        POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
        39 CFR Part 3050
        [Docket No. RM2017-5; Order No. 3959]
        Periodic Reporting

          AGENCY:
          Postal Regulatory Commission.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission is noticing a recent filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to an analytical method for use in periodic reporting (Proposal One). This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

          DATES:

            Comments are due: July 19, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents

          I. Introduction
          II. Proposal One
          III. Notice and Comment
          IV. Ordering Paragraphs

        I. Introduction
        On June 7, 2017, the Postal Service filed a petition, pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11, requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider a change to an analytical method used in periodic reporting.1
           The Petition labels the proposed analytical method change filed in this docket as Proposal One.

            1 Petition of the United States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider a Proposed Change in Analytical Principles (Proposal One), June 7, 2017 (Petition).

        II. Proposal One

        The Postal Service currently utilizes statistical sampling estimates from the Origin Destination Information System—Revenue, Pieces, and Weight (ODIS-RPW) to measure national revenue and pieces for insured, collect on delivery (COD), and registered extra services on domestic mailpieces bearing PC Postage indicia. Proposal One at 3. The Postal Service proposes to replace the ODIS-RPW estimates with census transactional data from the Retail Data Mart reporting system. Id. at 5.

        The Postal Service summarizes the effect that Proposal One would have had in fiscal year 2016 (FY 2016) in Table A of the Petition. Id. at 7. Reported revenues for insured mail and registered mailpieces with PC Postage indicia would have increased by 126 percent and 67 percent, respectively. COD revenues for PC Postage mailpieces would have been calculated to be 1,967 percent higher, resulting in almost double the total COD revenue reported in the FY 2016 RPW and Cost and Revenue Analysis Report.2
           The Postal Service notes that this increase in COD revenue would have substantially improved the FY 2016 cost coverage of COD, which was discussed in the Commission's FY 2016 ACD.3

            2 FY 2016 COD revenue was reported to be $2,029,090. See Docket No. ACR2016, Annual Compliance Determination, March 28, 2017, at 61 (FY 2016 ACD). The Postal Service calculates that Proposal One would have added an additional $2,004,000 in revenue for the same period. Proposal One at 6.

            3 FY 2016 ACD at 61-62.

        The Postal Service states that this change will improve accuracy by eliminating sampling errors. Proposal One at 5. For this reason, the Postal Service avers that Proposal One will provide “equal or improved data quality.” Id.

        III. Notice and Comment

        The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2017-5 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at http://www.prc.gov. Interested persons may submit comments on the Petition and Proposal One no later than July 19, 2017. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Bzhilyanskaya is designated as the Public Representative in this proceeding.
        IV. Ordering Paragraphs

          It is ordered:

        1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2017-5 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider a Proposed Change in Analytical Principles (Proposal One), filed June 7, 2017.
        2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than July 19, 2017.
        3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Lyudmila Bzhilyanskaya to serve as the Public Representative in this docket.

        4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

          By the Commission.
          Stacy L. Ruble,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2017-12652 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0379; FRL-9942-53-Region 5]
        Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Particulate Matter Emissions Limits Revision

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a June 1, 2015, request by Indiana to revise the State Implementation Plan to incorporate changes to the particulate matter (PM) rules contained in Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative Code. The proposal affects sources of PM in the state of Indiana.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before March 23, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0379 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777, maietta.anthony@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: February 3, 2016.
          Robert A. Kaplan,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

      [FR Doc. 2016-03491 Filed 2-19-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [Docket No. 130910793-3793-01]
        RIN 0648-XC867
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Multiple Species of Hagfish and Sea Snakes as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding; request for information.

          SUMMARY:

          We (NMFS) announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list three species of hagfish and three species of sea snakes as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition presents substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the sea snake, A. fuscus. We will conduct a status review of this species to determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to this sea snake from any interested party. We find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the remaining five species: Eptatretus octatrema, Myxine
            paucidens, Paramyxine
            taiwanae, Aipysurus
            apraefrontalis, and A. foliosquama.

          DATES:
          Information and comments on the subject action must be received by January 6, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, information, or data on this document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2013-0150, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0150, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
          • Fax: 301-713-4060, Attn: Lisa Manning.

            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. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous), although submitting comments anonymously will prevent us from contacting you if we have difficulty retrieving your submission. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the petition and related materials are available upon request from the Director, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Lisa Manning, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8466.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from the WildEarth Guardians to list 81 marine species as threatened or endangered under the ESA and to designate critical habitat under the ESA. Copies of this petition are available from us (see ADDRESSES). This notice addresses the three hagfishes (Eptatretus octatrema,
          Myxine paucidens, and Paramyxine taiwanae) and the three sea snakes (Aipysurus apraefrontalis,
          A. foliosquama, and A. fuscus) petitioned for listing.

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish the finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When we find that substantial scientific or commercial information in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a “positive 90-day finding”), we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned, which includes conducting a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial information. Within 12 months of receiving the petition, we must conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted. Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a significantly more thorough review of the available information, a “may be warranted” finding at the 90-day stage does not prejudge the outcome of the status review.

        Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a “species,” which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NOAA-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (“DPS Policy”; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, the determination of whether a species is threatened or endangered shall be based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
        ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and the USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. When evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, we must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
        At the 90-day stage, we evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in the petition including its references, and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude that it supports the petitioner's assertions. Conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue.
        To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at issue (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).
        Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.

        Many petitions identify risk classifications made by non-governmental organizations, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is based upon in light of the standards of the ESA and our policies as described above.
        With respect to the six species discussed in this finding, the petitioner relies almost exclusively on the risk classifications of the IUCN as the source of information on the status of each petitioned species. All of the petitioned species are listed as “endangered” or “critically endangered” on the IUCN Redlist, and the petitioner notes this as an explicit consideration in offering petitions on these species. Species classifications under the IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent, and the data standards, evaluation criteria, and treatment of uncertainty are also not necessarily the same.
        Species Descriptions
        Hagfishes

        Hagfish are marine, jawless, scaleless, worm-like fishes found mainly in temperate seas. They are typically found in association with soft bottom (mud and sand) habitats, but some species also occur in hard bottom or rocky habitats. Designed more for burrowing than swimming, they lack paired fins or appendages, have degenerate eyes, and probably spend much of their time within the bottom substrate (Moyle and Cech, 2000). One notable, external feature is their three pairs of barbels or tentacles around their mouth and nostril that serve a tactile function. Along their sides are 1-15 gill openings and a series of pores that serve as openings for mucus glands. These glands secrete large amounts of mucus, or slime, that hagfish use to coat their body as a means of deterring predators. Hagfish can also “slime” their food items, thereby making them unpalatable to other scavengers. Hagfish feed on soft-bodied invertebrates within or at the surface of the bottom sediments, but are also quick to scavenge dead fish and whales. Females lay a small number (20-30) of large (2 cm-3 cm) leathery eggs that are attached to each other and the bottom (Moyle and Cech, 2000). Little else is known about their reproduction (Moyle and Cech, 2000). Small morphological differences between populations do suggest that they tend to breed locally (Pough et al., 1996). There are over 40 extant species in six genera around the world (Pough et al., 1996).
        Sea Snakes

        Sea snakes occur throughout the warm regions of the Pacific and Indian Oceans but are absent from the Atlantic. There are more than 60 described species, but the taxonomy of sea snakes remains controversial (Davenport, 2011). The three petitioned sea snake species are all within the genus Aipysurus and, according to the petition, occur within narrow ranges off the northern coast of Australia. More than 30 species of sea snakes, roughly half of which are endemic, occur in northern Australia (Marsh et al., 1994). Within the wider Indo-Pacific region, there is considerable overlap in the ranges of sea snake species and a high degree of niche separation based on diet (Davenport, 2011; citing Voris and Voris, 1983).
        Visually, sea snakes are easily distinguished from terrestrial snakes by their laterally compressed, paddle-like tail. However, identification of sea snakes to species can be challenging due to variable coloration and pattern (Miller and Abdulquader, 2009). Multiple physical characteristics (e.g., number of mid-body scale rows) and the capture locations are required to make a positive species identification (Miller and Abdulquader, 2009).

        Aipysurid sea snakes are entirely aquatic, shallow-water species typically associated with coral reefs. Aipysurids are also viviparous (i.e., give birth to live young), unlike the amphibious sea kraits, which lay their eggs on land. Sea snakes, in general, tend to carry smaller clutches of eggs than terrestrial snakes of the same size, and this is especially true of the aipysurids (Marsh et al., 1994). There is no parental care of young, which must surface to breathe and forage for food just as adults do (Miller and Abdulquadar, 2009). The petitioned sea snakes prey on various fishes, such as wrasses, gobies and eels, subduing their prey with venom before consuming them. Based on sonic tracking, mapping, and mark-recapture studies, a relatively widely distributed congener, A. laevis, was shown to have a very small home range—on the order of 0.15 to 0.18 hectares (Marsh et al., 1994); presumably the three petitioned aipysurids have similarly small home ranges. The petition indicates that the lifespan of the three petitioned sea snakes is about 8 to 10 years, and age at first maturity ranges from about 2 to 5 years.
        Analysis of the Petition
        The petition clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and common names of the species involved. Based on the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, we find that each of the 6 petitioned species constitutes a valid “species” eligible for listing under the ESA as each is considered a valid taxonomic species. The petition also contains a narrative justification for the recommended measures and provides limited information on the species' geographic distribution, habitat, and threats. For the hagfishes, no information is provided regarding the three species' past or present numbers, or population status and trends for all or a significant portion of the species' ranges. For the sea snakes, some past and present relative abundance data and provisional abundance data are provided. Supporting documentation was provided, mainly in the form of IUCN species assessments. We had no information in our files for any of the petitioned hagfish, but did have some limited information on the sea snake genus. A synopsis of our analysis of the information provided in the petition and readily available in our files is provided below. Following the format of the petition, we first discuss the introductory information presented for each group of species and then discuss the species-specific information.
        Threats to the Hagfishes
        The three hagfish species petitioned for listing (Eptatretus octatrema,
          Myxine paucidens, and Paramyxine taiwanae) are currently listed as either “endangered” or “critically endangered” on the IUCN Red List. The petition asserts that these species are being threatened with extinction by four of the five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors—habitat destruction, overutilization, inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, and natural factors—which we discuss in turn below.
        In terms of habitat destruction, the petition focuses on human population growth and associated consequences (e.g., pollution, tourism, development) as the main drivers of the destruction of hagfish habitat. The petition states that “Increased economic growth in coastal cities is a major cause of ocean habitat destruction” and that “. . . human population growth represents a serious threat to the petitioned species.” Some of the associated consequences of human population growth are discussed further; however, specific information to link these general threats to hagfish habitats or impacts to hagfish habitat is lacking. For example, the petition discusses the increase in the number and size of “dead zones” (i.e., areas of very low levels of dissolved oxygen) worldwide, but no information is provided to indicate whether and to what extent any dead zones overlap with or affect the habitats of the petitioned species.
        The petition also discusses the particular threat of trawling and asserts that it threatens the habitat of all three hagfish species. We agree with the statements in the petition that trawling results in disturbance of benthic substrates, can lead to changes in community composition, and can increase some species' vulnerability to predation. However, these are general statements, and no additional information is provided in the petition or references to indicate the mechanism by which hagfish may be impacted by trawling activities. Hagfish apparently occur mainly within the sediments and are opportunistic feeders that may even benefit from commercial fisheries' discards and the resulting increase in food availability (Moyle and Cech, 2000). It is unclear given the information available on the diet, habitat, and behavior of hagfishes, whether hagfish experience negative impacts, positive impacts, or both, as a result of trawling and other commercial fishing activities.

        In terms of overutilization, the petition asserts that both bycatch of hagfish and commercial harvest present threats to the three petitioned hagfishes. No data or information, however, are presented on whether or to what extent bycatch of any of the three hagfish species is occurring or has occurred. The fate of by-caught hagfish is also not discussed. The petition presents commercial harvest of hagfish as a future threat that will arise as other fish stocks decline and new species are targeted to meet the rising demand for fish by a growing human population. However, this is a general statement that could apply to many marine fishes, and there is no additional information with which to substantiate the alleged likelihood of this potential, future threat to any of the petitioned hagfish species.
        The petition states that no conservation measures are in place for any of the petitioned hagfishes and that ESA listings are needed to prevent their extinction. Information regarding any related regulatory measures being implemented within the ranges of any of the three hagfishes is not provided. We do not necessarily consider a lack of species-specific protections a threat to the particular species. For example, management measures that regulate other species, activities (e.g., commercial fisheries), or areas may indirectly function to minimize threats to the petitioned species. As stated previously, we look for substantial information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.
        The petition specifically points to the lack of a listing under CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) as a threat to the petitioned hagfishes. We agree with the statement in the petition that the absence of a CITES listing for a given species is not evidence that the same species does not warrant the protections of the ESA. However, we find nothing to substantiate the statement in the petition that “. . . the absence of CITES listing is problematic” for the three hagfish species. CITES is a tool to manage and regulate international trade in situations where trade has been identified as a threat to the particular species' survival in the wild. No information on international trade of any of the petitioned hagfishes is presented in the petition or available to us, and we do not have any information regarding direct harvest of these hagfish species.

        Lastly, the petition asserts that the three hagfish species are threatened as a result of their rarity, in particular because it reduces their chances of finding mates. This statement is not substantiated with any additional information regarding hagfish mating behavior, reproduction, or natural densities. Very little is known about hagfish mating (Pough et al., 1996). Hagfish are relatively mobile, however, and may be able to travel to locate mates within a certain range. The petitioned hagfishes also possess both male and female gonads and may function as hermaphrodites (Mincarone, 2011a, 2011b; Mincarone and Mok, 2011); however, whether and the extent to which the petitioned species reproduce through self-fertilization is not known.
        The condition of being rare is an important factor to consider when evaluating a species' risk of extinction; however, it does not by itself indicate the likelihood of extinction of that species, nor does the condition of being rare constitute substantial information that listing under the ESA may be warranted. For example, some species naturally occur in small numbers but are not considered threatened or endangered. To determine whether listing of a rare species may be warranted, there must also be substantial information indicating the rare species is both exposed to and responding in a negative fashion to a threat such that the species may be threatened with extinction.
        Overall, we find that the general threats discussed for the hagfishes are not clearly or causally linked to the petitioned species or their ranges or habitat (e.g., discussion of trawling impacts to sea floor habitat in Australia). While some of the information in this introductory section suggests concern for the status of many marine species generally, its broadness, generality, and/or speculative nature, and the failure of the petitioner to make reasonable connections between the threats and the status of the individual petitioned species means that we cannot find that this information reasonably suggests that one or more of these threat factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on any of the petitioned species to the point that they may warrant protection under the ESA. There is little information in this introductory section indicating that particular petitioned species may be responding in a negative fashion to any of the discussed threats. Therefore, we find that the information in this section does not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted for any of the petitioned species.
        Eptatretus octatrema

        This hagfish is known from two type specimens—one collected in 1899 and the other in 1900 (Mincarone, 2011a). Both specimens were collected off Cape Saint Blaize, South Africa. Despite “extensive surveys” within the range of this species, no other specimens have been recorded (Mincarone, 2011a). No information is provided in the petition or available to us regarding the past or present numbers or status of this species. Given that no confirmed specimens have been documented in over 100 years despite what appears to be heavy sampling efforts, it is likely this species is no longer extant in the wild. The IUCN assessment notes that further research is needed “to determine if this species still maintains a viable population” (Mincarone, 2011a). The purpose of the ESA is to conserve species that are in danger of or threatened with extinction. Section 3(6) of the ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (emphasis added). Species that are already extinct are not protected by the ESA. Given this information and the discussion above regarding general threats to hagfish, we conclude that the petition does not present substantial information indicating that E. octatrema may warrant listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
        Myxine paucidens

        This species is known from only five museum specimens collected from Sagami Bay and just south of Tokyo Bay, Japan. No specimens have been collected since 1972 despite “extensive scientific surveying in the area,” and the species “may possibly be already extinct” (Mincarone, 2011b). The petition provides no information on past or present numbers or population trends, nor is any information available in our files. The most recent IUCN assessment states that “there are no known direct threats to this species” but that habitat quality is declining as a result of extensive trawling in the area where the specimens were found. No additional information is provided or available to evaluate the effect trawling has on this hagfish or its habitat. Given this information as well as the previous discussion about general threats to hagfish, we conclude that the petition does not present substantial information indicating that M. paucidens may warrant listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
        Paramyxine taiwanae

        Population trends, abundance data and status information are not available for this species. This species is known from approximately 150 specimens collected over an unknown or unspecified time period. The species apparently has a very small range of 3,750 sq km off northeastern Taiwan (see Mincarone and Mok, 2011). The most recent IUCN assessment states that heavy surveying has “. . . confirmed that it [P. taiwanae] is not found in southwestern Taiwan nor along the east coast”; however, in a later section, the assessment discusses a study of “. . . specimens from the southwestern Taiwan examined by Kuo et al. (1994) . . .” (Mincarone and Mok, 2011). Thus, the actual extent of occurrence of this species is unclear.
        This species occurs at depths of 120-427 m on the continental shelf and upper slope (Mincarone and Mok, 2011). The petition states this species is vulnerable to habitat loss as a result of deep sea trawling and trapping; however, no additional information, references or statements are provided indicating the habitat requirements of this hagfish or how its particular habitat is being damaged or curtailed by trawling and trapping within its range.
        The petition also states that this species is vulnerable to bycatch and that, due to its relatively large body size, faces an increased risk that “it will be intentionally exploited in the future for food and the leather industry.” The petition states that these “pressures threaten the species' continued survival.” However, no information on past or present bycatch rates or fisheries interactions is provided, nor is any available in our files. Also, as mentioned previously, no additional information is available with which to substantiate the potential future threat of direct harvest of this hagfish. The IUCN assessment recommends that more research is needed to understand this species' biology, population size, and the impact of trapping and trawling (Mincarone and Mok, 2011).

        Overall, the species-specific information provided in the petition for P. taiwanae is general and/or speculative in nature, and we cannot find that this information reasonably suggests that one or more of the threat factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the petitioned species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. We conclude that the petition and the single, available reference do not present substantial information indicating this species may warrant listing as threatened or endangered.
        Threats to the Sea Snakes
        The three sea snake species petitioned for listing (Aipysurus apraefrontalis,
          A. foliosquama, and A. fuscus) are currently listed as either “endangered” or “critically endangered” on the IUCN Red List. The petition asserts that these species are being threatened with extinction by three of the five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors—habitat destruction, inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, and natural factors—which we discuss in turn below.
        The petition asserts that “drastic declines and possible extinction” of the petitioned sea snakes have occurred as a result of anthropogenic climate change and the consequent destruction of their habitat. The petition states that climate change can increase sea surface temperatures to levels that are fatal to the sea snakes and can cause “massive damage” to the coral reefs that these species require as habitat. The petition specifically refers to coral bleaching as the mechanism by which climate change destroys the habitat of the petitioned sea snakes. The petition claims that when severe bleaching events occur, the sea snakes' “only available habitat is destroyed.” However, it is unclear, given the available information, whether and to what extent the petitioned sea snakes are actually unable to continue to use the coral structure as habitat should a bleaching event occur.

        Increased sea surface temperatures and coral bleaching are plausible causes of sea snake habitat degradation, but the petitioner's conclusion that these factors are causing the decline of the sea snakes is overstated. References provided by the petitioner state that climate change may be a threat to some sea snake species (Lukoschek and Guinea, 2010; Lukoschek et al., 2010a; Lukoschek et al., 2010b). In addition, the IUCN assessment for A. apraefrontalis states: “There are no specific, clearly identified or quantified past, current or future threats to A. apreafrontalis or any other reef-associated sea snake species . . .” (Lukoschek et al., 2010a).

        The petition asserts that the three sea snake species are also declining as a result of inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Information on the existing regulatory protections that directly or may indirectly benefit these species, however, is not provided beyond a discussion of the Ashmore Reef Nature Reserve. This nature reserve, located off the coast of northwestern Australia, was established in 1983 and contains a portion of all three species' known habitat. Given that the threats to the sea snakes are unknown, it is unclear what level of protection the reserve may be providing them. The petition also asserts that the absence of a CITES listing for the petitioned sea snakes is “problematic” because they “may be subject to international trade presently or in the future.” Information in our files indicates that sea snakes are consumed and/or valued for their leather in some parts of the world, and sea snake products have been traded internationally since the 1930's (Marsh et al., 1994). However, no information is provided to substantiate the statement in the petition that any the three sea snake species may potentially or presently be subject to international trade. In fact, the references provided by the petitioner indicate that none of the petitioned sea snakes are targeted by fisheries and there is no evidence of illegal fishing (Lukoschek and Guinea, 2010; Lukoschek et al., 2010a; Lukoschek et al., 2010b).

        The petition discusses how all three of the petitioned sea snakes have very small geographic ranges and limited dispersal ability. A very small range increases the extinction risk of the species because the entire species could be affected by local events. Also, limited dispersal ability can decrease the potential for recolonization following the loss of a subpopulation or area of habitat. Thus, these natural factors can influence the species' risk of extinction. Despite this, we do not consider these natural factors alone to constitute substantial information that listing under the ESA may be warranted. There must be additional information to indicate that the species may be exposed to and respond in a negative fashion to a threat. However, in the case of A. fuscus, which we discuss further below, information is presented to suggest that the petitioned species may have been extirpated from some areas, and restricted dispersal among remaining subpopulations may be contributing to the extinction risk of this species.
        Overall, we find that the three major threats discussed for sea snakes are not well supported and/or substantiated and do not constitute substantial information that listing of any of the three species may be warranted.
        A. apraefrontalis

        This sea snake has been recorded from only Ashmore and Hibernia Reefs off northwestern Australia, and so its area of occurrence is estimated to be only about 10 sq km (Lukoschek et al., 2010a). The IUCN assessment for this species, indicates that, despite extensive surveys, no individual of this species has been recorded on either Ashmore or Hibernia reef since 2000 (Lukoschek et al., 2010a; citing Guinea 2006, 2007 and Lukoschek, pers. comm., 2009). The IUCN assessment refers to this species as “locally extinct” and notes it has not been seen at any other location (Lukoschek et al., 2010a). As stated previously, species that are not known to exist in the wild are not protected by the ESA. Given this information as well as the deficiencies of the threats information discussed above, we conclude that the petition and the available references do not present substantial information indicating that A. apraefrontalis may warrant listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
        A. foliosquama
        Similar to A. apraefrontalis, this species has been found only on Ashmore and Hibernia Reefs off northwestern Australia in an area of about 10 sq km (Lukoschek and Guinea, 2010). Citing Guinea (2006; 2007) and Lukoschek (pers. comm. 2009), the IUCN assessment for this species states that no single individual of this species has been seen over the past 9 years, or approximately 2 generations, despite extensive surveys of both Ashmore and Hibernia Reefs (Lukoschek and Guinea, 2010). The IUCN assessment also refers to the “local extinction” of this species and notes that it also has not been sighted at any other location (Lukoschek and Guinea, 2010). Thus, the best available information suggests this species may no longer be extant in the wild. As stated previously, species that are not known to exist in the wild are not protected by the ESA. Considering this information as well as the deficiencies of the threats information discussed above, we conclude that the petition and the available references do not present substantial information indicating that A. apraefrontalis may warrant listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
        A. fuscus

        This species occurs on Ashmore, Hibernia, Cartier, Scott and Serangipatan Reefs in the Timor Sea between northwestern Australia and Timor (Lukoschek et al., 2010b). Very little movement of A. fuscus is thought to occur among these reefs (Lukoschek et al., 2010b). This species has a relatively shallow depth range of up to 25-30 m deep and a total estimated area of occurrence of only 500 sq km (Lukoschek et al., 2010b). No threats have been clearly identified for this species, but based on surveys on some of the reefs, the species appears to have declined by at least 70% since 1998 (Lukoschek et al., 2010b). Surveys indicate that sightings rates of A. fuscus are variable over time, but an overall declining trend in sightings rates has been observed since 1998 at Ashmore reef (Lukoschek et al., 2010b). It is unclear what the trends in sightings rates of A. fuscus are at the other reefs. The IUCN assessment mentions “local extinctions,” but it is also unclear where these “local extinctions” have occurred. However, the available information does suggest that some subpopulations or areas of the range have experienced significant declines or may have been lost. Given the likelihood that dispersal is fairly restricted for this species, the loss of certain reef subpopulations increases the extinction risk for this species. We find the significant decline in abundance and potential loss of subpopulations cause for concern and substantial information that listing of A. fuscus under the ESA may be warranted.
        Petition Finding

        After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available in our files, we conclude the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for Eptatretus octatrema, Myxine
          paucidens, Paramyxine
          taiwanae, A.
          apraefrontalis and A. foliosquama. In contrast, as described above, we find that there is substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for A. fuscus, and we hereby announce the initiation of a status review for this species to determine whether the petition action is warranted.
        Information Solicited

        To ensure that the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information relevant to whether the sea snake, A. fuscus, may warrant listing as threatened or endangered. Specifically, we are soliciting data and information, including unpublished data and information, in the following areas: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of this species throughout its range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3) life history and habitat requirements (4) genetics of subpopulations; (5) past, current and future threats to the species, including any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and its habitat; and (7) management, regulatory, and enforcement information. We request that all information be accompanied by: (a) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (b) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references is available upon request to the Office of Protected Resources (see ADDRESSES).

          Authority:

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

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

      [FR Doc. 2013-26493 Filed 11-5-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 110207101-1097-01]
        RIN 0648-BA54
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues this proposed rule that would implement a regulatory amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). This proposed rule would increase the commercial and recreational quotas for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) reef fish fishery for the 2011 fishing year, provided that NMFS determines the total allowable catch (TAC) was not exceeded in the 2010 fishing year. This rule also proposes minor revisions to codified text, including revisions to the definition of “actual ex-vessel value,” extending the maintenance window for the Gulf individual fishing quota (IFQ) programs, and removing obsolete codified text for Gulf grouper. The intended effect of this proposed rule is to help achieve optimum yield (OY) for Gulf red snapper without increasing the risk of the red snapper resource experiencing overfishing, allow for better functioning and enforcement of the Gulf IFQ programs, and to implement a technical correction to the regulations.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before March 24, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by 0648-BA54, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic submissions: Submit electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Rich Malinowski, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            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 (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

          To submit comments through the Federal e-rulemaking portal http://www.regulations.gov, enter “NOAA-NMFS-2011-0018” in the keyword search, then check the box labeled “Select to find documents accepting comments or submissions,” then select “Send a comment or submission.” NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required field if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Comments received through means not specified in this proposed rule will not be considered.

          Copies of the regulatory amendment, which includes an environmental assessment and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone 813-348-1630; fax 813-348-1711; e-mail gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org; or may be downloaded from the Council's Web site at http://www.gulfcouncil.org/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rich Malinowski, 727-824-5308.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
        The Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) update assessment for Gulf red snapper was conducted in August 2009 (SEDAR 9), with the objective of updating the SEDAR 7 benchmark assessment conducted in 2005 (SEDAR 7). To accomplish this goal, the 2009 SEDAR assessment updated, reviewed, and incorporated into the model all data included in SEDAR 7. The 2009 SEDAR update assessment projected that overfishing had ended for the red snapper stock, and therefore, TAC for this species may be increased. The stock, however, is still overfished and under a rebuilding plan.
        The rebuilding plan for Gulf red snapper was outlined in Amendment 22 to the FMP, and implemented through regulations in 2005. The final rule implementing Amendment 22 to the FMP became effective on July 5, 2005 (70 FR 32266, June 2, 2005). Actions taken through Joint Amendment 27 to the FMP and Amendment 14 to the FMP for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (implemented February 28, 2008, 73 FR 5117, published January 29, 2008) revised the red snapper rebuilding strategy with the intent to end overfishing by 2009 or 2010, and to rebuild red snapper by 2032 to the biomass levels that can support harvest of the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The revised rebuilding plan outlined that after 2010, TAC would be increased consistent with a fishing mortality rate that produces MSY.
        In response to the rebuilding plan, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended 3 years of increasing acceptable biological catch (ABC) levels from 2010 through 2012. The ABC level for red snapper set by the SSC is 25-percent below the overfishing limit, which is also the rebuilding yield, to account for scientific uncertainty in the numbers. This buffer further increases the likelihood that red snapper will be rebuilt by 2032. In 2010, however, the Council and NMFS raised the TAC for 2010 only.
        In February 2010, the Council submitted a regulatory amendment to set the red snapper TAC for 2010 at 6.945 million lb (3.150 million kg), which was the ABC recommended by the SSC. The Council chose not to set TACs beyond 2010 because of scientific uncertainty about future levels of red snapper stock, and concern regarding the likelihood of the recreational sector to overrun the quota. NMFS published a final rule on May 3, 2010 (75 FR 23186), implementing the February 2010 regulatory amendment. That rule set the commercial quota for Gulf red snapper at 3.542 million lb (1.607 million kg), and the recreational quota at 3.403 million lb (1.544 million kg). The final rule also included a closure date for the 2010 recreational sector based on estimates of when the recreational quota was projected to be caught. NMFS projected that the recreational sector quota for red snapper would be met after a 53-day fishing season, and on July 24, 2010, NMFS closed the recreational sector for red snapper. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to close the recreational red snapper sector in Federal waters when the quota is met or projected to be met.

        Although NMFS had already projected a recreational season for red snapper for the 2010 fishing year, an unforeseen event occurred in April 2010 that contributed to the recreational quota not being met by the closure date. On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon MC252 deep-sea drilling rig exploded and sank off the coast of Louisiana. Because of the resulting oil spill, approximately one-third of the Gulf was closed to fishing for much of the summer. The direct loss of fishing opportunities due to the closure, plus the reduction in tourism throughout the Gulf coast, resulted in a much lower catch than had been projected. In a report dated August 13, 2009 (http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/pdfs/2010_Recreational_Red_Snapper_Quota_Closure_Analysis_Fall_Reopening.pdf), NMFS estimated 2.3 million lb (1.1 million kg) of the 3.4 million lb (1.5 million kg) recreational quota remained unharvested. Consequently, on October 1, 2010, the Council and NMFS reopened the recreational red snapper season for 24 more fishing days (eight consecutive weekends—Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays—through November 21, 2010). The reopening of the recreational red snapper season was intended to provide fishermen the opportunity to harvest the recreational red snapper quota and achieve the OY for the fishery.
        At present, there is no evidence that the oil spill has adversely impacted the adult stock of red snapper, and the fishing mortality rate of red snapper remains below the overfishing threshold. The next SEDAR benchmark stock assessment currently scheduled for Gulf red snapper is in 2014.
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
        This Gulf red snapper regulatory amendment would set the TAC for 2011 and subsequent fishing years at 7.185 million lb (3.259 million kg), provided that the 2010 TAC has not been exceeded. Based on the current commercial and recreational allocations (51-percent commercial and 49-percent recreational), the TAC would be implemented through this proposed rule by setting the Gulf red snapper commercial quota at 3.664 million lb (1.662 million kg), and the recreational quota at 3.521 million lb (1.544 million kg). However, if NMFS determines the combined commercial and recreational quota from 2010 was exceeded, NMFS will maintain the quota from 2010 in the 2011 fishing year. If this is the case, the Assistant Administrator will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to announce the commercial and recreational quotas will remain at the quotas of the 2010 fishing year.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to close the recreational red snapper sector in Federal waters when the quota is met or projected to be met. NMFS will set the recreational season length for 2011 after finalized 2010 recreational landings data are available and before the season opens on June 1, 2011. NMFS may announce the recreational red snapper season in the final rule associated with this action.
        The red snapper management measures contained in this proposed rule would achieve the goal of National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which states that conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield for the fishery.
        Additional Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
        IFQ Program Changes

        In § 622.2 of the current regulations, “actual ex-vessel value” is defined as the total monetary sale amount a fisherman receives from IFQ landings from a registered IFQ dealer. Many Gulf reef fish IFQ dealers, however, are reporting very low ex-vessel prices for IFQ fish because trip expenses and transferred (leased) allocation are deducted from the price paid by the dealer. Through this rulemaking, NMFS proposes to revise the definition of “actual ex-vessel value” in § 622.2 of the regulations, so that actual ex-vessel value represents the price paid per pound of fish before any deductions are made for transferred (leased) allocation and goods and services (e.g., bait, ice, fuel, repairs, machinery replacement, etc.). This revision will allow NMFS to more accurately analyze the total value of the Gulf red snapper and grouper and tilefish fisheries, and will more appropriately align the definition with the original intent of the IFQ programs.
        Sections 622.16 and 622.20 of the current regulations restrict IFQ transactions during a 12-hour maintenance window at year-end. The regulations state that all transactions must be completed by 6 p.m. eastern time December 31 and may resume at 6 a.m. eastern time January 1 of the next year. This maintenance window is necessary to provide NMFS time to reconcile IFQ accounts, adjust allocations for the upcoming fishing year if the commercial quotas for IFQ managed species have changed, and to update shares and allocations for the upcoming fishing year. This maintenance window, however, is too short to complete all of the necessary changes and updates to the IFQ program prior to the start of the next fishing year. This rulemaking proposes to extend the maintenance window an additional 8 hours to allow for more time to conduct end-of-year maintenance. It also clarifies how fishermen can submit an IFQ landing notification during the maintenance window. This revision is not expected to have any effects on fishermen or dealers. During the first 4 years of the Red Snapper IFQ program and first year of the Grouper-Tilefish IFQ program, no landing transactions were completed between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. on January 1. Additionally, IFQ participants may still submit an advanced notice of landing during the maintenance window.
        Removing Obsolete Regulations
        In Amendment 30B to the FMP, NMFS removed the February 15-March 15 seasonal closure of the commercial sector of the Gulf reef fish fishery for gag, red grouper, and black grouper through a final rule that published April 16, 2009 (74 FR 17603). When the February 15-March 15 closure was effective, the sale and purchase of gag, red grouper, and black grouper was prohibited, as specified in § 622.45(c)(4). However, NMFS inadvertently did not remove § 622.45(c)(4) in the final rule for Amendment 30B. This rulemaking proposes to remove this obsolete paragraph.
        These additional measures are unrelated to the actions contained in the red snapper regulatory amendment.
        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 regulatory amendment, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:
        The preamble of this proposed rule provides a statement of the need for and objectives of this rule, and it is not repeated here. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.
        This proposed rule, if implemented, would be expected to directly affect commercial and for-hire fishing vessels that harvest red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and federally permitted dealers who purchase IFQ species. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an agency must complete an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) with a proposed regulation if the proposed regulation is expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Administration administers those provisions of the RFA, and 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 $4.0 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all its affiliated operations worldwide. For for-hire vessels, the other qualifiers apply and the revenues threshold is $7.0 million (NAICS code 713990, recreational industries).
        Based on logbook records, for the period 2007-2008, an average of 312 commercial vessels per year recorded red snapper landings in the Gulf. The total average annual ex-vessel revenues from all logbook-recorded harvests from all species for these vessels during this period was approximately $28.943 million (2008 dollars), of which approximately $9.435 million came from red snapper. The average annual total revenue per vessel for these commercial vessels during this period was approximately $93,000 (2008 dollars).
        Some fleet activity occurs in the Gulf commercial reef fish fishery. Based on permit data, the maximum number of permits reported to be owned by the same entity is six, though additional permits may be linked through other affiliations which cannot be identified with current data. Using the average revenue per vessel provided above, the average annual estimated maximum combined revenues for this entity would be approximately $558,000 (2008 dollars).
        The for-hire fleet in the Gulf is comprised of charter vessels, which charge a fee on a vessel basis, and headboats, which charge a fee on an individual angler (head) basis. A Gulf reef fish for-hire permit is required to harvest red snapper in the Gulf. On December 17, 2010, there were 1,355 valid or renewable Gulf reef fish for-hire permits. A valid permit is a non-expired permit. Expired permits may not be actively fished, but are renewable for up to one year after expiration. Although the for-hire permit does not distinguish between headboats and charter vessels, an estimated 79 headboats and 1,276 charter vessels operate in the Gulf. It cannot be determined with available data how many of these for-hire vessels harvest red snapper, so all permitted vessels are assumed to comprise the universe of potentially affected for-hire vessels. The average charter vessel is estimated to earn approximately $88,000 (2008 dollars) in annual revenues, while the average headboat is estimated to earn approximately $461,000 (2008 dollars).
        For seafood dealers, the SBA uses an employee threshold rather than a receipts threshold, or 100 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide. On January 19, 2011, 190 dealers possessed a Federal permit to purchase reef fish species. All dealers with a Federal reef fish permit are eligible to obtain an account required to purchase IFQ species, however, on January 19, 2011, only 169 dealers had an IFQ account. No current information is available on the employment profile of these dealers.

        Based on the average revenue estimates provided above, all commercial and for-hire vessels expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are determined for the purpose of this analysis to be small business entities. Although no current information is available on the employment profile of the dealers expected to be directly affected by this rule, if enacted, all dealers are determined for the purpose of this analysis to be small business entities.
        This proposed rule would not establish any new reporting, record-keeping or other compliance requirements. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. This proposed rule, if implemented, is expected to result in an increase in commercial red snapper harvests and a longer red snapper recreational fishing season relative to the season that would occur without a TAC increase (the status quo). The increase in commercial red snapper harvests would be expected to increase commercial annual ex-vessel revenues to the whole commercial fleet by approximately $400,000, and a longer recreational red snapper fishing season would be expected to increase annual net operating revenues to the whole for-hire fleet by up to $225,000. Therefore, all of the expected direct economic impacts on small entities of this proposed rule, if implemented, are positive. No reduction in the revenues or profits of affected entities would be expected.
        The proposed revision to the definition of “actual ex-vessel value” to mean price paid per pound of fish before any deductions are made for transferred (leased) allocation and goods and services, would be expected to affect fishermen and dealers who report ex-vessel prices net of cost deductions. Because cost recovery fees are based on the ex-vessel revenues, the proposed revision to the definition of ex-vessel value would be expected to result in an increase in cost recovery fees, potentially reducing revenues to both fishermen and dealers. While dealers would be expected to pass a portion of any increased cost recovery fees onto fishermen, thereby reducing fishing revenues, the competitive market may require dealers to absorb some portion of these increased fees.

        The number of affected entities and the magnitude of effect cannot be determined with certainty at this time, but would be expected to vary by IFQ species and assumptions on the appropriate price threshold (i.e., the baseline price for comparison). For example, based on 2010 red snapper IFQ data, if reported ex-vessel prices below the average ($3.48/lb), median ($4.00/lb), and mode ($4.25/lb) prices are adjusted to the respective threshold, the proposed revision would result in an increase in cost recovery fees, and total reduced revenues to all dealers and fishermen combined, of approximately $57,000, $76,000, and $88,000 under the respective thresholds. In 2010, assuming a threshold price of $3.00/lb, 29 dealers and 128 vessels recorded transactions with prices less than $3.00/lb. Comparable results for other IFQ species are approximately $13,000 to $20,000 and 9 dealers and 9 vessels ($2.00/lb threshold price; the average reported price was $3.14/lb) for red grouper; approximately $1,000 to $4,000 and 19 dealers and 42 vessels ($3.00/lb threshold price; the average reported price was $4.22/lb) for gag; approximately $6,000 to $3,000 and 11 dealers and 32 vessels ($3.00/lb threshold price; the average reported price was $3.36/lb) for deepwater grouper (the range in effects decreases when comparing from average price to median price to mode price for this group because the prices decline in that order, unlike the case for most other species); approximately $1,000 to $3,000 and 29 dealers and 55 vessels ($3.00/lb threshold price; the average reported price was $4.08/lb) for other shallow water grouper; and approximately $1,000 to a few hundred dollars and 16 dealers and 44 vessels ($1.00/lb threshold price; the average reported price was $1.83/lb) for tilefish. Overlap in affected dealers and vessels would be expected, but has not been tabulated.
        Thus, the proposed revision to the definition of “actual ex-vessel value,” would be expected to reduce revenues to fishermen and dealers. However, the proposed revision is consistent with the intent of the original requirement to report ex-vessel values and remit cost recovery fees based on said value. The proposed revision would simply result in fishermen and dealers reporting the values and remitting the cost recovery fees they have been expected to provide since the implementation of the IFQ program. Therefore, none of the expected effects constitute new direct adverse economic effects on the affected entities.
        The proposed extension of the maintenance window would not be expected to have any adverse effects on fishermen or dealers because no transactions have historically been completed to date during the affected period. Finally, the proposed removal of obsolete text in the regulations is an administrative action and would not affect any small entities.
        Because this proposed rule, if implemented, is not expected to have any direct adverse economic impact on any small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

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

          Dated: February 14, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, 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 § 622.2, the definition of “actual ex-vessel value” is revised to read as follows:

            § 622.2
            Definitions and acronyms.

              Actual ex-vessel value means the total monetary sale amount a fisherman receives per pound of fish for IFQ landings from a registered IFQ dealer before any deductions are made for transferred (leased) allocation and goods and services (e.g. bait, ice, fuel, repairs, machinery replacement, etc.).

            3. In § 622.16, paragraph (c)(5) is revised to read as follows:

            § 622.16
            Gulf red snapper individual fishing quota (IFQ) program.

            (c) * * *
            (5) Restricted transactions during the 20-hour online maintenance window. All electronic IFQ transactions must be completed by December 31 at 6 p.m. eastern time each year. Electronic IFQ functions will resume again on January 1 at 2 p.m. eastern time the following fishing year. The remaining 6 hours prior to the end of the fishing year, and the 14 hours at the beginning of the next fishing year, are necessary to provide NMFS time to reconcile IFQ accounts, adjust allocations for the upcoming year if the commercial quotas for Gulf red snapper have changed, and update shares and allocations for the upcoming fishing year. No electronic IFQ transactions will be available during these 20 hours. An advance notice of landing may still be submitted during the 20-hour maintenance window by using the vessel's VMS unit or calling IFQ Customer Service at 1-866-425-7627.

            4. In § 622.20, paragraph (c)(5) is revised to read as follows:

            § 622.20
            Individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for Gulf groupers and tilefishes.

            (c) * * *
            (5) Restricted transactions during the 20-hour online maintenance window. All electronic IFQ transactions must be completed by December 31 at 6 p.m. eastern time each year. Electronic IFQ functions will resume again on January 1 at 2 p.m. eastern time the following fishing year. The remaining 6 hours prior to the end of the fishing year, and the 14 hours at the beginning of the next fishing year, are necessary to provide NMFS time to reconcile IFQ accounts, adjust allocations for the upcoming year if the commercial quotas or catch allowances for Gulf groupers and tilefishes have changed, and update shares and allocations for the upcoming fishing year. No electronic IFQ transactions will be available during these 20 hours. An advance notice of landing may still be submitted during the 20-hour maintenance window by using the vessel's VMS unit or calling IFQ Customer Service at 1-866-425-7627.

            5. In § 622.42, paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i) are revised to read as follows:

            § 622.42
            Quotas.

            (a) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) Red snapper—(A) For fishing year 2010—3.542 million lb (1.607 million kg), round weight.
            (B) For fishing year 2011—3.664 million lb (1.662 million kg), round weight, provided that the combined commercial and recreational quota from the prior fishing year is not exceeded. If landings, as estimated by the SRD, indicate the combined quota is exceeded, then the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to maintain the commercial quota at the quota of the prior fishing year.

            (2) * * *
            (i) Recreational quota for red snapper—(A) The 2010 recreational quota for red snapper is 3.403 million lb (1.544 million kg), round weight.
            (B) The 2011 recreational quota for red snapper is 3.521 million lb (1.597 million kg), round weight, provided that the combined commercial and recreational quota from the prior fishing year is not exceeded. If landings, as estimated by the SRD, indicate the combined quota is exceeded, then the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to maintain the recreational quota at the quota of the prior fishing year.

            § 622.45
            [Amended]
            6. In § 622.45, paragraph (c)(4) is removed.

      [FR Doc. 2011-3735 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P