        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Office of the Secretary
        49 CFR Part 71
        [OST Docket No. 2005-22114]
        RIN 2105-AD53
        Standard Time Zone Boundary in the State of Indiana

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          DOT tentatively proposes to relocate the time zone boundary in Indiana to move St. Joseph, Starke, Knox, Pike, and Perry Counties from the eastern time zone to the central time zone at the request of the County Commissioners. We are tentatively not proposing to change the time zone boundary to move Marshall, Pulaski, Fulton, Benton, White, Carroll, Cass, Vermillion, Sullivan, Daviess, Dubois, Martin, and Lawrence Counties from the eastern time zone to the central time zone based on the petitions from the commissioners in these counties. If additional information is provided that indicates that the time zone boundary should be drawn differently, either to include counties currently excluded or to exclude counties that are currently included in this proposal, we will make the change at the final rule stage of this proceeding.

          DATES:
          Any County Commissioners from the counties that have submitted petitions who wish to provide additional data to justify a change from the eastern time zone to the central time zone should do so by November 10, 2005. Other comments should be received by November 30, 2005 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. If the time zone boundary is changed as a result of this rulemaking, the effective date would be no earlier than 2 a.m. EST Sunday, April 2, 2006, which is the changeover from standard time to daylight saving time.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001.
          • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number (OST Docket Number 2005-22114) or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) (2105-AD53) for this rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

            Public Hearings: In addition to the submission of written comments, an opportunity for oral comments will be provided at four public hearings in Jasper, Logansport, South Bend, and Terre Haute. These hearings will be chaired by a representative of DOT in November. We will publish the date and time in a separate document that will be posted in the docket and published in the Federal Register.
          The hearings will be informal and will be tape-recorded for inclusion in the docket. The DOT representative will provide an opportunity to speak for all those wishing to do so, to the greatest extent possible. The hearing locations will be accessible for persons with disabilities. If you need a sign language interpreter, please let us know no later than one week before the hearing.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Joanne Petrie, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room 10424, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, indianatime@dot.gov; (202) 366-9306.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Current Indiana Time Observance
        Under Federal law, 82 Indiana counties are in the eastern time zone and 10 are in the central time zone. The central time zone counties include five in the northwest (Lake, Porter, La Porte, Newton, and Jasper) and five in the southwest (Posey, Vanderburgh, Warrick, Spencer and Gibson). The remaining 82 counties are in the eastern time zone. Neighboring States observe both eastern and central time. Illinois and western Kentucky observe central time, while eastern Kentucky, Ohio, and the portion of Michigan adjoining Indiana observe eastern time.
        Federal law provides that it is up to an individual State to decide whether or not to observe daylight saving time. Generally, a State must choose to observe, or not observe, across the entire State. The one exception is that, if a State is in more than one time zone, a “split” observance is permitted. Under this scenario, all of a State that is in one time zone may observe daylight saving time, while the remainder of the State in the different time zone does not. Under Indiana law, for many years, the central time zone portion of the State has observed daylight saving time, while the eastern time zone portion of the State has not observed daylight saving time.
        The effect of daylight saving time is the equivalent of moving one time zone to the east. This means that, by remaining on eastern standard time year-round, the eastern time zone portion of Indiana has been on the same time as New York in the winter and on the same clock time as Chicago in the summer. The impact of the State legislation (discussed in more detail below) to observe daylight saving time beginning in 2006 is that, in the summer, the time of sunrise and sunset on eastern daylight saving time will be an hour later than it currently is under year-round eastern standard time. There will be no change in the sunrise and sunset times during the winter when eastern standard time will continue to be observed.
        Statutory Requirements
        Under the Standard Time Act of 1918, as amended by the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260-64), the Secretary of Transportation has authority to issue regulations modifying the boundaries between time zones in the United States in order to move an area from one time zone to another. The standard in the statute for such decisions is “regard for the convenience of commerce and the existing junction points and division points of common carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.”
        DOT Procedures To Change a Time Zone Boundary
        The Department has typically used a set of procedures to address time zone issues. Under these DOT procedures, the Department will generally begin a rulemaking proceeding if the highest elected officials in the area provide adequate supporting data for the proposed change. We ask that the petition include, or be accompanied by, detailed information supporting the requesting party's contention that the requested change would serve the convenience of commerce. The principal standard for deciding whether to change a time zone is defined very broadly to include consideration of all the impacts upon a community of a change in its standard of time. We also ask that the supporting documentation address, at a minimum, each of the following questions in as much detail as possible.
        1. From where do businesses in the community get their supplies, and to where do they ship their goods or products?
        2. From where does the community receive television and radio broadcasts?
        3. Where are the newspapers published that serve the community?
        4. From where does the community get its bus and passenger rail services; if there is no scheduled bus or passenger rail service in the community to where must residents go to obtain these services?
        5. Where is the nearest airport; if it is a local service airport, to what major airport does it carry passengers?
        6. What percentage of residents of the community work outside the community; where do these residents work?
        7. What are the major elements of the community's economy; is the community's economy improving or declining; what Federal, State, or local plans, if any, are there for economic development in the community?
        8. If residents leave the community for schooling, recreation, health care, or religious worship, what standard of time is observed in the places where they go for these purposes?
        In addition, we consider any other information that the county or local officials believe to be relevant to the proceeding.
        Indiana's Decision To Observe Daylight Saving Time
        In 2005, the Indiana General Assembly adopted legislation (Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 127 or “the Indiana Act”) providing that the entire State of Indiana will begin to observe daylight saving time beginning in 2006. In addition, the Indiana Act addressed the issue of changing the location of the boundary between the eastern and central time zones. The Indiana Act stated that, “[T]he [S]tate supports the county executive of any county that seeks to change the time zone in which the county is located under the procedures established by Federal Law.” The Indiana Act also provided that, “The governor and the general assembly hereby petition the United States Department of Transportation to initiate proceedings under the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to hold hearings in the appropriate locations in Indiana on the issue of the location of the boundary between the Central Time Zone and the Eastern Time Zone in Indiana.” Finally, the Indiana Act requested that DOT refrain from changing the time zone of any county currently located within the central time zone and five counties near Cincinnati and Louisville.
        On July 15, 2005, Secretary Mineta sent a letter to Governor Daniels responding to this legislation and letters from the Governor. The letter noted that it is our normal practice, in implementing our responsibilities under the Uniform Time Act with respect to the location of time zone boundaries, to take action on specific requests for change in the time zone boundaries for a particular jurisdiction from the elected officials of that jurisdiction. After receiving a request, we review it and the supporting data to then determine whether the issuance of an NPRM is justified. Once justified, we issue the NPRM to propose a change.
        DOT Notice Inviting Petitions
        On August 17, 2005, DOT published a notice in the Federal Register inviting county and local officials in Indiana that wish to change their current time zone in response to Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 127 to notify DOT of their request for a change by September 16, 2005 and to provide data in response to the questions above. In addition, it announced the opening of an internet-accessible, public docket to receive any petitions and other relevant documents concerning the appropriate placement of the time zone boundary in the State of Indiana.

        Petitions Received
        We received nineteen petitions from counties asking to be changed from the eastern time zone to the central time zone. One of the counties (Fountain County) subsequently withdrew its request.
        In general, the petitions are clustered in the northwest (St. Joseph, Starke, Marshall, Pulaski, Fulton, Benton, White, Carroll and Cass Counties) and the southwest (Sullivan, Knox, Daviess, Martin, Lawrence, Pike, Dubois and Perry Counties). In the central portion of western Indiana, only Vermillion County asked to be changed to central time.
        The amount of data provided in the petitions varied substantially among counties. Under our normal procedures, we do not take action unless the county makes a clear showing that the proposed change would meet the statutory standard. We recognize, however, that this is an unusual case because of the number of counties involved, their relationship to each other and to other neighboring counties, and the circumstances leading up to these petitions. Although the proposed counties have provided adequate supporting data to justify the issuance of an NPRM, we will critically review contrary and supporting information that may be provided by others, and any other related comments and data prior to issuing a final rule.
        Other Communications From Local Officials
        We also received a number of letters from counties and cities advising us that they had considered whether to petition for a change and, at this time at least, were satisfied with their current time zone boundary or wished to stay in the same time zone as Indianapolis, which is located in Marion County and is in the eastern time zone. Those counties included Warren, Monroe, Orange, Steuben, Noble, Hendricks, Jefferson, Crawford and Jay. The cities of Whiting, Hebron, and Munster also filed letters expressing satisfaction with their current time zone.
        Comments to the Docket
        There are currently nearly 600 entries to the docket. In addition, we have received hundreds of calls, questions, and e-mails on the Indiana time zone issue. Many comments were filed by Chambers of Commerce, businesses, various community associations and interest groups, and individuals. The commenters suggested a wide variety of approaches including placing all of the State in the eastern time zone, placing all of the State in the central time zone, and maintaining the current time zone boundaries. Some of the commenters included data on sunrise/sunset, economic development and trends, commuting patterns, school districts and institutions of higher learning, transportation services, the location of cultural and recreational activities, and a wide variety of other factors. Other commenters shared their personal preferences and their sense of which time zone that they most closely associate with.
        The focus of this stage of the proceeding to date has been on the petitions by the counties. At the next stage, however, we will carefully review the petitions submitted in light of the comments received and data gathered during the next stage of this rulemaking process. None of the counties where we have tentatively proposed to relocate the time zone boundaries and none of the counties where we have tentatively decided not to propose a change should regard their petitions as resolved, nor should they rely on the current proposal, which very well may change when all the information is available and a final rule is issued.
        DOT Determination
        Based on the petitions and the supporting data filed by the County Commissioners, we find that St. Joseph, Starke, Knox, Pike, and Perry Counties have provided enough information to justify proposing to change those counties from the eastern to central time zone. As noted above, we have received and will review the comments to the docket already received. We are now providing a further opportunity to others to provide information that might refute or support the basis provided to date, to enable a final decision. We are requesting comments on whether to make the change in any, or all, of the remaining 13 counties that petitioned for change and on whether we should not adopt any or all of the proposed changes. If supplementary information is filed by the County Commissioners supporting the inclusion of additional counties and it is not otherwise refuted, an appropriate change will be made in the final rule. We invite representatives from any of the counties that filed petitions to submit additional justification to the public docket. In order to allow the public time to comment on any additional information that may be submitted by the counties, we request any further submissions to be sent to the public docket by November 10, 2005. In addition, we ask that any county that submits additional information to the public docket present this information at a public hearing chaired by a DOT representative.
        St. Joseph, Starke, Knox, Pike, and Perry County addressed all, or virtually all, of the factors that we consider in these proceedings and made a reasonable case that changing to the central time zone would serve “the convenience of commerce.” In addition, we considered each county's geographic location compared to the current time zone boundary and how closely interrelated neighboring counties appeared to be. The specific reasons for granting the petitions for each of these counties differ based on the facts specific to each case. For example, St. Joseph County filed detailed information addressing each factor, showing how changing to the central time zone would be beneficial for the community. Starke County had been in the central time zone and it presented evidence of close ties to areas in the central time zone. Based on the evidence presented, Pike County appears to be closely tied to Evansville for many goods, services, and activities. Knox and Perry County provided information on their commuting patterns to the central zone, and reliance on Evansville for a majority of their communications and transportation services.

        We have not included all the counties that petitioned, for a number of reasons. Some presented almost no arguments or supporting data on why it would be appropriate to change the time zone boundary. Others addressed all, or most, factors but acknowledged that a significant connection with the eastern time zone. A number of counties focused on the potential change to their neighbors' time zone, and seemed to be more concerned with staying in the same time zone as their neighbors than in changing their time zone. In other cases, the counties seemed to be equally connected to the eastern and central time zones. Traditionally, we have been reluctant to create “islands of time” by placing one county in a different time zone from all its neighboring counties in the State; we consider the affect on economic, cultural, social, and civic activities between neighboring counties in making decisions. Finally, we looked at the distance each county is from the current time zone boundary, the proximity of each county to important metropolitan areas, and where the major roads and bridges are located. We wish to strongly emphasize that our proposal is a tentative decision and is subject to change based on additional data reviewed in the next stage of this proceeding.

        In our experience, time zone boundary changes can be extremely disruptive to a community and, therefore, should not be made without careful consideration. Our proposal is intended to minimize disruption and to allow communities to fully assess the impact of potential changes to the time zone boundaries of their neighbors and daylight saving time observance beginning in April 2006. If comments to the docket or at the hearings provide additional information or stronger arguments for a change, we will make the appropriate changes in the final rule. We are happy to work with county representatives to provide guidance on the kinds of additional supporting data that would be most useful in making a case for a change of time zone boundary. If a county is not included in any final rule that may be issued in this proceeding, governmental representatives are free to petition DOT in the future to make further changes to the time zone boundary.
        Request for Comments
        To aid us in our consideration of whether a time zone change would be “for the convenience of commerce,” we ask for comments on the impact on commerce of a change in time zone and whether a new time zone would improve the convenience of commerce. The comments should address the impact on such things as economic, cultural, social, and civic activities and how time zone changes affect businesses, communication, transportation, and education. The comments should be as detailed as possible, providing the basis of the information including factual data or surveys. For example, with regard to major bus, rail, and air transportation, information such as the average time it takes for an average county resident to travel to a transportation terminal or the average distance to the terminal for a county resident would be useful. With regard to the impact of the time zone on education, if a school district crosses county lines, the number of students in each county in that district would be helpful. Information on school activities such as sporting events or academic competitions that take place in other counties or locations that are not on the same time zone as the school district would also be useful. Similar information on community colleges could also be beneficial. Finally, we would appreciate information on how the different time zones affect the students and the schools.
        We specifically invite comment from neighboring Indiana counties, and counties in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Illinois that may also be impacted by any change. For example, we are aware of the importance of South Bend to its neighboring communities in Indiana and Michigan and specifically request comment on potential effects to those communities to the north, east, and south if St. Joseph County is changed at the final rule stage and placed in a different time zone from the greater Michiana area as additional information could change our tentative decision.
        Although the five counties have submitted sufficient information to begin the rulemaking process, the decision whether actually to make the change will also consider information received at the hearings or submitted in writing to the docket. Persons supporting or opposing the change should not assume that the change will be made merely because DOT is making the proposal. The Department here issues no opinion on the ultimate merits of the counties' requests. Our decision in the final rule will be made on the basis of information developed during the entire rulemaking proceeding, including the petitions.
        Impact on Observance of Daylight Saving Time
        As noted above, this time zone proposal does not affect the observance of daylight saving time. Under the Uniform Time Act of 1966, as amended, the standard time of each time zone in the United States is advanced one hour from 2 a.m. on the first Sunday in April until 2 a.m. on the last Sunday in October, except in any State that has, by law, exempted itself from this observance. Under recently enacted federal legislation, beginning in 2007, daylight saving time will begin the second Sunday in March and end the first Sunday in November.
        Comment Period
        We are providing 30 days for public comments in this proceeding. Although we normally provide 60 days for public comments on proposed rules, we believe that 30 days is an adequate public comment period in this instance. It is important to resolve this rulemaking expeditiously so that we can provide ample notice if changes to the time zone boundaries are adopted. Since the introduction and passage of the State legislation, the time zone boundary issue has been actively discussed and analyzed. In this regard, we expect that 30 days is adequate time to gather the necessary data, which is based on currently available information, or share personal preferences. Because of the number of counties under consideration, please identify which county or counties you are commenting on.
        Regulatory Analysis & Notices
        This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. The rule primarily affects the convenience of individuals in scheduling activities. By itself, it imposes no direct costs. Its impact is localized in nature.
        Small Entities
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This proposal, if adopted, would primarily affect individuals and their scheduling of activities. Although it would affect some small businesses, not-for-profits and, perhaps, a number of small governmental jurisdictions, it would not be a substantial number. In addition, the change should have little, if any, economic impact.

        Therefore, I certify under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Joanne Petrie at (202) 366-9315.
        Collection of Information
        This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
        Federalism
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 12612 and have determined that this rule does not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
        Unfunded Mandates
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, (58 FR 58093; October 28, 1993) govern the issuance of Federal regulations that impose unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate.
        Taking of Private Property
        This proposed rule would not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
        Civil Justice Reform
        This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
        Protection of Children
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
        Environment
        This rulemaking is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.
        Privacy Act

        Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 71
          Time zones.

        For the reasons discussed above, the Office of the Secretary proposes to amend Title 49 part 71 to read as follows:

          PART 71—STANDARD TIME ZONE BOUNDARIES
          1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            Secs. 1-4, 40 Stat. 450, as amended; sec. 1, 41 Stat. 1446, as amended; secs. 2-7, 80 Stat. 107, as amended; 100 Stat. 764; Act of Mar. 19, 1918, as amended by the Uniform Time Act of 1966 and Pub. L. 97-449, 15 U.S.C. 260-267; Pub. L. 99-359; 49 CFR 159(a), unless otherwise noted.

          2. Paragraph (b) of § 71.5, Boundary line between eastern and central zones, is revised to read as follows:

            § 71.5
            Boundary line between eastern and central zones.

            (b) Indiana-Illinois. From the junction of the western boundary of the State of Michigan with the northern boundary of the State of Indiana easterly along the northern boundary of the State of Indiana to the east line of St. Joseph County; thence south along the east line of St. Joseph County to the border with Marshall County; thence west along the north line of Marshall County; thence south along the west line of Marshall County; thence west along the south line of Starke County; thence south along the east line of Jasper County; thence south and west along the south line of Jasper County; thence west along the south line of Newton County to the intersection of Indiana-Illinois border; thence south along the Indiana-Illinois border to the intersection with the northwest corner of Knox County; thence east along the north line of Knox County; thence south and west along the east line of Knox County to the intersection with Pike County; thence easterly along the northeast line of Pike County; thence south along the east line of Pike County; thence east along the south line of Dubois County; thence north and east along the line between Dubois and Perry County; thence east and south along the northeast line of Perry County to the border of Indiana and Kentucky.

            Issued in Washington, DC on October 25, 2005.
            Jeffrey A. Rosen,
            General Counsel.

      [FR Doc. 05-21606 Filed 10-26-05; 4:59 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4910-02-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 140819687-5314-01]
        RIN 0648-BE40
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; Framework Amendment

          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 Framework Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic (CMP) Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (Framework Amendment 2), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils (Councils). If implemented, this proposed rule would remove the unlimited commercial trip limit for Spanish mackerel in Federal waters off the east coast of Florida on weekdays beginning December 1 of each year. Since the trip limit system has been in place, fishery conditions and regulations have changed. This proposed rule intends to modify the current trip limit system to better fit the current fishery conditions and catch limits for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in the southern zone, while increasing social and economic benefits of the CMP fishery.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive written comments on the proposed rule by May 11, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2014-0136” 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-2014-0136, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Karla Gore, 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).

          Framework Amendment 2 to the FMP, which includes an environmental assessment and a regulatory impact review, is available from www.regulations.gov or the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Karla Gore, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: karla.gore@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The CMP fishery of the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) includes Spanish mackerel and is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Councils and 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 that NMFS and regional fishery management councils prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. To further this goal, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires fishery managers to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable.
        Management Measure Contained in This Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule would modify the commercial trip limit system for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. Since the current trip limit regime has been in place, changes in fishery conditions, such as an increase of the commercial annual catch limit (ACL), have necessitated modifications to some elements of the current trip limit system.
        Currently, the commercial trip limit for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in Federal waters off the eastern coast of Florida is 3,500 lb (1,588 kg) from the start of the fishing year on March 1 through November 30. Starting December 1, there is no trip limit on weekdays, and the trip limit is 1,500 lb (680 kg) on weekends. There is no trip limit on weekdays until 75 percent of the adjusted quota (set at 250,000 lb (113,400 kg) below the commercial ACL (adjusted quota)) is landed, after which the trip limit is 1,500 lb (680 kg) every day. When 100 percent of the adjusted quota is reached, the trip limit is reduced to 500 lb (227 kg) until the end of the fishing year or until the full quota is met or projected to be met. The adjusted quota provides a buffer to help prevent the commercial sector from exceeding the commercial ACL. North of a line extending offshore from the state boundary of Georgia and Florida, the trip limit in Federal waters is 3,500 lb (1,588 kg) year-round.
        The lack of a commercial trip limit for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in Federal waters off the eastern coast of Florida on weekdays beginning December 1 may contribute to early closures. Therefore, this proposed rule would establish a trip limit of 3,500 lb (1,588 kg) for Spanish mackerel in Federal waters offshore of South Carolina, Georgia, and eastern Florida, which is the area recently established by the final rule implementing Amendment 20B to the FMP as the southern zone (80 FR 4216, January 27, 2015). When 75 percent of the adjusted southern zone quota (2,417,330 lb (1,096,482 kg)) is met or projected to be met, the trip limit would be reduced to 1,500 lb (680 kg). When 100 percent of the adjusted southern zone quota is met or projected to be met, the trip limit would be reduced to 500 lb (227 kg) until the end of the fishing year or until the southern zone commercial quota is met or projected to be met, at which time the commercial sector in the southern zone would be closed to harvest of Spanish mackerel. The modified system of trip limits described above would remove the unlimited weekday trip limit to control harvest more effectively.
        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 FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, 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 implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:
        The objective of this proposed rule is to respond to changing fishery characteristics for the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel component of the CMP fishery, reduce the complexity of the commercial trip limit system for this component, and increase social and economic benefits while ensuring resource protection. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.
        If implemented, NMFS expects this proposed rule to directly affect all commercial fishing vessels that harvest Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. A Federal commercial permit is required to harvest Spanish mackerel in the Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in excess of the bag limit and to sell these species. On May 6, 2014, 1,729 vessels possessed a valid Federal commercial Spanish mackerel permit. A valid permit is a permit that has not expired and may be actively fished. Because the Federal commercial Spanish mackerel permit is an open access permit, expired permits are not renewed; if a permit expires before renewal, a new permit would be issued (if applied for) instead of renewal of the expired permit. The Federal commercial Spanish mackerel permit allows fishermen to harvest commercial quantities of Atlantic and Gulf migratory group Spanish mackerel in the Atlantic and the Gulf EEZ. Over the 2007-2008 through 2011-2012 fishing years (March through February), an average of 387 vessels per year recorded harvests of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel. More recent data on vessel identification and harvest revenues from all fishing activity by these vessels are not available. Therefore, NMFS expects this proposed rule would affect an estimated 387 commercial fishing vessels per year.
        NMFS has not identified any other small entities that this proposed rule would be expected to directly affect.
        The SBA has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including commercial fish harvesters. A business involved in commercial fish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The estimated average annual gross revenue from all fishing activity by a commercial vessel that harvests Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel is approximately $32,100 (2013 dollars). Because the average annual revenue estimate provided above is significantly less than the SBA revenue threshold for this sector, all commercial vessels expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are believed to be small business entities.
        This proposed rule would not require any new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements associated with reporting or record-keeping that may require professional skills.

        If implemented, NMFS expects the effects of this proposed rule to range from no economic effects to a small increase in revenue to directly affected fishing vessels. Analysis of the economic effects of the proposed rule was conducted with and without 2012-2013 harvest data, which is the most recent final data available. The commercial harvest of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in 2012-2013 was approximately 3.15 million pounds (mp), compared to harvests in excess of 4 mp in the previous three fishing years. Commercial harvests of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel have shown a cyclical harvest pattern of high, medium, and low harvests on approximately a three-year cycle. As a result, removal of data for the low harvest in 2012-2013 from the analysis may capture the potential effects of the proposed rule under high and low harvest rates.

        Based on data from the 2003-2004 through 2012-2013 fishing years, i.e., inclusive of 2012-2013 data, the proposed rule would be expected to result in a gain in revenue to all directly affected vessels combined of approximately $74,000 (2013 dollars), or approximately $190 per vessel. If data from the 2012-2013 fishing year are excluded from the analysis, the proposed rule would be expected to result in the same total harvest and revenue as the status quo. Although the actual effects may be between these estimates, neither harvest scenario would be expected to result in a reduction in revenue, or profit, to any directly affected small entities as a result of the proposed rule. Instead, this proposed rule would be expected to have a small beneficial to no economic effect on the affected small entities. As a result, this proposed rule, if implemented, would not be expected to have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Annual catch limit, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf of Mexico, Quotas, South Atlantic, Spanish mackerel.

          Dated: April 2, 2015.
          Eileen Sobeck,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 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 § 622.385, paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) are revised to read as follows:

          § 622.385
          Commercial trip limits.

          (b) * * *
          (1) Atlantic migratory group. The following trip limits apply to vessels for which commercial permits for Spanish mackerel have been issued, as required under § 622.370(a)(3).
          (i) Northern zone. Spanish mackerel in or from the EEZ may not be possessed on board or landed in a day from a vessel for which a permit for Spanish mackerel has been issued, as required under § 622.370(a)(3), in amounts exceeding 3,500 lb (1,588 kg).
          (ii) Southern zone. Spanish mackerel in or from the EEZ may not be possessed on board or landed in a day from a vessel for which a permit for Spanish mackerel has been issued, as required under § 622.370(a)(3)—
          (A) From March 1 until 75 percent of the adjusted quota for the southern zone has been reached or is projected to be reached, in amounts exceeding 3,500 lb (1,588 kg).
          (B) After 75 percent of the adjusted quota for the southern zone has been reached or is projected to be reached, in amounts exceeding 1,500 lb (680 kg).
          (C) After 100 percent of the adjusted quota for the southern zone has been reached or is projected to be reached, and until the end of the fishing year or the southern zone's quota has been reached or projected to be reached, in amounts exceeding 500 lb (227 kg). See § 622.384(e) for limitations regarding Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel after the southern zone's quota is reached.
          (2) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, the adjusted quota for the southern zone is 2,417,330 lb (1,096,482 kg). The adjusted quota for the southern zone is the quota for the Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel southern zone reduced by an amount calculated to allow continued harvest of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel at the rate of 500 lb (227 kg) per vessel per day for the remainder of the fishing year after the adjusted quota is reached. Total commercial harvest in the southern zone is still subject to the southern zone quota and accountability measures. By filing a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, the Assistant Administrator will announce when 75 percent and 100 percent of the adjusted quota are reached or is projected to be reached.

      [FR Doc. 2015-08069 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 130919819-5999-01]
        RIN 0648-BD68
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures; Amendment 28

          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 Amendment 28 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) (Amendment 28). If approved and implemented by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), Amendment 28 would revise the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) red snapper commercial and recreational sector allocations of the stock annual catch limits (ACLs). As a result of the revised sector allocations proposed in Amendment 28, this proposed rule would revise the red snapper commercial and recreational quotas (which are equivalent to the ACLs) and the recreational annual catch targets (ACTs). This proposed rule would also set the Federal charter vessel/headboat and private angling component quotas and ACTs based on the revised recreational sector's ACL and ACT. The purpose of this proposed rule and Amendment 28 is to reallocate the Gulf red snapper harvest consistent with the 2014 red snapper assessment update while ensuring the allowable catch and recovery benefits from the rebuilding red snapper stock are fairly and equitably allocated between the commercial and recreational sectors.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before March 10, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the amendment identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0146” by either 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-2013-0146, 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).

          Electronic copies of Amendment 28, which includes an environmental impact statement, a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/2013/am28/index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS and the Council manage the Gulf reef fish fishery under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that in allocating fishing privileges among fishermen, such allocation shall be fair and equitable to all such fishermen, reasonably calculated to promote conservation, and carried out in such a manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges. For stocks like red snapper, which are subject to a rebuilding plan, the Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that harvest restrictions and recovery benefits be allocated fairly and equitably among the fishing sectors. These mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. The purpose of Amendment 28 is to reallocate red snapper harvest from the commercial sector to the recreational sector, consistent with the 2014 red snapper update assessment, to ensure that the allowable catch and recovery benefits from a rebuilding stock are fairly and equitably allocated between the sectors. The current commercial allocation would be reduced from 51 percent to 48.5 percent of the stock ACL and the recreational allocation would be increased from 49 percent to 51.5 percent of the stock ACL. This shift in allocation is based on the increase in the total allowable harvest attributable to the calibration of Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) catch estimates that were used in a 2014 update assessment. This proposed rule would implement the shift in allocation by modifying the commercial and recreational quotas as well as recreational component quotas consistent with the revised red snapper allocation. This proposed rule would also revise the applicable ACTs. All weights described in this proposed rule are in round (whole) weight.
        Red Snapper Management
        The Gulf red snapper stock is currently overfished and is under a rebuilding plan projected to end in 2032. Consistent with the rebuilding plan, both the commercial and recreational quotas have been allowed to increase as the red snapper stock has recovered. The red snapper commercial and recreational ACLs are equal to the applicable quotas.
        The recreational sector, which has experienced red snapper quota overages and more recently, shorter red snapper seasons, is managed through a variety of measures including separate Federal charter vessel/headboat and private angling component quotas and ACTs, recreational bag and size limits, and closed seasons. Since 2014, the recreational season length is projected each year based on the applicable ACTs, which are set 20 percent less than the applicable quotas. In addition, an overage adjustment is required if the total recreational quota is exceeded and red snapper are overfished. The red snapper commercial sector has been managed under an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program since 2007 (71 FR 67447, November 22, 2006). Although the commercial sector has also experienced quota overages in the past, since the beginning of the IFQ program, the commercial sector has not exceeded its quota.
        In recent years, the Council has expressed its intent to evaluate and possibly adjust the allocation of reef fish resources between the commercial and recreational sectors. The Council has discussed NOAA's Catch Share Policy as well as its own allocation policy, and consistent with those policies, has considered changes to sector allocations for red snapper and several grouper species. Amendment 28 and this proposed rule specifically address red snapper allocation between the commercial and recreational sectors.
        Red Snapper Assessments
        In 2013, the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review 31 Gulf red snapper benchmark assessment was conducted and was then reviewed by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). Based on their review, the SSC made recommendations for a revised red snapper acceptable biological catch (ABC) and overfishing limit (OFL). In 2014, a red snapper update assessment (2014 update assessment) was conducted. This assessment included more recent data and incorporated two changes to the recreational landings information: (1) Calibrated historical landings; and (2) new age (size) selectivity information for fishing years 2011-2013 for all recreational fleets. The calibrated historical landings resulted from important changes that were made to the design of the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Access Point Angler Intercept Survey in 2013 to cover the fishing day more effectively than the original Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS). As a result, MRIP tended to produce higher estimates of red snapper landings and discards than MRFSS. Therefore, the original time series of MRFSS estimates were calibrated to the new time series of MRIP, which resulted in higher historical landings estimates for the recreational sector. Also, the update assessment included new age (size) selectivity information for fishing years 2011-2013 for all recreational fleets. This was done because recreational red snapper fishermen appeared to be selecting for larger and older fish in recent years.
        The results of the update assessment were first presented to the SSC and Council at their respective January 2015 meetings via a PowerPoint presentation. The results of the update assessment were subsequently used by the SSC to make new ABC recommendations. Specifically, the SSC recommended revised red snapper ABCs of 14.30 million lb (6.49 million kg), 13.96 million lb (6.33 million kg), and 13.74 million lb (6.23 million kg), for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years, respectively. The Council held a webinar meeting and approved a framework action to set the 2015-2017 red snapper quotas consistent with the SSC's recommendations and a final rule implementing the framework action published in May 2015 (80 FR 24832, May 1, 2015).
        Allocation

        The initial allocation for the commercial and recreational sectors was set in Amendment 1 to the FMP and was based on the percentage of total landings during the base period of 1979-1987 (55 FR 2078, January 22, 1990). The Council evaluated several different alternatives that would increase the recreational sector's red snapper allocation during the development of Amendment 28. These alternatives included straightforward percentage changes, changes based on the red snapper stock ACL, and changes based on the new recreational catch information used in the 2014 update assessment. The Council initially considered alternatives that would increase the commercial sector's red snapper allocation. At that time, analyses from the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) suggested that shifting red snapper allocation from the commercial to the recreational sector would increase net economic benefits. Thus, the Council determined that reallocating red snapper to the commercial sector would not achieve the purpose of the amendment at that time, which was to increase the net benefits from red snapper fishing and increase the stability of the red snapper component of the reef fish fishery, particularly for the recreational sector. Therefore, the Council removed those alternatives from the amendment. After the 2014 update assessment, the purpose and need statement of the amendment was revised to reallocating the red snapper harvest consistent with the assessment update to ensure the allowable catch and recovery benefits are fairly and equitably allocated between the commercial and recreational sectors. When the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) was published for comment, it included this revised purpose and need statement and two new alternatives added by the Council to address the new information and the revised purpose and need. The draft EIS did not include alternatives that would increase the commercial sector's allocation because the new scientific information did not change any previous understanding of commercial landings. More information about the Council's decision not to include these alternatives and an analysis of the environmental consequences of increasing the commercial allocation are provided in the response to comments section (Appendix D) of Amendment 28 and integrated final EIS. Accordingly, NMFS has made a preliminary determination that Amendment 28 includes a reasonable range of alternatives consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
        NMFS has also made a preliminary determination that Amendment 28 is consistent with section 302(i)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires that interested parties “have a reasonable opportunity to respond to new data or information before the Council takes final action on conservation and management measures.” The preferred allocation alternative selected by the Council is based on the increase in the total allowable harvest that was attributable to the calibration of MRFSS catch estimates to the new MRIP time series used in the 2014 update assessment. The written report of the update assessment was not available until September 2015, which is after the Council took final action on Amendment 28. However, that report merely memorializes the information that was previously presented to the Council and the public, and was used by the Council to increase the quotas in the spring of 2015. The public had an opportunity to comment on the assessment results both during the Council webinar and during the comment period on the proposed rule to implement the quota increase that was published in April 2015. The amount of increase in the total allowable harvest attributable to the MRIP recalibration was derived from projections provided by the SEFSC in March 2015 and that analysis is included in Appendix H to Amendment 28.
        The preferred allocation alternative was determined by first allocating the red snapper quota that would result if MRIP catch estimates were not calibrated according to the status quo allocation percentages (51 percent commercial and 49 percent recreational) and then adding the amount of red snapper quota estimated to result from the recalibration to the recreational sector derived from the SEFSC projections. Percentages of the 2015-2017 red snapper annual quotas allocated to each sector fluctuated based on the quota and on the amounts attributed to the recalibration. Thus, the Council decided to base the proposed commercial and recreational allocation on the average red snapper allocations for the projected years. Consequently, Amendment 28 would revise the Gulf red snapper allocation to 48.5 percent of the stock ACL to the commercial sector and 51.5 percent of the stock ACL to the recreational sector.
        NMFS has made a preliminary determination that this allocation is consistent with National Standard 4 and the requirements of section 303(a)(14) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. National Standard 4 requires, in relevant part, that any allocation be fair and equitable, and reasonably calculated to promote conservation. Section 303(a)(14) requires that any rebuilding plan that reduces harvest in a fishery allocate harvest restrictions and recovery benefits fairly and equitably among the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors. The allocation is fair and equitable because it addresses changes in the methodology in collecting recreational landings information that indicate that recreational harvests have been underestimated and that the stock is more productive than previously thought. Allocating the quantifiable increase in the total allowable harvest attributable to the calibration to the recreational sector is a straightforward way to help address the impacts of the changes to the survey methodology on recreational catch estimates. This shift in allocation is intended to help maintain a fair and equitable distribution of recovery benefits by recognizing that future recreational harvest will be monitored based on an improved methodology that results in higher landings estimates. This allocation is also reasonably calculated to promote conservation because the resulting commercial and recreational quotas keep the harvest under the overfishing limit, new accountability measures that have been implemented for the recreational sector are constraining harvest to the recreational quota, and analyses indicate that the shift in allocation is not expected to affect the speed of recovery to the Gulf-wide management rebuilding target.
        Quotas

        Given the red snapper stock ACLs of 13.96 million lb (6.33 million kg) for the 2016 fishing year and 13.74 million lb (6.23 million kg) for the 2017 fishing year, under the proposed allocation the commercial quota would be 6.768 million lb (3.070 million kg) and 6.664 million lb (3.023 million kg) for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years and the recreational quota would be 7.192 million lb (3.262 million kg) and 7.076 million lb (3.210 million kg) for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years. For the recreational sector, the ACT would be set 20 percent less than the recreational quota and result in ACTs of 5.754 million lb (2.610 million kg) for 2016 and 5.661 million lb (2.568 million kg) for 2017. As described in Amendment 40 to the FMP, the recreational quota and ACT would be further divided into Federal charter vessel/headboat and private angling component quotas and ACTs based on an allocation of 42.3 percent to the Federal charter vessel/headboat component and 57.7 percent to the private angling component (80 FR 22422, April 22, 2015). As a result, this proposed rule would set the 2016 and 2017 Federal charter vessel/headboat component quotas at 3.042 million lb (1.380 million kg) and 2.993 million lb (1.358 million kg), and the component ACTs at 2.434 million lb (1.104 million kg) and 2.395 million lb (1.086 million kg), respectively. The rule would also set the 2016 and 2017 private angling component quotas at 4.150 million lb (1.882 million kg) and 4.083 million lb (1.852 million kg), and the component ACTs at 3.320 million lb (1.506 million kg) and 3.266 million lb (1.481 million kg), respectively. If Amendment 28 is approved by the Secretary and implemented, the commercial sector's amount of red snapper available in the IFQ program would be revised for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years and the season lengths for the recreational sector, and associated components, would be determined using the revised component ACTs.

        NMFS has made a preliminary determination the proposed commercial and recreational quotas are consistent with the requirements of section 407(d)(2). Section 407(d)(2) must be read in context with the rest of section 407(d) as well as the Magnuson-Stevens Act as a whole. Section 407(d) was enacted in 1996 as part of the Sustainable Fisheries Act and provides that any fishery plan amendment submitted by the Council for the red snapper fishery after the date of enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act must contain conservation and management measures that (1) establish separate quotas for recreational fishing and commercial fishing, and (2) “ensure that such quotas reflect allocations among such sectors and do not reflect any harvests in excess of such allocations.” The Council complied with the mandate of section 407(d) in early 1997 by submitting a framework action to establish a recreational quota with a closure provision that reflected the allocation established in Amendment 1 to the FMP. A final rule implementing the recreational quota was published in September 1997 (62 Federal Register 46677, September 4, 1997).
        There are three general provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that are particularly relevant to the allocation decision addressed by Amendment 28. These are National Standard 4 and section 303(a)(14), which address, in relevant part, the fairness and equity of allocations, and National Standard 2, which requires that conversation and management measures shall be based on best scientific information available. The adjustment to the allocation chosen by the Council is based on new scientific information which indicates that historical recreational landings were greater than previously estimated. Revised historical recreational landings were then used in the update assessment and had a quantifiable impact on the results of that assessment. As explained above, allocating this quantifiable increase in the total allowable harvest to the recreational sector is a straightforward way to help address the impacts of the changes to the data collection methodology on recreational catch estimates. To give effect to all of the provisions of the statute, NMFS has made a preliminary determination that: (1) The Council complied with the mandates of section 407(d)(2) by establishing a recreational quota in 1997 that reflected the previously established allocation; and (2) that this provision does not prohibit future action to adjust the allocations as necessary to ensure consistency with the other general requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, such as National Standard 2, National Standard 4, and section 303(a)(14). Furthermore, there is nothing that indicates any intent to exclude the allocations in the red snapper component of the reef fish fishery from these general requirements.
        Because the Amendment 28 rulemaking to reallocate the red snapper stock ACL will be implemented after January 1, 2016, a framework action has been developed by the Council and submitted to NMFS that would hold back 4.9 percent of the 2016 commercial quota. The final rule for that framework action published on November 27, 2015 (80 FR 73999). The purpose of the framework action is to allow IFQ allocation to be distributed to IFQ shareholders based on the 2016 commercial quota proposed in Amendment 28. If Amendment 28 is not implemented, the held back portion of the red snapper commercial quota would be distributed back to the commercial sector.
        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 Amendment 28, the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), as required by section 603 of the RFA, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, the objectives of, and legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. Moreover, the proposed rule is not expected to change current reporting, record-keeping, and other compliance requirements on directly affected small entities.
        This proposed rule is expected to directly affect federally permitted commercial fishermen that harvest red snapper in the Gulf. Commercial harvest of red snapper in the Gulf is currently managed under an IFQ program. From 2010 through 2014, an annual average of 375 vessels landed at least 1 lb (0.45 kg) of red snapper. Each vessel generated annual average dockside revenues of approximately $102,000 (2014 dollars), of which $36,000 were from red snapper, $38,000 from other species jointly landed with red snapper, and $28,000 from other species on trips without red snapper. Vessels that caught and landed red snapper may also operate in other fisheries, the revenues of which are not known and are not reflected in these totals. It is noted that the 2014 commercial red snapper landings data are preliminary.

        With respect to the proposed changes in the red snapper recreational allocation, only recreational anglers are allowed to keep red snapper harvested under the recreational quota and would be directly affected by changes in the allowable harvest. However, recreational anglers are not small entities under the RFA. Although for-hire businesses (charter vessels and headboats) operate in the recreational sector, these businesses only sell fishing services to recreational anglers and do not have harvest privileges to the red snapper recreational quota/ACT. For-hire vessels provide a platform for the opportunity to fish and not a guarantee to catch or harvest any species, though expectations of successful fishing, however defined, likely factor into the decision by anglers to purchase these services. Changing the red snapper recreational quota only defines how much red snapper can be harvested and the quota is a factor in the determination of the length of the red snapper season. Changing the quota does not explicitly prevent the continued offer or sale of for-hire fishing services. In the event of a shortened recreational season precipitated by a recreational quota reduction, fishing for other species can continue when the season is closed. In the event of a recreational quota increase and associated lengthening in the recreational open season, the basic service offered remains the same, though the list of species that may be retained is expanded. Because the proposed change in the red snapper recreational quota would not directly alter the basic service sold by for-hire vessels, in general, this proposed action would not directly apply to or regulate their operations. Any change in vessel business would be a result of changes in angler demand for these fishing services that occurs as a result of the behavioral decision by anglers, i.e., to fish or not. This behavioral decision would be a consequence of how anglers determine the change in allowable harvest will affect them. Therefore, any effects on the associated for-hire vessels would be one step removed from the anglers' decision and an indirect effect of the proposed action. Because the effects on for-hire vessels would be indirect, they fall outside the scope of the RFA.
        NMFS has not identified any other small entities that would be expected to be directly affected by this proposed action.
        The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including fish harvesters. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million (North American Industry Classification System, NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
        Based on revenue information, all 375 commercial vessels directly affected by the rule can be considered small entities. Thus, the proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities. Because all entities expected to be directly affected by the proposed rule are determined for the purpose of this analysis to be small business entities, the issue of disproportional effects on large and small entities does not arise in the present case.
        The proposed action would change the commercial and recreational sector allocation of the red snapper quota from 51 percent for the commercial sector and 49 percent for the recreational sector to 48.5 percent and 51.5 percent for the commercial and recreational sectors, respectively. Relative to the current red snapper ACLs for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years, the proposed reallocation would reduce the commercial sector allocation by 0.352 million lb (0.160 million kg) in 2016 and 0.343 million lb (0.156 million kg) in 2017, or a total of 0.695 million lb (0.315 million kg) over 2 years. Based on 2013 median ex-vessel price per pound for red snapper of $4.83 when adjusted to 2014 prices ($4.75 at 2013 dollars), these commercial quota reductions would be expected to reduce total gross revenue (ex-vessel revenue, minus the IFQ program's 3 percent cost recovery fee) of vessels that commercially harvest red snapper by approximately $1.48 million (2014 dollars) in 2016 and $1.45 million in 2017 for all vessels. Over 2 years, total revenue reductions would be $2.93 million, or an average of $1.46 million per year for all vessels. This average revenue reduction may be considered to approximate the annual revenue reduction of affected commercial vessels over a number of years for which the commercial quota is held at about the same levels as in 2016 and 2017. Based on the 2010-2014 average of 375 vessels that commercially harvested red snapper, the revenue reduction per vessel would be approximately $3,893 annually. This amount is approximately 4 percent of total per vessel revenues from all species.
        The following discussion describes the eight alternatives that were not selected as preferred in Amendment 28 by the Council.
        The first alternative, the no action alternative, would maintain the current commercial and recreational allocation of the red snapper ACL. This alternative would maintain relatively the same economic benefits to commercial vessels but at levels higher than those afforded by the preferred alternative. The second alternative would increase the recreational sector's allocation by 3 percent, resulting in a 48 percent commercial and 52 percent recreational sector allocation. The third alternative would increase the recreational sector's allocation by 5 percent, resulting in a 46 percent commercial and 54 percent recreational sector allocation. The fourth alternative would increase the recreational sector's allocation by 10 percent, resulting in a 41 percent commercial and 59 percent recreational sector allocation. The fifth alternative would allocate to the recreational sector 75 percent of the red snapper ACL increases beyond 9.12 million lb (4.14 million kg), resulting in a 42 percent commercial and 58 percent recreational sector allocation in 2016 and 42.3 percent commercial and 57.7 percent recreational sector allocation in 2017. The sixth alternative would allocate to the recreational sector all red snapper ACL increases beyond a stock ACL of 9.12 million lb (4.14 million kg), resulting in a 33.3 percent commercial and 66.7 percent recreational sector allocation in 2016 and 33.9 percent commercial and 66.1 percent recreational sector allocation in 2017. The seventh alternative would allocate to the recreational sector 75 percent of any red snapper ACL increases beyond a stock ACL 10.0 million lb (4.54 million kg), resulting in a 43.6 percent commercial and 56.4 percent recreational sector allocation in 2016 and 43.9 percent commercial and 56.1 percent recreational sector allocation in 2017. The eighth alternative (Alternative 9 in Action 1) would allocate increases in the red snapper ACL due to the recalibration of MRIP catch estimates and to the change in size selectivity to the recreational sector, resulting in a 42.5 percent commercial and 57.5 percent recreational sector allocation in 2016 and 2017. All these other alternatives, except the no action alternative, would result in larger quota and revenue reductions for the commercial vessels that harvest red snapper. Therefore, the Council determined that the preferred alternative in Amendment 28 best meets the goal of ensuring the allowable catch and recovery benefits from the rebuilding red snapper stock are fairly and equitably allocated between the commercial and recreational sectors.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Allocation, Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, Recreational, Red snapper.

          Dated: January 14, 2016.
          Eileen Sobeck,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 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 § 622.39, revise paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i) to read as follows:

          § 622.39
          Quotas.

          (a) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (i) Commercial quota for red snapper. (A) For fishing year 2015—7.293 million lb (3.308 million kg), round weight.
          (B) For fishing year 2016—6.768 million lb (3.070 million kg), round weight.
          (C) For fishing year 2017 and subsequent fishing years—6.664 million lb (3.023 million kg), round weight.

          (2) *  *  *
          (i) Recreational quota for red snapper. (A) Total recreational quota (Federal charter vessel/headboat and private angling component quotas combined).

          (1) For fishing year 2015—7.007 million lb (3.178 million kg), round weight.
          (2) For fishing year 2016—7.192 million lb (3.262 million kg), round weight.
          (3) For fishing year 2017 and subsequent fishing years—7.076 million lb (3.210 million kg), round weight.
          (B) Federal charter vessel/headboat component quota. The Federal charter vessel/headboat component quota applies to vessels that have been issued a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year. This component quota is effective for only the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years. For the 2018 and subsequent fishing years, the applicable total recreational quota specified in § 622.39(a)(2)(i)(A) will apply to the recreational sector.
          (1) For fishing year 2015—2.964 million lb (1.344 million kg), round weight.
          (2) For fishing year 2016—3.042 million lb (1.380 million kg), round weight.
          (3) For fishing year 2017—2.993 million lb (1.358 million kg), round weight.
          (C) Private angling component quota. The private angling component quota applies to vessels that fish under the bag limit and have not been issued a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year. This component quota is effective for only the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years. For the 2018 and subsequent fishing years, the applicable total recreational quota specified in § 622.39(a)(2)(i)(A) will apply to the recreational sector.
          (1) For fishing year 2015—4.043 million lb (1.834 million kg), round weight.
          (2) For fishing year 2016—4.150 million lb (1.882 million kg), round weight.
          (3) For fishing year 2017—4.083 million lb (1.852 million kg), round weight.

        3. In § 622.41, revise (q)(2)(iii) to read as follows:

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

          (q) *  *  *
          (2) *  *  *
          (iii) Recreational ACT for red snapper. (A) Total recreational ACT (Federal charter vessel/headboat and private angling component ACTs combined).

          (1) For fishing year 2015—5.606 million lb (2.543 million kg), round weight.
          (2) For fishing year 2016—5.754 million lb (2.610 million kg), round weight.
          (3) For fishing year 2017 and subsequent fishing years—5.661 million lb (2.568 million kg), round weight.
          (B) Federal charter vessel/headboat component ACT. The Federal charter vessel/headboat component ACT applies to vessels that have been issued a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year. This component ACT is effective for only the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years. For the 2018 and subsequent fishing years, the applicable total recreational quota specified in § 622.39(a)(2)(i)(A) will apply to the recreational sector.
          (1) For fishing year 2015—2.371 million lb (1.075 million kg), round weight.
          (2) For fishing year 2016—2.434 million lb (1.104 million kg), round weight.
          (3) For fishing year 2017—2.395 million lb (1.086 million kg), round weight.
          (C) Private angling component ACT. The private angling component ACT applies to vessels that fish under the bag limit and have not been issued a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year. This component ACT is effective for only the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years. For the 2018 and subsequent fishing years, the applicable total recreational quota specified in § 622.39(a)(2)(i)(A) will apply to the recreational sector.
          (1) For fishing year 2015—3.234 million lb (1.467 million kg), round weight.
          (2) For fishing year 2016—3.320 million lb (1.506 million kg), round weight.
          (3) For fishing year 2017—3.266 million lb (1.481 million kg), round weight.

      [FR Doc. 2016-01279 Filed 1-22-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P