        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 140902739-4739-01]
        RIN 0648-BE49
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications and Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes 2015 specifications and management measures for Atlantic mackerel, 2015-2017 specifications for Illex squid, 2015-2017 specifications for longfin squid, and 2015-2017 specifications for butterfish. This action also proposes simplifying the butterfish fishery closure mechanism. These proposed specifications and management measures are intended to promote the utilization and conservation of the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish resources.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on December 15, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, including the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http:// http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.

          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0139, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2014-0139 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.
          • Mail to NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Dr, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on 2015 Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Specifications.”
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Aja Szumylo.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Aja Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978- 281-9195, fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        This rule proposes specifications, which are the combined suite of commercial and recreational catch levels established for one or more fishing years. The specifications process also allows for the modification of a select number of management measures, such as closure thresholds, gear restrictions, and possession limits. The Council's process for establishing specifications relies on provisions within the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its implementing regulations, as well as requirements established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Specifically, section 302(g)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act states that the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) for each Regional Fishery Management Council shall provide its Council ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for acceptable biological catch (ABC), preventing overfishing, maximum sustainable yield, and achieving rebuilding targets. The ABC is a level of catch that accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of the stock's defined overfishing level (OFL). The Council's SSC met on May 7 and 8, 2014, to recommend ABCs for the 2015 Atlantic mackerel specifications, and the 2015-2017 butterfish, Illex squid, and longfin squid specifications.

        The FMP's implementing regulations require the Council's Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee to consider and develop specification recommendations for each species. Since the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for the SSC to recommend ABC became effective, the monitoring committees' role has largely been to recommend any reduction in catch limits from the SSC-recommended ABCs to account for management uncertainty, and to recommend other management measures (e.g., gear and/or possession restrictions) needed for the efficient management of the fishery. The Monitoring Committee met via webinar on May 13 and 27, 2014, to discuss recommendations for the 2015 mackerel fishery, and the 2015-2017 butterfish, Illex squid, and longfin squid fisheries.
        The Council considered the recommendations of the SSC, the Monitoring Committee, and public comments at its June 11, 2014, meeting in Freehold, NJ, and made its specification recommendations. The Council submitted the recommendations, along with the required analyses, for agency review on July 28, 2014, with final submission on October 20, 2014. NMFS must review the Council's recommendations for compliance with the FMP and applicable law, and conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking to propose and implement the final specifications.
        The regulations for the FMP require the specification of annual catch limits (ACL) and accountability measure (AM) provisions for mackerel and butterfish. Both squid species are exempt from the ACL/AM requirements because they have a life cycle of less than 1 year. In addition, the regulations require the specification of domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), joint venture processing (JVP), commercial and recreational annual catch targets (ACT), and a river herring and shad catch cap for mackerel, the butterfish mortality cap in the longfin squid fishery, and initial optimum yield (IOY) for both squid species.
        In addition to the specifications, this action would also simplify the management measures for the direct butterfish fishery and changes the regulations in regard to possession limits.
        Proposed 2015 Specifications for Atlantic Mackerel

          Table 1—Proposed 2015 Specifications in Metric Tons (mt) for Atlantic Mackerel

            Overfishing limit (OFL)
            Unknown

            ABC
            40,165

            ACL
            25,039

            Commercial ACT
            21,138

            Recreational ACT/Recreational Harvest Limit (RHL)
            1,397

            1,397

            DAH/DAP
            20,872

            JVP
            0

            TALFF
            0

        The most recent U.S. stock assessment for mackerel was conducted by the Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC) in March 2010. The 2010 TRAC Status Report indicated reduced productivity in the stock and a lack of older fish in both the survey and catch data; however, the status of the mackerel stock is unknown because biomass reference points could not be determined. Due to uncertainty in the assessment, the TRAC Status Report recommended that total annual mackerel catches not exceed 80,000 mt (average total U.S. and Canadian landings from 2006-2008) until new information is available.

        Since 2010, the SSC has recommended a stock-wide ABC of 80,000 mt based on the recommendation in the TRAC status report. NMFS previously implemented specifications that matched the recommendation in the TRAC Status Report for the 2013-2015 fishing years as part of the 2013 specifications for the FMP (January 16, 2013; 78 FR 3346). However, given uncertainty in 2010 mackerel assessment, low U.S. landings in recent years, and results from a 2014 Canadian assessment that suggest the stock is doing poorly, the SSC concluded that the foundation that it used for developing its previous ABC was inappropriate because 2006-2008 was a period of unusually high catches. In order to capture the highly periodic nature of mackerel catches, the SSC recommended a stock-wide ABC of 40,165 mt (median of 1978-2013 U.S. and Canadian catches) for the 2015 fishing year only. This period was chosen as a time when fisheries operations have been relatively consistent and foreign fleets were not in operation.
        According to the FMP, the mackerel ABC must be calculated using the formula U.S. ABC = Stock-wide ABC − C, where C is the estimated catch of mackerel in Canadian waters for the upcoming fishing year. Canadian catch was estimated at 15,126 mt (2014 Canadian mackerel quota of 10,000 mt, plus a discard rate of 1.26 percent, plus 5,000 mt estimated unreported catch). The Council deducted estimated Canadian catch from the stockwide ABC to a recommended U.S. ABC of 25,039 mt (40,165 mt minus 15,126 mt).
        The Council recommended a recreational allocation of 1,552 mt (6.2 percent of the U.S. ABC). The proposed recreational ACT of 1,397 mt (90 percent of 1,552 mt) accounts for uncertainty in recreational catch and discard estimates. The Recreational ACT is equal to the Recreational Harvest Limit (RHL), which would be the effective cap on recreational catch.
        For the commercial mackerel fishery, the Council recommended a commercial fishery allocation of 23,487 mt (93.8 percent of the U.S. ABC, the portion of the ACL that was not allocated to the recreational fishery). The recommended Commercial ACT of 21,138 mt (90 percent of 23,487 mt) compensates for management uncertainty in estimated Canadian landings, uncertainty in discard estimates, and possible misreporting of mackerel catch. The Commercial ACT would be further reduced by a discard rate of 1.26 percent to arrive at the proposed DAH of 20,872 mt. The DAH would be the effective cap on commercial catch.
        Consistent with the Council's recommendation, NMFS proposes mackerel specifications that would set the U.S. ACL at 25,039 mt, the Commercial ACT at 21,138 mt, the DAH and DAP at 20,872 mt, and the Recreational ACT at 1,397 mt.
        Additionally, as recommended by the Council, NMFS proposes to maintain JVP at zero (the most recent allocation was 5,000 mt of JVP in 2004). In the past, the Council recommended a JVP greater than zero because it believed U.S. processors lacked the ability to process the total amount of mackerel that U.S. harvesters could land. However, for the past 10 years, the Council has recommended zero JVP because U.S. shoreside processing capacity for mackerel has expanded. The Council concluded that processing capacity was no longer a limiting factor relative to domestic production of mackerel.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that the specification of TALFF, if any, shall be the portion of the optimum yield (OY) of a fishery that will not be harvested by U.S. vessels. TALFF would allow foreign vessels to harvest U.S. fish and sell their product on the world market, in direct competition with U.S. industry efforts to expand exports. While a surplus existed between ABC and the mackerel fleet's harvesting capacity for many years, that surplus has disappeared due to downward adjustments of the specifications in recent years. Based on analysis of the global mackerel market and possible increases in U.S. production levels, the Council concluded that specifying a DAH/DAP that would result in zero TALFF would yield positive social and economic benefits to both U.S. harvesters and processors, and to the Nation. For these reasons, consistent with the Council's recommendation, NMFS proposes to specify DAH at a level that can be fully harvested by the domestic fleet, thereby precluding the specification of a TALFF, in order to support the U.S. mackerel industry. NMFS concurs that it is reasonable to assume that in 2015 the commercial fishery has the ability to harvest 20,872 mt of mackerel.
        2015 Proposed River Herring and Shad Catch Cap in the Mackerel Fishery
        In order to limit river herring and shad catch, Amendment 14 to the FMP (February 24, 2014; 79 FR 10029) allows the Council to set a river herring and shad cap through annual specifications. For 2015 the Council recommended that the cap be set at 89 mt initially, but if mackerel landings surpass 10,000 mt before closure, then the cap would increase to 155 mt. The 89-mt cap represents the median annual river herring and shad catch by all vessels landing over 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of mackerel per trip from 2005-2012. These were years when the fishery caught about 13,000 mt of mackerel. The 155-mt cap is based on the median river herring and shad catch by all vessels landing over 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of mackerel per trip from 2005-2012, adjusted to the 2015 proposed DAH (20,872 mt). The Council recommends the two-tier system in order to encourage the fishery to avoid river herring and shad regardless of the rate of mackerel catches. If mackerel catch is low, the 89-mt cap would encourage fishermen to avoid catching river herring and shad. If mackerel catch increases, the 155-mt cap should still allow mackerel fishing to occur as long as river herring and shad catch rates remain below the recent median. Once the mackerel fishery catches 95 percent of the river herring and shad cap, we will close the directed mackerel fishery and implement a 20,000-lb (9.08-mt) incidental catch trip limit for the remainder of the year.
        2015-2017 Proposed Illex Specifications

          Table 2—Proposed 2015-2017 Specifications in Metric Ton (mt) for Illex Squid

            OFL
            Unknown

            ABC
            24,000

            Initial Optimum Yield (IOY)
            22,915

            DAH/DAP
            22,915

        The Illex stock was most recently assessed at the 42nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop in late 2005. The assessment did not generate reliable estimates of stock biomass or fishing mortality. In the absence of an updated stock assessment, the SSC recommended the status quo ABC of 24,000 mt. Landings of 24,000-26,000 mt do not appear to have caused harm to the Illex stock, based on trawl survey indices and landings in years following when landings were in the range of 24,000-26,000 mt.

        The Council recommended that the ABC be reduced by the status quo discard rate of 4.52 percent, which results in an IOY, DAH, and DAP for recommendation of 22,915 mt for the 2015-2017 fishing years. These levels are the same as was specified for the Illex fishery in 2012-2014. The Council will review this decision during its annual specifications process and may make a change for 2016 or 2017 if new information is available.

        Consistent with the Council's recommendation, NMFS proposes to specify the Illex ABC as 24,000 mt, and to specify IOY, DAH, and DAP as 22,915 mt for the 2015-2017 fishing years.
        2015-2017 Proposed Longfin Squid Specifications

          Table 3—Proposed 2015-2017 Specifications in Metric Tons (mt) for Longfin Squid

            OFL
            Unknown

            ABC
            23,400

            IOY
            22,445

            DAH/DAP
            22,445

        The 51st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop, published in January 2011, found that the longfin squid stock is not overfished, but that the overfishing status is unknown. The SSC used the stock assessment information to recommend an ABC of 23,400 mt for the 2012-2014 fishing years, subject to annual review. This recommendation corresponds to catch in the year with the highest observed exploitation fraction (catch divided by estimated biomass) during a period of light exploitation (1976-2009). The SSC interpreted this level of exploitation to be sustainable over the long term. In absence of newer information, the SSC recommended renewing current levels for another three years, subject to annual review, resulting in an ABC of 23,400 mt for the 2015-2017 fishing years.
        The Council recommended that the ABC be reduced by the status quo discard rate of 4.08 percent, which results in an IOY, DAH, and DAP for recommendation of 22,445 mt for the 2015-2017 fishing years.
        Consistent with the Council's recommendation, NMFS proposes an ABC of 23,400 mt, and an IOY, DAH, and DAP of 22,445 mt for the 2015-2017 fishing years.
        Distribution of the Longfin DAH
        The Council did not recommend any changes to the trimester allocation of the 2015-2017 longfin DAH. Therefore allocations would remain at 2012-2014 levels according to percentages specified in the FMP, as follows:

          Table 4—Proposed 2015-2017 Trimester Allocation of Longfin Quota

            Trimester
            Percent
            Metric tons

            I (Jan-Apr)
            43
            9,651

            II (May-Aug)
            17
            3,816

            III (Sep-Dec)
            40
            8,978

            Total
            100
            22,445

        2015-2017 Proposed Butterfish Specifications

          Table 5—Proposed 2015-2017 Specifications in Metric Tons (mt) for Butterfish

            2015
            2016
            2017

            OFL
            41,092
            N/A
            N/A

            ABC
            33,278
            31,412
            30,922

            Commercial ACT (ABC minus 10-percent buffer)
            29,950
            28,271
            27,830

            DAH (ACT minus butterfish cap and discards)
            22,530
            21,043
            20,652

            Directed Fishery closure limit (DAH minus 1,411 mt buffer)
            21,119
            19,631
            20,652

            Butterfish Cap (in the longfin squid fishery)
            3,884
            3,884
            3,884

        The status of the butterfish stock was updated in the 58th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (March 2014), which concluded that the stock was above target stock size and experiencing low fishing mortality. The stock is now considered fully rebuilt. The SSC derived an OFL of 41,092 mt by applying estimated natural and fishing mortality to the size of the existing stock. The SSC recommended a 2015 ABC of 33,278 mt (increased dramatically from 9,100 mt in 2014) to account for the increased stock size and estimated expected fishing mortality in 2014. The SSC recommended an ABC of 31,412 mt in 2016, and 30,922 mt in 2017 to account for fishing mortality in 2015 and 2016, respectively, with a 60-percent probability of not overfishing as required by the Council risk policy.
        The Council recommended setting the butterfish ACL equal to the ABC, and establishing a 10-percent buffer between ACL and ACT for management uncertainty, which would result in an ACT of 29,950 mt in 2015, 28,271 mt in 2016, and 27,830 mt in 2017. To prevent butterfish catch from exceeding the ACT, the Council subtracts butterfish catch in the longfin squid fishery, catch in other fisheries, and discards in the directed fishery. The Council recommended leaving the butterfish cap at the 2014 level of 3,884 mt for each year. This cap is not constraining on the longfin fishery and reserves most of the available butterfish quota for the directed butterfish fishery. The maximum amount of butterfish discards in non-longfin fisheries from 2011-2013 was 637 mt. Therefore, 4,521 mt (3,884-mt butterfish cap plus 637 mt of discards) are subtracted from the ACT. Because there are no recent observed trips with substantial butterfish landings, the Council looked to observed trips that landed over 25,000 lb (9.33 mt) butterfish between 1989 and 2000, which had a butterfish discard rate of 11.4 percent. The Council identified this discard rate as the best approximation for the fishery under current conditions. Therefore, the Council recommended setting the DAH at 22,530 mt in 2015, 21,042 mt in 2016, and 20,652 in 2017. Butterfish TALFF is only specified to address bycatch by foreign fleets targeting mackerel TALFF. Because there is no mackerel TALFF, butterfish TALFF would also be set at zero.
        NMFS proposes specifications, consistent with the Council's recommendation, as outlined in Table 5. NMFS also proposes that the 2015 butterfish mortality cap be allocated by Trimester as follows:

          Table 6—Proposed Trimester Allocation of Butterfish Mortality Cap on the Longfin Squid Fishery for 2015

            Trimester
            Percent
            Metric tons

            I (Jan-Apr)
            43
            1,670

            II (May-Aug)
            17
            660

            III (Sep-Dec)
            40
            1,554

            Total
            100
            3,844

        Butterfish Directed Fishery Closure Mechanism

        Due to the dramatic increase in butterfish availability and proposed DAH, the Council recommended simplifying the three-phase butterfish management season enacted in 2013 (January 16, 2013; 78 FR 3346). Instead of the phased system which implements different trip limits depending on catch levels, the Council recommended that vessels issued a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit (as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(i)) be allowed to land unlimited amounts of butterfish if using mesh greater than or equal to 3 inches (76 mm) until projected landings reach within 1,411 mt of a given year's DAH. Once landings are within 1,411 mt of the DAH, NMFS would implement a 5,000-lb (2.27-mt) trip limit. Vessels issued a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit fishing with mesh less than 3 inches (76 mm) are currently prohibited from landing more than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of butterfish per trip, and no changes are proposed for those vessels. The Council identified 1,411 mt as the amount that would allow some landings under a 5,000-lb (2.27-mt) trip limit without reaching the DAH. In the unlikely event that projected landings reach the annual DAH, then Council recommended that the trip limit be reduced to 600 lb (0.27 mt) to prevent an overage of the ACT.
        Consistent with Council recommendations, NMFS proposes to implement the simplified closure mechanism, and the proposed specifications detailed in Table 5.
        Corrections
        This proposed rule also contains a minor adjustment to an existing regulation. The vessel monitoring system (VMS) power-down exemption for vessels that will be at the dock for more than 30 consecutive days, at § 648.10(c)(2)(i)(B), currently lists specific eligible permits. The proposed regulatory text is simplified to clarify that the exemption is available to all permits that are required to have VMS.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Council prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

        Statement of Objective and Need

        This action proposes 2015 specifications for mackerel, and 2015-2017 specifications for butterfish, Illex squid, and longfin squid. It also proposes to modify the river herring catch cap in the mackerel fishery and to simplify the closure mechanism in the butterfish fishery. A complete description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and are not repeated here.
        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply

        Based on permit data for 2013, the numbers of potential fishing vessels in the 2015 fisheries are as follows: 384 separate vessels hold Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid, Illex squid, and butterfish limited access permits, 287 entities own those vessels, and, based on current Small Business Administration (SBA) definitions, 274 are small entities. Of the 274 small entities, 29 had no revenue in 2013 and those entities with no revenue are listed as small entities for the purposes of this analysis. All of the entities that had revenue fell into the finfish or shellfish categories, and the SBA definitions for those categories for 2014 are $20.5 million for finfish fishing and $5.5 million for shellfish fishing. Many vessels participate in more than one of these fisheries; therefore, permit numbers are not additive. The only proposed alternatives that involve increased restrictions apply to mackerel limited access permits, so those numbers are listed separately (they are a subset of the above entities). This analysis found that 150 separate vessels hold Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid, Illex squid, and butterfish limited access permits, 114 entities own those vessels, and, based on current SBA definitions, 107 are small entities.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        There are no new reporting or record keeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action. In addition, there are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
        Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
        The mackerel commercial DAH proposed in this action (20,872 mt) represents a reduction from status quo (2014 DAH = 33,821 mt). Despite the reduction, the proposed DAH is above recent U.S. landings; mackerel landings for 2010-2013 averaged 5,873 mt. Thus, the reduction does not pose a constraint to vessels relative to the landings in recent years. Even though the proposed 2015 quota is lower than 2014, it would still allow more than a tripling of catch compared to any year 2011-2013. This action proposes a Recreational ACT/RHL of 1,552 mt. Because recreational harvest from 2010-2013 averaged 850 mt, it does not appear that the allocation for the recreational fishery will constrain recreational harvest. Overall, the proposed action is not expected to result in any reductions in revenues for vessels that participate in either the commercial or recreational mackerel fisheries.
        The proposed river herring and shad catch cap in the mackerel fishery has the potential to limit the fishery from achieving its full mackerel quota if the river herring and shad encounter rates are high, but it's very unlikely that the fishery would close before exceeding the levels of landings experienced since 2010, when landings have been less than 11,000 mt. Based on the operation of the cap in 2014 (the first year of the cap), as long as the fishery can maintain relatively low river herring and shad catch rates, this alternative is unlikely to constrain the mackerel fishery. Examination of river herring and shad catch rates in 2011-2013 suggest that the only year that the proposed cap would have been binding would have been 2012. In 2012, relevant trips landed 5,074 mt of mackerel, but the fishery would have closed at approximately 4,439 mt if the proposed cap been in place. Given the river herring and shad encounter rate in 2012, about 608 mt of mackerel landings would have been forgone. Using the 2013 price of mackerel, 608 mt mackerel would have amount to $265,105 of potentially forgone ex-vessel revenues. However, based on the operation of the cap in 2014, actual river herring and shad catch rates may be lower under the cap and therefore the cap may not be binding. Therefore, we conclude that there is no impact to the relevant entities.
        The Illex IOY (22,915 mt) proposed in this action renews the status quo for three more years. Though annual Illex landings have approached this amount in some recent years (15,825 mt for 2010, 18,797 mt for 2011, 11,709 mt for 2012, and 3,835 mt for 2013), the landings were lower than the level being proposed. Thus, implementation of this proposed action should not result in a reduction in revenue or a constraint on expansion of the fishery in 2015-17.
        The proposed longfin squid IOY (22,445 mt) renews the status quo levels for three more years. Because longfin squid landings from 2010-2013 averaged 10,093 mt, the proposed IOY provides an opportunity to increase landings, though if recent trends of low landings continue, there may be no increase in landings despite the increase in the allocation. No reductions in revenues for the longfin squid fishery are expected as a result of this proposed action.

        The butterfish DAHs proposed in this action (21,119 mt in 2015, 19,631 mt in 2016 and 19,241 mt in 2017) represents a 660-percent increase over the 2014 DAH (3,200 mt). Due to market conditions, there has not been a directed butterfish fishery in recent years; therefore, recent landings have been low. The proposed increase in the DAH has the potential to increase revenue for permitted vessels, having a positive economic impact.
        This action also proposes simplifying the closure mechanism for the butterfish fishery. This would allow permitted vessels to take butterfish when they are available or when dealers may process them, and should have a positive economic impact on the fishery.
        The proposed 2015-17 butterfish discard cap of 3,884 mt would renew the status quo for three more years. The longfin squid fishery will close during Trimester I, II, or III if the butterfish discards reach the trimester allocation. If the longfin squid fishery is closed in response to butterfish catch before the entire longfin squid quota is harvested, then a loss in revenue is possible. The potential for longfin squid revenue loss is dependent upon the size of the butterfish discard cap. This cap level was in effect for the 2013 and 2014 fishing years, and did not restrict the fishery in either year. For that reason, additional revenue losses are not expected as a result of this proposed action.
        Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
        The Council analysis evaluated two alternatives to the proposed specifications for mackerel. The proposed action would set the U.S. ABC at 40,165 mt, the Commercial ACT at 21,138 mt, the DAH and DAP at 20,872 mt, and the Recreational ACT at 1,397 mt. The first alternative (status quo—least restrictive) would have resulted in a U.S. ABC of 43,781 mt, a Commercial ACT of 34,907 mt, a DAH/DAP of 33,821 mt, and a Recreational ACT of 2,443 mt. The status quo alternative was based previous SSC recommendations, and was not selected because due to increasing concern that low catches may indicate a decline in the status of the mackerel stock. The other alternative (most restrictive) was based on average catch from 1992 to 2001, the most recent period of time when mackerel catches were stable. This alternative would set the U.S. ABC and ACL at 18,274 mt, the Commercial ACT at 15,427 mt, the DAH and DAP at 15,233 mt, and the Recreational ACT at 1,020 mt. This alternative was not selected because it was inconsistent with the ABC recommended by the SSC.
        The Council considered two alternatives to the proposed 89-mt river herring and shad catch cap in the mackerel fishery. The proposed alternative was the most restrictive option. The status quo alternative (least restrictive) would maintain the cap at 236 mt. The other alternative would set the cap at the median observed river herring and shad catch from each year 2005-2012 as applied to the 2015 proposed mackerel quota (155 mt). These alternatives were not selected because the Council believed they would be less protective of river herring and shad than the proposed alternative.

        The Council considered two alternatives to the preferred action for Illex. The proposed action would set the ABC at 24,000 mt, and the IOY, DAH, and DAP at 22,915 mt. The first alternative (least restrictive) would have set ABC at 30,000 mt, and IOY, DAH, and DAP at 28,644 mt. This alternative was not selected because the higher specifications were inconsistent with the results of the most recent stock assessment. The second alternative (most restrictive) would have set ABC at 18,000 mt, and IOY, DAH, and DAP at 17,186 mt. The Council considered this alternative unnecessarily restrictive.
        The Council considered two alternatives to the preferred action for longfin squid. The preferred alternative would set the ABC at 23,400 mt, and the IOY, DAH, and DAP at 22,445 mt. The first alternative (least restrictive) would have set the ABC at 29,250 mt, and the IOY, DAH, and DAP at 28,057 mt. The second alternative (most restrictive) would have set the ABC at 17,550 mt, and the IOY, DAH and DAP at 16,834 mt. These alternatives were not selected because they were all inconsistent with the ABC recommended by the SSC.
        There were two alternatives to the preferred action for butterfish that were not selected by the Council. The preferred alternative (least restrictive) would set the ABC/ACL at 33,278 mt in 2015, the ACT at 29,950 mt, the DAH at 22,530 mt, with slight decreases for the 2015 and 2015 fishing years, and the butterfish cap at 3,884 mt from 2015 to 2017. The first alternative (status quo—most restrictive) did not take into account the revised stock assessment, and would have set the ABC/ACL at 9,100 mt, the ACT at 8,190 mt, the DAH at 3,200 mt, and the butterfish cap at 3,884 mt. The second alternative would have increased butterfish quotas from status quo levels to SSC recommended levels slowly over three years with an ABC/ACL of 16,332 mt and a DAH of 9,017 mt in 2015, a ABC/ACL of 23,627 mt and DAH of 14,835 mt in 2016, and an ABC/ACL of 30,922 and DAH of 20,652 mt in 2017. These two alternatives were not selected because they were both inconsistent with the ABC recommended by the SSC. Both the preferred alternative and the second alternative would also simplify the closure mechanism for butterfish, compared to the no action/status quo alternative, which features a phased closure mechanism. The simplified closure mechanism is less restrictive than the phased closure mechanism, and was selected over because the increased quota does not require the intensive management necessary for the phased closure mechanism.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: November 7, 2014.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

        2. In § 648.10, paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.10
          VMS and DAS requirements for vessel owners/operators.

          (c) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (i) * * *
          (B) The vessel owner signs out of the VMS program for a minimum period of 30 consecutive days by obtaining a valid letter of exemption pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, the vessel does not engage in any fisheries or move from the dock/mooring until the VMS unit is turned back on, and the vessel complies with all conditions and requirements of said letter;

        3. In § 648.24, paragraph (c)(1) introductory text is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.24
          Fishery closures and accountability measures.

          (c) Butterfish AMs—(1) Directed butterfish fishery closure. When butterfish catch reaches the butterfish closure threshold as determined in the annual specifications, NMFS shall implement a 5,000-lb (2.27-mt) possession limit for vessels issued a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit and that are fishing with a minimum mesh size of 3 inches (76 mm). When the butterfish catch is projected to reach the butterfish DAH as determined in the annual specifications, NMFS shall implement a 600-lb (0.27-mt) possession limit for all vessels issued a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium or incidental catch permit.

        3. In § 648.26, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.26
          Mackerel, squid, and butterfish possession restrictions.

          (d) Butterfish. (1) A vessel issued a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit (as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(i)) fishing with a minimum mesh size of 3 inches (76 mm) is authorized to fish for, possess, or land butterfish with no possession restriction in the EEZ per trip, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours, provided that directed butterfish fishery has not been closed, and the reduced possession limit enacted pursuant to § 648.24(c)(1). When butterfish harvest is projected to reach the threshold for the butterfish fishery (as described in § 648.24(c)(1)), these vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day. When butterfish harvest is projected to reach the DAH limit (as described in § 648.24(c)(1)), these vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 600 lb (0.27 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day.
          (2) A vessel issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit fishing with mesh less than 3 inches (76 mm) may not fish for, possess, or land more than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day, provided that butterfish harvest has not reached the DAH limit and the reduced possession limit has not been implemented, as described in § 648.24(c)(1). When butterfish harvest is projected to reach the DAH limit (as described in § 648.24(c)(1)), these vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 600 lb (0.27 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day.
          (3) A vessels issued a longfin squid/butterfish incidental catch permit, regardless of mesh size used, may not fish for, possess, or land more than 600 lb (0.27 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours.

      [FR Doc. 2014-26980 Filed 11-13-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Part 16
        [FAR Case 2020-004; Docket No. FAR-2020-0004, Sequence No. 1]
        RIN 9000-AO04
        Federal Acquisition Regulation: Application of Micro-Purchase Threshold To Task and Delivery Orders

          AGENCY:
          Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 that raises the threshold for fair opportunity on certain task and delivery orders to the micro-purchase threshold.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments at the address shown below on or before December 21, 2020 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2020-004 to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “FAR Case 2020-004”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “FAR Case 2020-004.” Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2020-004” on your attached document. If your comment cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the points of contact in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite “FAR Case 2020-004” in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check https://www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For clarification of content, contact Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, at 202-208-4949 or by email at michaelo.jackson@gsa.gov. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite “FAR Case 2020-004”.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the FAR to implement section 826 of the NDAA for FY 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92) which increases the threshold for requiring fair opportunity on orders under multiple-award contracts from $2,500 to the “micro-purchase threshold”. The fair opportunity to compete at FAR 16.505(b)(1) applies to orders over the threshold unless an exception at FAR 16.505(b)(2) applies. The FAR threshold at 16.505 is currently $3,500, as a result of inflation adjustments in accordance with FAR 1.109. This change applies the word-based threshold to ensure continued alignment with any future changes to the thresholds.
        FAR Case 2018-004 was published July 2, 2020 (85 FR 40064) with an effective date of August 31, 2020. It raised the micro-purchase threshold, as defined at FAR 2.101, to $10,000.
        II. Discussion and Analysis
        FAR section 16.505 currently requires contracting officers to provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $3,500 under multiple-award delivery-order or task-order contracts unless an exception applies. This rule proposes to change the threshold for requiring fair opportunity from $3,500 to the “micro-purchase threshold” at FAR 16.505(b)(1)(i), 16.505(b)(2)(i), and 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(A). While the rule does not prohibit a contracting officer from providing fair opportunity to each awardee at or below the micro-purchase threshold, the rule requires contracting officers to provide fair opportunity for orders exceeding the micro-purchase threshold unless an exception applies.
        III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items
        This proposed rule does not create any new provisions or clauses, nor does it change the applicability of any existing provisions or clauses included in solicitations and contracts valued at or below the SAT, or for commercial items, including COTS items.
        IV. Expected Cost Savings
        DoD, GSA and NASA have performed a regulatory cost analysis for this proposed rule. This rule is expected to reduce the public burden because the threshold increase will reduce costs to submit an offer for the unsuccessful awardees who participate in fair opportunity competitions for orders under FAR part 16. DoD, GSA, and NASA recognize some awardees may be impacted by a reduction in the number of opportunities an awardee may have to receive an award of a delivery or task order through fair opportunity. Using Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) data from FY 2017 through FY 2019 for FAR part 16 task and delivery orders awarded using fair opportunity between $3,500 and $10,000, the average number of fair opportunity task or delivery orders under FAR part 16 procedures is approximately 9,800 orders annually. We estimate that the Government receives an average of three offers for each of the 9,800 task or delivery orders, resulting in an estimated 19,600 (9,800 × 2) unsuccessful offers. We assume there are costs to submit the offers for the estimated 19,600 unsuccessful offers, which will be eliminated by this rule. We estimate the public cost savings to be $266,070 annually using a fully burdened GS-12 step 5 salary from 2019 (19,600 offers × 0.25 hour × $54.30).

        DoD, GSA and NASA recognize that the increase in the micro-purchase threshold (MPT) in FAR Case 2018-004 (84 FR 52420 on October 2, 2019) has resulted in an increased use of the Governmentwide commercial purchase card and a general reduction in the number of FAR part 16 delivery and task orders awarded between $3,500 and $10,000. According to FPDS, there were 12,911 fair opportunity FAR part 16 awards between $3,500 and $10,000 in FY 2017. In contrast, there were 6,421 awards in FY 2019; a drop by almost 50%. This decrease can be attributed to the preference given to the Governmentwide commercial purchase card for procurements under the MPT. While it's unclear whether there will be further decreases in the number of FAR part 16 fair opportunity awards, it is clear that the increased MPT implemented by FAR Case 2018-004 has already reduced the public and Government burden by approximately 50% by shifting procurements from FAR part 16 delivery and task orders to Governmentwide commercial purchase cards.
        DoD, GSA and NASA expect the rule to also reduce burden on the Government and streamline procurements for FAR part 16 orders below the MPT, or $10,000. Contracting officers will not be required to review multiple offers to make award. It is estimated that on average an hour would be saved per order awarded since the contracting officer would no longer need to review multiple offers to award the order. We estimate the Government cost savings to be $532,140 annually using a fully burdened GS-12 step 5 salary from 2019 (9,800 awards × 1 hour × $54.30).
        The following is a summary of the estimated cost savings calculated in 2016 dollars at a 7% discount rate and in perpetuity.

            Summary
            Public
            Government
            Total

            Present Value Cost Savings
            −$3,801,000
            −$7,602,000
            −$11,403,000

            Annualized Cost Savings
            −266,070
            −532,140
            −798,210

            Annualized Value Cost Savings as of 2016 if Year 1 is 2020
            −202,984
            −405,967
            −608,951

        DoD, GSA and NASA invite comments from the regulated community on both the methodology and the analysis provided in this rule.
        V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        VI. Executive Order 13771
        This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Information on the estimated cost savings of this rule are discussed in the “Expected Cost Savings” section of the preamble.
        VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) has been performed and is summarized as follows:

          This proposed rule amends the Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement section 826 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92) which raises the threshold for fair opportunity on certain task and delivery orders to the word-based, “micro-purchase threshold”.
          The objective of the rule is to increase the threshold for requiring fair opportunity on FAR part 16 orders under multiple-award contracts from $2,500 to the word-based, “micro-purchase threshold” for consistency of application and alignment with future adjustments. The legal basis for the rule is section 826 of the NDAA for FY 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92).
          This rule will likely affect small business entities that participate in fair opportunity competitions for FAR part 16 task and delivery orders under multiple award contracts conducted by the Federal Government between $3,500 and $10,000. The rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on small business entities because DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect a significant change in the number of orders awarded to small entities; however, in certain circumstances it is expected to reduce the costs associated with developing and submitting a response to task and delivery order competitions for actions up to $10,000. To assess the impact of the threshold increase, data was obtained from FPDS. For FY 2017 through FY 2019, there was an average of 9,803 FAR part 16 task and delivery orders awarded using fair opportunity between $3,500 and $10,000. Of these actions, an average of 5,852 were awarded to 843 unique small business entities. As a result of this rule, it is assumed that approximately 843 small business entities may experience a reduction in proposal costs on task and delivery orders valued between $3,500 and $10,000.
          The proposed rule does not impose any Paperwork Reduction Act reporting or recordkeeping requirements on any small entities.
          The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
          There are no known significant alternative approaches to the proposed rule that would meet the proposed objectives.

        The Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, GSA and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
        DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule consistent with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2020-004) in correspondence.
        VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 16
          Government procurement.

          William F. Clark,
          Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

        Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend 48 CFR part 16 as set forth below:

          PART 16—TYPES OF CONTRACTS

        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 16 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

          16.505
           [Amended]

        2. Amend section 16.505 by—
        a. Removing from paragraph (b)(1)(i) introductory text “$3,500” and adding “the micro-purchase threshold” in its place;

        b. Removing from paragraph (b)(2)(i) introductory text “delivery-order or task-order exceeding $3,500” and adding “delivery order or task order exceeding the micro-purchase threshold” in its place; and

        c. Removing from the intro text paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) “$3,500” and adding “the micro-purchase threshold” in its place.

      [FR Doc. 2020-22518 Filed 10-21-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AF30
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Special Regulations for the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse; Availability for Comment of the Draft Record of Compliance and Reopening of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of availability; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft Record of Compliance (ROC) for a previously proposed section 4(d) rule under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Preble's). The proposed section 4(d) rule, published in the Federal Register on December 3, 1998 (63 FR 66777), prescribes the conditions under which take of the Preble's would or would not be a violation of section 9 of the ESA. This draft ROC describes how the proposed section 4(d) rule complies with various statutory, Executive Order, and Departmental Manual requirements applicable to rulemaking. We are entertaining comments on the draft ROC, and on the proposed section 4(d) rule as it relates to the ROC.

          DATES:

          Send your comments on the draft ROC, and the section 4(d) rule as it relates to the ROC, to us (see ADDRESSES section) by July 24, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          To obtain a copy of the draft ROC, contact Leroy Carlson, Field Supervisor, Colorado Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 755 Parfet Street, Room 361, Lakewood, CO 80225. Send your comments to Leroy Carlson at the same address. You may examine the comments we receive by appointment during normal business hours in Room 361 at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Leroy W. Carlson, Field Supervisor, Colorado Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section), telephone 303-275-2370.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Preble's was designated as a threatened species under the ESA on May 13, 1998 (63 FR 26517). As a result, all of the section 9 prohibitions of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) against take of the species are applicable across the whole Preble's range. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to “take” any listed wildlife species, that is, to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or collect any threatened or endangered species or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. However, on December 3, 1998 (63 FR 66777), we published a proposed “special rule” under section 4(d) of the ESA to replace the general prohibitions against take of the Preble's with special measures tailored to the conservation of the species. Under the special rule as we originally proposed it, all of the section 9 prohibitions against take of the Preble's would still be in effect, except as specifically exempted in the special rule. Since then, as a result of comments received on the proposed rule, we have decided that when we finalize the special rule, we will not include the elements of the proposed rule that would establish different standards for areas depending on whether or not they are included in Mouse Protection Areas or Potential Mouse Protection Areas. Those elements were included in § 17.40(k)(3), (4), and (6) through (12) of the proposed rule. As a result, this ROC analyzes the effects of only the four rangewide exemptions contained in the remainder of the special rule.
        The rangewide exemptions in the special rule would exempt four types of activities from the take prohibitions—rodent control, ongoing agricultural activities, landscaping, and activities associated with water rights. These exemptions would provide affected landowners with economic benefits by allowing activities on their land that may have been prohibited or limited by section 9 as a result of the listing of the Preble's. As proposed, the rule would be in effect for 18 months, a period we then considered long enough to allow interested parties to develop Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) to obtain authorization for take of the Preble's under section 10 of the ESA. However, as the result of comments received on the proposal, we now intend when we finalize the special rule for it to be in effect for 36 months, a period long enough not only for completion of county-wide HCP's now in process, but also for completion of a recovery plan and other conservation efforts for the Preble's.
        We have prepared an economic analysis and made other determinations about the potential effects of the four rangewide exemptions contained in the proposed special rule. These determinations are described in the ROC and are summarized below. We have determined that the economic effect of the rule would be a benefit to landowners and the economy. The rule would allow certain activities to continue, avoiding costs that may be associated with abstaining from conducting these activities in order to avoid take of the Prebles. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the contents of the ROC for each of the four exemptions provided by the proposed special rule:
        (1) Rodent control. The proposed rule provides that any take resulting from rodent control within 10 feet of, or inside, any structure would not be prohibited. Without the rule, those undertaking rodent control adjacent to structures within Preble's range may decide to have surveys done to determine whether the Preble's is present and whether the potential for unauthorized take exists. With the rule, the costs of surveys and measures to avoid take would not be incurred. Because Preble's are rarely found near or inside structures, the economic effect of this exemption will be insignificant and the effect on the species will be insignificant.
        (2) Ongoing agricultural activities. The proposed rule provides that established, ongoing agricultural activities would be exempted. Continuation of existing row crop activities within cultivated areas is not believed to impact the Preble's. However, activities associated with hay production and grazing in the habitat occupied by Preble's may have some effect. The primary benefit of the rule to landowners and businesses is in providing assurances that they will be able to continue existing agricultural practices.

          Hay Production—The proposed rule provides that any take resulting from established, ongoing haying would not be prohibited. The costs of surveys and modifications of timing or harvest methods or leaving areas unmowed to avoid take therefore would not be incurred. The yearly cost of surveys is difficult to quantify; the cost of leaving areas unmowed (the worst-case scenario) within the range of Preble's in Colorado and Wyoming would be about $3,441,000. Although Preble's may use hay fields (i.e., native grasses and alfalfa) to a limited degree if the hay field is adjacent to or in suitable riparian habitat, hay production in these areas is not expected to significantly affect the species.

          Grazing—The proposed rule provides that any take resulting from existing grazing regimes would not be prohibited. In many locations, populations of the Preble's have been maintained with the existing grazing regime. While some take of the Preble's, and possibly some limiting of local population size, may be associated with continued grazing, the overall effect to Preble's of ongoing grazing covered by this exemption is minimal. With the rule, the costs of surveys and modifications of grazing regimes to avoid take would not be incurred; however, these costs are expected to be minimal because costs to avoid take are insignificant.
        (3) Landscaping—The rule provides that any take resulting from activities undertaken to maintain existing landscaped areas is not prohibited. This exemption will avoid costs associated with surveys and modification of landscape maintenance to avoid take. Because the Preble's rarely uses landscaped areas, this exemption will have an insignificant economic effect and an insignificant effect on the species.
        (4) Water rights. The proposed rule provides that diversion of water associated with existing water rights would be exempted. In Colorado, these diversions are defined through decrees for absolute water rights granted by any of the Colorado water courts. In Wyoming, these diversions are defined through permits that have been awarded a final certificate of appropriation by the Office of the State Engineer. This exemption also includes maintenance of existing wells that provide sources for water right usage. Without the rule, evaluation of the effects of diversions on occupied streams would be needed. This evaluation might require limited surveys in locations where Preble's presence is unknown. In areas where ongoing stream diversions are believed to be flooding habitat or reducing water flows within streams, some alterations in timing or quantity of diversion might be needed to prevent take. In Colorado, if water was needed for listed species, the effects of that allocation would be spread across all water rights holders. In Wyoming, there is no history of allocating water for listed species; however, water rights holders that would be affected by Preble's primarily would be those conducting haying operations, and the economic effects associated with these changes to haying operations have been discussed above; no additional effect would result from water rights issues. Therefore, this exemption would create no significant additional economic benefits.
        In conclusion, the ongoing agricultural activities exemption would be the only activity with a measurable economic effect. This exemption would create significant benefits to landowners producing hay. Without the rule, under a worst-case analysis, concerns about the effects of section 9 could lead to a cessation of all harvest of hay on the affected acres, and landowners would receive no income from those lands. With the rule, harvest could continue without restrictions, generating as much as an estimated $3,441,000 annual net income for the landowners, a beneficial effect of the rule.
        We are seeking comment from the public on the draft ROC, including our economic analysis of the potential effects of the proposed special rule. We are also reopening the comment period on our proposed special rule pertaining to the Preble's meadow jumping mouse with the changes we intend to make in it, as described here, as it pertains to the ROC. We will consider the comments as we proceed with completing the ROC and in any further rulemaking on this issue.
        Authority
        Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. sections 1531 to 1544), states that whenever any species is listed as a threatened species pursuant to subsection (c), we must issue such regulations as is deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species.

          Dated: June 2, 2000.
          Stephen C. Saunders,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 00-15782 Filed 6-22-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


         DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA 2012-0025]
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Vehicle Rollover Resistance

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Denial of petition for rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr. Michael Schramm requesting that the agency initiate rulemaking to establish a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) to prevent a vehicle from being steered into a rollover at any speed. Mr. Schramm has applied to patent a device he believes will enable vehicles to meet his requested standard. After review of Mr. Schramm's petition, we believe the petition lacks sufficient data to support proposing and promulgating a safety standard. Further, it might create conflicts with existing standard and consumer information metrics. Therefore, NHTSA is denying Mr. Schramm's petition.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For non-legal issues: Mr. John Lee, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NVS-123, Telephone: (202) 366-4924; Facsimile: 202-493-2739; Email: john.lee@dot.gov.

          For legal issues: David Jasinski, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-112, Telephone: (202) 366-2992; Facsimile: 202-366-3820; Email: david.jasinski@dot.gov.

          Both officials can be reached by mail at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On September 30, 2010, Mr. Michael Schramm submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that NHTSA establish a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) to prevent a vehicle from being steered into a rollover at any speed. Mr. Schramm suggested that NHTSA number and name this new standard FMVSS No. 140, “Anti-Roll Steering.” He supplied regulatory text for the requested FMVSS No. 140, a copy of his application for a patent for his rollover prevention apparatus (the apparatus), a copy of FMVSS No. 126, “Electronic stability control systems,” a copy of the preliminary regulatory impact analysis for FMVSS No. 126, and 2002 accident rollover data from the NHTSA Web site www.safercar.gov. The requested standard would restrict a vehicle's steering wheel from steering a vehicle into a rollover.
        Agency Response and Decision
        As stated in Mr. Schramm's petition, more than 10,000 people were killed in rollover crashes in 2002. However, in 2009, the rollover fatalities fell to 8,267, based on NHTSA's early release of annual fatality figures.1
           While there are several reasons for these reductions, we believe that the consumer information and rulemaking actions that NHTSA has been actively pursuing played a role in reducing fatalities and injuries from rollover crashes and will continue to reduce these numbers even more.

            1 See Traffic Safety Facts 2009 (Early Edition), Table 23: Passenger Car and Light Truck Occupants Killed, by Vehicle Type and Rollover Occurrence, 1982-2009.

        Since 2001, NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) has been rating vehicles for rollover resistance and making these ratings available to consumers on www.safercar.gov and in other agency publications. Initially, rollover resistance ratings were based solely on a vehicle's Static Stability Factor (SSF), a calculation that uses a vehicle's width and the height of its center of gravity to predict a vehicle's chance of rollover in a single vehicle crash.
        In the Transportation, Recall, Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act of November 2000, Congress directed NHTSA to develop a dynamic rollover test and to use information obtained in that test to help inform consumers about the rollover properties of vehicles. On October 14, 2003, NHTSA published a final policy establishing a “fishhook” test as the dynamic rollover test for NCAP.
        The fishhook test is an objective and repeatable test capable of determining a vehicle's susceptibility to rolling over on-road. The fishhook maneuver uses steering inputs that approximate the steering a driver might use in a panic situation in an effort to regain lane position or to recover having gone off the road. The fishhook test is conducted at speeds up to 50 mph and in two symmetric steering inputs (left to right and right to left), with the final input of the test being approximately 270 degree. When the wheels on the same side of a vehicle simultaneously lift two or more inches off the ground, the vehicle fails the test.
        The results of this test are noted on www.safercar.gov for every vehicle tested. As of 2004, rollover resistance ratings are based on both a vehicle's SSF and whether or not the vehicle tipped up in the fishhook test. In response to this rating program, as indicated by the improvement in ratings and the physical characteristics of the vehicles, vehicle manufacturers have made improvements to the rollover properties of the vehicle they produce. The agency has been able to document that some makes and models of vehicles have become wider, and have a centers of gravity that are lower to the ground than previous versions of similar makes and models, therefore improving their SSF and making them less susceptible to rollover.
        On April 6, 2007, NHTSA established FMVSS No. 126, “Electronic stability control systems,” (ESC) to help reduce rollover and other types of loss of control crashes. ESC systems use automatic computer-controlled braking of individual wheels to assist the driver in maintaining control in critical driving situations where the vehicle is beginning to lose directional control at the rear wheels (spin out) or directional control at the front wheels (plow out). NHTSA estimates that ESC has the potential to prevent 71 percent of passenger vehicle rollovers that would otherwise occur in single vehicle crashes. The agency further estimates that ESC will save 5,300 to 9,600 lives and prevent 156,000 to 238,000 injuries in all types of crashes annually once all light vehicles on the road are equipped with ESC systems. Many automotive manufacturers equipped their vehicles with ESC prior to the September 1, 2011 date for full compliance with FMVSS No. 126.

        On May 12, 2009, NHTSA upgraded FMVSS No. 216, “Roof crush resistance,” to improve roof strength to reduce the risk of death and serious injury in rollover crashes. The amendments double the current roof strength requirement for light vehicles weighing up to 6,000 pounds. It specifies that both the driver and passenger sides of the roof must be capable of withstanding a force equal to three times the weight of the vehicle applied to one side of the roof, up from the current 1.5 times the weight of the vehicle. Phase-in of the requirement began in September 2012 and will be completed for all affected vehicles by the 2017 model year. It is estimated the tougher roof crush requirements will prevent 135 fatalities and 1,065 non-fatal injuries annually.
        On January 19, 2011, NHTSA published a final rule establishing FMVSS No. 226, “Ejection mitigation,” to reduce the partial and complete ejection of vehicle occupants through side windows in crashes, particularly rollover crashes. Under the new rule, vehicle manufacturers must develop a countermeasure for light passenger vehicles under 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) that prevents an 18 kilogram (40 pound) linear impactor from moving more than 100 millimeters (4 inches) past the side window opening. The new standard will begin phasing in on September 1, 2013. All newly manufactured vehicles will be required to provide this protection by September 1, 2017. When fully implemented, this standard will, the agency believes, prevent on average 373 fatalities and 476 serious injuries every year.
        After carefully reviewing the attachments to Mr. Schramm's petition, we noted that the regulatory text for the requested standard was not complete and values for the steering rate in the Anti-Roll Steering Test were left blank. Determining those values would take additional resources to complete. We also note that while data for FMVSS No. 126 was supplied in Mr. Schramm's petition, we do not believe this data is relevant for promulgating a safety standard for Mr. Schramm's apparatus. As such, the petitioner did not provide any data that would support the granting of his petition.
        We further note there might be a safety risk due to the lack of steering responsiveness of Mr. Schramm's apparatus that may cause unintended deaths and injuries as a result of drivers colliding into objects they were trying to avoid. It was also noted that the steer-limiting requirement of the petitioner's requested test procedure might prevent the agency from conducting ESC compliance tests. Also, the agency might not be able to conduct the fishhook test it developed in response to the Congressional call for a dynamic test whose results Congress said must be used in developing information for consumers on the rollover resistance properties of vehicles. In conclusion, we believe Mr. Schramm's petition provides no data to demonstrate that his requested standard would result in any safety benefits. Further, adoption of the requested standard might create conflicts with existing safety standards. Therefore, his petition is denied.

          Issued on: February 19, 2013.
          Christopher J. Bonanti,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 2013-04759 Filed 2-28-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P