        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2009-0064]
        [MO 922105 0083-B2]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the American Dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota as Threatened or Endangered

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the distinct population segment (DPS) of American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus unicolor) in the Black Hills of South Dakota as threatened or endangered and designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). For the purposes of this finding, we evaluated whether the petition presents substantial information to indicate whether the petitioned entity (the American dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota) is a listable entity. Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we conclude that the American dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota is not a listable entity under the Act. Because the petition did not present substantial information that the American dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota is a DPS, we did not evaluate whether the information contained in the petition regarding threats was substantial. Therefore, we will not initiate a status review to determine if listing this subspecies is warranted in response to this petition. However, the public may submit to us new information concerning the subspecies, its status, or threats to it at any time.

          DATES:
          You may submit new information concerning this subspecies for our consideration at any time.

          ADDRESSES:
          This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the South Dakota Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 420 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 400, Pierre, SD 57501. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Pete Gober, Field Supervisor, South Dakota Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 605-224-8693). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly review the status of the species (status review).
        We base this 90-day finding on information provided by the petitioners and our evaluation of that information in relation to information available in our files at the time of the petition review. This finding summarizes the information included in the petition and information available to us at the time of the petition review. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(b), our review of a 90-day finding is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial [scientific or commercial] information” threshold.
        Previous Federal Actions

        On March 28, 2003, the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Center for Native Ecosystems, and Jeremy Nichols petitioned the Service to list the Black Hills American dipper distinct population segment (DPS) as an endangered or threatened species. We received a Notice of Intent to sue from the petitioners on July 21, 2003, who subsequently filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on August 20, 2004. On January 24, 2005, we reached a settlement agreement to publish a 90-day finding in the Federal Register by January 20, 2006. On January 26, 2006, we determined in a 90-day finding that the Black Hills American dipper did not meet the elements for being a DPS and, therefore, was not a listable entity under the Act (71 FR 4341).
        Petition
        On October 2, 2008, we received a petition dated September 29, 2008, requesting that we list the DPS of American dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota as threatened or endangered under the Act and designate critical habitat for that DPS. In addition, the petition requested emergency listing of the DPS. The petition, submitted by the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Center for Native Ecosystems, Native Ecosystems Council, and Prairie Hills Audubon Society, was clearly identified as a petition for a listing rule, and it contained the names, signatures, and addresses of the requesting parties. Included in the petition was supporting information regarding the subspecies' taxonomy and ecology, historical and current distribution, present status, and potential causes of decline. We acknowledged the receipt of the petition and addressed the request for emergency listing in a letter to Mr. Duane Short, dated December 5, 2008. The letter stated that we determined that the Black Hills population would need to meet our policy criteria as a DPS or a significant portion of the range of the subspecies before we can determine if emergency listing is necessary.
        Species Information
        The American dipper is a small, gray passerine bird that inhabits western Canada, Mexico, and the western United States, including the Black Hills (Pettingill and Whitney 1965, p. 74; Anderson 2002, p. 2) of South Dakota. The American dipper utilizes permanent, clean, cold, and swift mountain streams (Price and Bock 1983, p. 2; Tyler and Ormerod 1994, p. 3; Kingery 1996, p. 4; Feck 2002, p. 2) with abundant and healthy populations of benthic macroinvertebrates, the dipper's prey (Ealey 1977, p. 104; Price and Bock 1983, p. 2; Tyler and Ormerod 1994, p. 38; Kingery 1996, p. 6). Dippers are usually found in streams with rock, sand, and rubble substrates, which also are associated with the highest abundance of aquatic invertebrates. American dippers establish linear territories along a river in early spring (Kingery 1996, p. 11). They remain in or near their territories most of the year, depending upon the availability of open water. Dipper nest sites can be found on streamside rock cliffs, waterfalls, large rocks in midstream, or under bridges (Kingery 1996, p. 14).
        Distribution and Abundance
        The Black Hills are the eastern edge of the American dipper's range. The dipper is a permanent year-round resident of the Black Hills and has historically been known to inhabit nearly all permanent, fast-flowing streams in the area (Pettingill and Whitney 1965, p. 74). There are few records of American dippers making long-distance flights, and these records do not substantiate that these movements contribute to the establishment of new populations (Kingery 1996, p. 4; Muelhausen 1970, p. 136). No instances of long-distance dispersal of dippers between the Black Hills and the next nearest populations of American dipper to the west in the Big Horn Mountains of north-central Wyoming and the Laramie Range of east-central Wyoming have been documented. In addition to the apparent lack of long distance movements, the dipper population in the Black Hills is isolated from other populations by geographical barriers to dispersal in the form of extensive grasslands, poor-quality stream habitat, and the lack of water connections to dipper populations existing west of the Black Hills (Backlund 2001, p. 1).
        Verified historical American dipper reports have been recorded on six streams or their tributaries in the Black Hills: French Creek, Rapid Creek, Box Elder Creek, Elk Creek, Whitewood Creek, and Spearfish Creek (Backlund 2001, pp. 2-4). Other streams are unable to support self-sustaining populations of dipper due to habitat degradation, erratic water flows, loss of water flow, poor water quality, and other impacts (Backlund 2001, p. 4). Currently, nesting dippers can be found on only two streams in the Black Hills—Spearfish Creek and Whitewood Creek (Lovett 2008, p. 2).
        Dipper nest surveys in the Black Hills were started in 1993 by South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, and became more extensive from 2003 to 2008. The lowest number of dippers reported on Spearfish Creek was 10 in 1997, with only two nests found (Backlund 2001, p. 4). In 2008, the number of dippers reported on Spearfish Creek was approximately 54 adults, with 38 nest attempts (Lovett 2008, p. 12). This is the second highest number of adults compared to 56 adults in both 2005 and 2006; there were 42 nest attempts in 2005 and 36 nest attempts in 2006. In 2008, Whitewood Creek had six adults observed and four known nest attempts (Lovett 2008, p. 12). Select areas of French Creek, Rapid Creek, and Boxelder Creek were checked for dippers but neither dippers nor active nests were found (Lovett 2008, p. 37).
        Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment

        The petitioners have asked us to consider listing a DPS of the American dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Under the Act, we can consider for listing any species, subspecies, or DPS of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature. To implement the measures prescribed by the Act and its congressional guidance, we developed a joint policy with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration entitled Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Act (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) (DPS Policy). Under the DPS policy, we must consider three elements in making our decision whether an entity qualifies as a DPS that warrants listing as endangered or threatened under the Act. The three elements are: (1) The population segment's discreteness in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; (2) the population segment's significance to the species to which it belongs; and (3) the population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing—that is, when treated as if it were a species, is the population segment endangered or threatened? For the purposes of this finding, we evaluated whether the petition presented substantial information to indicate whether the petitioned entity (the American dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota) is a listable entity.
        Discreteness
        The DPS policy states that a population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following two conditions: (1) It must be markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors, or (2) it must be delimited by international governmental boundaries within which significant differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.

        Substantial information is presented in the petition to indicate that the Black Hills population may be markedly separated from other populations of the American dipper as a consequence of physical factors. The Black Hills is an isolated mountain range located within the plains of western South Dakota and northeastern Wyoming (Raventon 1994, p. 15). The Great Plains, which entirely surround the Black Hills, create a major physical barrier separating the Black Hills American dipper populations from other Rocky Mountain populations to the west (Hall et al. 2002, p. 3). The Big Horn Mountains, approximately 241 to 322 kilometers (km) (150 to 200 miles (mi)) to the west, is the closest mountain range to the Black Hills (Froiland 1990, p. 11). The expanse of grassland separating the Black Hills from other mountain ranges is incapable of supporting American dippers and represents a significant barrier to dispersal (Backlund 2001, p. 1; Voelker 2002, p. 582). The streams and rivers of the Great Plains are described as typically silt-laden, turbid, alkaline, and subject to erratic flows which precludes their use by dippers (Smith and Hubert 1989, p. 27).
        Information in the petition, as supported by information readily available in our files, suggests that there is a substantial physical isolation of the Black Hills population of the American dipper. Therefore, the petition presents substantial information indicating that the Black Hills population of the American dipper meets the condition for discreteness under our DPS policy that the population is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon. The Black Hills population of the American dipper is located entirely within the United States, therefore the international governmental boundaries provision for discreteness does not apply.
        Significance
        Under our DPS policy, if we determine that a population segment is discrete, we further consider that population's biological and ecological significance to the taxon to which it belongs, within the context that the DPS policy be used “sparingly” while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). This consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; and (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the subspecies in its genetic characteristics. These four considerations are addressed here:
        (1) Persistence of the population segment in an ecological setting that is unusual or unique for the taxon.
        The American dipper occupies permanent, clean, cold, and swift mountain streams throughout the western half of North America, including the Black Hills (Kingery 1996, p. 2). The petition contends that the streams in the Black Hills inhabited by dippers may be a unique ecological setting because the Black Hills themselves are a unique ecosystem. We recognize that the Black Hills have many unique ecological features, but information readily available in our files (Kingery 1996) indicates that the Black Hills are not unusual. These mountain ecosystems share commonalities, such as clean, cold, swift mountain streams with suitable substrate that provide the habitats for invertebrate species used by dippers. In that respect, the Black Hills are similar to other western mountain ecosystems that also support American dippers.
        In addition, the petition claims that Black Hills streams have features that make them ecologically unique. Streams throughout the Rocky Mountains vary in many features, including elevation, gradient, substrate, parent geological material, and riparian vegetation, such that virtually every stream could be considered “unique.” Information readily available in our files (Kingery 1996) indicates that the key features of Black Hills streams used by dippers—cold temperatures, good water quality, suitable substrate, and swift flow—are the same key features of dipper-utilized streams elsewhere throughout the Rocky Mountains. Accordingly, we do not believe the petition presents substantial information that the clean, cold, swift streams of the Black Hills occupied by dippers are an ecological setting that is unusual or unique for this subspecies.
        (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of taxon.

        The petition claims that the Black Hills dipper population is at the eastern edge of its global distribution and its loss would result in a significant gap in the range of the dipper. Information readily available in our files (Kingery 1996, NatureServe.org 2007) states that the American dipper's breeding range extends from western Alaska eastward across north-central Alaska; southward along the Pacific Coast, and throughout the Rocky Mountains into New Mexico. The subspecies is absent from the Great Basin area except for scattered populations. The subspecies' range includes mountain streams in an area that is approximately 5,000 km (3,107 mi) from north to south and approximately 1,800 km (1,118 mi) from west to east at its widest point. Within that range, there are thousands of suitable streams and tens of thousands of kilometers of occupied streams. The Black Hills dipper population, which occupies two streams that represent less than 80 km (50 mi) of occupied stream habitat, is a small population relative to the entire range. Populations of dippers exist throughout suitable streams in the Rocky Mountains. The Black Hills dipper population is small, and there is no information in the petition or readily available in our files to suggest that it makes a significant contribution to the taxa. The dipper-occupied streams in the Black Hills are on the eastern edge of the dipper's overall range in the United States; however, mountain streams in the southern parts of the subspecies' range (the i.e. front ranges of Colorado and, Mexico) are as far or farther east than the Black Hills.
        We find that the petition does not present substantial information that loss of the population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon because it did not provide substantial information that the population in the Black Hills is significant to the taxa as a whole.
        (3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range.
        The petition does not address this consideration. As stated above under “Distribution and Abundance,” the American dipper survives naturally throughout much of western North America. As such, this consideration is not applicable to the Black Hills population of the American dipper.
        (4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the subspecies in its genetic characteristics.

        The petition does not address this consideration. We are aware that a genetic analysis was conducted to determine whether the Black Hills population of the American dipper is genetically distinct from other American dipper populations in North America (Anderson et al. 2007). The research analyzed samples from six populations (Black Hills, South Dakota; Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming; and four locations in west-central Montana and east-central Idaho). Information from this research suggests that genetic differences could exist among the dipper populations studied. However, the study did not address the significance of the Black Hills population of American dipper to the taxon as a whole. The results of the study do not lead us to believe there are significant genetic differences to meet the criteria in our DPS policy for significance based on genetics.
        The information as provided in the petition does not meet the four considerations for significance. Only the first two considerations are actually addressed in the petition and do not present substantial information in favor of significance. Little information is available in our files to support the third and fourth considerations, and no information was presented in the petition with respect to those criteria.
        Conservation Status
        We did not need to evaluate whether the information contained in the petition regarding the conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing was substantial, because the petition does not present substantial information that the American dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota is a DPS and, therefore, a listable entity under the Act.
        Finding
        We have reviewed the information presented in the petition and have evaluated that information in relation to information readily available in our files. On the basis of our review, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that listing the American dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota may be warranted. This finding is based on the lack of substantial scientific evidence to indicate that the American dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota may meet the elements of being a valid DPS and, therefore, a listable entity under the Act. Although the population appears to meet the criteria for being discrete, neither the information in the petition nor the information readily available in our files suggests that the Black Hills dipper population may be significant in relation to the remainder of the taxon. Therefore, we conclude that the American dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota does not satisfy the elements of being a DPS under our 1996 policy and, therefore, is not a listable entity under section 3(16) of the Act. Because the petition does not present substantial information that the American dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota is a DPS, we did not evaluate whether the information contained in the petition regarding the conservation status was substantial.

        Although we will not commence a status review in response to this petition, we will continue to monitor the American dipper's population status and trends, potential threats, and ongoing management actions that might be important with regard to the conservation of the species in the Black Hills of South Dakota. We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that will assist with these conservation efforts. New information should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, South Dakota Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES).
        The petitioners also request that critical habitat be designated for the American dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Because the petition does not present substantial information that the American dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota may be a DPS, we are not required to address the designation of critical habitat, and therefore, will not be doing so.

        If you wish to provide information regarding the American dipper in the Black Hills, you may submit your information or materials to the Field Supervisor of the South Dakota Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES) at any time.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references is available upon request from the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES).
        Author

        The primary authors of this document are staff members at the South Dakota Ecological Services Office (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 9, 2009
          Daniel M. Ashe
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

      [FR Doc. E9-25524 Filed 10-26-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 022101A]
        Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings and Hearing

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meetings/public hearing revision.

          SUMMARY:
          The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has changed the time, address, and agenda for the March 13, 2001, 109th meeting in Honolulu, HI.

          DATES:
          The meeting time has been changed to 12 noon to 6 p.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          The meeting will now be held at the Ala Mona Hotel, Hibiscus Room No 1., 410 Atkinson Drive, Honolulu, HI 96813; telephone: 808-944-2974.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: 808-522-8220.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This revised notification modifies the original notice published on March 2, 2001. The new agenda item will be the Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion (BO) on the effects of the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery on threatened and endangered sea turtles. The Council expects to receive public comments on the BO and its recommended measures.
        Special Accommodations
        The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, 808-522-8220 (voice) or 808-522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. All other previously published information remains unchanged.

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

          Dated: March 1, 2001.
          Richard W, Surdi,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-5436 Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0584; FRL-9960-42-Region 10]
        Air Plan Approval; ID, Updates to Incorporations by Reference

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the portions of Idaho's April 28, 2016 State Implementation Plan submittal (SIP submittal) that update the incorporation by reference of federal air quality regulations. We note that this action does not address the changes Idaho withdrew related to transportation conformity requirements.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0584, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not electronically submit 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. The 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, 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:

          Randall Ruddick, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-1999; email address: ruddick.randall@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For further information, please see the direct final action, of the same title, which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register. The EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If the EPA receives no adverse comments, the EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule.
        If the EPA receives adverse comments, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. The EPA will address all adverse comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule, but will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

          Dated: February 7, 2017.
          Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

      [FR Doc. 2017-09543 Filed 5-11-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 050228048-5048-01; I.D. 021705A]
        RIN 0648-AS19
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Vermilion Snapper Rebuilding Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS issues proposed regulations to implement Amendment 23 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (Amendment 23) prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). These proposed regulations would increase the minimum size limit for vermilion snapper to 11 inches (27.9 cm), total length (TL), for the recreational and commercial sectors; establish a 10-fish recreational bag limit for vermilion snapper within the existing 20-fish aggregate reef fish bag limit; and close the commercial vermilion snapper fishery from April 22 through May 31 each year. In addition, consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), Amendment 23 would establish a stock rebuilding plan, biological reference points, and stock status determination criteria for vermilion snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. The intended effect of these proposed regulations is to end overfishing and rebuild the vermilion snapper resource.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on April 25, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: 0648-AS19.Proposed@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following document identifier: 0648-AS19.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702.
          • Fax: 727-570-5583 (through March 18, 2005), 727-824-5308 (on and after March 22, 2005); Attention: Peter Hood.

          Copies of Amendment 23, which includes a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFAs), and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), may be obtained from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, The Commons at Rivergate, 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33619-2266; telephone: 813-228-2815; fax: 813-225-7015; e-mail: gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org. Copies of Amendment 23 can also be downloaded from the Council's website at www.gulfcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Peter Hood, telephone: 727-570-5305; fax: 727-570-5583 (through March 18, 2005), 727-824-5308 (on and after March 22, 2005); e-mail: peter.hood@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The reef fish fishery in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
        Background

        In October 2003, NMFS declared the Gulf of Mexico stock of vermilion snapper to be overfished and undergoing overfishing. This determination was based, in part, on the results of a 2001 NMFS vermilion snapper stock assessment and review by the Council's Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel that found the stock to be undergoing overfishing. Subsequently, NMFS reexamined the assessment, as well as more recent data that ultimately supported the findings of the assessment, and declared the Gulf of Mexico vermilion snapper stock overfished. Therefore, measures to end overfishing and a rebuilding plan to restore the stock to the stock biomass needed to allow harvest at maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) in 10 years or less are still necessary.
        Amendment 23 and this proposed rule contain measures for vermilion snapper that are designed to end overfishing and initiate implementation of the rebuilding plan in a manner that allocates the necessary restrictions fairly and equitably between the recreational and commercial sectors of the fishery, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Stock Rebuilding Plan

        Amendment 23 would establish a 10 year vermilion snapper rebuilding plan, structured in one 4-year interval followed by two 3 year intervals, that would end overfishing and rebuild the stock to BMSY. In Amendment 23, the rebuilding plan begins in 2004 and continues through 2013. However, due to the time required to complete supporting documentation, implementation of this amendment will not occur until 2005. Therefore, the rebuilding plan has been moved forward one year and will begin in 2005. Measures to implement the plan are designed to allocate the required reductions equitably between the commercial and recreational sectors. The intervals are intended to provide short-term stability for the management and operation of the fishery, correlate more closely with the timing of future stock assessments, and provide a more reasonable time period for assessing the impacts of prior management actions. The appropriate parameters for each time interval, consistent with the overall objectives of the rebuilding plan, would be determined based upon the most recent stock assessment.
        Initial (2005-2008) Implementation of the Rebuilding Plan
        Based on the results of the 2001 vermilion snapper stock assessment and updated indices of abundance, the allowable harvest for the first 4-year interval starting in 2005 is 1.475 million lb (0.664 million kg). This equates to a 25.5-percent reduction in harvest based on the 2003 predicted landings. The following measures in this proposed rule are designed to achieve that reduction fairly and equitably within both the commercial and recreational sectors.
        Measures Applicable to the Recreational Vermilion Snapper Fishery
        This proposed rule would establish a minimum size limit for recreationally caught vermilion snapper of 11 inches (27.9 cm) total length (TL) and a bag limit of 10 fish within the 20 reef fish aggregate bag limit. The increase in the size limit, from 10 inches (25.4 cm) TL to 11 inches (27.9 cm) TL, and the further restriction of the bag limit would achieve approximately a 21.5-percent reduction relative to the estimated 2003 recreational harvest. Size limits are an effective method to protect fish until they become mature and have had a chance to spawn. Ninety percent of female vermilion snapper are mature by 8 inches (20.3 cm) TL, so the 11-inch (27.9-cm) minimum size limit would ensure that even the fastest growing fish would be able to spawn before entering the fishery. Reducing the bag limit would reduce fishing mortality on legal-sized fish.
        The reduction in harvest achieved by these measures is slightly less than the target 25.5 percent specified by the rebuilding plan. Vermilion snapper harvest has increased dramatically from the late 1980s and early 1990s principally as a result of increases in commercial harvest. This increase is believed to have been the primary cause of the overfishing and overfished conditions that must now be addressed by this amendment. Therefore, the Council believed that less of the socioeconomic cost of rebuilding the fishery needed to be placed on the recreational sector.
        Measures Applicable to the Commercial Vermilion Snapper Fishery

        For the commercial fishery, this proposed rule would establish a vermilion snapper minimum size limit of 11 inches (27.9 cm) TL and a closed season from April 22 through May 31 each year. This would achieve a 26.3-percent harvest reduction from the estimated 2003 commercial landings. Increasing the minimum size limit from 10 inches (25.4 cm) to 11 inches (27.9 cm) TL would ensure that even the fastest growing fish would be able to spawn before entering the fishery, but will initially increase the number of discards early in the rebuilding plan until the population rebuilds. The season closure may increase discards during the time period that the red snapper fishery is open, May 1 through May 10. However, the closed season will provide some protection for spawning vermilion snapper because the closure is at the beginning of the spawning season. The combination size limit increase and season closure is expected to produce a small initial net economic loss during the first 5 years of the rebuilding plan, but economic gains should be realized during the second half of the 10-year rebuilding period.
        The reduction in harvest achieved by these measures is slightly more than the target 25.5 percent needed by the rebuilding plan. As mentioned above, increasing harvests by the commercial sector are believed to have contributed the most to the overfishing and overfished conditions that must now be addressed by this amendment. Therefore, the Council believed that more of the socioeconomic cost of rebuilding the fishery needed to be placed on the commercial sector. Because the commercial sector lands the majority of vermilion snapper (79 percent of the harvest between 1996 and 2002), the harvest reduction of 26.3 percent obtained by these measures was deemed appropriate.
        Biological Reference Points and Stock Status Determination Criteria
        Consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Amendment 23 would also establish the following biological reference points and stock status determination criteria for Gulf of Mexico vermilion snapper: maximum sustainable yield (MSY); optimum yield (OY); maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) (the fishing mortality rate which, if exceeded, constitutes overfishing); and minimum stock size threshold (MSST) (the stock size below which the stock would be considered overfished).

        MSY = The yield associated with the rate of instantaneous fishing mortality that can produce maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) when the stock is at equilibrium. MSY is estimated to be 3.37 million lb (range 3.18 to 4.03 million lb) (1.52 million kg; range 1.43 to 1.81 million kg).
        OY = The yield corresponding to a fishing mortality rate (FOY) defined as 0.75*FMSY when the stock is at equilibrium. During the rebuilding period (2005-2014), OY is defined as the allowable harvest for each year based on the rebuilding strategy.
        MFMT = FMSY (currently estimated at 0.32), or the fishing mortality consistent with recovery to MSY in no more than 10 years.
        MSST = (1-M)*BMSY (or BMSY proxy). M is the natural mortality rate for vermilion snapper and is currently estimated to be 0.25. Because the most recent stock assessment estimates BMSY as 10.6 million lb (4.8 million kg), MSST would equal 7.95 million lb (3.58 million kg).
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined that Amendment 23, which this proposed rule would implement, is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. In making that determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period on Amendment 23 and the comment period on this proposed rule.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Council prepared a final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) for Amendment 23; a notice of availability was published on February 24, 2005 (70 FR 9028). The FSEIS concluded that the establishment of biological reference points and status determination criteria would have no direct positive or negative significant impacts on vermilion snapper, other species, or participants in the vermilion snapper fishery because they simply provide fishery managers with reference point to consider in developing fishery management measures and assessing fishery performance. The rebuilding plan would increase the vermilion snapper stock size and ensure the stock's ability to sustain itself over the long term. This would provide significant positive effects to the biological and ecological environment. While the rebuilding plan and associated harvest reduction create short-term economic losses in both the recreational and commercial fisheries, they are expected to create positive long-term economic benefits when compared to status quo.
        NMFS prepared an IRFA as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the proposed rule. The proposed rule will set specific sustainable fishing parameters for vermilion snapper and establish a rebuilding plan for the overfished vermilion snapper stock.
        The objectives of the proposed rule are to bring management of the vermilion snapper fishery into compliance with requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by addressing the overfished and overfishing conditions of the vermilion snapper stock and establishing a rebuilding plan for the overfished vermilion snapper stock.
        The proposed rule would impact both the commercial and recreational participants in the Gulf reef fish fishery. At present, both the commercial and for-hire reef fish permits are under a moratorium, and no new permits will be issued during the moratorium. Reef fish dealers in the Gulf are required to obtain permits to handle reef fish caught in the Gulf. There are 1,158 active commercial reef fish permits (as of October 2003). Of these commercial permitees, 441 vessels reported in their logbook submissions to have landed vermilion snapper, with most using vertical line gear. There are 1,552 for-hire vessels with active permits (as of October 2003). Also, there are 431 dealers that purchase reef fish from various vessels in the Gulf. The proposed rule is expected to affect these commercial vessels, for-hire vessels, and fish dealers.

        According to a survey of commercial fishing vessels in the Gulf, average gross receipts ranged from $24,095 for low-volume vertical line vessels to $116,989 for high-volume longline vessels. The average reef fish vessel generated annual gross revenues of $65,200, of which $7,400 was from sales of vermilion snapper. Also, according to a survey of reef fish processors in the Southeast, employment by reef fish processors totaled 700 individuals, both part and full time. Given this number and the likelihood that fish dealers are generally of smaller size than processors, employment by any of the affected dealers is very likely to be less than 500 individuals. Furthermore, according to two surveys of for-hire vessels in the Gulf, average gross receipts for charterboats range from $58,000 in the eastern Gulf to $81,000 in the western Gulf, or an overall average of $64,000. Gross receipts for headboats range from $281,000 in the eastern Gulf to $550,000 in the western Gulf, or an overall average of $400,000. A fishing business is considered a small entity if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation, and if it has annual receipts not in excess of $3.5 million in the case of commercial harvesting entities or $6.0 million in the case of for-hire entities, or if it has fewer than 500 employees in the case of fish processors, or fewer than 100 employees in the case of fish dealers. Given these data on earnings and employment, the business entities affected by the proposed rule are determined to be small business entities.
        Measures for specifying sustainable fishing parameters have no economic impacts on small entities. These specifications simply establish the boundaries for management measures that may need to be implemented. Effects could be quantified and addressed when such management measures are promulgated
        There are five rebuilding alternatives under consideration. Alternative 1 is the no action alternative and is not considered a viable alternative because, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a rebuilding plan must be instituted for the overfished vermilion snapper stock. Alternative 2 is a 10-year rebuilding plan using a constant harvest strategy. Alternative 3, the Council's preferred alternative, is a 10-year rebuilding plan using a stepped strategy. Alternative 4 is a 10-year rebuilding plan using a constant fishing mortality strategy. Alternative 5 is a 7-year rebuilding plan using a stepped strategy. As all alternatives require harvest reductions, at least in the initial years of the rebuilding, all would result in negative short-term impacts, but, as the stock rebuilds, more positive benefits would be realized. Over the short-run, Alternative 2 results in the least negative impacts, followed by Preferred Alternative 3. Over time, however, Alternative 2 would provide the lowest overall economic impact on small entities. Alternatives 4 and 5 would provide higher positive economic impacts than Preferred Alternative 3 over a period of 10 years, but, in the early years of the rebuilding, these two alternatives would bring about more negative effects on small entities. Over the entire period considered, the various rebuilding alternatives may be ranked in descending order in terms of net economic impacts as follows: Alternative 5, Alternative 4, Alternative 3, Alternative 2, and Alternative 1.
        Measures to reduce harvest of the recreational and commercial sectors have direct and immediate impacts of the operations of small entities. There are six recreational management measure alternatives under consideration. Alternative 1 is the no action alternative, which does not effect any harvest reduction. Alternative 2 provides for a daily bag limit of 2 fish per person within the existing 20-reef fish aggregate bag limit. Alternative 3 imposes a minimum size limit of 11 inches (28 cm) total length (TL) with either a 10-fish (Preferred Alternative 3A) or 7-fish (Alternative 3B) daily bag limit per person within the existing 20-reef fish aggregate bag limit. Alternative 4 considers the implicit recreational allocation of total allowable catch as a quota, and would subject the recreational fishery to possible quota closures. Alternative 5 requires vermilion snapper seasonal closure from May 1 to June 21 annually. Alternative 4 provides the most net revenues to for-hire vessels in both the short term and the long term. A good deal of this effect, however, is due to the higher allocation given to the recreational sector. All other alternatives, including Preferred Alternative 3A, would generate short-term reductions but long-term increases in vessel net revenues. Preferred Alternative 3A results in the highest negative impacts in the short term and the lowest positive impacts in the long term. Preferred Alternative 3A would reduce for-hire vessel profits by $2.29 million ($1,476 per vessel) in the first 5 years of the rebuilding but would increase profits by $5.05 million ($3,254 per vessel) in the subsequent rebuilding period, resulting in an overall increase in profits by $2.76 million ($1,778 per vessel) for the entire 10-year rebuilding period.
        There are eight commercial management alternatives under consideration. Alternative 1 is the no action alternative. Alternative 2 provides for a trip limit option of 1,625 lb (737 kg) of vermilion snapper. Alternative 3 imposes a minimum size limit of 12 inches (30.5 cm) TL. Alternative 4A imposes an 11-inch (28-cm) TL minimum size limit together with a trip limit of 2,300 lb (1,043 kg) of vermilion snapper. Alternative 4B imposes an 11-inch (28-cm) TL minimum size limit together with a trip limit of 2,250 lb (1,021 kg) of vermilion snapper. Alternative 5 imposes a quota equivalent to a 67-percent allocation of total allowable catch, thereby potentially subjecting the commercial fishery to quota closures. Alternative 6 provides for a vermilion snapper seasonal closure of August 1 through September 30 and December 1 through 31 annually. Preferred Alternative 7 imposes an 11-inch (28-cm) TL size limit and a 40-day closed season from April 22 through May 31. All alternatives would result in negative effects in the short term. Over the 10-year period, the seasonal closure (Alternative 6), the quota (Alternative 5), and the 11-inch TL minimum size along with the 40-day closure (Preferred Alternative 7) would result in the largest increase in net revenues. Size limit alternatives would result in the least increase in net revenues. In fact, the 12-inch (30.5-cm) TL minimum size limit would reduce net revenues over a 10-year period. Preferred Alternative 7 would reduce commercial vessel profits by $1.37 million ($3,107 per vessel) in the first 5 years of the rebuilding but would increase profits by $2.85 million ($6,463 per vessel) in the subsequent period, resulting in an overall increase in profits by $1.47 million ($3,333 per vessel) for the entire 10-year rebuilding period.
        Copies of the IRFA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

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

          Dated: March 4, 2005.
          John Oliver
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, 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 § 622.34, paragraph (n) is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.34
          Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.
          (n) Seasonal closure of the commercial fishery for vermilion snapper. The commercial fishery for vermilion snapper in or from the Gulf EEZ is closed from April 22 through May 31, each year. During the closure, no person aboard a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued may fish for or possess vermilion snapper in the Gulf, regardless of where harvested. However, a person aboard a vessel for which the permit indicates both charter vessel/headboat for Gulf reef fish and commercial Gulf reef fish may continue to retain vermilion snapper under the bag and possession limits specified in § 622.39(b)(1)(v) and (b)(2), respectively, provided the vessel is operating as a charter vessel or headboat. During the closure, the sale or purchase of vermilion snapper is prohibited as specified in § 622.45(c)(5).

        3. In § 622.37, paragraph (d)(1)(ii) is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.37
          Size limits.
          (d) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (ii) Vermilion snapper--11 inches (27.9 cm), TL.

        4. In § 622.39, paragraph (b)(1)(v) is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.39
          Bag and possession limits.
          (b) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (v) Gulf reef fish, combined, excluding those specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv) and paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) through (b)(1)(vii) of this section and excluding dwarf sand perch and sand perch--20, but not to exceed 10 vermilion snapper.

        5. In § 622.45, paragraph (c)(5) is added to read as follows:

          § 622.45
          Restrictions on sale/purchase.
          (c) * * *
          (5) From April 22 through May 31, each year, no person may sell or purchase vermilion snapper harvested from the Gulf by a vessel with a valid Federal commercial permit for Gulf reef fish. This prohibition on sale/purchase does not apply to vermilion snapper that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to April 22 and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.

      [FR Doc. 05-4608 Filed 3-8-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BE47
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 40

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 40 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 40 includes actions to establish a Federal charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) component and private angling component within the recreational sector, allocate the red snapper recreational quota and annual catch target (ACT) between the components based on historical and recent landings, and establish separate red snapper season closure provisions for the Federal for-hire and private angling components. These measures would sunset after 3 years unless the Council takes additional action. The intent of Amendment 40 is to define distinct private angling and Federal for-hire components of the recreational sector who fish for red snapper, and allocate the recreational quota between these two components, to increase the stability for the for-hire component, provide a basis for increased flexibility in future management of the recreational sector, and minimize the chance for recreational quota overruns, which could negatively impact the rebuilding of the red snapper stock.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before March 17, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the amendment identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2014-0107” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0107, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Electronic copies of Amendment 40, which includes an environmental impact statement, a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the plan or amendment is available for review and comment.
        The FMP being revised by Amendment 40 was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. Amendment 40 includes actions to define distinct private angling and Federal for-hire components of the reef fish recreational sector fishing for red snapper and allocate red snapper resources between these recreational components. Establishing these separate components is intended to increase the stability for the for-hire component, provide a basis for increased flexibility in future management of the recreational sector, and reduce the likelihood for recreational quota overruns. As a result, the actions are intended to prevent overfishing while achieving the OY, particularly with respect to recreational fishing opportunities, while rebuilding the red snapper stock.
        Recreational Red Snapper Fishing
        The Gulf red snapper stock is overfished and currently under a rebuilding plan until 2032. The recreational sector, which has experienced quota overages and more recently, shorter seasons, is managed under a quota, bag and size limits, and closed seasons.
        The recreational sector in the Gulf includes a private angling component (which includes state-permitted guide boats) and a for-hire component. Those for-hire vessels with a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish are allowed to fish for red snapper in Federal waters, and those for-hire vessels without Federal permits are restricted to fishing for red snapper in state waters. Current recreational management measures are typically applied to the recreational sector as a whole, without making a distinction between the private and for-hire components. This approach results in less flexible management for the two distinct components of the recreational sector, where goals and needs differ between components.

        Federal charter vessel/headboat permits for Gulf reef fish are limited-entry permits, thus there are no additional permits being issued. In addition, federally permitted reef fish charter vessels and headboats are prohibited from harvesting red snapper in state waters when the Federal season is closed. In contrast, there is no limit on the number of anglers fishing from private recreational vessels and the number of state-permitted for-hire vessels operating in state waters. Over time, the number of private recreational anglers (state licensed) has increased, while the number of vessels with Federal charter vessels/headboat permits for Gulf reef fish has decreased. As a result, private vessel landings over time have represented a greater proportion of the recreational harvest as a whole.
        Management Measures Contained in Amendment 40
        Establishing Private Angling and Federal For-Hire Components
        The Council has recommended partitioning the recreational sector that fishes for red snapper into two components. One component would be a Federal for-hire component including federally permitted for-hire operators and their angler clients. The other component would be the private angling component, including anglers fishing from private vessels and state-permitted for-hire vessels.
        Sunset Provision
        The Council selected a 3-year sunset provision for the establishment of the Federal for-hire and private angling components and associated management measures included in Amendment 40. If management measures from Amendment 40 are implemented in time for the June 1, 2015, Federal recreational fishing season, the components and associated management measures would be effective through December 31, 2017. The Council would need to take further action for these components and management measures to extend beyond 3 years.
        Allocation
        In determining the allocation for each recreational component, the Council considered eight alternatives that were based on average percentages of red snapper harvested by the federal for-hire and the private angling components during various time intervals between 1986 and 2013. The Council selected the alternative that combined the longest time period of available landings (1986-2013) with landings from a more recent range of years (2006-2013). Average percentages from each of the two time periods were then equally weighted to determine the allocation. The Council selected this allocation because it reflects both historical changes in the recreational sector as well as more current conditions, and is an approach previously used by the Council in setting allocations for other species. The resultant allocation percentages for the Federal for-hire and private angling components are 42.3 and 57.7 percent, respectively. Given a 2015 recreational quota of 5.390 million lb (2.445 million kg), this would result in Federal for-hire and private angling quotas of 2,279,970 lb (1,034,177 kg), round weight and 3,110,030 lb (1,410,686 kg), round weight, respectively.
        Recreational Season Closure Provisions
        With the establishment of the two components, the Council selected separate red snapper season closure provisions for the Federal for-hire and private angling components based on component ACTs. By applying a 20-percent buffer to quotas, the Federal charter vessel/headboat component ACT would be 1.824 million lb (0.827 million kg), round weight, and the private angling ACT would be 2.488 million lb (1.129 million kg), round weight. Both components' red snapper seasons would begin on June 1 and a component would close when its ACT is projected to be caught. Season lengths will be determined when 2014 recreational landings data are available and the results of an updated red snapper stock assessment are available. Amendment 40 contains season length projections that estimate the Federal for-hire and private angling fishing seasons if sector separation had been implemented in 2014. In 2014, state seasons were open for various times off all states when Federal waters were closed. Inconsistent state seasons reduce the length of the private angling component's Federal season but provide fishing opportunities for the private angling component that are not available to the Federal for-hire component.
        Proposed Rule for Amendment 40

        A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 40 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating Amendment 40 to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If the preliminary determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        The Council submitted Amendment 40 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments received by March 17, 2015, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 40. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: January 12, 2015.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-00587 Filed 1-15-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AT92

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (willowy monardella)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (willowy monardella) and the availability of a draft economic analysis of 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 and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted on the November 9, 2005, proposed critical habitat rule need not be resubmitted as they have already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in our final determination.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted directly to the Service (see ADDRESSES section) on or before July 3, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          If you wish to comment on the proposed rule or draft economic analysis, you may submit your comments and materials identified by RIN 1018-AT92, by any of the following methods:
          (1) E-mail: fw8cfwomolivi@fws.gov. Include “RIN 1018-AT92” in the subject line.
          (2) Fax: 760/431-9624.
          (3) Mail: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011.

          (4) Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-deliver written documents to our office (see ADDRESSES).
          (5) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, telephone, 760/431-9440; facsimile, 760/431-9624.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments Solicited

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period. We intend that any final action resulting from our critical habitat proposal be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning the proposed rule and/or the associated draft economic analysis. On the basis of public comment on the proposed rule and the draft economic analysis, and the conclusions of the final economic analysis, we may find during the development of our final determination that some areas do not contain the necessary features essential to the conservation of the species, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion. We particularly seek comments concerning:

        (1) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et al.), including whether it is prudent to designate critical habitat;
        (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of willowy monardella habitat, and what habitat contains the necessary features essential to the conservation of the species and why;
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
        (4) The proposed exclusion of habitat on Federal and non-Federal lands within the San Diego Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program (MSCP) and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) established between the Bureau of Land Management, the Service, the County of San Diego, the City of San Diego, and California Department of Fish and Game, in cooperation with the San Diego Association of Governments under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (please see Application of Sections 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for details on the MSCP and MOU section of the proposed rule (70 FR 67956; November 9, 2005)). Please provide information demonstrating the benefits of including or excluding these lands from the critical habitat designation. If the Secretary determines the benefits of including the lands outweigh the benefits of excluding them, they will not be excluded from critical habitat;
        (5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities;
        (6) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.
        (7) Whether the economic analysis identifies all State and local costs. If not, what other costs should be included;
        (8) Whether the economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the listing of the species or the designation of critical habitat;
        (9) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with land and water use controls that derive from the designation;
        (10) Whether the designation will result in disproportionate economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for possible exclusion from any final designation;
        (11) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the designation or coextensively from the listing;
        (12) Whether there is information about areas that could be used as substitutes for the economic activities planned in critical habitat areas that would offset the costs and allow for the conservation of critical habitat areas; and
        (13) Whether the benefit of exclusion in any particular area outweigh the benefits of inclusion under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

        All previous comments and information submitted during the initial comment period on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES). Our final determination concerning designation of critical habitat for willowy monardella will take into consideration all comments and any additional information received during the previous comment period and this reopened comment period (70 FR 67956). On the basis of public comment on the critical habitat proposal, the draft economic analysis, and the final economic analysis, we may during the development of our final determination find that areas proposed do not contain the necessary features essential to the conservation of the species, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.

        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments and we will make all comments available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment during normal business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). Copies of the proposed critical habitat rule for willowy monardella and the draft economic analysis are also available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please obtain copies of documents directly from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
        Background
        On November 9, 2005, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (70 FR 67956) to designate critical habitat for willowy monardella under the Act. We identified approximately 2,539 acres (ac) (1,028 hectares (ha)) of habitat occupied at the time of listing and containing the necessary features essential to the conservation of the species. We proposed to designate approximately 115 ac (47 ha) of critical habitat in one unit in San Diego County, California. Approximately 1,863 ac (754 ha) of the 2,539 ac (1,028 ha) of habitat are covered under an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) for Marine Corps Air Station Miramar; therefore, this area is exempted from critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. Approximately 560 ac (227 ha) is proposed for exclusion from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act because this area is covered under the Multiple Species Conservation Program for southwestern San Diego County or conserved as open space (Otay Mountain Wilderness). The first public comment period for the willowy monardella proposed critical habitat rule closed on January 9, 2006. For more information on this species, refer to the final rule listing this species as endangered, published in the Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54938).

        Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific areas within the geographic 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 geographic 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 areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact to national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a draft economic analysis of the November 9, 2005 (70 FR 67956), proposed designation of critical habitat for willowy monardella.
        The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of willowy monardella, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to designating critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for willowy monardella in proposed critical habitat areas and areas proposed for exclusion. The analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (e.g., lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, this analysis considered those costs that may occur in the 20 years following the final designation of critical habitat.
        The draft economic analysis estimates that, because all of the proposed critical habitat is conserved or will be conserved under the Multi Species Conservation Program and there are no effects to future development, and there are no potential economic impacts anticipated from the critical designation as proposed. There are some costs associated with plant monitoring and management on preserve lands; however, these costs are minimal. Additionally, the Otay Mountain wilderness area, if designated as critical habitat, would also presumably result in small administrative costs resulting from the inclusion of critical habitat analyses in future Section 7 consultations involving the plant. Give the wilderness status of the lands, the number of future consultations would likely be very low and likely conservation measures minimal. But there would likely be some small cost. We will evaluate any potential costs associated with the Otay Mountain wilderness area in the final rulemaking.
        Of the approximately 2,539 acres (ac) (1,028 hectares (ha)) identified as proposed critical habitat for this species, approximately 560 ac (227 ha) are covered under the MSCP or conserved as open space (Otay Mountain Wilderness) and are proposed for exclusion from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Furthermore, since the MSCP was approved in 1997 before the 1998 listing of willowy monardella there are no coextensive costs associated with the listing of the species as endangered since conservation measures benefiting the species were incorporated into the Multi Species Conservation Program prior to its listing. Also, the analysis estimates that there will be no future development costs for the 115 ac (47 ha) of proposed critical habitat not proposed for exclusion under 4(b)(2) of the Act. Please refer to Section III.3.2 of the draft economic analysis and the “Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Possible Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act” section of the proposed rule (70 FR 67956) for a more detailed discussion of the Multi Species Conservation Program.
        Required Determinations
        Regulatory Planning and Review

        In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues. However, because the draft economic analysis indicates that the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed designation of critical habitat are negligent, we do not anticipate that this final rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not formally review the proposed rule.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (e.g., 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. In our proposed rule, we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would have the factual basis for our determination.
        According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as 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.

        To determine if this proposed designation of critical habitat for willowy monardella would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., residential, industrial, and commercial development). We considered each industry or category individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the designation.
        If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process. Our analysis determined that potential costs involving conservation measures for willowy monardella incurred for activities involving non-Federal agencies (residential, commercial, and industrial development) would be negligible due to the fact that there are minimal economic effects of the proposed critical habitat. These minimal costs are associated with plant monitoring and management on preserve lands.
        Based on this data, we have determined that this proposed designation would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, in particular to land developers or farmers in San Diego County since private lands proposed for critical habitat are part of a designated open space preserve with no plans for farming or development as stated earlier in the Background section. As such, we are certifying that this proposed designation of critical habitat would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Please refer to Section V.2 of our draft economic analysis of this proposed designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts to small business entities.
        Executive Order 13211
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it raises novel legal and policy issues. On the basis of our draft economic analysis, the proposed critical habitat designation is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. Please refer to Section V.1 of our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation for a more detailed discussion of potential effects on energy supply.

          Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), the Service makes the following findings:
        (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal governments, or the private sector and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
        The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.
        (b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As discussed in the draft economic analysis, all proposed critical habitat areas are already identified and/or conserved as open space or covered by a habitat conservation plan. Consequently, we do not believe that critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
        Takings
        In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing critical habitat for willowy monardella. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. In conclusion, the designation of critical habitat for willowy monardella does not pose significant takings implications.
        Author

        The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

        Authority

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

          Dated: May 19, 2006.
          Matt Hogan,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. E6-8459 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P