        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0107; MO 92210-0-0009-B2]
        RIN 1018-AV88
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing of the Altamaha Spinymussel and Designation of Critical Habitat

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period, notice of availability of draft economic analysis, and amended required determinations.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the public comment period on the October 6, 2010, proposed designation of critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation of critical habitat and an amended required determinations section of the proposal. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, the associated DEA, and the amended required determinations section. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will consider comments received on or before June 13, 2011. Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0107.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0107; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
          We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sandra Tucker, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia Ecological Services Office, 105 Westpark Dr., Suite D, Athens, GA 30606; telephone 706-613-9493; facsimile 706-613-6059. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed listing and designation of critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel that was published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2010 (75 FR 61664), our DEA of the proposed designation, and the amended required determinations provided in this document. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

        (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent.
        (2) Specific information on:
        (a) The distribution of the Altamaha spinymussel;
        (b) The amount and distribution of Altamaha spinymussel habitat; and
        (c) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain features essential for the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why; and
        (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are 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) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
        (5) 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.
        (6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
        (7) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.

        (8) Which areas would be appropriate as critical habitat for the species.

        (9) Comments or information that may assist us in identifying or clarifying the primary constituent elements.
        (10) Whether any specific areas we are proposing as critical habitat should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
        (11) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on the Altamaha spinymussel, and any special management needs or protections that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing.
        If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (75 FR 61664) during the initial comment period from October 6, 2010, to December 6, 2010, please do not resubmit them. Our final determination concerning revised critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not 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.

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

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2008-0107, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia Ecological Services Office, Athens, Georgia (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2008-0107, or by mail from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia Ecological Services Office, Athens, Georgia (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background

        It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel in this document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the Altamaha spinymussel or its habitat, refer to the proposed listing and critical habitat rule published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2010 (75 FR 61664), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov (at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2008-0107) or from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia Ecological Services Office, Athens, Georgia (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        On October 6, 2010, we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel (75 FR 61664). We proposed to designate approximately 240 kilometers (149 miles) of mainstem river channel in four units as critical habitat in Appling, Ben Hill, Coffee, Jeff Davis, Long, Montgomery, Tattnall, Telfair, Toombs, Wayne, and Wheeler Counties, Georgia. That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending December 6, 2010.
        Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
        When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
        When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of the Altamaha spinymussel, the potential benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of the Altamaha spinymussel and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the Altamaha spinymussel due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken, funded, or authorized by Federal agencies.

        The final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis concerning the proposed critical habitat designation (DEA), which is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).
        Draft Economic Analysis

        The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation for the Altamaha spinymussel. The DEA describes the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the Altamaha spinymussel; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat. The economic impact of the proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may consider in the final designation of critical habitat when evaluating the benefits of excluding particular areas under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The analysis looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the species was listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur if we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation. For a further description of the methodology of the analysis, see Chapter 2, “Framework for the Analysis,” of the DEA.
        The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for the Altamaha spinymussel over the next 30 years, which was determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning information is available for most activities to forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 30-year timeframe. It identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation; these are those costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline costs attributed to listing. The DEA quantifies economic impacts of Altamaha spinymussel conservation efforts associated with the following categories of activity: Electric power generation and transmission, transportation, and recreation. Applying a seven percent discount rate, electric power generation and transmission is estimated to incur the largest impact at $26,700 over the next 30 years (2011-2040); overall incremental impacts associated with the designation are estimated at $37,100 over the same time period.
        As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
        Required Determinations—Amended

        In our October 6, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 61664), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and executive orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now made use of the DEA data to make these determinations. In this document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). However, based on the DEA data, we are amending our required determination concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)), 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 effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our DEA of the proposed designation, we provide our analysis for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on comments we receive, we may revise this determination as part of our final rulemaking.
        According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.

        To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities, such as transportation, electric power generation and transmission, and recreation. In order to determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we considered each industry or category individually. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the Altamaha spinymussel is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.
        In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Altamaha spinymussel. Only the transportation industry included small entities likely to incur incremental costs associated with the designation and these costs, which are largely associated with formal consultation under section 7 of the Act, are expected to result in less than 0.01 percent of the annual revenue threshold that small transportation entities must meet. Please refer to the DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
        In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. We have identified one category of small entity that may be impacted by the proposed critical habitat designation. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Athens, Georgia Ecological Services Office.

          Authority:

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

          Dated: May 2, 2011.
          Will Shafroth,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2011-11607 Filed 5-11-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR 83
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-00044; FRL 10011-13-OAR]
        RIN 2060-AU51
        Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process; Extension of Comment Period and Public Hearing

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period and notification of public hearing.

          SUMMARY:

          On June 11, 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the proposed rulemaking “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process.” The EPA is extending the comment period on the proposed rulemaking. The EPA is also announcing that a virtual public hearing will be held for the proposed rulemaking.

          DATES:

            Comments: The comment period for the proposed rulemaking published June 11, 2020 (85 FR 35612), is extended. The EPA must receive comments on the proposed action on or before August 3, 2020.

            Public hearing: The EPA will hold a virtual public hearing on July 1, 2020. Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional information on the public hearing.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-00044, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

            Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-00044 for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March 31, 2020, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov or email, as there is a temporary suspension of mail delivery to EPA, and no hand deliveries are currently accepted. For further information on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

            Virtual Public Hearing. The virtual public hearing will be held via teleconference July 1, 2020. Refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for additional information.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Leif Hockstad, Office of Air Policy and Program Support, Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6103A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; (202) 343-9432; email address: hockstad.leif@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This document extends the public comment period for the proposed rulemaking to ensure that the public has sufficient time to review and comment on the proposal. The comment period on the proposed rulemaking will close on August 3, 2020.
        The EPA is proposing processes that it would be required to undertake in promulgating regulations under the CAA to ensure that information regarding the benefits and costs of regulatory decisions is provided and considered in a consistent and transparent manner. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning EPA's proposed requirements for benefits and costs analyses for CAA rulemakings. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearings.

          Written Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-00044, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

        The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Reading Room for public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Written comments submitted by mail are temporarily suspended and no hand deliveries will be accepted. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov. For further information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

        The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

          Participation in Virtual Public Hearing. Please note that EPA is deviating from its typical approach because the President has declared a national emergency. Because of current CDC recommendations, as well as state and local orders for social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, EPA cannot hold in-person public meetings at this time. The EPA will begin pre-registering speakers and attendees for the hearing upon publication of this document in the Federal Register. The EPA will accept registrations on an individual basis. To register to speak at the virtual hearing, individuals may use the online registration form available via EPA's Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process web page for this hearing (https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/increasing-consistency-and-transparency-considering-costs-and-benefits) or contact Leif Hockstad at (202) 343-9432 or hockstad.leif@epa.gov. The last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be June 26, 2020. On June 30, 2020, the EPA will post a general agenda for the hearing that will list pre-registered speakers in approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/increasing-consistency-and-transparency-considering-costs-and-benefits.

        The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at the end of each session as timing allows. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers.

        Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA recommends submitting the text of your oral comments as written comments to the rulemaking docket. The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing.

        The EPA is also asking hearing attendees to pre-register for the hearing, even those who don't intend to provide testimony. This will help the EPA ensure that sufficient phone lines will be available.

        Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing logistics, including potential additional sessions, will be posted online at the EPA's Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process website (https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/increasing-consistency-and-transparency-considering-costs-and-benefits). While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above, please monitor our website or contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to determine if there are any updates.
        If you require the services of a translator or special accommodations such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing and describe your needs by June 26, 2020. EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advanced notice.
        How can I get copies of the proposed action and other related information?

        The EPA has also established the official public docket for the proposed action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-00044. A copy of the proposed action is available at https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/increasing-consistency-and-transparency-considering-costs-and-benefits, and any detailed information related to the proposed action will be available in the public docket prior to the public hearings. Verbatim transcripts of the hearings and written statements will be included in the rulemaking docket.

          John Shoaff,
          Director, Office of Air Policy and Program Support.

      [FR Doc. 2020-13222 Filed 6-18-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 140728622-4622-01]
        RIN 0648-BE44
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this rule would revise the recreational accountability measures (AMs) and establish a recreational annual catch target (ACT) for red snapper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf). The purpose of this proposed rule is to help achieve optimum yield (OY) for the Gulf red snapper resource and better ensure red snapper recreational landings do not exceed the recreational quota established in the rebuilding plan, in accordance with sections 303(a)(15) and 407(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(15); 16 U.S.C. 1883(d)).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before December 22, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2014-0120” 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-2014-0120, 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 the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS and the Council manage the Gulf reef fish fishery under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
        In 2013, the most recent Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) benchmark assessment for Gulf red snapper (SEDAR 31), determined that the red snapper stock in the Gulf is no longer undergoing overfishing. However, it remains overfished and is in the 14th year of a 31-year rebuilding plan that began in 2001 and that will remain in place through 2032. Beginning in the 2008 fishing year, following a substantial reduction in the quota in Amendment 27 to the FMP (73 FR 5117, January 29, 2008), NMFS began projecting the season length of the recreational season on an annual basis based on a June 1 start date. However, due to difficulties in monitoring the recreational harvest and projecting the recreational season length, recreational quota overages have occurred regularly even though the recreational quota has been increasing annually since 2010.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the use of annual catch limits (ACLs) and AMs to end and prevent overfishing. For red snapper, NMFS determined the existing commercial and recreational quotas are functionally equivalent to sector ACLs, and the sum of the quotas is functionally equivalent to the stock ACL. Additionally, the commercial individual fishing quota (IFQ) program serves as an AM for the commercial sector. The recreational AM is currently an in-season closure based on annual projections of the recreational season length.

        The current recreational quota, implemented through a 2013 framework amendment (78 FR 57318, September 18, 2013), is 5.390 million lb (2.445 million kg), round weight. The red snapper recreational season begins on June 1, each year. NMFS determines the length of the red snapper recreational season in advance of June 1, and announces the closure date in the Federal Register. Previously, this closure was based on projections of when the recreational quota would be caught, but for 2014, projections were based on an ACT that is 20 percent below the quota; this modification was implemented through an emergency rule (79 FR 27768, May 15, 2014).

        In September 2013, individual commercial fishermen and two commercial fishing interest groups filed a lawsuit challenging the rules implementing red snapper quotas for the 2013 fishing year and setting the 2013 recreational red snapper fishing season. In March 2014, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (Guindon v. Pritzker, 2014 WL 1274076; D.D.C. Mar. 26, 2014), finding in pertinent part that NMFS failed to require adequate AMs to prohibit the retention of fish after the recreational quota had been harvested and address any overages.

        To address the Court's decision and reduce the probability that the recreational sector would exceed its quota, the Council requested and NMFS issued an emergency rule for the red snapper recreational sector (79 FR 27768, May 15, 2014). The emergency rule implemented an AM that based the season length on an annual catch target (ACT) that was set 20 percent below the recreational quota. Although the emergency rule established a recreational AM for 2014, permanent recreational AMs are still needed for the 2015 and subsequent fishing years.
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
        If implemented, this proposed rule would establish a red snapper recreational ACT and revise the red snapper recreational AMs to support management efforts to maintain landings within the recreational quota and to mitigate any recreational quota overages should they occur.
        Red Snapper Recreational ACT and Season Length
        This proposed rule would establish a red snapper recreational ACT by applying a buffer to the recreational quota that is based on the Council's ACL/ACT control rule developed in the Generic ACL/Amendment (76 FR 82044, December 29, 2011). The ACL/ACT control rule establishes a process for determining the appropriate target catch levels that account for management uncertainty in maintaining catches at or below the ACL. The control rule is intended to be applied separately to the recreational and commercial sectors because each sector has different levels of management uncertainty. The control rule recommends no buffer be applied to the quota for the red snapper commercial sector because the sector is managed by an IFQ program, has accurate landings data, and has not exceeded its quota in the last 7 years of the IFQ program being in effect. For the recreational sector, the control rule recommends applying a 20 percent buffer to the quota primarily because of the recreational quota overages in 3 of the last 4 years. Applying the 20 percent buffer to the quota results in an ACT of 4.312 million pounds.
        This proposed rule would also revise the procedure for determining the recreational season length (closure date). Beginning with the 2015 fishing year, the red snapper recreational season closure date would be based on the recreational ACT instead of the recreational quota. Using the ACT to set the season length is an in-season AM that reduces the probability of exceeding the recreational quota during a fishing year from 50 percent to 15 percent.
        Red Snapper Recreational Post-Season AM
        This rule would revise the recreational AMs to also include a quota overage adjustment (payback) should the recreational quota be exceeded while the red snapper stock is overfished. If red snapper are overfished and the recreational quota is exceeded, then in the year following the overage, the recreational quota would be reduced by the amount of the recreational quota overage in the prior fishing year, unless the best scientific information available determines that a greater, lesser, or no overage adjustment is necessary. The recreational ACT would also be reduced to maintain the 20 percent buffer between the ACT and the adjusted quota. This post-season AM is consistent with the National Standard 1 guidelines for stocks that are in a rebuilding plan, as is the case for Gulf red snapper.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, the objectives of, and legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this rule. Accordingly, this rule does not implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        This rule, if implemented, would be expected to directly affect federally permitted for-hire vessels operating in the Gulf reef fish fishery. The for-hire sector is comprised of charter boats and headboats (party boats). Although charter boats tend to be smaller in length, on average, than headboats, the key distinction between the two types of operations is how the fee is determined. On a charter boat trip, the fee charged is for the entire vessel, regardless of how many passengers are carried, whereas the fee charged for a headboat trip is paid per individual angler.
        A Federal Gulf charter/headboat permit has been required for reef fish since 1996 and the sector currently operates under a limited access permit system. In 2013, there were 1,190 valid (non-expired) or renewable Gulf of Mexico Charter/Headboat Reef Fish Permits. A renewable permit is an expired permit that may not be actively fished, but is renewable for up to 1 year after expiration. Although the for-hire permit application collects information on the primary method of operation, the permit itself does not identify the federally permitted vessel as either a headboat or a charter boat. Operation as either a headboat or charter boat is not restricted by the Federal permitting regulations, and vessels may operate in both capacities. However, only federally permitted headboats are required to submit harvest and effort information to NMFS' Headboat Survey (HBS). Participation in the HBS is based on determination by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) that the vessel primarily operates as a headboat. In 2013, seventy Gulf vessels were registered in the HBS. As a result, 1,120 of the vessels with a valid or renewable reef fish charter/headboat permit are expected to operate as charter boats. The average charter boat is estimated to earn approximately $83,000 (2013 dollars) in gross annual revenue and the average headboat is estimated to earn approximately $251,000 (2013 dollars) in gross annual revenue.
        The Small Business Administration established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesters and for-hire operations. A business involved in finfish harvesting is classified as a small business if independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $20.5 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. For for-hire vessels, all qualifiers apply except that the annual receipts threshold is $7.5 million (NAICS code 487210, recreational industries).

        Based on the revenue figures above, all for-hire vessels expected to be directly affected by this rule are determined for the purpose of this analysis to be small business entities.
        Because all entities expected to be affected by this rule are small entities, NMFS has determined that this rule would affect a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, the issue of disproportionate effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.
        Establishing an ACT, which serves as the basis for estimating the length of the recreational red snapper fishing season, is expected to reduce net operating revenues (the return used to pay all labor wages, returns to capital, and owner profits) of all Gulf reef fish for-hire vessels (charter and headboats) by a combined total of approximately $2.286 million (2013 dollars) in the first year this rule is implemented. If there are no recreational quota overages, this amount will be the annual net operating revenue loss to the for-hire vessels. If recreational quota overages occur in a fishing year, and red snapper are overfished, net operating revenues would further decrease in the following fishing year with the application of 100 percent of the recreational ACL overage reduction from the following year's quota. In effect, establishing a payback provision would tend to increase the potential losses in net operating revenue to the for-hire vessels.
        An important feature associated with the payback provision is the uncertainty of the occurrence and level of overages. Under the proposed buffer of 20 percent for deriving the ACT from the recreational ACL, the probability of exceeding the quota is estimated at 15 percent. At this probability level, the occurrence of an overage is relatively low. However, should an overage occur, the overage level could be insignificant or could be substantial. If the ACL overage is low, the net operating revenue loss to the for-hire vessels would be approximately equivalent to the amount estimated above ($2.286 million). If the ACL overage is substantial, it could result in setting the ACT at zero the following year. In this case, net operating revenue loss to the for-hire vessels could be relatively substantial, with some unknown number of for-hire businesses possibly exiting the industry as a result of revenue loss. The year after that overage adjustment, however, the recreational ACL and the corresponding ACT would be restored as there would be no overages in the previous year if the ACT had been set at zero. Assuming no increases in the recreational red snapper quota, for-hire vessels would continue to lose the amount of net operating revenue estimated above. A recreational quota increase would alleviate some of the losses to the for-hire vessels.
        Given the uncertainty discussed above, it cannot be ascertained whether the effects of the rule on the net operating revenues of for-hire vessels would be significant. The public, therefore, is encouraged to address this issue during the public comment period.
        The following discussion analyzes the alternatives that were not selected as preferred by the Council. Five alternatives, including the preferred alternative (as fully described in the preamble), were considered for setting a red snapper recreational ACT. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not establish an ACT. This alternative is associated with the highest probability of exceeding the recreational quota and so would not address the need to better control the recreational harvest to the sector's quota. The other three alternatives would establish an ACT by applying a buffer of 30 percent, 40 percent, or 60 percent to the quota. Relative to the preferred alternative, each of these three alternatives would result in a lower ACT and therefore greater loss in net operating revenues for the for-hire component of the recreational sector.
        Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative (as fully described in the preamble), were considered for establishing a payback provision in case of recreational ACL overages. It is noted that the payback provision only applies when red snapper are overfished. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not establish a payback provision. This alternative would not address the need to mitigate for overages that may negatively impact the rebuilding plan. The second alternative would establish a 100 percent recreational ACL payback provision, similar to the preferred alternative, and in addition would further reduce the adjusted ACT in the following season by 100 percent, 50 percent, or 30 percent of the quota overage. The adjusted ACT is derived by applying the 20 percent buffer to the ACL after the recreational ACL is reduced by the amount of overage. This alternative, together with any of its additional options to further reduce the following season's overage adjusted ACT, would be expected to result in higher net operating revenue losses for the for-hire sector.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, Quotas, Red snapper.

          Dated: November 18, 2014.
          Eileen Sobeck,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 622.41, paragraph (q) is added to read as follows:

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

          (q) Red snapper—(1) Commercial sector. [Reserved]
          (2) Recreational sector. (i) The AA will determine the length of the red snapper recreational fishing season based on when recreational landings are projected to reach the recreational ACT specified in paragraph (q)(2)(iii) of this section, and announce the closure date in the Federal Register. This will serve as an in-season accountability measure. On and after the effective date of the recreational closure notification, the bag and possession limit for red snapper is zero.
          (ii) In addition to the measures specified in paragraph (q)(2)(i) of this section, if red snapper recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the applicable quota specified in § 622.39(a)(2)(i), and red snapper are overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the recreational quota by the amount of the quota overage in the prior fishing year, and reduce the recreational ACT specified in paragraph (q)(2)(iii) of this section (based on the buffer between the ACT and the quota specified in the FMP), unless the best scientific information available determines that a greater, lesser, or no overage adjustment is necessary.
          (iii) The recreational ACT for red snapper is 4.312 million lb (1.956 million kg), round weight.

      [FR Doc. 2014-27648 Filed 11-20-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P