and ACT. The revised sector ACLs and ACTs are expected to rebuild the stock by 2027. The Council also considered alternatives that would have set the stock ACL equal to the lowest ABC recommended by the SSC (constant catch ACL), rebuilding the stock by 2024, or set the stock ACL at zero, rebuilding the stock by 2022. However, because the constant catch ACL and zero ACL alternatives would have greater negative socio-economic impacts on fishing communities for relatively minor biological benefits, the Council determined that the 10-year rebuilding time period that ends in 2027 was as short as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the stock and the needs of the associated fishing communities.
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule would revise the commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs (which are expressed as quotas in the regulatory text), and would revise the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack in the Gulf.
        Commercial and Recreational ACLs and ACTs
        The current commercial ACL is 464,400 lb (210,648 kg) and the commercial ACT is 394,740 lb (179,051 kg). The current recreational ACL is 1,255,600 lb (569,530 kg) and the recreational ACT is 1,092,372 lb (495,492 kg).
        This proposed rule would revise the commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs for Gulf greater amberjack based on the results of the SEDAR 33 Update and the ABC recommendations from the Council's SSC. This proposed rule would set the commercial ACL at 319,140 lb (144,759 kg) for 2018, 402,030 lb (182,357 kg) for 2019, and 484,380 lb (219,711 kg) for 2020 and subsequent years. The commercial ACT would be set at 277,651 lb (125,940 kg) for 2018, 349,766 lb (158,651 kg) for 2019, and 421,411 lb (191,148 kg) for 2020 and subsequent years. The recreational ACL would be set at 862,860 lb (391,386 kg) for 2018, 1,086,970 lb (493,041 kg) for 2019, and 1,309,620 lb (594,033 kg) for 2020 and subsequent years. The recreational ACT would be set at 716,173 lb (354,850 kg) for 2018, 902,185 lb (409,223 kg) for 2019, and 1,086,985 lb (493,047 kg) for 2020 and subsequent years.
        Recreational Fixed Closed Season
        This proposed rule would revise the greater amberjack recreational fixed closed season from June 1 through July 31, which was established in the final rule for Amendment 35 to the FMP (77 FR 67574; November 13, 2012). This closed season was implemented to restrict harvest during times of peak fishing effort in order to prevent a recreational in-season quota closure, and thus effectively provide a longer fishing season for the recreational sector. The June 1 through July 31 greater amberjack recreational fixed closed season also was intended to allow for the harvest of one highly targeted species (red snapper) when the fishing season for the other species (greater amberjack) was closed. However, in-season closures of the greater amberjack have continued to occur, and the reduction of the recreational red snapper season, which opens on June 1 each year, has resulted in closures for both of these species simultaneously. This proposed rule would change the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack to January 1 through June 30. The Council determined that extending the length of the recreational fixed closed season to the six-month period of January 1 through June 30 would protect greater amberjack during peak spawning in the majority of the Gulf (March through April), thereby contributing to rebuilding the greater amberjack stock. The Council also determined that this proposed 6-month fixed closed season would reduce the likelihood that the recreational sector would exceed its ACL. The Council intended this new 6-month fixed closed season to be a temporary measure to give the Council time to develop and complete a subsequent framework action that would allow a spring and fall recreational fishing season. At the October 2017 meeting, the Council approved a subsequent framework action that would modify the 6-month fixed closed season to create two separate fishing seasons: a spring season open from May 1 through May 31, and a fall season open from August 1 through October 31.
        Actions Contained in the Framework Action Not Codified Through This Proposed Rule
        In addition to the measures proposed in this rule, the framework action would revise the greater amberjack ABC and OFL based upon the results of the SEDAR 33 Update and the Council's SSC recommendations. The current greater amberjack ABC is 1,720,000 lb (780,179 kg), and the current OFL is 3,420,000 lb (1,551,286 kg), which were established in the final rule implementing the 2015 framework action (80 FR 75432; December 2, 2015). This framework action would revise the ABC and OFL for 3 years, beginning in 2018. The ABC, which is equal to the stock ACL, would be set at 1,182,000 lb (536,146 kg) for 2018, 1,489,000 lb (675,399 kg) for 2019, and 1,794,000 lb (813,744 kg) for 2020 and subsequent years. The OFL would be set at 1,500,000 lb (680,388 kg) for 2018; 1,836,000 lb (832,795 kg) for 2019; and 2,167,000 lb (982,934 kg) for 2020 and subsequent years.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed 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 (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination follows.

        A description of the proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and legal basis for this proposed rule are contained in the preamble of this rule at the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section and in the SUMMARY section. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this proposed rule. Accordingly, the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act do not apply to this proposed rule.

        This proposed rule, if implemented, would be expected to directly affect all federally permitted commercial reef fish vessels that harvest Gulf greater amberjack under the FMP. Changing recreational ACLs and ACTs and modifying the fixed seasonal closure in this proposed rule would not directly affect charter vessel and headboat (for-hire) businesses. Any impact to the profitability or competitiveness of for-hire fishing businesses would be the result of changes in for-hire angler demand and, therefore, would be indirect in nature. The RFA does not consider recreational anglers, who would be directly affected by this proposed rule, to be small entities, so they are outside the scope of this analysis. Thus, only the effects on commercial vessels were analyzed. For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
        As of October 2, 2017, there were 841 vessels with valid or renewable Federal Gulf reef fish commercial vessel permits. From 2010 through 2015, an average of 185 federally permitted commercial reef fish vessels per year landed greater amberjack in the Gulf (Federal and state waters). These vessels, combined, averaged 522 trips per year in the Gulf on which greater amberjack were landed, and 2,935 other trips in the Gulf on which no greater amberjack were landed or trips that occurred in the South Atlantic. The average annual total dockside revenue (2015 dollars) was approximately $0.54 million from greater amberjack, approximately $4.44 million from other species co-harvested with greater amberjack (on the same trips), and approximately $26.75 million from other trips by these vessels in the Gulf on which no greater amberjack were harvested or on trips that occurred in the South Atlantic. Total average annual revenue from all species harvested by vessels harvesting greater amberjack in the Gulf was approximately $31.74 million, or approximately $171,971 per vessel. These vessels generated approximately 1.7 percent of their total fishing revenues from greater amberjack. Based on the foregoing revenue information, all commercial vessels affected by the proposed rule are assumed to be small entities.
        Because all entities expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are assumed to be small entities, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities; however, the issue of disproportionate effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.
        Modifying the greater amberjack ACLs and ACTs starting in 2018 is projected to rebuild the stock by 2027. The revisions to the sector ACLs and ACTs would result in total ex-vessel revenue reductions of approximately $161,000 in 2018 and $62,000 in 2019. Beginning in 2020, total ex-vessel revenues would increase annually by approximately $36,000. Over the entire rebuilding period (2018-2027), total ex-vessel revenues would increase by approximately $70,000 for all vessels combined, or $378 per vessel. It is possible that some vessels may experience profit reductions, particularly in the first two years of the rebuilding period, but on average, the profit reductions would be relatively small because ex-vessel revenues from greater amberjack account for only 1.7 percent of total ex-vessel revenues for an average vessel. More economic benefits, such as higher ex-vessel revenues, may be expected after the stock is rebuilt in 2027 when less stringent measures, such as higher ACLs/ACTs, could be established.
        The information provided above supports a determination that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because this proposed rule, if implemented, is not expected to have a significant economic impact on any small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Greater amberjack, Gulf, Recreational, Reef fish.

          Dated: November 14, 2017.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 622.34, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

          § 622.34
          Seasonal and area closures designed to protect Gulf reef fish.

          (c) Seasonal closure of the recreational sector for greater amberjack. The recreational sector for greater amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ is closed from January 1 through June 30, each year. During the closure, the bag and possession limit for greater amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ is zero.

        3. In § 622.39, revise paragraphs (a)(1)(v) and (a)(2)(ii) to read as follows:

          § 622.39
          Quotas.

          (a) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (v) Greater amberjack—(A) For fishing year 2018—277,651 lb (125,940.38 kg), round weight.
          (B) For fishing year 2019—349,766 lb (158,651 kg), round weight.
          (C) For fishing year 2020 and subsequent years—421,411 lb (191,149 kg), round weight.

          (2) * * *
          (ii) Recreational quota for greater amberjack. The recreational quota for greater amberjack, in round weight, is 716,173 lb (324,851 kg), for 2018, 902,185 lb (409,224 kg), for 2019, 1,086,985 lb (493,048 kg), for 2020 and subsequent fishing years.

        4. In § 622.41, revise paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(2)(iii) to read as follows:

          § 622.41
          Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).
          (a) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (iii) The commercial ACL for greater amberjack, in round weight, is 319,140 lb (144,759 kg), for 2018, 402,030 lb (182,358 kg), for 2019, and 484,380 lb (219,711 kg), for 2020 and subsequent fishing years.
          (2) * * *

          (iii) The recreational ACL for greater amberjack, in round weight, is 862,860 lb (391,387 kg), for 2018, 1,086,970 lb (493,041 kg), for 2019, and 1,309,620 lb (594,034 kg), for 2020 and subsequent fishing years.

      [FR Doc. 2017-25050 Filed 11-17-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P