        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 150116050-5123-01]
        RIN 0648-XD726
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; North and South Atlantic 2015 Commercial Swordfish Quotas

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule would adjust the 2015 fishing season quotas for North and South Atlantic swordfish based upon 2014 commercial quota underharvests and international quota transfers consistent with International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Recommendations 13-02 and 13-03. This proposed rule would apply to commercial and recreational fishing for swordfish in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. This action would implement ICCAT recommendations, consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and would further domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by March 23, 2015. An operator-assisted, public conference call and webinar will be held on March 3, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., EST.

          ADDRESSES:

          The conference call-in phone number is 1-888-972-6893; participant pass code is 2759824. Participants are strongly encouraged to log/dial in 15 minutes prior to the meeting. NMFS will show a brief presentation via webinar followed by public comment. To join the webinar go to: https://noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/onstage/g.php?d=995250567&t=a, enter your name and email address, and click the “JOIN” button. Participants who have not used WebEx before will be prompted to download and run a plug-in program that will enable them to view the webinar.
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0023, 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-2015-0023, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Margo Schulze-Haugen, NMFS/SF1, 1315 East-West Highway, National Marine Fisheries Service, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

            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).

          The call-in information for the public hearing is phone number 1-888-972-6893; participant pass code is 2759824. We will also provide a brief presentation via webinar. Participants can join the webinar at https://noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/onstage/g.php?d=995250567&t=a. Enter your name and email address, and click the “JOIN” button. Participants that have not used WebEx before will be prompted to download and run a plug-in program that will enable them to view the webinar. Presentation materials and other supporting information will be posted on the HMS Web site at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms.

          Copies of the supporting documents—including the 2012 Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for North Atlantic swordfish; the 2007 EA, RIR, and FRFA for South Atlantic swordfish; and the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan and associated documents—are available from the HMS Management Division Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ or by contacting Steve Durkee by phone at 202-670-6637.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Steve Durkee by phone at 202-670-6637.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        The U.S. Atlantic swordfish fishery is managed under the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and ATCA, 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to implement ICCAT recommendations.
        North Atlantic Swordfish Quota
        At the 2013 ICCAT annual meeting, Recommendation 13-02 was adopted, maintaining the North Atlantic swordfish total allowable catch (TAC) of 10,301 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) (13,700 mt whole weight (ww)) through 2016. Of this TAC, the United States' baseline quota is 2,937.6 mt dw (3,907 mt ww) per year. ICCAT Recommendation 13-02 also includes an 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) annual quota transfer from the United States to Mauritania and limits allowable 2014 underharvest carryover to 15 percent of a contracting party's baseline quota. ICCAT capped the allowable underharvest at 25 percent of a contracting party's baseline quota allocation until the 2013 recommendation reduced it to 15 percent. Therefore, the United States may carry over a maximum of 440.6 mt dw (586.0 mt ww) of underharvest from 2014 to 2015. This proposed rule would adjust the U.S. baseline quota for the 2015 fishing year to account for the annual quota transfer to Mauritania and the 2014 underharvest.
        The preliminary estimate of North Atlantic swordfish underharvest for 2014 was 2,469.3 mt dw as of December 31, 2014; therefore, NMFS is proposing to carry forward 440.6 mt dw, the maximum carryover allowed per Recommendation 13-02. The 2,937.6 mt dw baseline quota would be reduced by the 18.8 mt dw annual quota transfer to Mauritania and increased by the underharvest carryover of 440.6 mt dw, resulting in a proposed adjusted North Atlantic swordfish quota for the 2015 fishing year of 3,359.4 mt dw (2,937.6−18.8 + 440.6 = 3,359.4 mt dw). From that proposed adjusted quota, 50 mt dw would be allocated to the reserve category for inseason adjustments and research, and 300 mt dw would be allocated to the incidental category, which includes recreational landings and landings by incidental swordfish permit holders, per § 635.27(c)(1)(i). This would result in an allocation of 3,009.4 mt dw (3,359.4−50−300 = 3,009.4 mt dw) for the directed category, which would be split equally between two seasons in 2015 (January through June, and July through December) (Table 1).
        The preliminary landings used to calculate the proposed adjusted quota for North Atlantic swordfish are based on commercial dealer reports and reports by anglers in the HMS Non-Tournament Recreational Swordfish and Billfish Landings Database and the Recreational Billfish Survey received as of December 31, 2014, and do not include dead discards or late landings reports. The estimates are preliminary and have not yet undergone quality control and assurance procedures. NMFS will adjust the quotas in the final rule based on updated data, including dead discard data, if available. Note that the United States has carried over the full amount of underharvest allowed under ICCAT recommendations for the past several years, and NMFS does not expect fishing activity to vary significantly from these past years. For the final adjusted quota to deviate from the proposed quota, the sum of updated landings data (from late reports) and dead discard estimates would need to reach or exceed 2,028.7 mt dw, which is the difference between the current estimate of the 2014 underharvest (2,469.3 mt dw) and the maximum carryover cap of 440.6 mt dw (2,469.3−440.6 = 2,028.7 mt dw). In 2013, dead discards were estimated to equal 90.2 mt dw and late reports equaled 143.0 mt dw. Consequently, NMFS does not believe updated data and dead discard estimates would alter the proposed adjusted quota. Thus, while the 2015 proposed North Atlantic swordfish quota is subject to further adjustments and this rule notifies the public of that potential change, NMFS does not expect the final quota to change from the proposed quota.
        South Atlantic Swordfish Quota

        In 2013, ICCAT Recommendation 13-03 established the South Atlantic swordfish TAC at 11,278.2 mt dw (15,000 mt ww) for 2014, 2015, and 2016. Of this, the United States receives 75.2 mt dw (100 mt ww). Recommendation 13-03 limits the amount of South Atlantic swordfish underharvest that can be carried forward, and the United States may carry forward up to 100 percent of its baseline quota (75.2 mt dw). Recommendation 13-03 also included a total of 75.2 mt dw (100 mt ww) of quota transfers from the United States to other countries. These transfers were 37.6 mt dw (50 mt ww) to Namibia, 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) to Côte d'Ivoire, and 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) to Belize.
        In 2014, U.S. fishermen landed no South Atlantic swordfish according to data available as of December 31, 2014. The adjusted 2014 South Atlantic swordfish quota was 75.1 mt dw due to nominal landings the previous year. Therefore, 75.1 mt dw of underharvest is available to carry over to 2015. NMFS is proposing to carry forward 75.1 mt dw to be added to the 75.2 mt dw baseline quota. The quota would then be reduced by the 75.2 mt dw of annual international quota transfers outlined above, resulting in an adjusted South Atlantic swordfish quota of 75.1 mt dw for the 2015 fishing year.
        As with the landings and proposed quota for North Atlantic swordfish, the South Atlantic swordfish landings and proposed quota are based on dealer reports received as of December 31, 2014, do not include dead discards or late landings reports, and are preliminary landings estimates that have not yet undergone quality control and assurance procedures. NMFS will adjust the quotas in the final rule based on any updated data, including dead discard data, if available. Thus, the 2015 proposed South Atlantic swordfish quota is subject to further adjustments. However, the United States has only landed South Atlantic swordfish twice in the past several years (0.2 mt dw in April 2010 and 0.1 mt dw in April 2013) and therefore does not anticipate additional landings or discard data that would change the final quota from the proposed quota.

          Table 1—2015 North and South Atlantic Swordfish Quotas

            North Atlantic swordfish quota (mt dw)
            2014
            2015

            Baseline Quota
            2,937.6
            2,937.6

            International Quota Transfer
            (−)18.8 (to Mauritania)
            (−)18.8 (to Mauritania)

            Total Underharvest from Previous Year.+

            1,337.4
            2,469.3

            Underharvest Carryover from Previous Year.+

            (+)734.4
            (+)440.6

            Adjusted Quota
            3,653.2
            3,359.4

            Quota Allocation:

            Directed Category
            3,303.2
            3,009.4

            Incidental Category
            300
            300

            Reserve Category
            50
            50

            South Atlantic swordfish quota (mt dw)
            2014
            2015

            Baseline Quota
            75.2
            75.2

            International Quota Transfers *
            (−)75.2
            (−)75.2

            Total Underharvest from Previous Year.+

            75.1
            75.1

            Underharvest Carryover from Previous Year.+

            75.1
            75.1

            Adjusted quota
            75.1
            75.1

            + Allowable underharvest carryover is now capped at 15 percent of the baseline quota allocation for the North Atlantic (carryover was previously capped at 25 percent) and 75.2 dw (100 mt ww) for the South Atlantic. The available 2014 underharvest is based on data current as of December 31, 2014; it does not include dead discards, late reports, or changes to the data as a result of quality control adjustments.
          * Under Recommendation 13-03, the U.S. transfers 75.2 mt dw (100 mt ww) annually to Namibia (37.6 mt dw, 50 mt ww), Côte d'Ivoire (18.8 mt dw, 25 mt ww), and Belize (18.8 mt dw, 25 mt ww).

        Ecological and Socioeconomic Impacts
        In the EA, RIR, and FRFA prepared for the 2012 North Atlantic swordfish quota specifications final rule (July 31, 2012; 77 FR 45273), NMFS analyzed the ecological and socioeconomic impacts of harvesting substantially the same amount of annual adjusted quota being proposed here in the 2015 North Atlantic swordfish specifications). Similarly, the impacts of harvesting the amount of annual baseline quota proposed in the 2015 South Atlantic swordfish specifications were analyzed in the EA, RIR, and FRFA that were prepared for the 2007 Swordfish Quota Specification Final Rule (October 5, 2007; 72 FR 56929).

        The proposed North Atlantic swordfish quota adjustments would result in an adjusted quota for 2015 substantially similar to that analyzed in the 2012 EA, RIR, and FRFA and implemented in 2013 and 2014. The quota analyzed in the 2012 EA, RIR, and FRFA was 3,559.2 mt dw and the proposed 2015 adjusted quota is 3,359.4 mt dw; a decrease of 199.8 mt dw. The 2015 North Atlantic swordfish proposed quota is not expected to increase fishing effort, protected species interactions, or environmental effects in a manner not considered in the 2012 EA and would, in fact, cap all three at a level slightly lower than that analyzed in the 2012 EA. The difference between the quota analyzed in the 2012 EA and the 2015 proposed quota is due to two reasons. First, Recommendation 13-02 reduces the underharvest carryover limit beginning in 2015 from 25 percent of the base quota to 15 percent. In the 2012 EA, the analysis took into account North Atlantic Swordfish underharvest carryovers of up to 25 percent. Since the proposed change in the underharvest carryover limit is within this range (i.e., it is less than 25 percent), the quota that would be implemented consistent with the reduced carryover provision has been previously analyzed. Furthermore, once effective, the reduced underharvest carryover limit would result in a lower overall North Atlantic swordfish adjusted quota. For these reasons, the quota that would be analyzed is within the range of the previously-analyzed actions under the existing NEPA analyses, and additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis regarding the underharvest carryover limit is not necessary.

        The second reason the 2012 quota is different than the 2015 proposed adjusted quota is Recommendation 13-02's elimination of the 112.8 mt dw quota transfer to Morocco and the introduction of a lower 18.8 mt dw quota transfer to Mauritania. No additional NEPA analysis is needed for the change in international quota transfers because in concert with the reduction in the underharvest carryover limit, these changes are not expected to increase fishing effort, affect protected species interactions, or environmental effects beyond those considered in the existing NEPA analyses. Thus, NMFS has determined that the North Atlantic swordfish quota portion of the specifications and impacts to the human environment as a result of the proposed quota adjustments do not require additional NEPA analysis beyond that discussed in the 2012 EA.
        Similarly, NMFS analyzed in the EA, RIR, and FRFA that were prepared for the 2007 Swordfish Quota Specification Final Rule (October 5, 2007; 72 FR 56929) the impacts of harvesting the same amount of annual baseline quota being proposed here in the 2015 South Atlantic swordfish specifications. The proposed South Atlantic swordfish quota adjustments would not change overall quotas and are not expected to increase fishing effort, protected species interactions, or environmental effects beyond those analyzed in the 2007 EA. While ICCAT SCRS conducted a stock assessment for South Atlantic swordfish in 2013, that assessment did not alter the stock status or TAC from when 2007 EA analyses were conducted and no additional information about the environment has become available that would alter the analyses. Therefore, because there would be no changes to the South Atlantic swordfish management measures in this proposed rule, and no changes to the affected environment or any environmental effects that have not been previously analyzed, NMFS has determined that the South Atlantic swordfish quota portion of the specifications and impacts to the human environment as a result of the proposed quota adjustments do not require additional NEPA analysis beyond that analyzed in the 2007 EA.
        Request for Comments

        NMFS is requesting comments on any of the measures or analyses described in this proposed rule. During the comment period, NMFS will hold one conference call and webinar for this proposed rule. The conference call and webinar will be held on March 3, 2015, from 1:00-4:00 p.m. EST. Please see the DATES and ADDRESSES headings for more information.

        The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants on phone conferences to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of the conference call, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., all comments are to be directed to the agency on the proposed action; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; attendees may not interrupt one another; etc.). NMFS representative(s) will structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and those that do not may be removed from the conference call.
        Classification
        Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This action is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
        Previously, NMFS determined that proposed rules to implement the North Atlantic swordfish quota framework (77 FR 25669, May 1, 2012) and South Atlantic swordfish quota framework (75 FR 35432, June 22, 2010) were consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program of coastal states on the Atlantic, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Pursuant to 15 CFR 930.41(a), NMFS provided the Coastal Zone Management Program of each coastal state a 60-day period to review the consistency determination and to advise the Agency of their concurrence. NMFS received concurrence with the consistency determinations from several states and inferred consistency from those states that did not respond within the 60-day time period. This proposed action to establish the 2015 North and South Atlantic swordfish quotas does not change the framework previously consulted upon; therefore, no additional consultation is required.
        The Chief Council for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the proposed quota adjustments are the largely the same as in previous years and the United States is not expected to catch its entire quota in 2015.
        As described above, this proposed rule would adjust the 2015 baseline quota for North Atlantic swordfish (January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015) to account for 2014 underharvests, as allowable, and international quota transfers per § 635.27(c)(1)(i) and (c)(3)(ii) based on ICCAT Recommendation 13-02. The United States can carry over 2014 underharvest at a level not to exceed 15 percent of its baseline quota. Additionally, ICCAT Recommendation 13-02 stipulates that the United States transfer 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) of quota to Mauritania.
        In 2014, U.S. fishermen landed 1,183.9 mt dw of North Atlantic swordfish as of December 31, 2014, leaving 2,469.3 mt dw of quota underharvest. This underharvest amount exceeds the maximum underharvest carryover of 440.6 mt dw; therefore, only the maximum amount of 440.6 mt dw of 2014 underharvest would be carried over and added to the 2015 baseline quota. The quota transfer of 18.8 mt dw to Mauritania would be deducted, leaving a proposed 2015 North Atlantic swordfish adjusted quota of 3,359.4 mt dw (Table 1).
        This proposed rule would also adjust the 2015 baseline quota for South Atlantic swordfish (January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015) to account for 2014 underharvests and international quota transfers per § 635.27(c)(1)(ii) and (c)(3)(ii) based on ICCAT Recommendation 13-03. The United States can carry over 2014 underharvest at a level not to exceed 100 percent of the baseline quota. Additionally, ICCAT Recommendation 13-03 stipulates that the United States transfer the following quota amounts to other countries: 37.6 mt dw (50 mt ww) to Namibia; 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) to Côte d'Ivoire; and 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) to Belize.
        In 2014, U.S. fishermen landed no South Atlantic swordfish according to data available as of December 31, 2014. The adjusted 2014 South Atlantic swordfish quota was 75.1 mt dw due to nominal landings the previous year. Therefore, 75.1 mt dw of underharvest is available to carry over to 2015. NMFS is proposing to carry forward 75.1 mt dw to be added to the 75.2 mt dw baseline quota. The quota would then be reduced by the 75.2 mt dw of annual international quota transfers outlined above, resulting in an adjusted South Atlantic swordfish quota of 75.1 mt dw for the 2015 fishing year. (Table 1).

        The commercial swordfish fishery is comprised of fishermen who hold one of three swordfish limited access permits (LAPs) (i.e., directed, incidental, or handgear), fishermen who hold a swordfish general commercial permit, fishermen who hold an HMS incidental squid trawl permit, fishermen who hold a commercial Caribbean small boat permit, and the related industries, including processors, bait houses, and equipment suppliers. As of October 2014, there were approximately 183 vessels with a directed swordfish LAP, 66 vessels with an incidental swordfish LAP, 77 vessels with a handgear LAP for swordfish, and 651 vessels that held a swordfish general commercial permit. Additionally, there were approximately 73 HMS incidental squid trawl permit holders, which allow vessels in the Illex squid fishery to retain up to 15 incidentally-caught swordfish while trawling for squid. NMFS considers all participants in the commercial swordfish fishery to be small entities, based on the relevant North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and size standards set by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
        The Small Business Administration (SBA) recently established new size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. On June 12, 2014, the SBA issued an interim final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33467; June 12, 2014). The rule increased the size standard from $19.0 to $20.5 million for finfish fishing, from $5 to $5.5 million for shellfish fishing, and from $7.0 million to $7.5 million for other marine fishing, for-hire businesses, and marinas. NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this action in light of the new size standards. Under the former, lower size standards, all entities subject to this action were considered small entities based on fishing revenues, thus they all would continue to be considered small under the new standards. The new size standards do not affect analyses prepared for this action.
        This action is not expected to result in a significant economic impact on the small entities subject to the quota limits. Based on the 2014 average price for swordfish of $4.65/lb (based on 2014 electronic dealer data), the 2015 North and South Atlantic swordfish baseline quotas could result in gross revenues of $30,114,483 (2,937.6 mt dw (6,476,233 lbs dw) * $4.65/lb) and $770,905 (75.2 mt dw (165,786 lbs dw) * $4.65/lb), respectively, if the quotas were fully utilized. Under the adjusted quotas of 3,359.4 mt dw (7,406,133 lbs dw) for North Atlantic swordfish and 75.1 mt dw (165,565 lbs dw) for South Atlantic swordfish, the gross revenues could be $34,438,518 and $769,877, respectively, for fully utilized quotas.
        Potential revenues per vessel resulting from full utilization of the adjusted quotas could be $32,799 for the North Atlantic swordfish fishery and $4,207 for the South Atlantic swordfish fishery, considering a total of 1,050 swordfish permit holders in the North Atlantic and 183 directed permit holders in the South Atlantic. The North Atlantic estimate, however, represents an average across all permit types, despite permit differences in retention limits, target species, and geographical range. For North Atlantic swordfish, directed swordfish permit holders would likely experience higher than average per-vessel ex-vessel revenues due to the use of pelagic longline gear and the lack of a per-trip retention limit, although trip expenses are likely to be relatively high. HMS incidental squid trawl permit holders would likely experience per vessel ex-vessel revenues well below those received by pelagic longline vessels due to the low retention limit per trip (15 swordfish) and because these vessels do not target swordfish and only catch them incidentally. Swordfish general commercial permit holders would likely experience lower than average per-vessel ex-vessel revenues, despite higher ex-vessel prices and lower fishing expenses. Although the proposed 2015 North Atlantic swordfish adjusted quoted is 199.8 mt dw lower than the quota analyzed in the 2012 EA, U.S. fishermen in recent years have not harvested the full North Atlantic swordfish quota. Thus, the 199.8 mt dw change in the total adjusted quota is unlikely to cause any economic impacts since that portion of the quota will likely go unutilized. In the future, if the North Atlantic swordfish fishery achieves full quota utilization, economic impacts will need to be reanalyzed. For South Atlantic swordfish, only directed swordfish permit holders can land these fish; therefore, potential revenue per vessel is higher than the average for these directed swordfish permit holders since the other permit types may not land swordfish. However, U.S. fishermen rarely catch South Atlantic swordfish. Over the past 5 years, 0.3 mt dw of South Atlantic swordfish catch has been reported. The proposed 2015 South Atlantic swordfish adjusted quota is unchanged from that analyzed in the 2007 EA, thus, no new economic impacts are expected.
        Because the United States' commercial swordfish fishery is not expected to catch its entire quota in 2015, the adjustments to the quota and management measures proposed in this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, no initial regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: February 13, 2015.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-03432 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [Docket No. 031031272-3272-01; I.D. 102903A]
        RIN 0648-AR76
        Fisheries of the United States; Essential Fish Habitat

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; consideration of revision to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) guidelines.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS is seeking public input on the EFH guidelines promulgated through regulation in the January 17, 2002, final rule.  Such input is intended to fulfill NMFS' commitment to continually evaluate the efficacy of the EFH guidelines using an appropriate public process.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., e.s.t., on or before January 26, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments must be sent to Mr. Rolland A. Schmitten, Director, Office of Habitat Conservation, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, F/HC, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.  Comments may also be sent via fax to (301) 427-2570.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Karen Abrams at (301) 713-4300 xt. 149.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In January 2002, NMFS promulgated a final rule (67 FR 2343) that established guidelines (50 CFR 600.805 to 600.930) to assist the Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) in the description and identification of EFH in fishery management plans (FMPs), the identification of adverse effects to EFH, and the identification of actions required to conserve and enhance EFH.  The final rule also detailed procedures the Secretary (acting though NMFS), other Federal agencies, and the Councils will use to coordinate, consult, or provide recommendations on Federal and state actions that may adversely affect EFH. Such guidelines promulgated through regulation were mandated in the 1996 amendments incorporated into the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(1)(A)).  The intended effect of the guidelines is to promote the protection, conservation, and enhancement of EFH.
        After a 5-year public process, NMFS finalized the EFH guidelines in 2002.  Nevertheless, NMFS recognized that a great deal of interest remained from various stakeholders in how to integrate habitat considerations into fishery management.  As a result of this interest, NMFS committed to evaluating the efficacy of the EFH guidelines as they are implemented, to apply the lessons learned from such implementation as appropriate, and to consider changing the regulations if warranted through an appropriate public process.
        NMFS recognizes that implementation of the MSA's EFH provisions is complex and requires considerable species and habitat information not always equally available across species or geography.  In addition, NMFS recognizes that not all habitats exhibit the same characteristics, and that implementation of the EFH guidelines continues to attract public interest from its stakeholders.
        Given ongoing interest in EFH and NMFS' commitment to evaluate the efficacy of the EFH guidelines through an appropriate public process, NMFS solicits input from the public regarding, (1) whether the EFH guidelines (50 CFR 600.805 to 600.930) should be revised and (2) if revisions are desired, what parts of the guidelines should be revised, how should they be revised, and why.  NMFS will use this information in determining whether to proceed with a revision to the EFH guidelines, and, if so, the issues to be addressed.
        This advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

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

          Dated:  December 5, 2003.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-30728 Filed 12-10-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0064; 4500030114]
        RIN 1018-AX40

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella Valley Milk-Vetch)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the public comment period on the August 25, 2011, proposed revised designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-vetch) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae 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 revised designation, the associated DEA, and the amended required determinations section. We are also announcing the location and time of a public hearing to receive public comments on the proposal. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:

          We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before June 15, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

            Public Hearing: We will hold a public hearing on this proposed rule on May 31, 2012, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0064, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2011-0064; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

            Public hearing: We will hold a public hearing in the Palm Springs City Hall Council Chamber, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92263.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Rd., Ste. 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-5902. 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 revised designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae that was published in the Federal Register on August 25, 2011 (76 FR 53224), our DEA of the proposed revised 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 taxon (the term taxon, as used herein, refers to any taxonomic rank that is not a species (for example, a genus, a subspecies, or a variety); Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae is a variety) 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 Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae;

        (b) The amount and distribution of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat;
        (c) What areas within the geographical area occupied by the taxon at the time of listing that contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the taxon we should include in the designation and why; and
        (d) What areas outside the geographical area occupied by the taxon at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the taxon and why.
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.

        (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts associated with climate change on Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and proposed critical habitat.

        (5) What areas, extent, and quality of the unoccupied fluvial (water) sand transport systems in the Coachella Valley and surrounding hills and mountains are essential for the conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and should be included in the designation and why.
        (6) 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.

        (7) Which specific areas within tribal lands proposed for critical habitat should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific tribal lands outweigh the benefits of including that area, in particular for tribal lands owned or managed by the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (formerly the Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Morongo Reservation) or the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation.

        (8) Which specific lands covered by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP) proposed as critical habitat should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area covered by the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP outweigh the benefits of including that area. We are currently considering all lands covered by the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP and proposed as critical habitat for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see the Habitat Conservation Plan Lands—Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).

        (9) What specific actions the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has undertaken to meet the objectives and goals set out in the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP specific to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae since CVAG began implementing the MSHCP/NCCP.

        (10) Whether there are any other lands covered by habitat conservation plans or other conservation actions that benefit Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, where the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area.
        (11) 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.

        (12) The validity of our approach for determining the extent of the fluvial sand transport system, and differentiating between fluvial sand transport and fluvial sand source areas. We identified fluvial sand source areas (areas where sediment is eroded from parent rock by moving water) as portions of drainages where slope is 10 percent or greater and fluvial sand transport areas (corridors along which water transports sediment, but little erosion of parent rock takes place) as portions of drainages where slope is less than 10 percent. This approach was informed by Griffiths et al. (2002, p. 21), who found that sediment production in the drainage areas supplying sand to Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae habitat is much lower in areas where the ground slope is less than 10 percent.
        (13) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
        If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (76 FR 53224) during the initial comment period from August 25, 2011, to October 24, 2011, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. 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 do not meet the definition of critical habitat, 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 the ADDRESSES section. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES section.
        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 No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0064, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (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-R8-ES-2011-0064, or by mail from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
        Public Hearings

        The public hearings will take place on May 31, 2012, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Palm Springs City Hall Council Chamber, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92263. The public hearing location is wheelchair-accessible. If you plan to attend the public hearing and need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation, please notify the U.S. FWS (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 3 business days in advance. Include your contact information as well as information about your specific needs.
        Background

        It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae in this document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning A. l. var. coachellae, refer to the proposed revised designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on August 25, 2011 (76 FR 53224). For more information on A. l. var. coachellae or its habitat, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov (at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2011-0064) or from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Previous Federal Actions

        The following section summarizes the previous Federal actions since Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae was listed as endangered on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596); please refer to this final listing rule for a discussion of Federal actions that occurred prior to the taxon's listing.

        At the time of listing, we determined that designation of critical habitat was “not prudent” (63 FR 53596). On November 15, 2001, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior and the Service challenging our “not prudent” determinations for eight plant taxa, including Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Norton, case number 01-cv-2101 (S.D. Cal.)). A second lawsuit asserting the same challenge was filed on November 21, 2001, by the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation (Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation v. Norton, case number 01-cv-2145 (S.D. Cal.)). The parties in both cases agreed to remand the critical habitat determinations for the eight plant taxa at issue to the Service for reconsideration. On July 1, 2002, the Court directed us to reconsider our not prudent determination and if we determined that designation was prudent, submit to the Federal Register for publication a proposed critical habitat designation for A. l. var. coachellae by November 30, 2004, and to submit to the Federal Register for publication a final rule designating critical habitat by November 30, 2005. The proposed rule to designate critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2004 (69 FR 74468). The final rule designating critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2005 (70 FR 74112).

        The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit on January 14, 2009, claiming the Service failed to designate adequate critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (CBD v. Kempthorne, case number ED-cv-09-0091 VAP(AGRx) (C.D. Cal.)). In a settlement agreement dated November 14, 2009, we agreed to reconsider the critical habitat designation for A. l. var. coachellae. The settlement required the Service to submit a proposed revised critical habitat designation for A. l. var. coachellae to the Federal Register by August 18, 2011, and submit a final revised critical habitat designation to the Federal Register by February 14, 2013.

        On August 25, 2011, we published a proposed rule to revise critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (76 FR 53224). We proposed to designate approximately 25,704 acres (ac) (10,402 hectares (ha)) in 4 unit(s) located in Riverside County, California, as critical habitat. That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending October 24, 2011. We will submit for publication in the Federal Register a final critical habitat designation for A. l. var. coachellae on or before February 14, 2013.
        Critical Habitat
        Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of the designated critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions that may affect 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 Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of A. l. var. coachellae and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for A. l. var. coachellae 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 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 revised critical habitat designation (DEA), which is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES section).
        Draft Economic Analysis

        The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed revised critical habitat designation for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. The DEA separates conservation measures into two distinct categories according to “without critical habitat” and “with critical habitat” scenarios. The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections otherwise afforded to A. l. var. coachellae (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts specifically due to designation of critical habitat for the taxon. In other words, these incremental conservation measures and associated economic impacts would not occur but for the designation. Conservation measures implemented under the baseline (without critical habitat) scenario are described qualitatively within the DEA, but economic impacts associated with these measures are not quantified. Economic impacts are only quantified for conservation measures implemented specifically due to the designation of critical habitat (i.e., incremental impacts). 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 revised critical habitat designation for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae over the next 20 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 20-year timeframe. It identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed revised 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 A. l. var. coachellae conservation efforts associated with the following categories of activity: (1) Residential, commercial, and industrial development; (2) water management and use; (3) transportation activities; (4) energy development; (5) sand and gravel mining; and (6) tribal activities.

        Baseline economic impacts are those impacts that result from listing and other conservation efforts for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. The DEA does not quantify baseline economic impacts, but does include a qualitative discussion of activities likely to be undertaken to protect A. l. var. coachellae absent the designation of critical habitat as a result of Federal, State, and local regulations as well as the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP, the California Desert Conservation Area Plan (on BLM lands), wilderness designation (on BLM and USFS lands) and the Coachella Valley National Wildlife Refuge (on Service lands).
        The DEA estimates total potential incremental economic impacts in areas proposed as revised critical habitat over the 20 years following the designation (2013 to 2032) to be $220,000 to $820,000 ($20,000 to $73,000 annualized) in present value terms applying a 7 percent discount rate (IEc 2012, p. ES-2). Conservation efforts related to residential, commercial, and industrial development projects account for the largest share of impacts under the high-end ($820,000) estimate. These costs, $590,000 in project modification costs (assuming a 7 percent discount rate) plus administrative costs resulting from the consideration of adverse modification in section 7 consultations, are projected to occur in the unoccupied portion of Unit 3, within the City of Desert Hot Springs. The DEA estimates that proponents of transportation activities, such as road and bridge construction and maintenance, are likely to experience the next largest impacts after residential, commercial, and industrial development, including approximately $1,300 in project modification costs (7 percent discount rate), plus administrative costs. Water management and use, energy development, and sand and gravel mining projects are projected to incur only administrative costs due to the critical habitat designation. The DEA predicts only administrative costs to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians as a result of the designation, and no incremental impacts to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, because no future section 7 consultations are anticipated on the portion of their lands proposed as critical habitat.
        The DEA considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (such as lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). The DEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and individuals. The DEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with residential and commercial development and public projects and activities, such as economic impacts on water management and transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether the effects of the revised critical habitat designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector.
        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 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 taxon.
        Changes to Proposed Revised Critical Habitat

        In this document, we are making a correction to the proposed revised critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae as identified and described in the preamble to the proposed rule that we published in the Federal Register on August 25, 2011 (76 FR 53224). The correction is in regard to the description of Unit 1 (76 FR 53240). Unit 1 contains 316 ac (128 ha) of tribal land (Morongo Band of Mission Indians) and 1,791 ac (725 ha) of private land. Of this area, we characterized 156 ac (63 ha) of tribal land and 1 ac (0.4 ha) of private land as being covered under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County MSHCP), due to an incorrect interpretation of GIS data. These lands are within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, but they are “inholdings” (that is, they are not covered by or subject to the provisions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP or any other Habitat Conservation Plan). All other acreages reported in the proposed rule are correct to the best of our knowledge, and the boundaries of the proposed revised critical habitat remain the same as described in the proposed rule. No part of the proposed critical habitat for A. l. var. coachellae is covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
        Required Determinations—Amended

        In our August 25, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 53224), 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 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our DEA of the proposed revised 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 revised designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities, such as residential, commercial, and industrial development. In order to determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that this proposed 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 A. l. var. coachellae 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 taxon. If we finalize this proposed revised 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 revised designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. The DEA is based on the estimated incremental impacts associated with the proposed rulemaking as described in Chapters 3 through 5 of the DEA. The SBREFA analysis evaluates the potential for economic impacts related to several categories, including: (1) Residential, commercial, and industrial development; (2) water management and use; (3) transportation activities; (4) energy development; (5) sand and gravel mining; and (6) tribal activities (IEc 2012, p. A-4). On the basis of our draft analysis, we have determined that no incremental impacts attributed to water management and use, transportation activities, energy development, sand and gravel mining, and tribal activities are expected to be borne by entities that meet the definition of small entities (IEc 2010, pp. A-4-5). Potential impacts in these sectors are expected to be borne by water management agencies, State agencies, Federal agencies, other governmental agencies, and nongovernmental agencies that are not considered to be small business entities.
        However, the DEA concludes that the proposed rulemaking potentially may affect small entities in the residential, commercial, and industrial development sector (IEc 2010, p. A-6). There are 6,151 businesses involved in development activities within San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties and, of these, 6,076 are considered small. Because information on the number of projects or developers likely to be affected is not available, the DEA presents a bounding analysis, assuming that a single developer bears all costs associated with growth in proposed critical habitat. Under this assumption, $52,260 in incremental costs would accrue to one developer per year. Assuming the average small entity has annual revenues of approximately $5.1 million, this annualized impact represents approximately 1 percent of annual revenues. The assumption that all costs accrue to one developer likely overstates the impact significantly; thus, the DEA estimates incremental impacts to small developers of less than 1 percent of annual revenues (IEc 2010, pp. A-8-9). For development activities, potential impacts to small development firms may also be overstated because much or all of the costs of milk-vetch conservation efforts may ultimately be borne by current landowners. Many of these landowners may be individuals or families that are not legally considered to be businesses. No NAICS code exists for landowners, and the SBA does not provide a definition of a small landowner. Additionally, the development projected for Desert Hot Springs may not occur, as those lands fall within the 100-year floodplain (IEc 2010, p. A-9). Please refer to the DEA of the proposed revised critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
        In summary, we have considered whether the proposed revised 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 our files. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed revised critical habitat designation would result in incremental impacts to small developers of less than 1 percent of annual revenues; and, thus, 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 Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Pacific Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

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

          Dated: May 7, 2012.
          Rachel Jacobson,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2012-11671 Filed 5-15-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 180123065-8065-01]
        RIN 0648-XF989
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 2018 Allocation of Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch Entitlements and a Proposed Regulatory Exemption for Sectors

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This rulemaking proposes allocations of annual catch entitlements to groundfish sectors for the 2018 fishing year and also proposes a new regulatory exemption for sectors. The action is necessary because sectors must receive allocations in order to operate. This action is intended to ensure sector allocations are based on the best scientific information available and help achieve optimum yield for the fishery.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before April 9, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0039, by either 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-2018-0039, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the 2018 Sector Allocations.”

            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).

          Copies of each sector's operations plan and contract, as well as the programmatic environmental assessment for sectors operations in fishing years 2015 to 2020, are available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO): Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents are also accessible via the GARFO website: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kyle Molton, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9236.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The Northeast multispecies (groundfish) sector management system allocates a portion of available groundfish catch by stock to each sector. Each sector's annual allocations are known as annual catch entitlements (ACE) and are based on the collective fishing history of a sector's members. The ACEs are a portion of a stock's annual catch limit (ACL) available to commercial groundfish vessels. A sector determines how to harvest its ACEs and may decide to limit operations to fewer vessels. Atlantic halibut, windowpane flounder, Atlantic wolffish, and ocean pout are not managed under the sector system, and sectors do not receive allocations of these groundfish species. With the exception of halibut that has a 1-fish per vessel trip limit, possession of these stocks is prohibited.

        Because sectors elect to receive an allocation under a quota-based system, the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) grants sector vessels several “universal” exemptions from the FMP's effort controls. The FMP allows sectors to request additional exemptions to increase flexibility and fishing opportunities, but prohibits sectors from requesting exemptions from permitting restrictions, gear restrictions designed to minimize habitat impacts, and most reporting requirements.
        In addition to the sectors, there are several state-operated permit banks, which receive allocation based on the fishing history of permits that the state holds. The final rule implementing Amendment 17 to the FMP allowed a state-operated permit bank to receive an allocation without needing to comply with sector administrative and procedural requirements (77 FR 16942; March 23, 2012). Instead, permit banks are required to submit a list of permits to us, as specified in the permit bank's Memorandum of Agreement between NMFS and the state. These permits are not active vessels; instead, the allocations associated with the permits may be leased to vessels enrolled in sectors. State-operated permit banks contribute to the total allocation under the sector system.

        We approved nineteen sectors to operate in fishing years 2017 and 2018, and also approved 21 requested exemptions for sectors (82 FR 19618; April 28, 2017). On November 20, 2017, we withdrew approval for a single sector, Northeast Fishery Sector IX (NEFS 9) (82 FR 55522; November 22, 2017). Because all approved operations plans cover two fishing years approved sectors may continue operations in fishing year 2018. Copies of the operations plans and contracts, and the environmental assessment (EA), are available at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov and from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). This action would make 2018 allocations to sectors based on the specifications recommended in Framework 57 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This action also proposes a new regulatory exemption to increase fishing opportunities for monkfish while fishing on a groundfish sector trip.
        Sector Allocations for Fishing Year 2018
        Sectors may not harvest ACE without an approved sector operations plan. This rule does not approve operations plans, but proposes 2018 ACE allocations to all sectors based on their 2017 sector rosters, including NEFS 9. Because sectors are operating under 2-year operations plans for fishing years 2017 and 2018, these allocations would allow vessels enrolled in sectors to operate under their existing operations plan, as approved. NEFS 9 does not currently have an approved operations plan. NEFS 9 is unable to trade ACE, and its member vessels are unable to take groundfish trips, until a new sector operations plan is approved. When NEFS 9 submits a new operations plan, we expect to conduct a separate rulemaking to review and consider approval of the new plan. ACE trading and fishing activity would be allowed only under the provisions of a new approved operations plan.
        The 2018 allocations in this proposed rule are based on sector enrollment in fishing year 2017. For fishing year 2018, we have set a deadline for sectors to submit preliminary sector rosters by March 20, 2018, in order to determine rosters for final rulemaking and allocations. All permits enrolled in a sector, and the vessels associated with those permits, have until April 30, 2018, to withdraw from a sector and fish in the common pool for fishing year 2018. The allocations proposed in this rule are based on the fishing year 2018 specifications that the Council recommended in Framework Adjustment 57 to the FMP. These allocations are not final, and are subject to the approval of Framework 57. We expect a rule proposing the Framework 57 measures to publish in March 2018.
        We calculate the sector's allocation for each stock by summing its members' potential sector contributions (PSC) for a stock and then multiplying that total percentage by the available commercial sub-ACL for that stock. Table 1 shows the projected total PSC for each sector by stock for fishing year 2018. Tables 2 and 3 show an estimate of the initial allocations that each sector will be allocated, in pounds and metric tons, respectively, for fishing year 2018, based on their fishing year 2017 rosters. At the start of the fishing year, we provide the final allocations, to the nearest pound, to the individual sectors, and we use those final allocations to monitor sector catch. The common pool sub-ACLs are also included in each of these tables. The fishing year 2018 common pool sub-ACLs are set in Framework 57, and are calculated using the PSC of permits not enrolled in sectors. The common pool sub-ACL is managed separately from sectors and does not contribute to available ACE for leasing or harvest by sector vessels, but is shown for comparison.
        We do not assign a permit separate PSCs for the Eastern GB cod or Eastern GB haddock; instead, we assign each permit a PSC for the GB cod stock and GB haddock stock. Each sector's GB cod and GB haddock allocations are then divided into an Eastern ACE and a Western ACE, based on each sector's percentage of the GB cod and GB haddock ACLs. For example, if a sector is allocated 4 percent of the GB cod ACL, the sector is allocated 4 percent of the commercial Eastern U.S./Canada Area GB cod total allowable catch (TAC) as its Eastern GB cod. The Eastern GB haddock allocations are determined in the same way. These amounts are then subtracted from the sector's overall GB cod and haddock allocations to determine its Western GB cod and haddock ACEs. A sector may only harvest its Eastern GB cod and haddock ACEs in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area. A sector may also “convert,” or transfer, its Eastern GB cod or haddock allocation into Western GB allocation and fish that converted ACE outside the Eastern GB area.

        At the start of fishing year 2018, we may withhold 20 percent of each sector's fishing year 2018 allocation until we finalize fishing year 2017 catch information. We expect to finalize 2017 catch information for sectors in summer 2018. We will allow sectors to transfer fishing year 2017 ACE for 2 weeks upon our completion of year-end catch accounting to reduce or eliminate any fishing year 2017 overages. If necessary, we will reduce any sector's fishing year 2018 allocation to account for a remaining overage in fishing year 2017. Each year we notify sector managers of this deadline and announce this decision on our website at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.
        BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

          EP23MR18.016

          EP23MR18.017

          EP23MR18.018

        BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
        Granted Exemptions for Fishing Years 2017 and 2018
        Previously Granted Exemptions for Fishing Years 2017 and 2018 (1-21)
        We have already granted exemptions from the following requirements for fishing years 2017 and 2018: (1) 120-Day block out of the fishery required for Day gillnet vessels; (2) 20-day spawning block out of the fishery required for all vessels; (3) prohibition on a vessel hauling another vessel's gillnet gear; (4) limits on the number of gillnets that may be hauled on GB when fishing under a Northeast multispecies/monkfish day-at-sea (DAS); (5) limits on the number of hooks that may be fished; (6) DAS Leasing Program length and horsepower restrictions; (7) prohibition on discarding; (8) daily catch reporting by sector managers for sector vessels participating in the Closed Area (CA) I Hook Gear Haddock Special Access Program (SAP); (9) prohibition on fishing inside and outside of the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP while on the same trip; (10) prohibition on a vessel hauling another vessel's hook gear; (11) the requirement to declare an intent to fish in the Eastern U.S./Canada SAP and the CA II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP prior to leaving the dock; (12) gear requirements in the Eastern U.S./Canada Management Area; (13) seasonal restrictions for the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP; (14) seasonal restrictions for the CA II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP; (15) sampling exemption; (16) prohibition on groundfish trips in the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area; (17) prohibition on combining small-mesh exempted fishery and sector trips in Southern New England; (18) limits on the number of gillnets for day gillnet vessels fishing outside the Gulf of Maine (GOM); (19) 6.5-inch minimum mesh size requirement for trawl nets to allow a 5.5 inch codend on directed redfish trips; (20) extra-large mesh requirement to target dogfish on trips excluded from at-sea monitoring in Southern New England and Inshore Georges Bank; and (21) requirement to carry a Vessel Monitoring System for Handgear A vessels fishing in a single broad stock area. A detailed description of the previously granted exemptions and supporting rationale can be found in the applicable rules identified in Table 4.

          Table 4—Exemptions Granted for Fishing Years 2017 and 2018

            Exemptions
            Rulemaking
            Date of publication
            Citation

            1-8, 12
            Fishing Year 2011 Sector Operations Final Rule
            April 25, 2011
            76 FR 23076

            9-11
            Fishing Year 2012 Sector Operations Final Rule
            May 2, 2012
            77 FR 26129

            13-15
            Fishing Year 2013 Sector Operations Interim Final Rule
            May 2, 2013
            78 FR 25591

            16
            Fishing Year 2014 Sector Operations Final Rule
            April 28, 2014
            79 FR 23278

            18, 19
            Fishing Years 2015-2016 Sector Operations Final Rule
            May 1, 2015
            80 FR 25143

            20
            Framework 55 Final Rule
            May 2, 2016
            81 FR 26412

            21
            Fishing Years 2017-2018 Sector Operations Interim Final Rule
            April 28, 2017
            82 FR 19618

            17
            Fishing Years 2017-2018 Sector Operations Final Rule
            August 18, 2017
            82 FR 39363

          NE Multispecies Federal Register documents can be found at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies/.

        New Sectors Exemption Proposed for Fishing Year 2018
        Limit on the Number of Gillnets for Day Gillnet Vessels Fishing in the Gulf of Maine
        Each year, vessels fishing with gillnet gear must declare as either a “Day” or “Trip” gillnet vessel. A Day gillnet vessel is limited in the number of nets it may fish, but can return to port while leaving the gear in the water. A Trip gillnet vessel is not limited in the number of nets it may fish, but must retrieve all of its gear each trip. For 2018, we received a request to exempt Day gillnet vessels fishing in the Gulf of Maine from the current 100-net limit. The exemption would allow vessels to fish up to 150 gillnets if at least 50 nets are 10-inch (25.4-cm) or larger mesh and those nets are fished east of 70 degrees West longitude (Figure 1). The 100-net limit would still apply in the portion of the GOM Regulated Mesh Area west of 70 degrees West longitude. The intent of the request is to increase opportunities for sector vessels to harvest monkfish, a healthy non-groundfish stock, while fishing on a groundfish trip.
        This exemption request is a variation of an exemption we previously approved for Day gillnet vessels in the GOM. The original exemption allowed the use of 150 gillnets and the use of a single gillnet tag per net, as is currently allowed for sector vessels fishing in other areas. We withdrew approval of the original exemption in 2014 as part of the GOM cod emergency action (79 FR 67362; November 13, 2014) due to concerns about potential GOM cod catch from the additional gillnet effort. The new exemption proposed in this action is more restrictive than the original exemption in several ways. The new exemption would require the use of larger mesh nets, limit the geographic scope of any additional nets, and would not modify tagging provisions for nets fished in the GOM. These restrictions were developed to reduce any additional impacts to GOM cod and address the concerns underlying our withdrawal of the original exemption.
        As proposed, the exemption would allow sector Day gillnet vessels to fish up to 150 gillnets in the GOM if at least 50 of those nets are 10-inch (25.4-cm) or larger mesh and fished east of 70 degrees West longitude. This exemption would not remove the 50 roundfish or “stand up” net limit in the GOM. Day gillnet vessels would still be required to tag each roundfish net with two gillnet tags and each flatfish or “tied down” net with a single gillnet tag. We do not intend to issue additional gillnet tags, so vessels would need to choose between fishing their full suite of roundfish nets or taking advantage of the extra nets available under this exemption. Keeping tagging provisions in place would maintain consistency and allow for better enforcement of the gillnet limits, including the 50 roundfish gillnet limit in the GOM and the overall 150 net limit.

        This exemption is intended to grant additional flexibility, increasing opportunities for Day gillnet vessels to target monkfish under existing monkfish limits, while fishing on sector trips in the GOM. The exemption could increase trip efficiency and revenue for sector vessels, but we still expect few vessels to use the exemption. Between 2013 and 2016, on average, fewer than 20 sector vessels fished with gillnet gear in the GOM, and in fishing year 2016 there were only 11 Day gillnet vessels in sectors that took a groundfish trip in the GOM. We expect only a subset of these vessels to use this exemption, and few of them to use it on all of their trips given the geographic limitation of the exemption and underlying double tagging requirement for roundfish gillnets. We expect the number of trips will be limited. There may be impacts to other fisheries, groundfish stocks, and protected resources; however, our concerns for potential GOM cod catch in the previously approved exemption are addressed by requiring the use of 10-inch (25.4-cm) or larger mesh for any additional nets, and that they must be fished east of 70 degrees West longitude, which is expected to reduce the impacts on GOM cod. Initial analysis shows that fewer cod are likely to be caught with the larger mesh nets fished in the central and eastern GOM than would be encountered using smaller mesh or in areas of the western GOM. Thus, these provisions of the proposed exemption would likely reduce impacts to GOM cod. Most other groundfish are rarely encountered by extra-large mesh gillnets in the GOM, with the exception of white hake, pollock, and Atlantic halibut. Any increase in catch of these stocks is expected to be small proportional to the overall fishery, and would be attributed to a sector's available quota, or for halibut, to the commercial fishery quota.
        In the 2015-2020 programmatic environmental assessment for sector operations, we analyzed potential impacts of allowing the use of 150 gillnets by sector vessels across all areas, including the GOM. The analysis showed that the exemption would potentially have a low negative impact on protected resources. We expect that this potential is further reduced because a relatively small number of vessels are likely to use this exemption, and even for those vessels, only on a subset of their sector trips. The overall declining trend in recent years in the number of gillnet vessels fishing in the GOM is also expected to minimize any impacts. Additionally, we expect the geographic extent of the exemption to mitigate impacts on protected resources given known observations of interactions. Vessels fishing under the exemption would not be exempt from any regulatory measures designed to limit gear interactions with protected resources, such as the mandated use of pingers or weak-links.
        We are taking public comment on the proposed exemption in order to assist us in identifying any potential impacts and benefits of the exemption, were it to be granted. We are particularly interested in comments regarding the potential impacts on monkfish harvest and other groundfish species and how the exemption might impact the fishing behavior of gillnet vessels in the GOM.

          EP23MR18.020

        Classification

        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed action is exempt from the procedures of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
        This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        The proposed rule would allocate ACE to sectors for fishing year 2018 (May 1, 2018, through April 30, 2019) and approve a new regulatory exemption for sector vessels. Approved sectors are exempt from certain effort control regulations, like trip limits and days-at-sea, and fish under the sector provisions of the Northeast Multispecies FMP and their sector's harvest rules. This action is consistent with the groundfish catch limits proposed in a concurrent rulemaking to approve Framework Adjustment 57 to the FMP, and is expected to have positive impacts on fishing vessels and purchasers of seafood products.
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires Federal agencies to consider disproportionality and profitability to determine the significance of regulatory impacts. For RFA purposes only, NMFS established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The determination of whether the entity is large or small is based on the average annual revenue for the most recent 3 years for which data are available (from 2014 through 2016).
        As of May 1, 2016 (beginning of fishing year 2016), NMFS had issued limited-access groundfish permits to 899 vessels. Each of these permits is eligible to join a sector or enroll in the common pool in fishing year 2018. Alternatively, each permit owner could also allow their permit to expire by failing to renew it. Over 60 percent of the total limited access groundfish permits are enrolled in a sector. Ownership data collected from permit holders indicates that there are 701 distinct business entities that hold at least 1 limited-access groundfish permit. Of these, 695 entities are categorized as small and 6 are categorized as large entities per the SBA guidelines. All 695 small entities would be directly regulated by this proposed action. Using the threshold of greater than 50 percent of gross sales from the sales of regulated groundfish, 116 entities are groundfish-dependent, all of which are small, and all of which are finfish commercial harvesting businesses.
        This action would allocate quota to groundfish sectors for fishing year 2018 and approve a new regulatory exemption. Sectors must receive ACE each fishing year in order to operate and for its member vessels to fish. Sectors operate under a series of “universal” regulatory exemptions that exempt sector vessels from most of the effort controls in the FMP. This includes exemptions from days-at-sea, seasonal closures, and trip limits. These exemptions allow sector participants to maximize per-trip yields, more fully harvest healthy stocks, and time the market. Additionally, this action would approve a new regulatory exemption for sectors to fish additional nets in certain areas to increase fishing opportunities for monkfish, which is a healthy non-groundfish stock.
        Overall, the measures proposed in Framework 57 are expected to have a positive economic effect on small entities. Because this proposed action would allocate ACE to groundfish sectors based on the Framework 57 specifications, along with approving a new regulatory exemption, this action is also expected to have a positive economic effect on small entities. This action would provide additional fishing opportunities, enhanced operational flexibility, and increased profits to fishermen. This is expected to translate into increased catch per unit effort and higher ex-vessel fish prices, which would lower marginal costs and increase profitability, compared to if no action was taken.
        The proposed action is not expected to have a significant or substantial impact on small entities. The impacts on the regulated small entities identified in this analysis are expected to be positive relative to the no action alternative, which would prevent sector participants from fishing or require them to fish in the common pool fishery. In the common pool, most limited-access multispecies permit holders would be subject to days-at-sea, trip limits, gear restrictions, size limits, and closures intended to control overall fishing mortality. In addition, these effort controls would be subject to in-season modifications based on industry-wide landings. Under the proposed action, small entities would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to large entities, and the regulations would not reduce the profit for any small entities relative to taking no action. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

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

          Dated: March 19, 2018.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-05919 Filed 3-22-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P