        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 0808041043-81412-01]
        RIN 0648-AX16
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications and Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes 2009 specifications and management measures for Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish (MSB). This action proposes to maintain quotas for Atlantic mackerel (mackerel), Illex squid (Illex), and butterfish at the same levels as 2008, while increasing the quota for Loligo squid (Loligo). Additionally, this action proposes to increase the incidental possession limit for mackerel and requests public comment concerning the possibility of an inseason adjustment to increase the mackerel quota, if landings approach proposed harvest limits. These proposed specifications and management measures promote the utilization and conservation of the MSB resource.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on December 17, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov.
          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AX16, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal http://www.regulations.gov;

          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Carrie Nordeen;
          • Mail to NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on 2009 MSB Specifications.”

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9272, fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries (FMP) appear at 50 CFR part 648, subpart B. Regulations governing foreign fishing appear at 50 CFR part 600, subpart F. These regulations at § 648.21 and 600.516(c), require that NMFS, based on the maximum optimum yield (Max OY) of each fishery as established by the regulations, annually publish a proposed rule specifying the amounts of the initial optimum yield (IOY), allowable biological catch (ABC), domestic annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP), as well as, where applicable, the amounts for total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF) and joint venture processing (JVP) for the affected species managed under the FMP. In addition, these regulations allow specifications to be specified for up to 3 years, subject to annual review. The regulations found in § 648.21 also specify that IOY for squid is equal to the combination of research quota (RQ) and DAH, with no TALFF specified for squid. For butterfish, the regulations specify that a butterfish bycatch TALFF will be specified only if TALFF is specified for mackerel.

        At its June 10-12, 2008, meeting in Atlantic City, NJ, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) recommended 2009 MSB specifications. The recommended specifications for mackerel, Illex, and butterfish are the same as those implemented in 2008. For Loligo, the Council recommended increasing the Max OY, ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP based on updated biological reference points implemented in Amendment 9 to the FMP and based on the most recent stock assessment. The Council also recommended increasing the incidental possession limit for mackerel during summer months to reduce the potential for the regulatory discarding of mackerel by the Atlantic herring fleet. With the exception of the incidental possession limit for mackerel, all other management measures (e.g., fishery closure thresholds, possession limits, gear requirements) are the same as those implemented in 2008.
        Research Quota

        Framework Adjustment 1 to the FMP established the Mid-Atlantic Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program, which allows research projects to be funded through the sale of fish that has been set-aside from the total annual quota. The RQ may vary between 0 and 3 percent of the overall quota for each species. The Council has recommended that 3 percent of the 2009 Loligo, Illex, butterfish, and mackerel quotas be set aside to fund projects selected under the 2009 Mid-Atlantic RSA Program.

        NMFS solicited research proposals under the 2009 Mid-Atlantic RSA Program through the Federal Register (73 FR 7528, February 8, 2008). The deadline for submission was March 24, 2008. On July 5, 2008, NMFS convened a Review Panel to review the comments submitted by technical reviewers. At this time, the project selection and award process for the 2009 Mid-Atlantic RSA Program has not concluded. Based on discussions between NMFS staff, technical review comments, and Review Panel comments, projects requesting Loligo RQ will be forwarded to the NOAA Grants Office for award. If any portion of the RQ is not awarded, NMFS will return any un-awarded RQ to the commercial fishery either through the final 2009 MSB specification rulemaking process or through the publication of a separate notice in the
          Federal Register notifying the public of a quota adjustment.
        Vessels harvesting RQ in support of approved research projects would be issued exempted fishing permits (EFP) authorizing them to exceed Federal possession limits and to fish during Federal quota closures. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that interested parties be provided an opportunity to comment on all proposed EFPs. These exemptions are necessary to allow project investigators to recover research expenses, as well as adequately compensate fishing industry participants harvesting RQ. Vessels harvesting RQ would operate within all other regulations that govern the commercial fishery, unless otherwise exempted through a separate EFP.
        2009 Proposed Specifications and Management Measures

          Table 1. Proposed Specifications, in Metric Tons (mt), for Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish for 2009 Fishing Year.

            Specifications
            Loligo
            Illex
            Mackerel
            Butterfish

            Max OY
            32,000
            24,000
            N/A
            12,175

            ABC
            19,000
            24,000
            156,000
            1,500

            IOY
            13,3001

            24,000
            115,0002

            500

            DAH
            13,300
            24,000
            115,0003

            500

            DAP
            13,300
            24,000
            100,000
            500

            JVP
            0
            0
            0
            0

            TALFF
            0
            0
            0
            0

            1 Excludes 5,700 mt (3 percent of the IOY) for RQ.

            2 IOY may be increased during the year, but the total ABC will not exceed 156,000 mt.

            3 Includes a 15,000 mt catch of Atlantic mackerel by the recreational fishery.

        Atlantic Mackerel
        The status of the Atlantic mackerel stock was most recently assessed at the 42nd Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) in late 2005. SARC 42 concluded that the mackerel stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. According to the FMP, mackerel ABC must be calculated using the formula ABC = T — C, where C is the estimated catch of mackerel in Canadian waters for the upcoming fishing year and T is the yield associated with a fishing mortality rate that is equal to the target fishing mortality rate (F). Based on projections from SARC 42, the yield associated with the target F of 0.12 in 2008 is 211,000 mt. SARC 42 did not project yields for 2009, but the yield projections from 2008 will be used as a proxy until new projections are calculated in the next mackerel stock assessment, currently scheduled for 2009. Canadian catch of mackerel has been increasing in recent years; therefore, the estimate of Canadian catch for 2009 has been increased from the 2007 estimate of 52,000 mt to 55,000 mt. Thus, 211,000 mt minus 55,000 mt results in a proposed 2009 mackerel ABC of 156,000 mt.
        This action proposes a mackerel IOY of 115,000 mt. The Council believes that this level of harvest would provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and would allow for an increase in domestic landings. In recent years, domestic mackerel landings have been increasing due to major investments in the domestic mackerel processing sector. Mackerel landings in 2003 totaled 35,071 mt, while landings for 2006 totaled 58,279 mt. The Council concluded, based on industry testimony, that U.S. vessels will continue to increase their landings and that shoreside processing capacity has increased to the point that it can process all of the DAH. Industry has indicated that the relatively low landings in 2007 (26,429 mt) as compared to 2006 were because mackerel were farther offshore than in recent years and thus less available to the fishery. If mackerel are available to the fishery in 2009, industry expects to land the entire IOY. The proposed 115,000-mt IOY is consistent with mackerel regulations at § 648.21(b)(2)(ii), which state that IOY is a modification of ABC, based on social and economic factors, and must be less than or equal to ABC.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that the specification of TALFF, if any, shall be that portion of the optimum yield (OY) of a fishery that will not be harvested by vessels of the United States. TALFF would allow foreign vessels to harvest U.S. fish and sell their product on the world market, in direct competition with the U.S. industry efforts to expand exports. The Council expressed its concern, supported by industry testimony, that an allocation of TALFF would threaten the expansion of the domestic industry. The Council noted that this would prevent the U.S. industry from taking advantage of declines in the European production of Atlantic mackerel that have resulted in an increase in world demand for U.S. fish. The only economic benefit associated with a TALFF is the foreign fishing fees it generates. On the other hand, there are economic benefits associated with the development of the domestic mackerel fishery. Increased mackerel production generates jobs both for plant workers and other support industries. More jobs generate additional sources of income for residents of coastal communities and generally enhance the social fabric of these communities.
        For these reasons, and consistent with the Council's recommendation, NMFS proposes to specify IOY at a level that can be fully harvested by the domestic fleet, thereby precluding the specification of a TALFF, in order to assist the expansion of the U.S. mackerel industry. This would yield positive social and economic benefits to both U.S. harvesters and processors. Given the trends in landings, and the industry's testimony that it has experienced significant growth, NMFS concurs that it is reasonable to assume that, in 2009, the commercial fishery has the ability to harvest 100,000 mt of mackerel. Thus DAH would be 115,000 mt, which is the commercial harvest plus the 15,000 mt allocated for the recreational fishery. Because IOY = DAH, this specification is consistent with the Council's recommendation that the level of IOY should not provide for a TALFF.

        NMFS proposes to maintain JVP at zero (the most recent allocation was 5,000 mt of JVP in 2004), consistent with the Council's recommendation. In previous years, the Council recommended a JVP greater than zero because it believed U.S. processors lacked the ability to process the total amount of mackerel that U.S. harvesters could land. However, for the past 5 years, the Council has recommended zero JVP because the surplus between DAH and DAP has been declining as U.S. shoreside processing capacity for mackerel has expanded. The Council received testimony from processors and harvesters that the shoreside processing sector of this industry has continued to expand since 2002-2003. Subsequent industry testimony estimated current processing capacity at 2,500 mt per day. The Council also heard from the industry that the availability (i.e., size, distribution, and abundance) of mackerel to the fishery, rather than processing capacity, has curtailed catch in recent years. Based on this information, the Council concluded that processing capacity is no longer a limiting factor relative to domestic production of mackerel. Furthermore, the Council concluded that the U.S. mackerel processing sector has the potential to process the DAH, so JVP would be specified at zero.
        Mackerel Incidental Possession Limit
        Regulations at § 648.25(a) specify that, during closures of the directed mackerel fishery, the incidental possession limit for mackerel is 20,000 lb (9.08 mt). At the Council's June 2008 meeting, the industry requested increasing the incidental mackerel possession limit to minimize the potential for regulatory discard of mackerel by the Atlantic herring fleet. Mackerel and Atlantic herring are known to co-occur in the Gulf of Maine during summer months. To minimize the potential for the regulatory discarding of mackerel by the Atlantic herring fleet during a closure of the directed mackerel fishery, the industry requested that the mackerel incidental possession limit be increased during summer months. Industry identified a 50,000-lb (22.7-mt) incidental mackerel possession limit, to be effective after June 1, as an appropriate limit to minimize the potential for regulatory discarding by the Atlantic herring fleet in the Gulf of Maine, without creating directed fishing for mackerel during a closure of the mackerel fishery. When considering this incidental possession limit increase, the Council discussed that, relative to the quota, few mackerel are landed after June 1, because they move offshore and are largely unavailable to U.S. pelagic fishing fleets. The Council also recognized that this measure was not anticipated to result in a quota overage because it was unlikely that the buffer between the threshold at which the directed mackerel fishery closes (103,500 mt) and the IOY (115,000 mt) would be landed between June 1 and December 31.
        After considering these factors, NMFS proposes that the mackerel incidental possession limit be increased from a 20,000-lb (9.08-mt) incidental possession limit to a 20,000-lb (9.08-mt) limit if the directed mackerel fishery closes prior to June 1, and a 50,000-lb (22.7-mt) limit if the directed mackerel fishery closes on or after June 1. This proposed incidental possession limit is consistent with the Council's recommendation.
        Inseason Adjustment of the Mackerel IOY

        Regulations at § 648.21(e) provide that specifications may be adjusted inseason during the fishing year by the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator (Regional Administrator), in consultation with the Council, by publishing a notice in the Federal Register and providing a 30-day public comment period. At the June 2008 Council meeting, in response to recent growth in the domestic harvesting and processing sectors of the mackerel fishery, both the mackerel industry and the Council voiced interest in increasing the 2009 mackerel IOY if landings approach 115,000 mt during the most active part of the fishing year (January-April). However, the mackerel fishing season is short, and it would be difficult to implement a separate inseason action during the fishing season. To facilitate a timely inseason adjustment to the mackerel IOY, if necessary, this action proposes and seeks comment on such an inseason adjustment. In 2009, as in 2008, NMFS's Northeast Fishery Statistic Office will summarize mackerel landings from dealer reports on a weekly basis and post this information on the Northeast Regional Office website (http://www.nero.noaa.gov/). NMFS staff will closely monitor these landings and industry trends to determine if an inseason adjustment is necessary. If, using landings projections and all other available information, the Regional Administrator determines that 70 percent of the Atlantic mackerel IOY will be landed during the 2009 fishing year, the Regional Administrator will make available additional quota for a total IOY of 156,000 mt of Atlantic mackerel for harvest during 2009. Additionally, if an inseason adjustment of the IOY is warranted, the Regional Administrator will notify the Council and the inseason adjustment will be published in the Federal Register.
        Atlantic Squids

          Loligo

        Amendment 9 to the FMP (Amendment 9) (73 FR 37382, July 1, 2008) revised the proxies for Loligo target and threshold fishing mortality rates, FTarget and FThreshold, respectively, to reflect the analytical advice provided by the most recent Loligo stock assessment review committee (SARC 34). While Amendment 9 revised the formulas and values for these reference points, the function of the reference points remains unchanged. FTarget is the basis for determining OY and FThreshold determines whether overfishing is occurring.
        Because Loligo is a sub-annual species (i.e., has a lifespan of less than 1 year), the stock is solely dependent on sufficient recruitment year to year to prevent stock collapse. The revised proxies for FTarget and FThreshold implemented in Amendment 9 are fixed values based on average fishing mortality rates achieved during a time period when the stock biomass was fairly resilient (1987—2000). The revised proxies are calculated as follows: FTarget is the 75th percentile of fishing mortality rates during 1987—2000 and FThreshold is the average fishing mortality rates during the same period. The revised proxy for FTarget (0.32) is used as the basis for establishing Loligo OY. The use of a proxy is necessary because it is currently not possible to accurately predict Loligo stock biomass because recruitment, which occurs throughout the year, is highly variable inter-annually and influenced by changing environmental conditions.
        Based on the revised biological reference points for Loligo, the Council recommended an increase to the 2009 Loligo Max OY, ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP. In 2008, the Loligo Max OY was 26,000 mt and the ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP was 17,000 mt. For 2009, the proposed Loligo Max OY is 32,000 mt and the proposed ABC, IOY, DAH, DAP is 19,000 mt. Using the revised Loligo biological reference points, the Monitoring Committee initially calculated the proposed 2009 Loligo ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP to be 23,000 mt. The Monitoring Committee subsequently reduced the proposed 2009 Loligo ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP to 19,000 mt, to be consistent with SARC 34 management recommendation that harvest not exceed 20,000 mt, and due to uncertainty associated with the Loligo stock assessment model.

        NMFS concurs with the Council's recommendation, therefore, this action proposes a 2009 Loligo Max OY of 32,000 mt and an ABC, IOY DAH, and DAP of 19,000 mt. The FMP does not authorize the specification of JVP and TALFF for the Loligo fishery because of the domestic industry's capacity to harvest and process the OY for this fishery; therefore, there would be no Loligo JVP or TALFF in 2009.
        As described previously, the Council recommended that the Loligo RQ for 2009 be up to 3 percent (5,700 mt) of the ABC. Scientific research project proposals requesting Loligo RQ were recommended for approval and will be forwarded to the NOAA Grants Office for award. The proposed Loligo IOY, DAH, and DAP were adjusted to reflect the RQ and equal 13,300 mt. Any of the Loligo RQ that is not awarded to a scientific research project will be made available to the commercial fishery after the publication of a notice in the Federal Register.
        Distribution of the Loligo DAH

        As was done in 2007 and 2008, NMFS is proposing that the 2009 Loligo DAH be allocated into trimesters, consistent with the Council's recommendation. The proposed 2009 trimester allocations would be as follows:

          Table 2. Proposed Trimester Allocation of Loligo Quota in 2009

            Trimester
            Percent
            Metric Tons1

            I (Jan-Apr)
            43
            8,116

            II (May-Aug)
            17
            3,208

            III (Sep-Dec)
            40
            7,550

            Total
            100
            13,300

            1 Trimester allocations after 5,700 mt RQ deduction.

          Illex Squid
        The Illex stock was most recently assessed at SARC 42 in late 2005. While it was not possible to evaluate current stock status because there are no reliable current estimates of stock biomass or fishing mortality rate, qualitative analyses determined that overfishing had not likely been occurring.
        NMFS proposes to maintain the Illex specifications in 2009 at the same levels as they were for the 2008 fishing year, consistent with the Council's recommendation. This action proposes that the specification of Max OY, IOY, ABC, and DAH would be 24,000 mt. This level of DAH corresponds to a target fishing mortality rate of 75 percent FMSY. The FMP does not authorize the specification of JVP and TALFF for the Illex fishery because of the domestic fishing industry's capacity to harvest and to process the OY from this fishery.
        Butterfish

        The status of the butterfish stock was most recently assessed at SARC 38 in late 2004. The assessment concluded that, while overfishing of the stock is not occurring, the stock is overfished because estimates of stock biomass are below the minimum biomass threshold (1/2 BMSY). SARC 38 estimated the butterfish stock at 8,700 mt, 1/2 BMSY at 11,400 mt, and BMSY at 22,798 mt. Based on this information, the Council was notified by NMFS on February 11, 2005, that the butterfish stock was designated as overfished, pursuant to the requirements of section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council is developing a rebuilding plan for the butterfish stock in Amendment 10 to the FMP. Therefore, as in 2008, the Council recommended that the quota be restricted to recent landings levels to prevent an expansion of the fishery and to protect the rebuilding stocks. Without a current market for butterfish, a directed butterfish fishery has not existed for several years, with landings since 2003 ranging from 437 mt to 554 mt.
        The MSB FMP specifies that maximum sustainable yield equals Max OY. SARC 38 re-estimated butterfish maximum sustainable yield as 12,175 mt, and the butterfish overfishing threshold at F of 0.38. Assuming that butterfish discards equal twice the level of landings, the amount of butterfish discards associated with approximately 500 mt of landings is approximately 1,000 mt.
        Therefore, in 2009, as implemented in 2008, the proposed specifications would set the Max OY at 12,175 mt; the ABC at 1,500 mt; and the IOY, DAH, and DAP at 500 mt. Harvest at these proposed levels should prevent overfishing on the butterfish stock in 2009. Additionally, consistent with MSB regulations, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, zero TALFF for butterfish in 2009 because zero TALFF is proposed for mackerel.
        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 Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after pubic comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866).

        The Council prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.
        Statement of Objective and Need
        This action proposes 2009 specifications and management measures for mackerel, squid, and butterfish, and proposes to modify an incidental possession limit for mackerel. A complete description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and are not repeated here.
        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply

        Based on permit data for 2007, the numbers of potential fishing vessels in the 2009 fisheries are as follows: 383 for Loligo/butterfish, 78 for Illex, 2,462 for mackerel, and 2,108 vessels with incidental catch permits for squid/butterfish. There are no large entities participating in this fishery, as defined in section 601 of the RFA. Therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts on small entities. Many vessels participate in more than one of these fisheries; therefore, permit numbers are not additive.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        This action does not contain any new collection-of-information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
        Proposed Actions

        The mackerel IOY proposed in this action (115,000 mt, with 15,000 mt allocated to recreational catch) represents status quo, as compared to 2008, and is no constraint to vessels relative to the landings in recent years. Mackerel landings for 2001-2003 averaged 24,294 mt. Landings in 2004 were 55,528 mt, landings in 2005 were 43,246 mt, landings in 2006 were 58,279 mt, and landings in 2007 were 24,446 mt. This action also proposes an inseason adjustment, if landings approach the IOY early in the fishing year, to increase the IOY up to the ABC (156,000 mt). Therefore, no reductions in revenues for the mackerel fishery are expected as a result of this proposed action; in fact, an increase in revenues as a result of the proposed action is possible. Based on 2007 data, the mackerel fishery could increase its landings by 90,554 mt in 2009, if it takes the entire IOY. In 2007, the last year for which complete financial data are available, the average value for mackerel was $258 per mt. Using this value, the mackerel fishery could see an increase in revenues of $23,362,932 as a result of the proposed 2009 IOY (115,000 mt), and an additional increase in revenues of $10,578,000 as a result of the proposed adjustment to increase the IOY up to the ABC (156,000 mt).
        The Loligo IOY (19,000 mt) proposed in this action represents a potential for increased landings when compared to the 2008 IOY (17,000 mt). Loligo landings for 2001-2003 averaged 14,092 mt. Landings in 2004 were 15,447, landings in 2005 were 16,984 mt, landings in 2006 were 15,880 mt, and landings in 2007 were 12,342 mt. In 2007, the last year for which complete financial data are available, the average value for Loligo was $1,883 per mt. No reductions in revenues for the Loligo fishery are expected as a result of this proposed action; in fact, an increase in revenues as a result of the proposed action is possible. Based on 2007 data, the Loligo fishery could increase its landings by 6,658 mt in 2009, if it takes the entire IOY. Using the average value for Loligo from 2007 ($1,883 mt), the Loligo fishery could see an increase in revenues of $12,537,014 as a result of the proposed 2009 IOY (19,000 mt),
        The Illex IOY (24,000 mt) proposed in this action represents status quo as compared to 2008. Illex landings for 2001-2003 averaged 4,350 mt. Landings in 2004 were 26,098 mt, landings in 2005 were 12,032 mt, landings in 2006 were 13,944 mt, and landings in 2007 were 9,022 mt. In 2007, the last year for which complete financial data are available, the average value for Illex was $428 per mt. Implementation of this proposed action would not result in a reduction in revenue or a constraint on the fishery in 2009. Based on 2007 data, the Illex fishery could increase its landings by 14,978 mt in 2009, if it takes the entire IOY. Using the average value for Illex from 2007 ($428 mt), the Illex fishery could see an increase in revenues of $6,410,584 as a result of the proposed 2009 IOY (24,000 mt).
        The butterfish IOY proposed in this action (500 mt) represents status quo, as compared to 2008, and represents only a minimal constraint to vessels relative to the landings in recent years. Due to market conditions, there has been not been a directed butterfish fishery in recent years; therefore, recent landings have been low. Landings in 2004 were 537 mt, landings in 2005 were 437 mt, landings in 2006 were 554 mt, and landings in 2007 were 673 mt. Given the lack of a directed butterfish fishery and low butterfish landings, the proposed action is not expected to reduce revenues in this fishery more than minimally. Based on 2007 data, the value of butterfish was $1,602 per mt.
        Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
        The Council analysis evaluated three alternatives for mackerel, and all of them would have set the ABC at 156,000 mt, IOY at 115,000 mt, and maintained the status quo trigger for closing the directed fishery. This ABC and IOY do not represent a constraint on vessels in this fishery, so no negative impacts on revenues in this fishery are expected as a result of these alternatives. These alternatives only differed from the proposed action with respect to incidental possession limits. The proposed action specifies the incidental mackerel possession limit at 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) if the directed mackerel fishery closes prior to June 1, and at 50,000 lb (22.7 mt) if the directed mackerel fishery closes on or after June 1. The alternatives to the proposed action specify incidental mackerel possession limits at 20,000 lb (9.08 mt)(status quo) and at 50,000 lb (22.7 mt)(least restrictive). These alternatives were not adopted by the Council because the status quo incidental possession limit may have resulted in the regulatory discarding of mackerel by the Atlantic herring fishery in the Gulf of Maine and, if mackerel are available to the fishery in 2009, the least restrictive incidental possession limit may have encouraged targeting on mackerel during a fishery closure early in the year (January-April). Differences in incidental possession limits may affect behavior and effort during closures of the directed fishery; however, all alternatives are expected to result in the same total landings for 2009.
        For Loligo, alternatives to the proposed action would have set the Max OY at 26,000 mt and ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP at 17,000 mt (status quo) or Max OY at 32,000 mt and ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP at 23,000 mt (least restrictive). These alternatives were not adopted by the Council because they were either not consistent with the revised reference points from SARC 34 (status quo) or not consistent with the management recommendations from SARC 34 and did not consider the uncertainty associated with the Loligo stock assessment model (least restrictive).
        For Illex, one alternative considered would have set Max OY, ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP at 30,000 mt. This alternative would allow harvest far in excess of recent landings in this fishery. Therefore, there would be no constraints and, thus, no revenue reductions, associated with this alternative. However, the Council considered this alternative unacceptable because an ABC specification of 30,000 mt may not prevent overfishing in years of moderate to low abundance of Illex. Another alternative considered would have set MAX OY at 24,000 mt and ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP at 19,000 mt. The Council considered this alternative unacceptable because it was unnecessarily restrictive.
        For butterfish, one alternative considered would have set the ABC at 4,525 mt, and IOY, DAH, and DAP at 1,861 mt; while another would have set ABC at 12,175 mt, and IOY, DAH, and DAP 9,131 mt. These amounts exceed the landings of this species in recent years. Therefore, neither alternative represents a constraint on vessels in this fishery or would reduce revenues in the fishery. However, neither of these alternatives were adopted by the Council because they would likely result in overfishing and the additional depletion of the spawning stock biomass of an overfished species.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

        Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: November 12, 2008.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 648.25, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.25
          Possession restrictions.
          (a) Atlantic mackerel. During a closure of the directed Atlantic mackerel fishery that occurs prior to June 1, vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of Atlantic mackerel per trip at any time, and may only land Atlantic mackerel once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. During a closure of the directed fishery for butterfish that occurs on or after June 1, vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 50,000 lb (22.7 mt) of Atlantic mackerel per trip at any time, and may only land Atlantic mackerel once on any calendar day.

      [FR Doc. E8-27225 Filed 11-14-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Federal Emergency Management Agency
        44 CFR Part 67
        [Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1085]
        Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:
          On February 5, 2010, FEMA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that contained an erroneous table. This notice provides corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information published at 75 FR 5909. The table provided here represents the flooding sources, location of referenced elevations, effective and modified elevations, and communities affected for Webster County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas. Specifically, it addresses the following flooding sources: Bailey Ditch (backwater effects from Green River), Deer Creek (backwater effects from Green River), East Fork Deer Creek Tributary 1 (backwater effects from Green River), Green River, Green River Tributary 219 (backwater effects from Green River), Groves Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Knoblick Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Mock Roy Creek (backwater effects from Green River), and Pitman Creek (backwater effects from Green River).

          DATES:
          Comments are to be submitted on or before March 11, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1085, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (email) Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (email) Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
        These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings.
        Corrections

        In the proposed rule published at 75 FR 5909, in the February 5, 2010, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table under the authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled “Webster County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas” addressed the following flooding sources: Bailey Ditch (backwater effects from Green River), Deer Creek (backwater effects from Green River), East Fork Deer Creek Tributary 1 (backwater effects from Green River), Green River, Green River Tributary 219 (backwater effects from Green River), Groves Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Knoblick Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Mock Roy Creek (backwater effects from Green River), and Pitman Creek (backwater effects from Green River). That table contained inaccurate information as to the communities affected for the flooding sources Green River and Mock Roy Creek (backwater effects from Green River). In this notice, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate information to address these prior errors. The information provided below should be used in lieu of that previously published.

            Flooding source(s)
            Location of referenced elevation
            * Elevation in feet (NGVD) + Elevation in feet (NAVD)
              # Depth in feet above ground
              ⁁ Elevation in meters (MSL)

            Effective
            Modified
            Communities affected

              Webster County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas

            Bailey Ditch (backwater effects from Green River)
            From the confluence with Knoblick Creek to approximately 0.93 mile upstream of the confluence with Knoblick Creek
            None
            +387
            Unincorporated Areas of Webster County.

            Deer Creek (backwater effects from Green River)
            From the confluence with East Fork Deer Creek to approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence with East Fork Deer Creek
            None
            +387
            Unincorporated Areas of Webster County.

            East Fork Deer Creek Tributary 1 (backwater effects from Green River)
            From the confluence with Deer Creek to approximately 2.7 miles upstream of the confluence with Deer Creek
            None
            +387
            Unincorporated Areas of Webster County.

            Green River
            At approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the confluence with Groves Creek
            None
            +386
            City of Sebree, Unincorporated Areas of Webster County.

            At approximately 5.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Deer Creek
            None
            +388

            Green River Tributary 219 (backwater effects from Green River)
            From the confluence with the Green River to approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence with the Green River
            None
            +387
            Unincorporated Areas of Webster County.

            Groves Creek (backwater effects from Green River)
            From the confluence with the Green River to approximately 5.9 miles upstream of the confluence with the Green River
            None
            +386
            Unincorporated Areas of Webster County.

            Knoblick Creek (backwater effects from Green River)
            From the confluence with Deer Creek to approximately 2.8 miles upstream of the confluence with Deer Creek
            None
            +387
            Unincorporated Areas of Webster County.

            Mock Roy Creek (backwater effects from Green River)
            From the confluence with the Green River to approximately 2.5 miles upstream of the confluence with the Green River
            None
            +386
            City of Sebree, Unincorporated Areas of Webster County.

            Pitman Creek (backwater effects from Green River)
            Approximately 1,690 feet upstream of KY-370
            None
            +388
            Unincorporated Areas of Webster County.

            At approximately 3.8 miles upstream of the confluence with the Green River
            None
            +388

            *National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

            +North American Vertical Datum.

            #Depth in feet above ground.

            ⁁Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

            ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

            Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

              ADDRESSES

              City of Sebree

            Maps are available for inspection at 36 South Spring Street, Sebree, KY 42455.

              Unincorporated Areas of Webster County

            Maps are available for inspection at 35 South U.S. Route 41A, Dixon, KY

          (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”)

          Dated: November 8, 2012.
          James A. Walke,
          Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

      [FR Doc. 2012-29684 Filed 12-7-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080; 4500030114]
        RIN 1018-AZ57
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Ivesia webberi (Webber's Ivesia)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; revision and reopening of the comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our August 2, 2013, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia). We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation of critical habitat for I. webberi and an amended required determinations section of the proposal. In addition, in this document, we are proposing revised unit boundaries and acreages for five units described in our August 2, 2013, proposal (78 FR 46862) based on comments we received on the proposal. These revisions result in an increase of approximately 159 acres (65 hectares) in the proposed designation of critical habitat. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, the associated DEA, the amended required determinations section, and the unit revisions described in this document. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:

          We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before March 17, 2014. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

          ADDRESSES:

            Document availability: You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and the associated documents of the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080 or by mail from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

            Written comments: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080 (the docket number for the proposed critical habitat rule).
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080); Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; by telephone 775-861-6300; or by facsimile 775-861-6301. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi that was published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2013 (78 FR 46862), our DEA of the proposed designation, the amended required determinations provided in this document, and the revisions to five of the proposed units as described in this document. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

        (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree those threats can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent.
        (2) Specific information on:
        (a) The amount and distribution of Ivesia webberi habitat;
        (b) The areas that are currently occupied and contain features essential to the conservation of the species that we should include in the designation and why;
        (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
        (d) The areas not occupied at the time of listing that are essential for the conservation of the species and why.
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their probable impacts on proposed critical habitat.
        (4) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation; in particular, we seek information on the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
        (5) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the DEA is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts.
        (6) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the associated documents of the DEA, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
        (7) Whether any areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
        (8) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.

        If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (78 FR 46862) during the initial comment period from August 2, 2013, to October 1, 2013, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from the proposed rule, as revised by this document.

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

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed listing, proposed critical habitat, and DEA, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat and the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080, or by mail from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
        Background

        It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the proposed designation of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi (78 FR 46862) in this document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the I. webberi, refer to the proposed listing rule (78 FR 46889) that published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2013. Both proposed rules are available online at http://www.regulations.gov (at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0079 for the proposed listing and Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080 for the proposed critical habitat designation) or from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

        On August 2, 2013, we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Ivesia webberi (78 FR 46862). We proposed to designate approximately 2,011 acres (ac) (814 hectares (ha)) as critical habitat for I. webberi in Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra Counties in northeastern California and in Washoe and Douglas Counties in northwestern Nevada. That proposal had an initial 60-day comment period ending October 1, 2013. This document announces a proposed revision of the boundaries and acreages of five units (Units 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14) described in the August 2, 2013, proposed rule to designate critical habitat. We anticipate submitting for publication in the Federal Register a final critical habitat designation for I. webberi on or before August 2014, if we finalize our proposed rule to list the species under the Act.
        Critical Habitat
        Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Revisions to Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
        On August 2, 2013, we proposed as critical habitat for Ivesia webberi 16 units (2 with subunits), consisting of approximately 2,011 ac (814 ha) in Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra Counties in northeastern California and in Washoe and Douglas Counties in northwestern Nevada (78 FR 46862).
        We are now proposing to increase the designation by approximately 159 ac (65 ha) to a total of approximately 2,170 ac (879 ha). We propose this increase based on new information received from the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) that better defines the physical and biological features along the boundaries of these five proposed units, resulting in changes to the acreages for those units. The revised units include: Unit 9 (Stateline Road 1), Unit 10 (Stateline Road 2), Unit 12 (Black Springs), Unit 13 (Raleigh Heights), and Unit 14 (Dutch Louie Flat) (see Table 1). Apart from the acreages and ownership percentages provided in the unit descriptions in the August 2, 2013, proposed rule, the information in the unit descriptions in that proposal remains unchanged.

          Table 1—Revisions to Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Ivesia webberi
          [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat boundaries]

            Proposed critical habitat unit
            Land ownership by type
            Revised acres (hectares)

            Change from 8/2/2013 proposal (acres
              (hectares))

            9. Stateline Road 1
            Federal
            186 (75)
            +61 (+25)

            State or Local Government
            0 (0)
            0 (0)

            Private
            7 (3)
            0 (0)

            10. Stateline Road 2
            Federal
            66 (27)
            +1 (+1)

            State or Local Government
            0 (0)
            0 (0)

            Private
            0 (0)
            0 (0)

            12. Black Springs
            Federal
            133 (54)
            +17 (+7)

            State or Local Government
            0 (0)
            0 (0)

            Private
            30 (12)
            +6 (+2)

            13. Raleigh Heights
            Federal
            229 (93)
            +66 (+27)

            State or Local Government
            0 (0)
            0 (0)

            Private
            24 (10)
            +10 (+4)

            14. Dutch Louie Flat
            Federal
            13 (5)
            +2 (+1)

            State or Local Government
            0 (0)
            0 (0)

            Private
            41 (17)
            −5 (−2)

            Totals for Critical Habitat Units 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14
            Federal
            627 (254)
            +148 (+61)

            State or Local Government
            0 (0)
            0 (0)

            Private
            102 (42)
            +11 (+4)

            Revised Totals for All 16 Units
            Federal
            1,513 (612)

            State or Local Government
            214 (86)

            Private
            444 (180)

            TOTAL
            2,170 (879)

            Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

        Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
        When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider among other factors, the additional regulatory benefits that an area would receive through the analysis under section 7 of the Act addressing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of identifying areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any ancillary benefits triggered by existing local, State or Federal laws as a result of the critical habitat designation.

        When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to incentivize or result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; and the implementation of a management plan. In the case of Ivesia webberi, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of the species, the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for I. webberi. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies. We have not proposed to exclude any areas from critical habitat.
        Consideration of Economic Impacts
        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the result of the species being listed under the Act versus those attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat (e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated). The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs. These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of critical habitat should we choose to conduct an optional 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.

        For this particular designation, we developed an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat (Service 2013). The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis (Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 2013, 2014) of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi. We began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which the critical habitat designation is unlikely to result in probable incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable economic impacts where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of the species. The screening analysis filters out particular areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. This screening analysis (IEc 2013, 2014) combined with the information contained in our IEM (Service 2013) are what we consider our DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation for I. webberi, and the DEA is summarized in the narrative below.

        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent with the E.O.s' regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and reasonable. We assess, to the extent practicable, the probable impacts, if sufficient data are available, to both directly and indirectly impacted entities. As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, first we identified, in the IEM dated October 31, 2013, probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following categories of activities: (1) Federal lands management (Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)); (2) commercial or residential development; (3) livestock grazing; (4) off-highway vehicle (OHV) and other recreational activities; (5) wildfire; (6) vegetation management, including fuels reduction activities and management for invasive species; and (7) vegetation or ground-disturbing activities associated with construction, maintenance or use of roads, trails, transmission lines, or other infrastructure corridors (Service 2013, pp. 3-10). We considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement.

        Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where Ivesia webberi is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. If we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process. Therefore, disproportionate impacts to any geographic area or sector are not likely as a result of this critical habitat designation.

        In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the effects that will result from the species being listed and those attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for Ivesia webberi's critical habitat (Service 2013, pp. 12-22). Because the designation of critical habitat for I. webberi was proposed concurrently with the listing, it has been our experience that it is more difficult to discern which conservation efforts are attributable to the species being listed and those which will result solely from the designation of critical habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical and biological features identified for critical habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any actions that would constitute jeopardy to I. webberi would also likely adversely affect the essential physical and biological features of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this species (Service 2013, pp. 12-22). This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this proposed designation of critical habitat.
        The proposed critical habitat designation for Ivesia webberi (as proposed on August 2, 2013 (78 FR 46862)) totals approximately 2,011 ac (814 ha), all of which are considered occupied by the species. Of the 2,011 ac (814 ha), approximately 68 percent of the total proposed designation is located on Federal lands, 11 percent on State land, and 21 percent on private lands. Additionally, 53 percent (or 1,072 ac (434 ha) of the 2,011 ac (814 ha)) are actively managed for I. webberi conservation through the Forest Service's Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Ivesia Webberi (Bergstrom 2009, entire). In this notice we are proposing revised unit boundaries and acreages for five units described in our August 2, 2013, proposal (78 FR 46862) based on comments we received on the proposal. These revisions, which were not available at the time the DEA was developed, result in an increase of approximately 159 ac (65 ha) in the proposed designation of critical habitat (see Table 1 above). After considering the economic impacts for the proposed areas and assessing the minimal changes to the boundaries of the proposed areas, we expect that economic impacts will not increase substantially. These changes will be fully analyzed and reported in the final economic analysis. As discussed above, the following economic activities are identified as having the potential to impact proposed critical habitat (as well as the additional 159 ac (65 ha) that we are proposing for the revised unit boundaries): Federal lands management (Forest Service and BLM); commercial or residential development; livestock grazing, off-highway vehicle use, and other recreational activities; wildfire; vegetation management, including fuels reduction activities and management for invasive species; and vegetation or ground-disturbing activities associated with construction, maintenance or use of roads, trails, transmission lines, or other infrastructure corridors.

        Our DEA determined that the section 7-related costs of designating critical habitat for Ivesia webberi are likely to be limited to the additional administrative effort required to consider adverse modification in a small number of consultations. This finding is based on:
        (1) All proposed units are considered occupied, providing baseline protection resulting from the listing of the species as threatened under the Act.
        (2) Activities occurring within designated critical habitat with a potential to affect the species' habitat are also likely to adversely affect the species, either directly or indirectly.
        (3) Project modifications requested to avoid adverse modification are likely to be the same as those needed to avoid jeopardy in occupied habitat.

        (4) Federal agencies operating in proposed critical habitat areas are  already aware of the presence of Ivesia webberi and also are experienced consulting with us under section 7 of the Act on other federally listed species. Thus, in the baseline, they are likely to consult even in buffer areas surrounding the species included in the designation to ensure protection of pollinator habitat.

        The incremental administrative burden resulting from the designation is unlikely to reach $100 million in a given year based on the small number of anticipated consultations (i.e., less than two consultations per year) and per-consultation costs. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the designation of critical habitat will trigger additional requirements under State or local regulations. Costs resulting from public perception of the effect of critical habitat, if they occur, are unlikely to reach $100 million in a given year, based on the small number of acres possibly affected and average land values in the vicinity of those acres.
        The results of our analysis also suggest approximately 114 ac (46 ha) of private, vacant land is available for future development in the proposed critical habitat area (specifically, the Reno/Sparks metropolitan area in Washoe County); however, we note that after our analysis was completed and based on comments during the first open comment period, our revised proposed critical habitat has resulted in a total of approximately 138 ac (55 ha) of private, vacant land that may be available for future development. If public perception causes the value of critical habitat acres to be diminished, these acres are those most likely to be affected. Due to existing data limitations regarding the probability that such effects will occur, and the likely degree to which property values will be affected, we are unable to estimate the magnitude of perception-related costs that could result from the designation if finalized. However, the cost cannot exceed the total value of affected properties. Based on our analysis, the value of potentially affected parcels is unlikely to exceed $100 million.

        Additional information and discussion regarding our economic analysis is available in our DEA available on the Internet at http://www. regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080.
        As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
        Required Determinations—Amended

        In our August 2, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 46862), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and executive orders until we had evaluated the probable effects on landowners and stakeholders and the resulting probable economic impacts of the designation. Following our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, we have amended or affirmed our determinations below. Specifically, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). However, based on our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts of the proposed designation of critical habitat for I. webberi, we are amending our required determinations concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and E.O. 12630 (Takings).
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency publishes a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
        The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself, and therefore, not required to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the agency is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under these circumstances only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Under these circumstances, it is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. Federal agencies are not small entities and to this end, there is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Therefore, because no small entities are directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
        E.O. 12630 (Takings)

        In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for Ivesia webberi in a takings implications assessment. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat affects only Federal actions. Although private parties that receive Federal funding, assistance, or require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. The DEA found that no significant economic impacts are likely to result from the designation of critical habitat for I webberi. Because the Act's critical habitat protection requirements apply only to Federal agency actions, few conflicts between critical habitat and private property rights should result from this designation. Based on information contained in the DEA and described within this document, it is not likely that economic impacts to a property owner would be of a sufficient magnitude to support a takings action. Therefore, the takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical habitat for I. webberi does not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Pacific Southwest Regional Office (Region 8), with assistance from staff of the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
          Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended on August 2, 2013, at 78 FR 46862, as set forth below:

          PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

        1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.

        2. Amend § 17.96(a) by revising paragraphs (5), (10), (12), and (13) in the entry proposed for “Family Rosaceae: ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia)” at 78 FR 46862, to read as follows:

          § 17.96
          Critical habitat—plants.
          (a) Flowering plants.

          Family Rosaceae: Ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia)

          (5) Index map follows:
          BILLING CODE P

            EP13FE14.000

          (10) Unit 6, White Lake Overlook, Sierra County, California; Unit 7, Subunit 7a, Mules Ear Flat, Sierra County, California; Unit 7, Subunit 7b, Three Pine Flat and Jeffery Pine Saddle, Washoe County, Nevada; Unit 8, Ivesia Flat, Washoe County, Nevada; Unit 9, Stateline Road 1, Washoe County, Nevada; and Unit 10, Stateline Road 2, Washoe County, Nevada: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, Sierra County, California, and Washoe County, Nevada.
          (i) Unit 6 includes 109 ac (44 ha), Subunit 7a includes 65 ac (27 ha), Subunit 7b includes 68 ac (27 ha), Unit 8 includes 62 ac (25 ha), Unit 9 includes 193 ac (78 ha), and Unit 10 includes 66 ac (27 ha).
          (ii) Map of Units 6 through 10 follows:

            EP13FE14.001

          (12) Unit 12, Black Springs and Unit 13, Raleigh Heights: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, Washoe County, Nevada.
          (i) Unit 12 includes 163 ac (66 ha), and Unit 13 includes 253 ac (103 ha).
          (ii) Map of Units 12 and 13 follows:

            EP13FE14.002

          (13) Unit 14, Dutch Louie Flat and Unit 15, The Pines Powerline: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, Washoe County, Nevada.
          (i) Unit 14 includes 54 ac (22 ha), and Unit 15 includes 32 ac (13 ha).
          (ii) Map of Units 14 and 15 follows:

            EP13FE14.003

          Dated: February 5, 2014.
          Rachel Jacobson,
          Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2014-03120 Filed 2-12-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE C