Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 23, 2007 / Notices 2863 

Claimed attacks will be evaluated for 

practicality. 

C.2 Cost 

C.2.1 Computational efficiency: The 

evaluation of computational efficiency 

will be applicable to both hardware and 

software implementations. 

Computational efficiency essentially 

refers to the throughput of an 

implementation. NIST will use the 

optimized software of each submission 

(discussed in B.2 above) on a variety of 

platforms and analyze their 

computation efficiency for a variety of 

message lengths. The data in the 

submission packages and any public 

comments on computational efficiency 

will also be taken into consideration. 

C.2.2 Memory requirements: The 

memory required for hardware and 

software implementations of the 

candidate algorithm will be considered 

during the evaluation process. 

Memory requirements will include 

such factors as gate counts for hardware 

implementations, and code size and 

RAM requirements for software 

implementations. 

NIST will use the optimized software 

of each submission (discussed in B.2 

above) on a variety of platforms and test 

their memory requirements for a variety 

of message lengths. The data in the 

submission packages and any public 

comments on memory requirements will 

also be taken into consideration. 

C.3 Algorithm and Implementation 

Characteristics 

C.3.1 Flexibility: Candidate 

algorithms with greater flexibility that 

meet the needs of more users are 

preferable. Some examples of 

‘‘flexibility’’ include (but are not limited 

to) the following: 

i. The algorithm is parameterizable, 

e.g. can accommodate additional 

rounds. 

ii. Implementations of the algorithm 

can be parallelized to achieve higher 

performance efficiency. 

iii. The algorithm can be implemented 

securely and efficiently in a wide 

variety of platforms, including 

constrained environments such as smart 

cards. 

C.3.2 Simplicity: A candidate 

algorithm will be judged according to 

relative simplicity of design. 

Dated: January 16, 2007. 

James E. Hill, 

Acting Deputy Director. 

[FR Doc. E7–927 Filed 1–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–CN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 070108002–7002–01; I.D. 

122706A] 

Listing Endangered and Threatened 

Species and Designating Critical 

Habitat: Petition to List Copper and 

Quillback Rockfishes in Puget Sound 

(Washington) as Threatened Species 

under the Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of finding. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have received a 

petition to list copper rockfish (Sebastes 

caurinus) and quillback rockfish (S. 

maliger) in Puget Sound (Washington) 

as threatened or endangered species 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). We find that the petition does 

not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned actions may be 

warranted. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and 

related materials are available on the 

Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ 

Other-Marine-Species/PS-MarineFishes.cfm, or upon request from the 

Chief, Protected Resources Division, 

NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 

1100, Portland, OR 97232. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Scott Rumsey, NMFS, Northwest 

Region, (503) 872–2791; or Marta 

Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources, (301) 713–1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 18, 2006, we received 

a petition from Mr. Sam Wright 

(Olympia, Washington) to list the Puget 

Sound Distinct Population Segments 

(DPSs) of copper and quillback rockfish 

as endangered or threatened species 

under the ESA. Copies of this petition 

are available from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES, above). 

ESA Statutory and Policy Provisions 

Section 4(b)(3) of the ESA contains 

provisions concerning petitions from 

interested persons requesting the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to 

list species under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(3)(A)). Section 4(b)(3)(A) 

requires that, to the maximum extent 

practicable, within 90 days after 

receiving such a petition, the Secretary 

make a finding whether the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

Our ESA implementing regulations 

define Asubstantial information@ as the 

amount of information that would lead 

a reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted. In evaluating a petitioned 

action, the Secretary considers whether 

the petition contains a detailed narrative 

justification for the recommended 

measure, including: past and present 

numbers and distribution of the species 

involved, and any threats faced by the 

species (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)); and 

information regarding the status of the 

species throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (50 CFR 

424.14(b)(2)(iii)). 

Under the ESA, a listing 

determination may address a species, 

subspecies, or a DPS of any vertebrate 

species which interbreeds when mature 

(16 U.S.C. 1532(15)). On February 7, 

1996, we and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) adopted a policy to 

clarify the agencies’ interpretation of the 

phrase ‘‘Distinct population segment of 

any species of vertebrate fish or 

wildlife’’ (ESA section 3(15)) for the 

purposes of listing, delisting, and 

reclassifying a species under the ESA 

(51 FR 4722). The joint DPS policy 

established two criteria that must be met 

for a population or group of populations 

to be considered a DPS: (1) The 

population segment must be discrete in 

relation to the remainder of the species 

(or subspecies) to which it belongs; and 

(2) the population segment must be 

significant to the remainder of the 

species (or subspecies) to which it 

belongs. 

A species, subspecies, or DPS is 

‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, and ‘‘threatened’’ if 

it is likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range (ESA 

Sections 3(6) and 3(19), respectively). 

Life History of Copper and Quillback 

Rockfish 

Copper Rockfish - Copper rockfish are 

found from the Gulf of Alaska 

southward to central Baja California 

(Eschmeyer et al., 1983; Stein and 

Hassler, 1989; Matthews, 1990a; Love, 

1991), including in Puget Sound 

(Buckley and Hueckel, 1985; Quinnel 

and Schmitt, 1991). Adult copper 

rockfish are found in nearshore waters 

from the surface to 183 m deep 

(Eschmeyer et al., 1983; Stein and 

Hassler, 1989). Larval and small 

juvenile copper rockfish are pelagic for 

several months and are frequently found 

mstockstill on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

2864 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 23, 2007 / Notices 

in surface waters and shallow habitats 

(Stein and Hassler, 1989; Love et al., 

1996). Juveniles use bays as nursery 

areas (Stein and Hassler, 1989) and 

recruit to nearshore benthic habitats 

(Matthews, 1990b) with cobble or rocky 

substrata. They are often associated with 

crevices, aquatic plants, and kelp 

holdfasts (Patten, 1973; Love, 1991; 

Love et al., 1996; Buckley, 1997). Adults 

inhabit natural rocky reefs, artificial 

reefs, and rock piles, are closely 

associated with submerged vegetation 

(Matthews, 1990c), and exhibit strong 

site fidelity (Stein and Hassler, 1989; 

Matthews, 1990c; Love, 1991). 

In Puget Sound, copper rockfish 

males and females become sexually 

mature at three to four years of age 

(Stein and Hassler, 1989). They spawn 

once a year and, like all Sebastes 

species, are ovoviviparous (i.e., eggs are 

fertilized internally, eggs develop 

within the mother nourished by an eggyolk sac, and larvae ‘‘hatch’’ internally 

or immediately after they are released). 

Mating occurs from March to May, 

embryos are mature by April, and larvae 

are released from April to June (DeLacy 

et al., 1964; Matthews, 1990b). Adults 

move inshore to release their young 

(Matthews, 1990a), and larvae remain 

pelagic until they are 40 to 50 mm long 

(Stein and Hassler, 1989). Copper 

rockfish live up to 55 years (Matthews, 

1990b) and can grow to 57 cm length 

(Eschmeyer et al., 1983; Stein and 

Hassler, 1989). 

Quillback Rockfish - Quillback 

rockfish are found from the northern 

Channel Islands in southern California 

(Stout et al., 2001), to the Gulf of Alaska 

(Miller and Lea, 1972), including the 

Strait of Georgia, the San Juan Islands, 

and Puget Sound (Clemons and Wilby, 

1961; Hart, 1973; Matthews, 1990a; 

Love, 1991). Adult quillback rockfish 

are found in subtidal waters to depths 

of 275 m (Hart, 1973; Love, 1991), but 

typically inhabit depths from 41 m to 60 

m (Murie et al., 1994; Love, 1991). 

Larval and juvenile stages occupy midwater habitats before they recruit to 

sandy substrata in nearshore waters 

associated with eelgrass, bull kelp beds, 

natural rocky reefs, and artificial reefs 

((Matthews, 1990b; West et al., 1994). 

Adults are solitary, exhibit site fidelity 

(Petten, 1973), live at or near the bottom 

(Miller and Lea, 1972; Matthews, 1988; 

Rosenthal et al., 1988; Love, 1991), and 

are associated with artificial and natural 

reefs, coarse sand, or pebble substrata 

with flat-bladed kelps (Love, 1991). In 

Puget Sound, most female quillback 

rockfish become sexually mature at 2 or 

3 (Gowan, 1983). Mating takes place in 

March, and the larvae are released from 

April to July, with a peak early in the 

season (Matthews, 1988, 1990b; Love, 

1991). Female quillback rockfish 

probably move to non-reef habitats to 

release larvae (Matthews 1988). 

Quillback rockfish can live to be more 

than 50 years old (Gowan, 1983; Love, 

1991), and can grow to 61 cm (Clemons 

and Wilby, 1961; Hart, 1973; Love, 

1991). April 3,2001, we concluded that 

these DPSs did not warrant listing as a 

threatened or endangered species. 

Although these DPSs had experienced 

declines over the last 40 years likely due 

to overharvest, we noted that the 

populations appeared stable over the 

most recent 5 years, and that reductions 

in the recreational fishery bag limit and 

the establishment of voluntary no-take 

marine reserves had reduced levels of 

fishing mortality (66 FR 17659). 

Analysis of Petition 

We evaluated the information 

provided and/or cited in Mr. Wright’s 

recent petition to determine if it 

presents substantial scientific and 

commercial information to suggest that 

the Puget Sound DPSs of copper and 

quillback rockfish may warrant listing 

under the ESA. Additionally, we 

reviewed other information readily 

available to our scientists (i.e., currently 

within agency files) to determine 

whether there is general agreement with 

the information presented in the 

petition. We addressed three questions 

in our analysis of the petition: (1) Does 

the petition or other information in our 

files present substantial information 

indicating that the delineated Puget 

Sound DPSs might warrant 

reconsideration?; (2) Does the petition 

present substantial information 

indicating that the 2001 extinction risk 

analyses or listing determinations might 

warrant reconsideration?; and (3) Does 

the petition present substantial 

information indicating that the DPSs are 

in danger of extinction (endangered), or 

likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future (threatened), 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

their ranges? Our Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center evaluated the scientific 

merits of the petition with respect to 

these three questions, concluding that 

the petition does not present substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned actions may be warranted, 

nor that would warrant a reevaluation of 

the conclusions of the 2001 BRT 

(Varanasi, 2006). Below are our 

summary and analysis of the 

information presented in the petition, 

organized according to the questions 

outlined above. 

Does the Petition or Other Information 

in Our Files Present Substantial 

Information Indicating that the 

Delineated DPSs May Warrant 

Reconsideration? 

With respect to the delineation of 

Puget Sound DPSs of copper and 

quillback rockfish, the petitioner 

concludes ‘‘There does not appear [to] 

be any critical flaws in the original 

assessment or any compelling recent 

information from the past five years that 

would justify re-examination of the 

Puget Sound DPSs previously defined 

by Stout et al. (2001).’’ We agree with 

the petitioner’s conclusion. For copper 

rockfish, the 2001 BRT cited genetic 

data and analyses from Seeb (1998), 

Wimberger (unpublished), and 

Buonaccorsi (in prep) for genetic 

information relevant to the DPS 

question. The Buonaccorsi data have 

since been published (Buonaccorsi et 

al., 2002), and the conclusions and 

analyses in the final publication are 

consistent with the conclusions of the 

2001 BRT. We are aware of no new 

genetic data available for copper or 

quillback rockfish. There is ongoing 

research at the University of 

Washington to analyze otolith 

microchemistry in quillback rockfish 

that, when complete, may provide 

useful data to help confirm or refine the 

2001 BRT’s DPS conclusions for this 

species. 

Does the Petition Present Substantial 

Information Indicating That the 2001 

Extinction Risk Analyses or Listing 

Determinations May Warrant 

Reconsideration? 

Criticism of the 2001 BRT Approach 

- The petitioner criticizes the general 

risk assessment approach used by the 

2001 BRT. The petitioner contends that 

the approach relies on subjective and 

qualitative personal opinions and 

suggests that, with different 

membership, another BRT may have 

reached different risk conclusions. The 

risk assessment methods employed by 

the 2001 BRT are the same as those used 

in NMFS status reviews for West Coast 

species since 1998 including Pacific 

salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.), Pacific 

cod (Gadus macrocephalus), Pacific 

hake (Merluccius productus), Pacific 

herring (Clupea pallasi), southern 

resident killer whales (Orcinus orca), 

and North American green sturgeon 

(Acipenser medirostris). These methods 

are described in detail by Wainwright 

and Kope (1999). 

The petitioner points out some 

potential problems with this approach 

of using expert scientific panels to 

evaluate status information that often 

mstockstill on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 23, 2007 / Notices 2865 

includes incomplete and/or qualitative 

information. Such data limitations 

necessitate subjective evaluations of 

risk. The petitioner is correct that care 

must be taken to avoid or minimize the 

potential for status review conclusions 

to be affected by the composition of a 

given BRT. To minimize the risk of 

individual biases influencing a BRT’s 

risk assessments, we endeavor to 

convene BRTs composed of several 

members (e.g., the 2001 BRT that 

reviewed the subject species was 

composed of six expert members) 

reflecting a diversity of expertise and 

perspectives. Our approach to risk 

assessment is also designed to apply a 

consistent and transparent methodology 

that makes use of the best available 

scientific data and analyses, including 

both quantitative and qualitative 

information. We agree with the 

petitioner that using a variety of 

appropriate methods to assess 

extinction risk is prudent, and this is 

the approach we have taken in our 

status reviews. In the subject 2001 status 

review, the BRT also evaluated 

extinction risk according to the method 

outlined by Musick et al. (2000). This 

approach is similar to the Wainwright 

and Kope (1999) method mentioned 

above, but evaluates risk relative to the 

reproductive potential and generation 

time of the species under consideration. 

The BRT considered the results from 

both the Wainwright and Kope (1999) 

and Musick et al. (2000) methods in 

reaching their conclusions that copper 

and quillback rockfish in Puget Sound 

are ‘‘neither in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so’’ (Stout et al., 2001). 

Criticism of the BRT’s Consideration 

of Age Structure and Longevity - The 

petitioner also asserts, quoting 

extensively from Berkeley et al. (2004), 

that the 2001 BRT did not explicitly 

account for the ‘‘truncation’’ of the age 

structure of rockfish populations by 

overfishing, and, consequently, 

underestimated the extinction risk of 

these rockfish DPSs in Puget Sound. We 

do not believe that the findings of 

Berkeley et al. (2004), published since 

the 2001 status review, represent 

substantial information indicating that 

the 2001 BRT’s risk assessments warrant 

re-evaluation, or that the DPSs may be 

endangered or threatened. The 

following paragraphs explain the 

information considered in reaching this 

conclusion. 

Berkeley et al. (2004) demonstrated in 

the laboratory that larvae of black 

rockfish (S. melanops) born of older 

females survived longer in unfed 

conditions than larvae originating from 

younger fish. The mechanism ostensibly 

underlying this result is a greater 

volume of the larval energy reserves 

(i.e., oil globule) at birth, which is 

strongly related to maternal age. The 

ability of larval fish to survive a period 

of starvation is often critical because of 

the temporal and spatial 

unpredictability of food resources. The 

results of Berkeley et al. (2004) suggest 

that older females will produce larvae 

having greater average survival, while 

younger females will produce progeny 

with the highest larval mortality rates 

(hereafter we refer to this as the 

‘‘maternal-age effect’’). Berkeley et al. 

(2004) argue that rockfish stock 

collapses may have resulted from an 

under-appreciation among fisheries 

managers of the maternal-age effect and 

the potentially disproportionate 

contribution of larger and older females 

to recruitment and maintaining 

sustainable rockfish populations over 

the long term. 

Directly applying these laboratory 

findings to the wild populations of 

copper and quillback rockfishes in 

Puget Sound is problematic. First, the 

Berkeley et al. (2004) work did not 

actually measure differences in larval 

survival in the field. Moreover, even if 

there is a maternal-age effect, its 

population-level effect on recruitment 

will depend strongly on the 

population’s age structure and age-atmaturity. For example, if the population 

is dominated by younger age classes, the 

survival advantage of larvae produced 

by older and larger females (which are 

few in number) is overridden by the 

larger number of females in younger age 

classes despite the relatively higher 

mortality of their progeny. The 

maternal-age effect may also be 

diminished depending on the age at 

which females become reproductively 

mature. In a recent study by O’Farrell 

and Botsford (2006) on black rockfish, 

researchers quantitatively investigated 

the fisheries implications of the 

Berkeley et al. (2004) maternal-age 

effect. O’Farrell and Botsford (2006) 

found that, although the youngest 

females produce progeny with the 

highest level of larval mortality, only a 

small proportion of the females in the 

youngest age class are sexually mature, 

and thus the youngest females represent 

a very small proportion of the total 

reproductive potential of the stock. For 

populations with similar life-history 

traits to the black rockfish, projections 

of population dynamics would be nearly 

identical whether the maternal-age 

effect was included (O’Farrell and 

Botsford, 2006). Age-specific abundance 

data for Puget Sound was not available 

to the 2001 BRT, and at present there 

are no data specifically addressing the 

importance of the maternal-age effect for 

copper or quillback rockfish. However, 

given the similarity in life-history traits 

of these species to black rockfish, the 

subject of the O’Farrell and Botsford 

(2006) study, it seems unlikely that the 

maternal-age effect would alter the 

conclusions of the 2001 status review. 

Criticism of the Consideration of 

Fishing Impacts - The petitioner also 

criticized the 2001 determinations not 

to list under the ESA for failing to 

adequately consider adverse genetic 

impacts from fishing. The petitioner 

notes that fisheries remove the largest 

and oldest fish in the targeted 

population, and thus may have the 

effect of selecting against those fish that 

are genetically predisposed to fast 

growth and late maturation. The 

petitioner asserts that this effect has 

been largely ignored by fisheries 

managers who allegedly assume that 

exploited populations maintain their 

inherent rates of productivity. The 

petitioner cites Olsen et al. (2004) and 

Hutchings (2004), suggesting that heavy 

and continuous fishing pressure, by 

removing fast-growing, late-maturing 

fish, can select for slower growing 

individuals and result in the permanent 

loss of genetically based traits. We agree 

that some decrease in the relative 

abundance of older spawners is an 

unavoidable consequence of fisheries. 

Although the 2001 BRT did not 

explicitly discuss the potential impacts 

of such a decrease, it is implicit in the 

historical decline observed in the 

overall abundance of the copper and 

quillback rockfish DPSs. In its 

conclusions, the BRT acknowledged the 

historical decline and the fisheries’

likely contribution to that decline. noted 

that these DPSs appeared to be stable 

over the most recent 5 years preceding 

the 2001 status review, indicating that 

any reduction in the relative abundance 

of older spawners, and any potential 

genetic impacts, had not resulted in 

persistent declines in recruitment. 

The petitioner also criticizes the 

management of rockfish fisheries by the 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (WDFW), in particular asserting 

that WDFW’s 2000 regulation reducing 

the daily bag limit for rockfish to one 

fish is an inadequate measure for 

conserving Puget Sound rockfish stocks. 

WDFW’s rockfish fishing regulations, 

and their impacts as manifested in the 

status information for the Puget Sound 

copper and quillback rockfish DPSs, 

were considered in the 2001 status 

review. In addition to the establishment 

of voluntary no-take marine reserves, 

the 2000 reduction in the recreation 

fishery bag limit was noted in the 2001 

determinations not to list as a measure 

mstockstill on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

2866 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 23, 2007 / Notices 

that had reduced historical levels of 

fishery mortality. The petitioner further 

asserts that a 2004 regulation restricting 

spear and recreational fishing for 

rockfish to periods when fisheries were 

open for lingcod and/or Pacific salmon 

inadequately limits fishing effort and 

mortality during the open fishing 

periods. We recognize that the 

petitioner believes that WDFW could 

enact regulations to further protect 

Puget Sound rockfish stocks. However, 

the fishing regulations the petitioner 

criticizes represent a reduction in 

previous fishing levels, and do not 

portend an increasing threat due to 

fishing for the copper and quillback 

rockfish Puget Sound DPSs. 

Does the Petition Present Substantial 

Information Indicating That the DPSs 

May be Endangered or Threatened? 

The petitioner presents no new data 

or information regarding the abundance, 

trends, productivity, or distribution for 

these species. With respect to the 

maternal-age effect discussed above, the 

petitioner presents no substantive 

evidence that the age composition of 

these stocks has actually been truncated, 

or that the maternal-age effect is an 

important determinant for copper or 

quillback rockfish recruitment. 

Similarly, we do not have any new data 

on hand relevant to assessing the status 

of copper and quillback rockfishes in 

Puget Sound. 

We are aware that WDFW is in the 

process of compiling new abundance 

data and finalizing a status report for 

these species. As yet, the new data and 

analyses are not available. 

Petition Finding 

After reviewing the information 

contained in the petition, as well as 

information readily available to our 

scientists, we determine that the 

petition fails to present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating the petitioned actions may be 

warranted. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

Dated: January 17, 2007. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–943 Filed 1–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; 

National Sea Grant Review Panel 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

schedule and proposed agenda of a 

forthcoming meeting of the Sea Grant 

Review Panel. The meeting will have 

several purposes. Panel members will 

discuss and provide advice on the 

National Sea Grant College Program in 

the areas of program evaluation, 

strategic planning, education and 

extension, science and technology 

programs, and other matters as 

described below. 

DATES: The announced meeting is 

scheduled for: February 21–22, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Headquarters of the 

Consortium for Oceanographic Research 

& Education (CORE), 1201 New York 

Avenue, NW., 4th Floor Conference 

Room, Washington, DC 20005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Joseph Brown, National Sea Grant 

College Program, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 1315 EastWest Highway, Room 11717, Silver 

Spring, Maryland 20910, (301) 734–

1088. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Panel, 

which consists of a balanced 

representation from academia, industry, 

state government and citizens groups, 

was established in 1976 by Section 209 

of the Sea Grant Improvement Act (Pub. 

L. 94–461, 33 U.S.C. 1128). The Panel 

advises the Secretary of Commerce and 

the Director of the National Sea Grant 

College Program with respect to 

operations under the Act, and such 

other matters as the Secretary refers to 

them for review and advice. 

A link to the agenda for the meeting 

can be found on the web at http:// 

www.seagrant.noaa.gov/leadership/ 

review_panel.html. 

If you do not have access to the 

internet, please contact Joe Brown at the 

address above for a hard copy. 

This meeting will be open to the 

public. 

Dated: January 16, 2007. 

Mark E. Brown, 

Chief Financial Officer, Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–848 Filed 1–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–KA–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 011707D] 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council’s (Council) Vessel 

Monitoring Systems (VMS)/Enforcement 

Committee will meet to consider actions 

affecting New England fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, February 6, 2007, at 8 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Sheraton Harborside, 250 Market 

Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801; 

telephone: (603) 431–2300. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The items 

of discussion in the committee’s agenda 

are as follows: 

1. Introduction: safety, regulation 

compliance, and familiarizing industry 

with proper use of VMS. 

2. Presentation by Office for Law 

Enforcement: the capabilities and 

limitations of VMS as an enforcement 

tool. 

3. Comments and recommendations 

from the public, VMS users, state 

agencies, and the Coast Guard. The 

committee received the following 

request: 

a. Safe harbor notification, to suspend 

fishing trip, due to storms or other 

emergencies; 

b. Declaration in/out of a fishery 

while at sea, rather than in port; 

c. Closed area transit notification, to 

replace gear stowage requirement. 

4. Industry and law enforcement 

dialog on VMS usage, and how it can be 

improved. 

5. Closed session: selection of new 

advisors and any other issues the 

committee finds pertinent. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

mstockstill on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES