        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 155
        [USCG-2017-0894]
        2016 National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          This notice announces proposed changes to the 2016 PREP Guidelines and solicits public comment to the proposed changes. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is publishing this notice on behalf of the Preparedness for Response Exercise Program Compliance, Coordination, and Consistency Committee (PREP 4C). The PREP 4C includes representatives from the USCG under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) under the Department of Transportation (DOT); and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) under the Department of the Interior (DOI).

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must reach the USCG by January 22, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          To view the proposed revisions to the 2016 PREP Guidelines, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type “USCG-2017-0894” and click “Search.” Then click “Open Docket Folder.”

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For USCG: Mr. Jonathan Smith, Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy, 202-372-2675.

            For EPA: Mr. Troy Swackhammer, Office of Emergency Management, Regulations Implementation Division, 202-564-1966.

            For BSEE/DOI: Mr. John Caplis, Oil Spill Preparedness Division, 703-787-1364.

            For PHMSA/DOT: Mr. Eddie Murphy, Office of Pipeline Safety, 202-366-4595.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I.  Public Participation and Request for Comments

        We encourage the public to participate in revising the 2016 PREP Guidelines by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information provided.

          Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the docket number (USCG-2017-0894), indicate the specific section of the revised 2016 PREP Guidelines to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and mailing address, and an email address or phone number in the body of your document so that we may contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
        To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type “USCG-2017-0894” in the search box, and click “Search.” Then click “Comment Now!” on the appropriate line. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the DHS Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

          Viewing comments and documents: To view comments as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type “USCG-2017-0894” and click “Search.” Then click the “Open Docket Folder.”

          Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic material submitted into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act and system of records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
        I. Abbreviations

          BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
          CFR Code of Federal Regulations
          DOI Department of the Interior
          DOT Department of Transportation
          EPA Environmental Protection Agency
          FR Federal Register
          IMT Incident Management Team
          PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
          PREP Preparedness for Response Exercise Program
          PREP 4C PREP Compliance, Coordination, and Consistency Committee
          QI Qualified Individual
          RAC Remote Assessment and Consultation

        II. Background

        The Preparedness for Response Exercise Program Compliance, Coordination, and Consistency Committee (PREP 4C) published the 2016 PREP Guidelines on April 11, 2016 (81 FR 21362). We are publishing this notice to seek public comments pertaining to proposed revisions to the 2016 PREP Guidelines. These proposed revisions constitute the first change to the 2016 PREP Guidelines that will hereinafter be referred to and published as the “2016.1 PREP Guidelines.” We will consider only those comments directly pertaining to the proposed revisions. These revisions are detailed in a new “Record of Changes” that has been incorporated into the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines. The 2016.1 PREP Guidelines are available for review in docket USCG-2017-0894, as described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

        The Coast Guard is preparing a regulatory analysis of the potential deregulatory savings that may result from the revisions proposed in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines. We will publish a Federal Register notice when the regulatory analysis is uploaded to the public docket and we will establish an additional 30-day public comment period for comments on the regulatory analysis. During the additional 30-day comment period for the regulatory analysis, the Coast Guard will also accept comments that directly pertain to the revisions proposed in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines.
        III. Summary of Changes
        A “Record of Changes” has been added to the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines. This log is a comprehensive listing of the specific revisions proposed by PREP 4C. Revisions in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines affect the USCG, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exercises only. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) sections are unaffected by the revisions proposed in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines.
        USCG-Specific Revisions
        One of the significant revisions is to the Remote Assessment and Consultation (RAC) drill frequency. The existing frequency will be decreased from one drill per vessel per year, to one drill per Plan Holder per triennial cycle. Additional revisions include allowing RAC drills to be combined with Qualified Individual (QI) drills, and adding language that states QI and Salvage and Marine Fire Fighter providers must be contacted as specified in the approved Vessel Response Plan.
        BSEE-Specific Revisions
        Language was added to BSEE Section 6.2 for Incident Management Team (IMT) Exercises for Offshore Facilities. The “Participating Elements” part of that section now includes information clarifying that the incident commander, as well as the command and general staffs, at a minimum, should be exercised during an IMT functional exercise. The “Participating Elements” part now also requires that source control positions participate when source control objectives are being exercised, and encourages operators to request BSEE participation for the role of a Source Control Support Coordinator when appropriate.

        “Objectives” also has new language that clarifies expectations regarding the involvement of IMT members in the exercise design process. The BSEE acknowledges that there is sometimes a need to involve key members of the IMT in the selection of objectives, plan components, and issues that will be tested during an exercise. The BSEE also believes that it is important that IMT members who will be participating as players in the exercise, including the incident commander, do not have knowledge of the exercise scenario script prior to the start of the exercise. This provision will ensure that all the required IMT positions can be properly exercised and evaluated to test their overall preparedness.
        EPA-Specific Revisions
        Language was removed from Section 2.3.7.2.3, which addresses “Unannounced Exercises for Non-Transportation-Related Facilities Regulated by the EPA.” Section 2.3.7.2.3 had indicated that alternative response times may be approved by the EPA Regional Administrator; however, there is no supporting regulatory language in 40 CFR part 112 that specifically provides for this allowance. This change removes the language regarding alternate response times being approved by the Regional Administrator, and aligns the PREP Guidelines with the existing regulatory language in 40 CFR part 112.
        This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

          Dated: December 19, 2017.
          Joseph B. Loring,
          Captain, Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy.

      [FR Doc. 2017-27602 Filed 12-21-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 222
        RIN 0648-XA016
        2011 Annual Determination for Sea Turtle Observer Requirement

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

          ACTION:
          Notification of annual determination.

          SUMMARY:

          The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is providing notification that the agency will not identify additional fisheries to observe on the Annual Determination (AD) for 2011, pursuant to its authority under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Through an AD, NMFS identifies fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Ocean that will be required to take observers upon NMFS' request. The purpose of observing identified fisheries is to learn more about sea turtle interactions in a given fishery, evaluate existing measures to prevent or reduce prohibited sea turtle takes, and to determine whether additional measures to implement the prohibition against sea turtle takes may be necessary. Fisheries identified in the 2010 AD (see Table 1) remain on the AD and are therefore required to carry observers upon NMFS' request, until 2014.

          ADDRESSES:

            See
            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for a listing of all Regional Offices.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Kristy Long, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322; Ellen Keane, Northeast Region, 978-282-8476; Dennis Klemm, Southeast Region, 727-824-5312; Elizabeth Petras, Southwest Region, 562-980-3238; Kim Maison, Pacific Islands Region, 808-944-2257. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the hearing impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Availability of Published Materials

        Information regarding the Sea Turtle Observer Requirement for Fisheries (72 FR 43176, August 3, 2007) may be obtained at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/regulations.htm or from any NMFS Regional Office at the addresses listed below:
        NMFS, Northeast Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298;
        NMFS, Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701;
        NMFS, Southwest Region, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; or
        NMFS, Pacific Islands Region, Protected Resources, 1601 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1100, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.
        Purpose of the Sea Turtle Observer Requirement
        Under the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., NMFS has the responsibility to implement programs to conserve marine life listed as endangered or threatened. All sea turtles found in U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA. Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) sea turtles are listed as endangered. Loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding colony populations of green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico and breeding colony populations of olive ridleys on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which are listed as endangered. Due to the inability to distinguish between populations of green and olive ridley turtles away from the nesting beach, NMFS considers these turtles endangered wherever they occur in U.S. waters. While some sea turtle populations have shown signs of recovery, many populations continue to decline.
        Incidental take, or bycatch, in fishing gear is one of the main sources of sea turtle injury and mortality nationwide. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take (including harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting or attempting to engage in any such conduct), including incidental take, of endangered sea turtles. Pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA, NMFS has issued regulations extending the prohibition of take, with exceptions, to threatened sea turtles (50 CFR 223.205 and 223.206). Sections 9 and 11 of the ESA authorize the issuance of regulations to enforce the take prohibitions. NMFS may grant exceptions to the take prohibitions with an incidental take statement or an incidental take permit issued pursuant to ESA section 7 or 10, respectively. To do so, NMFS must determine that the activity that will result in incidental take is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the affected listed species. For some Federal fisheries and most state fisheries, NMFS has not granted an exception primarily because we lack information about fishery-sea turtle interactions.
        The most effective way for NMFS to learn more about sea turtle-fishery interactions in order to prevent or minimize take is to place observers aboard fishing vessels. In 2007, NMFS issued a regulation (50 CFR 222.402) to establish procedures through which each year NMFS will identify, pursuant to specified criteria and after notice and opportunity for comment, those fisheries in which the agency intends to place observers (72 FR 43176, August 3, 2007). These regulations specify that NMFS may place observers on U.S. fishing vessels, either recreational or commercial, operating in U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ), or on the high seas, or on vessels that are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Failure to comply with the requirements under this rule may result in civil or criminal penalties under the ESA.
        NMFS and/or interested cooperating entities will pay the direct costs for vessels to carry observers. These include observer salary and insurance costs. NMFS may also evaluate other potential direct costs, should they arise. Once selected, a fishery will be eligible to be observed for five years without further action by NMFS. This will enable NMFS to develop an appropriate sampling protocol to investigate whether, how, when, where, and under what conditions incidental takes are occurring; to evaluate whether existing measures are minimizing or preventing takes; and to determine whether additional measures are needed to implement ESA take prohibitions and conserve turtles.
        2011 Annual Determination

        NMFS is providing notification that the agency will not identify additional fisheries to observe for the 2011 AD, pursuant to its authority under the ESA. NMFS is not identifying additional fisheries at this time given lack of resources to implement new or expand existing observer programs to focus on sea turtles (50 CFR 222.402(a)(4)). Fisheries identified in the 2010 AD (see Table 1) remain on the AD and are therefore required to carry observers, upon NMFS' request, until 2014.

          Table 1—State and Federal Commercial Fisheries Included on the Annual Determination

            Fishery
            Years eligible to carry observers

              Trawl Fisheries

            Atlantic shellfish bottom trawl
            2010-2014

            Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl
            2010-2014

            Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl (including pair trawl)
            2010-2014

            Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl
            2010-2014

              Gillnet Fisheries

            CA halibut, white seabass and other species set gillnet (>3.5 in. mesh)
            2010-2014

            CA yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet (mesh size >3.5 in. and <14 in.)
            2010-2014

            Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet
            2010-2014

            Long Island inshore gillnet
            2010-2014

            Mid-Atlantic gillnet
            2010-2014

            North Carolina inshore gillnet
            2010-2014

            Northeast sink gillnet
            2010-2014

            Southeast Atlantic gillnet
            2010-2014

              Trap/Pot Fisheries

            Atlantic blue crab trap/pot
            2010-2014

            Atlantic mixed species trap/pot
            2010-2014

            Northeast/mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot
            2010-2014

              Pound Net/Weir/Seine Fisheries

            Mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine
            2010-2014

            Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine
            2010-2014

            U.S. mid-Atlantic mixed species stop seine/weir/pound net (except the NC roe mullet stop net)
            2010-2014

            Virginia pound net
            2010-2014

          Dated: December 17, 2010.
          Helen M. Golde,
          Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2010-32341 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
        42 CFR Part 447
        [CMS-2328-NC]
        Medicaid Program; Request for Information (RFI)—Data Metrics and Alternative Processes for Access to Care in the Medicaid Program

          AGENCY:
          Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

          ACTION:
          Request for information.

          SUMMARY:
          In this request for information (RFI), we seek public input to inform the potential development of standards with regard to Medicaid beneficiaries' access to covered services under the Medicaid program. Specifically, we are interested in obtaining information on core access to care measures and metrics that could be used to measure access to care for beneficiaries in the Medicaid program (including in fee-for-service and managed care delivery systems) and used to develop local, state and national thresholds and goals to inform and improve access in the program. We are also interested in feedback on approaches to using the metrics, which could include setting access goals and thresholds and formal processes for beneficiaries to raise access concerns.

          DATES:

            Comment Date: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on January 4, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          In commenting, refer to file code CMS-2328-NC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
          You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
          1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the “Submit a comment” instructions.
          2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address only: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-2328-NC, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD 21244-8016.
          Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
          3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address only: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-2328-NC, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
          4. By hand or courier. Alternatively, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments ONLY to the following addresses:
          a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
          (Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
          b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
          If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
          Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.

          For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jeremy Silanskis, (410) 786-1592.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that Web site to view public comments.
        Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
        I. Background
        CMS and states have the responsibility under section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) to assure that Medicaid payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the state plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area. We interpret this provision to mean rates and payments for Medicaid services are set at levels that ensure value, quality and provider participation. In the past, our oversight of this provision has primarily focused on ensuring that payment methodologies are economic and efficient, as well as consistent with upper payment limits for certain services. During the recent economic downturn, and in light of state proposals to dramatically reduce provider payments, we began requesting that states provide information to document that services are available and access remains after payment reductions go into effect. We found that state processes for documenting access were generally inconsistent and in many cases did not adequately document access.
        To address this, on May 6, 2011, we published the proposed rule entitled “Medicaid Program; Methods for Assuring Access to Covered Medicaid Services” (hereafter referred to as the “Access to Care” proposed rule) (76 FR 26342). In that rule, we proposed a specific process through which states would document that their payment rates provide access to care. The proposed rule, which applies to services that states cover through the Medicaid state plan, is being finalized with comment period concurrent with the issuance of this request for information (RFI). Among other new processes, the rule requires states describe access monitoring review plans that address: The extent to which enrollee needs are fully met, the availability of care and qualified service providers, changes in service utilization and comparisons between Medicaid payments and payments made by other health payers for equivalent services. At a minimum, the access monitoring review plans apply to the following service categories: Primary care (including pediatric care), physician specialists, behavioral health (including substance use disorder services), pre- and post-natal obstetric services, and home health. If states reduce or restructure payments, or receive complaints about access to care for other services, they must add those services to the review plans and monitor access to those services over the ensuing 3 years. States, with public input from stakeholders, would determine measures and thresholds used to monitor access as the final rule does not require a core set of measures or describe national thresholds for Medicaid access to care.

        We also recently proposed changes that promote access to care for beneficiaries who receive services through Medicaid managed care. On June 1, 2015, we issued a proposed rule entitled “Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Programs; Medicaid Managed Care, CHIP Delivered in Managed Care, Medicaid and CHIP Comprehensive Quality Strategies, and Revisions Related to Third Party Liability (80 FR 31098), which proposed to modernize Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) managed care regulations to update the programs' rules and strengthen the delivery of quality care for beneficiaries. In that rule, we proposed: Minimum requirements for states when setting and monitoring network adequacy standards, certification of managed care plan networks at least on an annual basis, and annual reporting on the accessibility and availability of services. Similar to the “Access to Care” final rule with comment period that appears elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the managed care proposed rule proposes to allow states the discretion to set the standards and measures for network adequacy and does not propose to require specific measures or thresholds for access to care. The access requirements for managed care plans are not directly governed by section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Act, but instead are governed by access requirements under sections 1903(m) and 1932 of the Act. The proposed managed care rule, however, would apply the same principles in determining access in the managed care environment as are contained in the fee-for-service environment.
        We believe that, to the extent there are similarities in the methods and measures used to review and analyze network adequacy for managed care networks and access to care in fee-for-service, aligning such methods and measures would ease the administrative burden on states and ensure that all Medicaid beneficiaries receive the care that they need regardless of whether they are in fee-for-service, are enrolled with a managed care organization, or receive services through a Medicaid waiver program. We are undertaking this effort to review access to care across the entire program for all individuals enrolled in Medicaid regardless of the delivery system mechanism.

        Importantly, earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378 (2015) that Medicaid providers and beneficiaries do not have a private right of action to challenge state-determined Medicaid payment rates in federal courts, placing greater importance on CMS review to ensure that such rates are “consistent with efficiency, economy and quality of care” and ensure sufficient beneficiary access to care under the program. The Court concluded that federal administrative agencies are better suited than federal courts to make these determinations. Options for Medicaid providers and beneficiaries to pursue Medicaid rate-related issues in federal courts are now limited. As we note in the final rule with comment period, we are therefore working to strengthen the framework for CMS review to ensure that rates meet the requirements of section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Act, including requiring access improvement strategies to improve care delivery where there are shortcomings. In this request for information, we are asking for public input on what additional data sources and approaches could be used to determine whether access to care is sufficient.

        We recognize that many factors affect access to Medicaid services, including: Level of payment, geographic location, time and distance to the closest provider, workforce, numbers of specialists and other types of providers within the state, lack of knowledge of available resources by beneficiaries, insufficient provider outreach, scope of practice approaches, and other economic and policy factors. Within state Medicaid programs, there are also considerable diversities in delivery system designs, populations served, and provider networks. We seek public input on what additional approaches we and states can take to understand, measure and improve Medicaid access more uniformly and in ways that account for these unique program features. This RFI solicits input from states, providers, beneficiaries and other members of the public on the feasibility of and methodologies related to the following four specific approaches:
        • Developing a core set of measures of access that all states would monitor and publicly report on;
        • Measuring access to long term care and home and community based services;
        • Setting national access to care thresholds; and
        • Establishing a process for access to care that would allow beneficiaries experiencing access issues to raise and seek resolution of their concerns.
        We also invite input on additional actions that we or states may take to further measure and promote access to care in the Medicaid program.
        In seeking this input, we recognize that we have not yet identified a clear, defined set of access measures that demonstrates whether access to care is sufficient. We are seeking input to identify a feasible set of measures and metrics that meaningfully demonstrate whether access to care is sufficient. We requested comments on potential core metrics and thresholds through the “Access to Care” proposed rule and received many suggestions. Generally, the responses suggested set levels of payment or access to providers consistent with Medicare or private insurance, without corresponding metrics and data sources to conduct a comparative analysis. Other health payers, such as Medicare, may be further along in measuring access through data collection tools. As any new data collection requirements would impose administrative burden on states and providers, we are particularly interested in how existing efforts, like the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (and approved supplemental data sets), may be modified to apply to the Medicaid program.
        We note that through this RFI, we are seeking comments on areas of measurement and metrics that may indicate sufficient access in Medicaid programs regardless of delivery system. We are not attempting to develop areas of measurement that indicate causes of access deficiency, such as information on social determinants of health. While we appreciate the importance of understanding the reasons behind access problems and identifying those issues through data, our initial goal is to develop indicators of sufficient access that can be affected by Medicaid policy levers.
        II. Provisions of the Request for Information
        We are inviting states, beneficiaries, advocacy organizations, providers, managed care organizations, research and measurement communities, professional associations and other members of the public to share analyses and opinions related to the following topics: (1) Access to care data collection and methodology; (2) access to care thresholds and goals; (3) alternative processes for access concerns; and (4) access to care measures.
        The terms: Measures, metrics, and thresholds, are used throughout this RFI. By measures, we mean concrete, quantifiable indicators that can be used to assess access to care in Medicaid. Measures have both a numerator and a denominator (for example, 500 Medicaid participating physicians in the state this year divided by the number of Medicaid enrollees this year, or the state received 50 beneficiary complaints this month divided by the number of beneficiaries enrolled). Metrics are used to examine measures relative to a baseline assessment (for example, there 10 percent more physicians participating in Medicaid this year than last year, or the state received 20 percent fewer complaints this month than last month). A threshold would be a minimum acceptable value for access to care that is based on the measures and metrics.
        A. Access to Care Data Collection and Methodology
        To better inform us on the nature and scope of access to care measures and metrics, we are requesting comments on how to focus our efforts to determine the best indicators of access in Medicaid across services and delivery systems. Consideration of the following questions may be helpful in providing us your ideas and suggestions.
        • What do you perceive to be the advantages and disadvantages to requiring a national core set of access to care measures and metrics? Who do you believe should collect and analyze the national core set data?
        • Do you believe there are specific access to care measures that could be universally applied across services? If so, please describe such measures.
        • What information and methods do you believe large health care programs use to measure access to care that could be used by the Medicaid program? What role can health information technology lay in measuring access to care?
        • What do you believe are the primary indicators of access to care in the Medicaid program? Is measured variance in these indicators based on differences in things such as: Provider participation and location, appointment times, waiting room times, call center times, prescription fill times, other?
        • Do you believe a national core set of access measures or metrics should apply across all services, or is it more appropriate to target a core set of access measures by service?
        • Do you believe questions in provider and beneficiary surveys should be consistent for Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries? If not, what differences do you believe should be accommodated for the Medicaid program, including differences in covered services?
        • What do you believe we should consider in undertaking access to care data collection in areas related to: Differences between fee-for-service (FFS) and managed care delivery, variations in services such as acute and long-term care, community and institutional settings for long-term care delivery, behavioral health, variations in access for pediatric and adult populations and individuals with disabilities, and variations in access for rural and urban areas? Consider also individuals with chronic conditions who may have limited functional support needs related to activities of daily living but nonetheless require more intensive care than other Medicaid beneficiaries, such as persons living with HIV/AIDS.
        • Specific to long-term services and supports, including home and community based services, what factors do you believe we should consider in measuring access to care? Do you believe we should incorporate into reviews of access to care for these services economic factors and significant policy factors such as: Minimum wage and overtime requirements, direct service worker shortages, training and professional development costs, or other factors?

        • Do you believe measuring access to Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) differs from measuring access to acute medical care? Please describe.

        • Do you believe access to HCBS should be tracked in FFS and in managed care delivery systems? Do you perceive any differences between tracking HCBS in each system?
        • Do you believe there are additional metrics that need to be tracked related to HCBS?
        B. Access to Care Thresholds/Goals
        To better inform us on how to interpret and use access to care metrics, we are requesting comments on setting access thresholds and how we might use the thresholds to improve access in the Medicaid program. Consideration of the following questions may be helpful in providing us your ideas and suggestions.
        • Do you believe we should set thresholds for Medicaid access to care? If so, do you believe such thresholds should be set at the national, state or local levels? Why?
        • If we set Medicaid access thresholds, how do you believe they should be used? For instance: For issuing compliance actions to states that do not meet the thresholds, as benchmarks for state improvement, for use in appeals processes for beneficiaries that have trouble accessing services, or in other ways?
        C. Alternative Processes for Access Concerns
        We are considering requiring standard access to care complaint driven processes to better ensure access and are interested in how data gathered and analyzed through a core set of measures might aid in resolving complaints, please consider the following questions:
        • Do you believe there are existing and effective processes to resolve consumers' concerns regarding health care access issues that might be useful for all state Medicaid programs?
        • What do you believe are the advantages and disadvantages of either a complaint resolution process or a formal appeals hearing for access to care concerns?
        • Who do you believe should be the responsible party (for example, the state or federal government, an independent third party, a civil servant, an administrative law judge, etc.) to hear beneficiary access to care complaints and/or appeals?
        • For an access to care appeal, what criteria do you believe should be used to help determine:
        ++Whether an appeal should be heard?
        ++Whether an appeal merits recommendations to the state Medicaid agency?
        • Which access to care areas of measurement or specific metrics may be useful in setting thresholds that would help hearings officers assess appeals and determine access to care remedies?
        • Lack of timeliness of an appeal could undermine the time sensitive efforts associated with remediating an individual's access to medical services. You may want to consider providing information on the following:
        ++How could appeals be expedited?
        ++What outcomes could an appeals officer offer if services are unavailable to Medicaid beneficiaries?
        ++Are there other non-appeal based processes that could be used instead?
        D. Access to Care Measures
        In conjunction with this RFI, you may want to consider each of the topics listed below, and suggest what you believe we should prioritize. You are also welcome to provide additional metrics that are associated with measurement areas that are relevant indicators of access to care in the Medicaid program and feasible to collect and analyze.
        For each suggested metric, you may consider describing the following:
        • Suggested relevant data metrics,
        • whether the metric is currently reported for Medicaid services,
        • the feasibility of collecting the metric,
        • the associated data sources/set(s) where the metrics are available,
        • the financial cost (if any) of collecting the proposed metric,
        • should including the metric in a more robust (or updated) Medicaid access policy be given priority;
        • the party responsible/steward(s) of the metric data source,
        • the metric validation process,
        • whether the metric is relevant to all Medicaid populations or specific to particular groups, (for example, adults or pediatric populations, including children with special health care needs, or to people with disabilities or to dually eligible beneficiaries),
        • whether the metric is applicable to FFS, managed care or both delivery systems,
        • whether the metric is relevant for various subpopulations such as eligibility category, institutional status, or geographic region,
        • whether the metric should be measured at the local, state or national level,
        • as appropriate for Medicaid, thresholds associated with the metric,
        • the challenges and advantages of the proposed metric, and how the metric is indicative to Medicaid access to care.
        1. Measures for Availability of Care and Providers
        We are soliciting public comment on the following availability of care and providers measurement areas within geographic areas. In addition to feedback on the proposed metrics below, we are also interested in your thoughts on how “geographic areas” should be defined.
        • Primary care physicians (including pediatricians) and clinicians accepting any/new patients.
        • Physician specialists accepting any/new patients.
        • Specialty care (for example, addiction and psychiatric services,, home and community based services, specialty pharmacy) accepting any/new patients.
        • Availability of direct support workforce for home health and home and community-based services.
        • Dentists accepting any/new patients.
        • Psychiatric and substance abuse clinicians such as psychiatrists, child psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychiatric social workers and mental health counselors accepting any/new patients.
        • Physicians and clinicians experiencing difficulties referring patients to specialty care.
        • Psychiatrists experiencing difficulties referring patients with serious mental illness to primary care.
        • Available primary care clinics, federally qualified health centers or rural health clinics.
        • Available retail community pharmacies.
        • Available behavioral health clinics or community mental health centers.
        • Available inpatient care.
        • Other.
        2. Measures for Beneficiary Reported Access
        We are soliciting public comment on the following beneficiary reported access measurement areas:
        • Beneficiaries reporting a usual source of primary care.
        • Beneficiaries reporting difficulty finding a specialist/general clinician, not taking any new patients and/or the beneficiary's insurance.
        • Beneficiaries able to access specialists or behavioral health care if they have: Chronic conditions, heart disease, behavioral health issues, etc.
        • Beneficiaries able to access long-term services and supports in institutional settings.
        • Beneficiaries able to access home and community based services.
        • Women able to access: Pap smears, mammograms.

        • Children and adults able to access appropriate immunizations and/or seasonal vaccines.
        • Beneficiaries reporting delayed care and reason for delay.
        • Unmet need for specialty, primary, follow-up, dental, prescriptions, and mental health and substance abuse treatment due to cost concerns.
        • Beneficiaries getting needed care quickly.
        • Wait times for appointments (for example, to primary care, urgent care, physician specialists, pre-natal care, behavioral health providers, and long-term services and supports in community settings).
        • Length of delays in accessing long term services and supports in community setting due to direct service worker shortages and/or lack of adequate training.
        • Call-center capability standards to support providing beneficiaries with information that can improve their access, and produce useful metrics for monitoring.
        • Call-center metrics that reveal issues with beneficiary access and their resolution.
        • Other.
        3. Measures regarding Service Utilization—
        We are soliciting public comment on the following service utilization measurement areas:
        • Trends in service utilization by geographic regions within the state.
        • Trends in emergency room utilization relative to primary and mental health and substance abuse treatment care utilization.
        • Rates of utilization (for example, At least one of the following visits in the prior six months/year: Physician (including nurse practitioners and physician assistants), dental, specialty, behavioral health, and primary care/well-child.)
        • Other.
        4. Comparison of Payments
        We are soliciting public comment on the following comparison of payment measurement areas:
        • Payment rates for services set at a specific percentage of Medicare.
        • Medicaid payment rates compared to surrounding states, Medicare, commercial payers.
        • Acquisition costs compared to Medicaid payments for pharmaceuticals.
        • Comparisons or measures that would inform managed care rate adequacy (the payment managed care plans make to providers).
        • Other.
        We will evaluate the responses to this RFI, in addition to the findings from research that we are currently conducting, to inform whether it is advisable to collect and analyze core national measures at this time and the methods to conduct the collection. We may also use this information to help determine which measures could best inform understanding of access to care and to support the design of national or state and local thresholds.
        III. Response to Comments

        Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, if and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.

          Dated: October 20, 2015.
          Andrew M. Slavitt,
          Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

      [FR Doc. 2015-27696 Filed 10-29-15; 11:15 am]
       BILLING CODE 4120-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 223
        [Docket 020626160-2160-01; I.D. 061902C]
        RIN 0648-AQ13
        Taking of Threatened or Endangered Species Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS is issuing a proposed rule to prohibit fishing with drift gillnets in the California/Oregon (CA/OR) thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet fishery in U.S. waters off southern California, south of Point Conception (34°27′N.)and west to the 120°W. long., from August 15 through August 31, and January 1 through January 31, when the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries publishes a notice that El Nino conditions are present.  NMFS has determined that the incidental take of loggerhead sea turtles by this fishery is dependent on the area and season being fished during these oceanographic conditions.  Time and area closures will result in a reduction in the amount of take of loggerheads by the fishery and are necessary to avoid the likelihood of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery jeopardizing the continued existence of the loggerhead population.

          DATES:
           Comments on this proposed rule must be postmarked or transmitted by facsimile by 5 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time, on October 21, 2002.  Comments transmitted via e-mail or the Internet will not be accepted.

          ADDRESSES:

           Send comments on this proposed rule to Tim Price, National Marine Fisheries Service, Protected Resources Division, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, or by fax (562) 980-4027.  Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA) or biological opinion (BO) may be obtained from Tim Price, Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, or are available on the internet at http://swr.ucsd.edu/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Tim Price, NMFS, Southwest Region, Protected Resources Division, (562) 980-4029.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        All sea turtles that occur in U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  The loggerhead (Caretta caretta) is listed as threatened.  Under the ESA and its implementing regulations, taking sea turtles, even incidentally, is prohibited, with exceptions identified in 50 CFR 223.206.  The incidental take of endangered species may only be legally authorized by an incidental take statement in a biological opinion issued pursuant to section 7 of the ESA or an incidental take permit issued pursuant to section 10 of the ESA.  In order for an incidental take statement to be issued, the incidental take must be not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
        On October 24, 2000 (65 FR 64670, October 30, 2000), NMFS issued a permit, for a period of 3 years, to authorize the incidental, but not intentional, taking of four stocks of threatened or endangered marine mammals (Fin whale, California/Oregon/Washington stock; Humpback whale, California/Oregon/Washington-Mexico stock; Steller sea lion, eastern stock; and Sperm whale, California/Oregon/Washington stock) by the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery under section 101(a)(5)(E) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(E)).
        To authorize this incidental take of marine mammals listed under the ESA, NMFS completed a formal consultation as required by section 7 of the ESA.  This consultation also included an analysis of the effects of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery on loggerheads.  On October 23, 2000, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion (BO) in which it determined that the current operations of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery are jeopardizing the continued existence of loggerheads.
        To avoid the likelihood of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery jeopardizing the continued existence of loggerheads, NMFS developed a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) in the BO that consists of time and area closures of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery during a forecasted, or occurring, El Ni~o event.  This proposed rule addresses this RPA to protect loggerheads.
        Reduction of Loggerhead Entanglements

        The RPA identified in the BO to address the incidental take of loggerheads by the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery consists of a time and area closure during El Nino conditions that would prohibit drift gillnet fishing in U.S. ocean waters off of southern California south of Point Conception (34°27′N.) and west to 120°W longitude, occurring from August 15 to August 31 and from January 1 to January 31.  This measure would reduce the likelihood of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery incidentally entangling loggerheads by at least 65 percent.  The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) will publish a notice announcing that El Nino conditions are present off the coast of southern California and that the time and area closure will be in effect.  In determining whether to announce that an El Nino event affecting southern California waters is forecast or occurring, the AA will rely on information made public by NOAA offices that monitor the El Nino event, including information from the Climate Prediction Center, at http://cwatchc.ucsd.edu, and from NOAA's West Coast Office of Coast Watch, at http://cwatchwc.ucsd.edu, and also from the State of California.
        Loggerhead Entanglement Data
        Based on NMFS observer data from July 1990 through January 2001, there have been a total of 18 loggerheads (3 were unidentified turtles that are assumed to be loggerheads based on carapace length and the area in which they were caught) taken by the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery.  All of these entanglements occurred during El Nino years and all occurred in the proposed closure area.  Sixty-five percent of these entanglements occurred from August 15 to August 31 and from January 1 through January 31.  There have also been 4 loggerheads observed taken during the month of July and 1 entanglement observed during the month of June.  These entanglements occurred at a time when the fishery was significantly more active (e.g. beginning in 1992 the State of California prohibited drift gillnet vessels from fishing inside 75 nautical miles (136.9 kilometers) from May 1 through August 14).  However, now there is minimal fishing effort during the months of June, July, and the first 2 weeks of August, because most of the larger vessels have switched to targeting albacore tuna during this time period.  In addition, there was one loggerhead observed taken during the month of October.
        In August 2001, NMFS observed one loggerhead taken in ocean waters off of San Diego, CA.  This entanglement occurred outside of an El Ni~o event.  Although there have been reports of loggerheads occasionally stranding and of sightings of loggerheads off of southern California during years when there is not an El Nino event, this was the first loggerhead entanglement that NMFS has observed outside of an El Nino event.  Loggerheads and their prey are more abundant off of southern California during El Nino events when water temperatures are generally warmer.  Thus, there is a significant increase in the likelihood of a loggerhead entanglement during El Nino events.  Because loggerheads are less likely to be off the coast of southern California outside El Nino years and because NMFS has only observed one loggerhead entanglement outside of an El Nino year, NMFS believes that an entanglement of a loggerhead outside of an El Nino event is a rare occurrence.
        Classification
        NMFS prepared an EA (August 13, 2001) and a draft supplement (June 27, 2002) to the EA for this proposed rule and concluded these regulations would pose no significant adverse environmental impact.
        The actions implemented by this proposed rule are expected to impact approximately 81 CA/OR drift gillnet vessel owners and operators, representing approximately 500 fishing sets annually.  For a description and a detailed economic analysis of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery, readers should refer to the August 13, 2001, EA prepared for this proposed rule which incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.  The total gross revenue loss to the CA/OR drift gillnet fleet resulting from the time and area closures in this proposed rule is expected to be $440,000 for an El Nino year.  This revenue loss to the fishery is a worst-case scenario based on the assumption that none of the fishing effort will shift to ocean areas that remain open to fishing.  Loggerhead time and area closures during the month of January are expected to have the greatest impact on the fishery because the oceanographic conditions that favor swordfish during January are generally located along the coast.  In this scenario, the reduction in total gross revenues is not expected to exceed $5,400 per vessel per El Nino year.  This estimate is based on California Department of Fish and Game landing receipts for the period between August 15 through August 31, and January 1 through January 31, using data from 1997 to 2000.  On average, during these time periods, approximately $6,300 of louvar, $17,700 of mako shark, $20,300 of opah, $345,300 of swordfish, and $49,100 of thresher shark are landed.
        This proposed rule does not contain collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

        This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        A BO on the issuance of a marine mammal permit under section 101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA was issued on October 23, 2000.  That BO concluded that issuance of a permit and continued operation of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerheads.  This proposed rule implements the RPA to protect loggerheads.  NMFS has determined that the time and area closure identified in the BO is expected to avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the loggerhead species.
        In keeping with the intent of the Executive Order 12612 to provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual State and Federal interest, NMFS has conferred with the States of California and Oregon regarding the implementation of the RPA.  Both California and Oregon have expressed support for the measures identified in the BO for the protection of leatherback and loggerhead sea turtle species.  NMFS intends to continue engaging in informal and formal contacts with the States of California and Oregon during the implementation of this RPA and development of the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223
          Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine Mammals, Transportation.

          Dated:  September 13, 2002.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 223—THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

          1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:

            16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.12 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

          2. In § 223.206, paragraphs (d)(6)(ii) and (iii) are added to read as follows:

            § 223.206
            Exceptions to prohibitions relating to sea turtles.

          (d) * * *
          (6) * * *
          (ii) Pacific loggerhead conservation area. No person may fish with, set, or haul back drift gillnet gear in U.S. waters of the Pacific Ocean south of 34°27′N. (Point Conception, California) and west to 120° W. from January 1 through January 31 and from August 15 through August 31 during a forecasted, or occurring, El Nino event.
          (iii) Determination and notification concerning an El Nino event. The Assistant Administrator will publish a notification that an El Nino event is occurring off of or is forecast for the coast of southern California and the requirement for time area closures in the Pacific loggerhead conservation zone in the Federal Register and will announce the notification in summary form by other methods as the Assistant Administrator determines are necessary and appropriate to provide notice to the California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery.  The Assistant Administrator will rely on information developed by NOAA offices which monitor El Nino events, such as NOAA's Climate Prediction Center and the West Coast Office of NOAA's Coast Watch program, and by the State of California, in order to determine whether to publish such a notice.  The requirement for the area closures from January 1 through January 31 and from August 15 through August 31 will remain effective until the Assistant Administrator issues a notice that the El Nino event is no longer occurring.

      [FR Doc. 02-23841 Filed 9-19-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        RIN 0648-BB29
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Stock Status Determinations; Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          Based on the 2010/2011 Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) assessments for sandbar, dusky, and blacknose sharks, NMFS is declaring the following stock status determinations. Sandbar sharks are still overfished, but no longer experiencing overfishing. Dusky sharks are still overfished and still experiencing overfishing (i.e., their stock status has not changed). Blacknose sharks were assessed as two separate stocks for the first time in the 2010/2011 assessment (Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico); therefore, NMFS is making separate stock status determinations for the two blacknose shark stocks. The Atlantic stock is overfished and experiencing overfishing, and the status of the Gulf of Mexico stock is unknown. Scalloped hammerhead sharks were previously determined to be overfished and experiencing overfishing by NMFS in April 2011. As such, NMFS announces its intent to prepare an EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This EIS would assess the potential effects on the human environment of action proposed through rulemaking to rebuild and end overfishing of these stocks, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Through the rulemaking process, NMFS would amend the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and examine management alternatives available to rebuild these shark stocks and end overfishing, as necessary. To begin scoping for that rulemaking process, NMFS is requesting comments on a range of commercial and recreational management measures, in both directed and incidental fisheries, including, but not limited to, quota levels, regional and seasonal quotas, retention limits, gear modifications, and time/area closures.

          DATES:

          Five scoping meetings and a conference call will be held from October through December 2011. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for meeting and call dates and locations. Scoping comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time, on December 31, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:

          Scoping meetings will be held in Galloway, New Jersey; Morehead City, North Carolina; Panama City and Fort Pierce, Florida; and Belle Chasse, Louisiana. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for dates and locations. You may also submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0229, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2011-0229 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Peter Cooper, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Scoping Comments on Amendment 5 to HMS FMP.”
          • Fax: (301) 713-1917. Attn: Peter Cooper.

          Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. 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. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. 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 or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          For a copy of the stock assessments, please contact Peter Cooper (301) 427-8503.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Karyl Brewster-Geisz or Peter Cooper at (301) 427-8503, or Jackie Wilson at (240) 338-3936, or online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ or http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/Index.jsp.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
        Determination of Overfished Shark Fisheries

        NMFS' determination of the status of a stock relative to overfishing and an overfished condition is based on both the exploitation rate and the current stock size. Thresholds used to determine the status of Atlantic HMS are fully described in Chapter 3 of the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark, and were fully adopted in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. A species is considered overfished when the current biomass is less than the minimum stock size threshold. The minimum stock size threshold is determined based on the natural mortality of the stock and the biomass at maximum sustainable yield (BMSY). Maximum sustainable yield is the maximum long-term average yield that can be produced by a stock on a continuing basis. The biomass can be lower than BMSY, and the stock not declared overfished, as long as the biomass is above the biomass at the minimum stock size threshold. Overfishing may be occurring on a species if the current fishing mortality is greater than the fishing mortality (F) at maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) (F>FMSY). In the case of F, the maximum fishing mortality threshold is FMSY. Thus, if F exceeds FMSY, the stock is experiencing overfishing.
        Recent assessments of sandbar, dusky, and blacknose sharks were completed through the SEDAR process (SEDAR 21). The SEDAR process is a cooperative process initiated in 2002 to improve the quality and reliability of fishery stock assessments in the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean. For these assessments, SEDAR used two face-to-face workshops and a series of webinars. The Data Workshop was a week-long face-to-face meeting, during which fisheries, monitoring, and life history data were reviewed and compiled. The SEDAR 21 Data Workshop was held June 21-25, 2010, in Charleston, SC (May 4, 2010, 75 FR 23676). The Assessment Process was conducted via a series of webinars, during which assessment models were developed and population parameters were estimated using the information provided from the Data Workshop. The SEDAR 21 Assessment Process was held via 18 webinars between September 2010 and January 2011 (August 26, 2010, 75 FR 52510; October 12, 2010, 75 FR 62506; November 17, 2010, 75 FR 70216; December 16, 2010, 75 FR 78679). Finally, the Review Workshop was a week-long face-to-face meeting during which independent experts reviewed the input data, assessment methods, and assessment products. The Review Workshop for these assessments was held in Annapolis, MD, on April 18-22, 2011 (March 15, 2011, 76 FR 13985). All meetings were open to the public, and all materials from these meetings are available on the SEDAR Web site or upon request.
        The final 2010/2011 stock assessment reports for sandbar, dusky, and blacknose sharks in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico were recently completed (76 FR 61092, October 3, 2011). In each assessment, a base model was used to assess the individual populations. In addition, numerous sensitivity analyses were conducted during the assessment cycle for each assessment, which provided verification that the results of the assessment were robust to the assumptions about the underlying stock productivity and assumed levels of removal. Of these sensitivity runs, the Review Panel of the SEDAR 21 Review Panel Workshop selected which runs represented plausible “states of nature” of the stocks and requested projections of these and the base model. The ranges based on these selected sensitivity runs and the base models are given below. However, details on the different sensitivity analyses and projections are provided in the SEDAR 21 Stock Assessment Report for each assessment.

        In the following stock assessment summaries, total allowable catch (TAC) is equal to the annual catch limit (ACL) for all fisheries that interact with the species, including directed commercial, incidental commercial, and recreational fisheries. After accounting for the mortality associated with other fisheries, NMFS is able to establish quotas for each stock, which are a subset of the ACL or TAC. Copies of the final 2010/2011 SEDAR 21 Stock Assessment Reports for each species are available (see ADDRESSES).
        A. Sandbar Sharks
        The 2010/2011 sandbar shark stock assessment provides an update from the 2005/2006 stock assessment on the status of the stock and projects their future abundance under a variety of catch levels in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. Based on the 2005/2006 assessment, sandbar sharks were determined to be overfished and experiencing overfishing. NMFS established a rebuilding plan for this species in July 2008. The 2010/2011 assessment includes updated catch estimates, new biological data, and a number of fishery-independent and fishery-dependent catch rate series.

        The base model used in the 2010/2011 sandbar assessment, an age-structured production model, indicated that the stock is overfished (spawning stock fecundity [SSF]2009/SSFMSY=0.66), but no longer experiencing overfishing (F2009/FMSY=0.62). In addition, 20 sensitivity runs were performed throughout the assessment cycle. The Review Panel selected seven sensitivity runs in addition to the base model to assess the underlying states of nature of the stock. Current biomass (i.e., SSF) values from these selected sensitivity runs all indicated that the stock is overfished (SSF2009/SSFMSY=0.51-0.72). In addition, current F values from most of the selected sensitivity runs indicated that the stock is currently not experiencing overfishing (F2009/FMSY=0.29-0.93); whereas the low productivity sensitivity run indicated overfishing is occurring (F2009/FMSY=2.62). The assessment scientists, however, noted that the low and high productivity scenarios were unlikely to represent the true state of nature of the stock. Based on this, NMFS has determined that sandbar sharks are still overfished, but are no longer experiencing overfishing. Projections of the base model indicated that there is a 70 percent probability of rebuilding by 2066 with a TAC of 178 metric tons (mt) whole weight (ww) (128 mt dressed weight [dw]). There is a 50 percent probability of rebuilding by 2066 with a TAC of 286 mt ww (205.8 mt dw). The rebuilding year determined from the base model in the 2010/2011 assessment was calculated as the year the stock would rebuild with no fishing pressure (i.e., F=0), or 2046, plus one generation time (the generation time for sandbar sharks is 20 years). The target year for rebuilding ranged from 2047 to 2360 depending on the state of nature (i.e., sensitivity run) of the stock. In addition, it was determined that the current TAC for the fishery (i.e., 220 mt ww or 158.3 mt dw) could result in a greater than 70 percent probability of rebuilding by the current rebuilding date of 2070.
        B. Dusky Sharks

        The 2010/2011 dusky stock assessment provided an update to the 2006 dusky assessment. This is the first assessment for dusky sharks conducted within the SEDAR process. Based on the 2006 assessment, dusky sharks were determined to be overfished and experiencing overfishing. NMFS established a rebuilding plan for this species in July 2008. The base model used for the 2010/2011 assessment, an age-structured catch-free production model, showed that dusky sharks continue to be overfished (spawning stock biomass [SSB]2009/SSBMSY=0.44) and are still experiencing overfishing (F2009/FMSY=1.59). In addition, 19 sensitivity analyses were performed during the assessment cycle. The Review Panel selected four sensitivity runs in addition to the base model to assess the underlying states of nature of the stock. Current biomass (i.e., SSB) values from these selected sensitivity runs all indicated that the stock is overfished (SSB2009/SSBMSY=0.41-0.50). In addition, current F values from the selected sensitivity runs indicated that the stock is currently experiencing overfishing (F2009/FMSY=1.39-4.35). Based on this, NMFS has determined that dusky sharks are still overfished and experiencing overfishing. The 2006 assessment predicted that dusky sharks could rebuild within 100 to 400 years. The rebuilding year determined from the base model in the 2010/2011 assessment was calculated as the year the stock would rebuild with no fishing pressure (i.e., F=0), or 2059, plus one generation time (the generation time for dusky sharks is 40 years) or 2099. The target year for rebuilding ranged from 2081 to 2257 depending on the state of nature (i.e., sensitivity run) of the stock. The base model indicated that the current fishing mortality (F2009=0.06) would have to be reduced by more than half (to F=0.02) in order to have a 70 percent probability of rebuilding by 2099. The base model also estimated that with the current fishing mortality rate there is a low probability (11 percent) of stock recovery by 2408 (or 400 years).
        C. Blacknose Sharks
        The 2010/2011 blacknose shark stock assessment provides an update from the 2007 blacknose shark stock assessment. However, unlike the 2007 assessment, the 2010/2011 assessment assessed blacknose sharks for the first time as two separate stocks: a Gulf of Mexico and an Atlantic stock. In addition, because the assessment model for the Gulf of Mexico stock was unable to fit the apparent trends in some of the abundance indices and there was a fundamental lack of fit of the model to some of the input data, the Review Panel of the SEDAR 21 Review Panel Workshop did not accept the stock assessment for the Gulf of Mexico blacknose stock. Therefore, NMFS is declaring the status of the Gulf of Mexico blacknose shark stock as unknown.

        For the Atlantic blacknose shark stock, the base model used for the 2010/2011 assessment, an age-structured production model, showed that Atlantic blacknose sharks are overfished (SSF2009/SSFMSY=0.60) and experiencing overfishing (F2009/FMSY=5.02). In addition, 14 sensitivity analyses were performed over the assessment cycle. The Review Panel selected five sensitivity runs in addition to the base model to assess the underlying states of nature of the stock. Current biomass (i.e., SSF) values from these selected sensitivity runs all indicated that the stock is overfished (SSF2009/SSFMSY=0.43-0.64). In addition, current F values from the selected sensitivity runs indicated that the stock is currently experiencing overfishing (F2009/FMSY=3.26-22.53). Based on this, NMFS has determined that the Atlantic blacknose shark stock is overfished and experiencing overfishing. Projections of the base model indicated that the stock could rebuild by 2043 with a TAC of 7,300 blacknose sharks. The rebuilding year determined from the base model in the 2010/2011 assessment was calculated as the year the stock would rebuild with no fishing pressure (i.e., F=0), or 2034, plus one generation time (the generation time for Atlantic blacknose sharks is 9 years). The target year for rebuilding ranged from 2033 to 2086 depending on the state of nature (i.e., sensitivity run) of the stock. Thus, Atlantic blacknose sharks would not be able to rebuild by the current rebuilding target of 2027 under the current fishery-wide TAC of 19,200 blacknose sharks.

          Table 1—Summary Table of Biomass and Fishing Mortality for the 2010/2011 SEDAR Shark Stock Assessments
          [Age-Structured Production Models (ASPMs) Were Used for Sandbar and Blacknose Sharks, and an Age-Structured Catch-Free Production Model (ASCFM) Was Used for Dusky Sharks]

            Species
            Currentrelative
              biomass level*

            Currentbiomass
              (SSF2009)

            Maximum sustainable yieldbiomass
              (SSFMSY)

            Minimum stock size threshold (MSST)
            Currentrelative
              fishing mortality rate
              (F2009/FMSY)

            Maximum fishingmortality
              threshold (FMSY)

            Outlook

            Sandbars sharks
            0.51-0.72(SSF2009/SSFMSY)

            215,900-984,770
            349,330-1,377,800
            395,922-423,622
            0.29-2.62†
            0.004-0.06
            Overfished; overfishing is not occurring.

            Dusky sharks
            0.41-0.50(SSB2009/SSBMSY)

            **NA
            **NA
            **NA
            1.39-4.35
            0.01-0.05
            Overfished; Overfishing is occurring.

            Atlantic blacknose sharks
            0.43-0.64 (SSF2009/SSFMSY)
            38,816-168,300
            77,577-288,360
            72,607-77,447
            3.26-22.53
            0.01-0.15
            Overfished; Overfishing is occurring.

            Gulf of Mexico blacknose sharks
            ***NA
            ***NA
            ***NA
            ***NA
            ***NA
            ***NA
            ***NA

          * Spawning stock fecundity (SSF) or spawning stock biomass (SSB) was used as a proxy of biomass.

          ** An age-structured catch-free production model was used for the dusky shark stock assessment; therefore, absolute estimates of number of sharks are not available.

          *** The Gulf of Mexico blacknose shark stock assessment was rejected because the model was unable to fit the apparent trends in some of the abundance indices and there was a fundamental lack of fit of the model to some of the input data; therefore, estimates are not available.

          † F values from most of the selected sensitivity runs indicated that the stock is currently not experiencing overfishing (F2009/FMSY=0.29-0.93) whereas the low productivity sensitivity run indicated overfishing is occurring (F2009/FMSY=2.62). The assessment scientists, however, noted that the low and high productivity scenarios were unlikely to represent the true state of nature of the stock.

        Request for Comments
        Currently, both commercial and recreational fishermen may target blacknose sharks. However, dusky sharks are prohibited in all fisheries, and sandbar sharks are only allowed to be commercially harvested within a limited Shark Research Fishery. Recreational anglers are not allowed to retain sandbar sharks. In addition, scalloped hammerhead sharks, which were recently determined to be overfished and experiencing overfishing (April 28, 2011, 76 FR 23794), are managed within the non-sandbar large coastal shark (LCS) complex and are caught in recreational and commercial fisheries targeting sharks and in commercial pelagic longline (PLL) fisheries targeting tuna and swordfish. However, scalloped hammerhead sharks may only be retained when caught in directed recreational and commercial shark fisheries, and they are not allowed to be retained when caught in association with tuna and tuna-like fisheries, such as tuna and swordfish PLL fisheries per a recent final rule (August 29, 2011, 76 FR 53652).
        Commercial regulations for blacknose sharks include, but are not limited to, no retention limit for directed shark permit holders, 16 pelagic and small coastal shark (SCS) species combined per vessel per trip for incidental shark permit holders, and an annual blacknose shark quota of 19.9 mt dw, which is adjusted each year for any overharvest in past fishing years. Commercial regulations for scalloped hammerhead sharks include, but are not limited to, a trip limit of 33 non-sandbar LCS for directed shark permit holders and a trip limit of 3 non-sandbar LCS for incidental shark permit holders. Scalloped hammerhead sharks are part of the non-sandbar LCS annual quota of 578.3 mt dw, which is split between the Gulf of Mexico (390.5 mt dw) and the Atlantic (187.8 mt dw). This quota is also adjusted each year for any overharvest from past fishing years. Recreational regulations for blacknose and scalloped hammerhead sharks include, but are not limited to, retention limit of 1 shark per vessel per trip with a 4.5-ft (54-in) fork length minimum size, although blacknose sharks rarely reach this minimum size.
        Within the sandbar Shark Research Fishery, sandbar shark harvest is contingent upon the conditions of a Shark Research Fishery Permit, which is issued on an annual basis. There is an annual quota of 116.6 mt dw for sandbar sharks, and as with quotas for blacknose sharks and non-sandbar LCS, this quota is adjusted each year for any overharvest in past fishing years. Vessels participating in the Shark Research Fishery must carry federal fisheries observers whenever harvesting sandbar sharks, and all sharks, including blacknose and scalloped hammerhead sharks, must be offloaded with all their fins naturally attached.
        NMFS anticipates changes to shark management as a result of the latest stock assessments through the rulemaking process and requests comments on potential future management options for this action. Five scoping meetings and a conference call will be held (see Table 2 for meeting times and locations) to provide the opportunity for public comment on potential shark management measures. These comments will be used to assist in the development of the upcoming amendment to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP. Based on the assessment results, NMFS will focus on dusky sharks, which are already prohibited but found to still be experiencing overfishing; scalloped hammerhead sharks, which are often brought to the vessel dead and whose retention is limited in certain fisheries; and Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico blacknose sharks, which may require regional management. It appears that current management measures for sandbar sharks may remain appropriate, with the current TAC having a high probability of rebuilding within the rebuilding timeframe. Because of the mixed nature of the fisheries, it is likely that any changes could affect effort and mortality for all sharks.

          Table 2—Time and Locations of the Five Scoping Meetings and Conference Call

            Date
            Time
            Meeting location
            Meeting address

            October 12, 2011
            7-9 p.m.
            Dolce Seaview Resort
            401 South New York Road, Galloway, NJ 08205.

            October 26, 2011
            5-7 p.m.
            Belle Chasse Auditorium
            8398 HWY. 23, Belle Chasse, LA 70037.

            November 2, 2011
            4:30-6:30 p.m.
            Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Panama City Laboratory
            3500 Delwood Beach Drive, Panama City, FL 32408.

            November 3, 2011
            4:30-6:30 p.m.
            Fort Pierce Branch Library
            101 Melody Lane, Fort Pierce, FL 34950.

            December 7, 2011
            4:30-6:30 p.m.
            North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Central District Office
            5285 HWY. 70 West/Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC 28557.

            December 15, 2011
            2-4 p.m.
            Conference Call
            To participate, please call: 888-989-7538;Passcode: 3994893.

        In addition to the five scoping meetings and conference call, NMFS has requested to present the issues and options presentation to the five Atlantic Regional Fishery Management Councils (the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils) and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions during the public comment period. Please see the Councils' and Commissions' fall meeting notices for times and locations.

        NMFS requests comments on potential commercial management options including, but not limited to, quota levels, regional and seasonal quotas, trip limits, minimum sizes, gear and effort modifications, time/area closures, and prohibited species. In addition, NMFS is seeking comments on recreational management options including, but not limited to, retention limits, minimum sizes, authorized gears, and prohibited species. NMFS also seeks comments on display quotas and collection of sharks through exempted fishing permits, display permits, and scientific research permits. Comments received during scoping will assist NMFS in determining the options for future proposed rulemaking to conserve and manage shark resources and shark fisheries, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. NMFS has drafted an issues and options presentation that summarizes the scalloped hammerhead, sandbar, dusky, and blacknose stock assessments, and offers preliminary ideas on potential management approaches to address overfishing on/overfished stocks in order to encourage and initiate public comment. The scoping meetings will focus on the issues raised in the issues and options presentation. NMFS welcomes additional thoughts and comments on appropriate management measures. The issues/options presentation is available online and by request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Based on the 2010/2011 stock assessments, NMFS believes the implementation of new management measures via the rulemaking process to amend the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP is necessary to rebuild Atlantic shark stocks. NMFS anticipates completing this amendment and any related documents in April of 2013.

          Dated: October 4, 2011.
          Steven Thur,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-26021 Filed 10-4-11; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P