14360 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 53 / Thursday, March 19, 2015 / Notices 

1U.S. Department of Commerce, Internet Policy 

Task Force, Notice of Inquiry, Cybersecurity, 

Innovation, and the Internet Economy, Dkt. No. 

100721305–0305–01, 75 FR 44216 (July 28, 2010), 

available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federalregister-notices/2010/cybersecurity-innovation-andinternet-economy. Responses to the Notice of 

Inquiry are available at: http://www.nist.gov/itl/

cybercomments.cfm. 

2U.S. Department of Commerce, Internet Policy 

Task Force, Cybersecurity, Innovation, and the 

Internet Economy (June 2011) (‘‘Green Paper’’), 

available at: http://www.nist.gov/itl/upload/

Cybersecurity_Green-Paper_FinalVersion.pdf. 

3U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security, Notice of 

Inquiry, Models To Advance Voluntary Corporate 

Notification to Consumers Regarding the Illicit Use 

of Computer Equipment by Botnets and Related 

Malware, Dkt. No. 110829543–1541–01, 76 FR 

58466 (September 21, 2011), available at: http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/botnet_

rfi.pdf. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Monday, April 13, 2015, from 1:30 p.m. 

until 4 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held 

via Internet Webinar. Detailed 

connection details are available at 

http://www.mafmc.org. To join the 

Webinar, follow this link and enter the 

online meeting room: http://

mafmc.adobeconnect.com/

april2015scoq/. 

Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, 800 North State 

Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; 

telephone: (302) 674–2331. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher M. Moore Ph.D., Executive 

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, 800 N. State 

Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; 

telephone: (302) 526–5255. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of the meeting is to develop a 

fishery performance report by the 

Council’s Surfclam and Ocean Quahog 

Advisory Panel. The intent of this report 

is to facilitate structured input from the 

Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Advisory 

Panel members to the Council and its 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC). 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before these groups for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

listed in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

The meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to M. 

Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic 

Council Office, (302) 526–5251, at least 

5 days prior to the meeting date. 

Dated: March 16, 2015. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06317 Filed 3–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

[Docket No. 150312253–5253–01] 

RIN 0660–XC018 

Stakeholder Engagement on 

Cybersecurity in the Digital Ecosystem 

AGENCY: National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Request for Public Comment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

Internet Policy Task Force (IPTF) is 

requesting comment to identify 

substantive cybersecurity issues that 

affect the digital ecosystem and digital 

economic growth where broad 

consensus, coordinated action, and the 

development of best practices could 

substantially improve security for 

organizations and consumers. The IPTF 

invites public comment on these issues 

from all stakeholders with an interest in 

cybersecurity, including the 

commercial, academic and civil society 

sectors, and from relevant federal, state, 

local, and tribal entities. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 18, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted by email to 

securityRFC2015@ntia.doc.gov. 

Comments submitted by email should 

be machine-searchable and should not 

be copy-protected. Written comments 

also may be submitted by mail to the 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, 

Attn: Cybersecurity RFC 2015, 

Washington, DC 20230. Responders 

should include the name of the person 

or organization filing the comment, as 

well as a page number, on each page of 

their submissions. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted to http:// 

www.ntia.doc.gov/category/internetpolicy-task-force without change. All 

personal identifying information (e.g., 

name, address) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter may be publicly 

accessible. Do not submit Confidential 

Business Information or otherwise 

sensitive or protected information. 

NTIA will accept anonymous 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allan Friedman, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 

20230; Telephone: (202) 482–4281; 

Email: afriedman@ntia.doc.gov. Please 

direct media inquiries to NTIA’s Office 

of Public Affairs: (202) 482–7002. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The Department of 

Commerce IPTF published a Notice of 

Inquiry (NOI) in 2010, focusing on the 

relationship between cybersecurity and 

the pace of innovation in the 

information economy.1 Based on the 

comments received, the Department of 

Commerce published a Green Paper, 

Cybersecurity, Innovation, and the 

Internet Economy, in 2011.2 The Green 

Paper focused on the sector of the 

economy that creates or uses the 

Internet or networking services and falls 

outside the classification of critical 

infrastructure, as defined by existing 

law and Administration policy. In that 

document, the IPTF focused on two 

themes. First, there are real, evolving 

threats in cyberspace that not only put 

businesses and their online operations 

at risk, but threaten to undermine the 

trust on which much of the digital 

economy depends. Second, the pace of 

innovation in the highly dynamic digital 

ecosystem makes traditional regulation 

and compliance difficult and inefficient. 

Stakeholder response to the Green 

Paper provided a roadmap for the IPTF 

to continue its cybersecurity policy 

work. In September 2011, the IPTF, in 

coordination with the Department of 

Homeland Security, issued a NOI on 

possible approaches to creating a 

voluntary industry code of conduct to 

address the detection, notification, and 

mitigation of botnets, which led to an 

industry-led working group.3 In 

February 2013, the White House 

released Executive Order 13636 which 

called upon the Department of 

Commerce to work with industry to 

develop a framework for use by U.S. 

critical infrastructure to improve 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 53 / Thursday, March 19, 2015 / Notices 14361 

4Exec. Order No. 14636, Improving Critical 

Infrastructure Cybersecurity, 78 FR 11739 (February 

12, 2013), available at https://

www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/19/2013- 

03915/improving-critical-infrastructurecybersecurity. 5National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure 

Cybersecurity Version 1.0, (February 12, 2014), 

available at: http://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/

upload/cybersecurity-framework-021214.pdf. 

6 Green Paper at ii. 

7U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, Notice of 

Inquiry, Experience With the Framework for 

Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, Dkt. 

No. 140721609–4609–01, 79 FR 50891 (August 26, 

2014), available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/ 

articles/2014/08/26/2014-20315/experience-withthe-framework-for-improving-critical-infrastructurecybersecurity. 

8See, e.g., comments from the Information 

Technology Industry Council (ITI), US Telecom 

Association, and Microsoft on the Cybersecurity 

Framework RFI (August 2014), available at: http:// 

csrc.nist.gov/cyberframework/rfi_comments_10_

2014.html. 

9See 47 U.S.C. 901(c) (describing NTIA’s policy 

roles, including ‘‘[p]romoting the benefits of 

technological development in the United States for 

all users of telecommunications and information 

facilities;’’ ‘‘[f]ostering national safety and security, 

economic prosperity, and the delivery of critical 

social services through telecommunications;’’ and 

‘‘[f]acilitating and contributing to the full 

development of competition, efficiency, and the 

free flow of commerce in domestic and 

international telecommunications.’’) 

10More information about the IPTF’s work on 

privacy and copyright initiatives, including 

multiple Requests for Comment, are available at: 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/internet-policytask-force. 

11More information about the Cybersecurity 

Framework is available at: http://www.nist.gov/

cyberframework; the National Cybersecurity Center 

of Excellence at: http://nccoe.nist.gov; and the 

National Strategy for Trusted Identities in 

Cyberspace at: http://www.nist.gov/nstic. 

cybersecurity practices, and to 

undertake a study on incentives to 

encourage private sector adoption of 

cybersecurity protections.4

The Cybersecurity Framework was 

developed by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST), an 

agency of the Department of Commerce, 

with the aid of broad stakeholder 

participation.5 The Cybersecurity 

Framework offers organizations a guide 

for understanding and implementing 

appropriate cybersecurity protections, 

and has been applied by a range of 

organizations, including a number that 

fall ‘‘outside the orbit of critical 

infrastructure or key resources,’’ the 

focus of the Green Paper effort.6

Following launch of the Cybersecurity 

Framework, NIST published a Request 

for Information (RFI) in August 2014 

asking for stakeholder feedback on 

Cybersecurity Framework awareness, 

use, and next steps.7 In response to 

questions regarding next steps that 

could complement the Cybersecurity 

Framework process, stakeholders again 

identified the IPTF as a vehicle to 

facilitate further collaborative 

cybersecurity work, building on the 

models of multistakeholder 

participation initially discussed in the 

Green Paper.8

Accordingly, the IPTF proposes to 

facilitate one or more multistakeholder 

processes around key cybersecurity 

issues facing the digital ecosystem and 

economy. Multistakeholder processes, 

built on the principles of openness, 

transparency, and consensus, can 

generate collective guidance and 

foundations for coordinated voluntary 

action. Potential outcomes would vary 

by the issue discussed, but could 

include voluntary policy guidelines, 

procedures, or best practices. In the 

digital ecosystem, the rapid pace of 

innovation often outstrips the ability of 

regulators to effectively administer key 

policy questions. Open, voluntary, and 

consensus-driven processes can work to 

safeguard the interests of all 

stakeholders while still allowing the 

digital economy to thrive. 

The focus of these processes is to 

address discrete security challenges in 

the digital ecosystem where 

collaborative voluntary action between 

diverse actors can substantially improve 

security for everyone. Each process will 

engage a wide range of participants to 

ensure that the outcomes reflect the 

consensus of the relevant community, 

and are fair, voluntary, and stakeholderdriven. 

These processes will be designed to 

complement, rather than duplicate 

existing initiatives, both inside and 

outside the government. They will be 

coordinated by the IPTF, under the 

leadership of the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA). Under its 

statutory authority, NTIA undertakes 

Internet policy initiatives that serve to 

protect, promote and reinforce an open, 

innovative Internet ecosystem and 

digital economy, and is the executive 

branch lead for promoting the 

multistakeholder approach to Internet 

policymaking.9 In partnership with its 

IPTF partners, NTIA has addressed 

other key challenges in Internet policy 

through multistakeholder processes, 

including an ongoing set of initiatives 

around privacy and digital copyright.10

These proposed cybersecurity processes 

will be coordinated with standards and 

technology work underway within the 

Department of Commerce focused on 

cybersecurity, including the 

Cybersecurity Framework, the National 

Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, and 

the National Strategy for Trusted 

Identities in Cyberspace.11 Through the 

comprehensive scope of all these efforts, 

the Department of Commerce seeks to 

foster innovation and to better secure 

the ecosystem to ensure that businesses, 

organizations and individuals can 

expand their trust, investment and 

engagement in the digital economy, 

while also reinforcing the voluntary, 

multistakeholder approach to Internet 

policymaking. 

Request for Comment: IPTF plans to 

facilitate a series of discussions around 

key cybersecurity challenges that may 

be addressed through a better shared 

understanding of the nature of the 

problem, and where multistakeholder 

discussion can be a catalyst for selfcoordination of cybersecurity activities. 

Outcomes would depend on the issues 

discussed, but may involve 

combinations of principles, practices, 

and the voluntary application of 

policies and existing standards. 

Initially, IPTF seeks to conduct a 

cybersecurity multistakeholder process 

focused on a definable area where 

consumers and organizations will 

achieve the greatest benefit and 

consensus in a reasonable timeframe. 

While IPTF will avoid duplicating 

existing work, areas where stakeholders 

have identified the problem or begun to 

seek consensus around specific 

practices could provide a useful starting 

point. 

To identify potential cybersecurity 

topics that would benefit from a 

multistakeholder process, IPTF seeks 

comment from stakeholders on the 

following questions: 

1. What security challenges could be 

best addressed by bringing together the 

relevant participants in an open, neutral 

forum to explore coordinated, voluntary 

action through principles, practices, and 

guidelines? For each issue, also provide 

comment on: 

i. Why this topic is a good fit for a 

multistakeholder process, and whether 

stakeholders might reasonably be 

expected to come to some consensus; 

ii. Why such a process would benefit 

the digital ecosystem as a whole; 

iii. How long a facilitated, participantled process on this topic should take to 

come to consensus; 

iv. What form an actionable outcome 

might take; and 

v. What pre-existing organizations 

and work already exist on the topic. 

2. Please comment on which of the 

following topics could result in 

actionable, collective progress by 

stakeholders in a multistakeholder 

setting. For each issue, also provide 

comment on: 

i. Why or why not this topic is a good 

fit for a multistakeholder process, and 

whether stakeholders might reasonably 

be expected to come to some consensus; 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14362 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 53 / Thursday, March 19, 2015 / Notices 

12U.S. Department of Commerce, Press Release, 

White House Announces Public-Private Partnership 

Initiatives to Combat Botnets (May 30, 2012), 

available at: http://www.commerce.gov/news/pressreleases/2012/05/30/white-house-announcespublic-private-partnership-initiatives-combat-b. 

13See, e.g., Open Web Application Security 

Project (OWASP), Top 10 List (‘‘represent[ing] a 

broad consensus about the most critical web 

application security flaws’’), available at: https://

www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Top_

Ten_Project. 

14See, e.g., NIST Cyber-Physical Systems 

Homepage, available at: http://www.nist.gov/cps; 

see also, FTC Staff, Internet of Things: Privacy & 

Security in a Connected World (January 2015), 

available at: http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/

documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-staffreport-november-2013-workshop-entitled-internetthings-privacy/150127iotrpt.pdf. 

15See, e.g., Vulnerability Disclosure Overview, 

ISO Standard 29147 (2014), available at: http://

www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_

detail.htm?csnumber=45170. 

ii. Why such a process would benefit 

the digital ecosystem as a whole; 

iii. How long a facilitated, participantled process on this topic should take to 

come to consensus; 

iv. What form an actionable outcome 

might take; and 

v. What pre-existing organizations 

and work already exist on the topic. 

Network and Infrastructure Security 

(a) Botnet Mitigation. Disrupting 

botnets requires coordinated action and 

transparency between ISPs, vendors, 

consumers, and the public sector, such 

as previous efforts of the voluntary 

public-private partnership between the 

U.S. Office of the Cybersecurity 

Coordinator and the U.S. Departments 

of Commerce and Homeland Security 

related to ISP codes of conduct.12 What 

additional collective steps can be taken 

to support efforts to create awareness 

and manage the effects of botnets? 

(b) Trust and Security in Core Internet 

Infrastructure: Naming, Routing, and 

Public Key Infrastructure. Key aspects of 

the Internet’s core infrastructure were 

designed and deployed without explicit 

security mechanisms (e.g., the Domain 

Name System (DNS) and Border 

Gateway Protocol (BGP)) and new 

threats have been discovered in the 

Internet’s Public-Key Infrastructure (i.e., 

PKIX). Technical solutions have been 

developed for many of these issues (e.g., 

DNSSEC, BGPSec and RPKI, DANE and 

certificate transparency) but uptake has 

been slow. What collective action can be 

taken to promote the voluntary adoption 

and diffusion of existing technical 

solutions to make the infrastructure 

more trustworthy? 

(c) Domain Name System (DNS), 

Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), and 

Transport Layer Security (TLS) 

Certificates. Key aspects of the Internet 

infrastructure have long been known to 

be vulnerable. While technical solutions 

exist for security vulnerabilities in 

routing, the domain name system and 

TLS certificates, uptake has been slow 

or is just beginning. What collective 

action can be taken to promote the 

voluntary adoption and diffusion of 

technical solutions, such as DNS 

Security (DNSSEC), to make the 

infrastructure more trustworthy? 

(d) Open Source Assurance. Many 

organizations depend on open source 

projects for a wide range of purposes 

across the digital economy. How can 

stakeholders better support improving 

the security of open source projects, and 

the distribution of patches? 

(e) Malware Mitigation. Disrupting 

and mitigating malware and malware 

networks can sometimes adversely 

impact consumers and stakeholders 

who may be inadvertently caught-up in 

the incident. How can existing models 

of mitigation and disruption better 

incorporate the needs and concerns of 

all relevant stakeholders? 

Web Security and Consumer Trust 

(f) Web Security. Many consumers 

assume that their connections with Web 

sites are secure, and that the Web sites 

themselves are secure, when there is 

little guarantee that safeguards are in 

place. What actions can improve web 

security and trust for consumers, 

including transport layer (Transport 

Layer Security, or TLS, often referred to 

as Secure Sockets Layer, or SSL) and 

web application security, potentially 

building on the success of existing 

stakeholder initiatives? 13

(g) Malvertising. Several popular Web 

sites have inadvertently spread malware 

through ‘‘malvertising,’’ when malicious 

code is served from legitimate 

advertising networks. How can diverse 

stakeholders work together to limit this 

risk? 

(h) Trusted Downloads. Internet users 

often download content and 

applications online without clear 

assurance of the security of the site. Are 

there best practices and existing 

standards that providers of online 

applications and downloadable tools 

can adopt to ensure consumer 

protection without impacting 

innovation or business models? 

(i) Cybersecurity and the Internet of 

Things. As the Internet of Things 

matures and more systems integrate 

information technologies (IT) and 

operational technologies (OT), 

cybersecurity is enmeshed in a broader 

risk context that includes safety, 

reliability, and resilience.14 How can we 

foster the emergence of voluntary policy 

frameworks, informed by market 

dynamics, that enable Internet of Things 

innovation while addressing the full 

spectrum of risks associated with cyberphysical systems? 

(j) Privacy. As noted in the 

Cybersecurity Framework, privacy and 

civil liberties implications may arise 

when personal information is used, 

collected, processed, maintained, or 

disclosed in connection with an 

organization’s cybersecurity activities. 

How can risks to privacy or civil 

liberties arising from the application of 

cybersecurity measures or best practices 

be addressed in this process(es)? 

Business Processes and Enabling 

Markets 

(k) Managed Security Services: 

Requirements and Adoption. Managed 

security services (MSS) allow many 

firms, particularly small- and mediumsized businesses, to secure themselves 

without acquiring expensive in-house 

expertise, yet there are obstacles 

preventing seamless market cooperation 

and accountability between clients and 

vendors. How can a common 

understanding of security needs by 

stakeholders enable faster and more 

efficient adoption to improve security 

without sacrificing accountability? 

(l) Vulnerability Disclosure. The 

security of the digital economy depends 

on a productive relationship between 

security vendors and researchers of all 

types who discover vulnerabilities in 

existing technology and systems, and 

the providers, owners, and operators of 

those systems. How can stakeholders 

build on existing work in this space to 

responsibly manage the vulnerability 

disclosure process without putting 

consumers at risk in the short run? 15

(m) Security Investment and Metrics. 

Market solutions for security require 

good information. What types of robust, 

practical, and actionable metrics can be 

used within organizations to understand 

security investment, and by consumers 

and clients to understand security 

practices and promote market demand 

for security? 

This list is not exhaustive. The IPTF 

welcomes comments on any of these 

topics, as well as descriptions of other 

topics that the IPTF and stakeholders 

should consider for the cybersecurity 

multistakeholder process. Note that 

comments are directly sought on which 

topics to address through the process, 

rather than the best solution to any 

given question. 

3. Please comment on what factors 

should be considered in selecting the 

issues for multistakeholder processes. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 53 / Thursday, March 19, 2015 / Notices 14363 

IPTF also plans to draw on the Green 

Paper and earlier responses to past 

Requests for Public Comment; past 

respondents are invited to provide 

additional and updated viewpoints on 

IPTF efforts since those comments were 

provided. 

Implementing the Multistakeholder 

Process: Commenters also may wish to 

provide their views on how stakeholder 

discussions of the proposed issue(s) 

should be structured to ensure 

openness, transparency, and consensusbuilding. Analogies to other Internetrelated multistakeholder processes, 

whether they are concerned with policy 

or technical issues, could be especially 

valuable. 

4. Please comment on the best 

structure and mechanics for the 

process(es). If different security issues 

will require different process structures, 

please offer guidance on how to best 

design an appropriate process for the 

issue selected. 

5. How can the IPTF promote 

participation from a broad range of 

stakeholders, i.e., from industry, civil 

society, academia, and international 

partners? In particular, how can we 

promote engagement from small and 

medium-sized enterprises (SME) that 

play key roles in the digital ecosystem? 

How critical is location for meetings, 

and what factors should be considered 

in determining where to host meetings? 

6. What procedures and technologies 

can promote transparency of process, 

including promoting discussion 

between stakeholders and ensuring 

those outside the process can 

understand the decisions made? 

7. What types of consensus outcomes 

can promote real security benefits 

without further adding to a complianceoriented model of security? 

8. Would certain cybersecurity issues 

be better served by a single workshop or 

other event to raise awareness and 

promote independent action, rather than 

a longer multistakeholder, consensusbuilding process? 

9. How should evaluation of the 

processes be conducted to assess results 

and to ensure that recommendations 

and outcomes of the process remain 

actionable and current? 

Response to this Request for Public 

Comment is voluntary. Commenters are 

free to address any or all of the issues 

identified above, as well as provide 

information on other topics that they 

think are relevant to promoting 

voluntary coordinated action to address 

cybersecurity risks through an open, 

transparent, voluntary, consensus-based 

process. Please note that the 

Government will not pay for response 

preparation or for the use of any 

information contained in the response. 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 901(c). 

Dated: March 16, 2015. 

Angela Simpson, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Communications and Information. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06344 Filed 3–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0748–XD841 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a joint public meeting of its 

Monkfish Committee to consider actions 

affecting New England fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

Recommendations from this group will 

be brought to the full Council for formal 

consideration and action, if appropriate. 

DATES: This meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: 

Meeting address: The meeting will be 

held at the Radisson Airport Hotel, 2081 

Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886; 

telephone: (401) 739–3000; fax: (401) 

732–9309. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Monkfish Committee will meet to 

discuss draft alternatives for Framework 

Adjustment 9 that could modify the 

current days-at-Sea/trip limit system 

and possession limits. The Committee 

will review Plan Development Team 

analyses requested at the August 25, 

2014 meeting. The Committee will also 

discuss Monkfish Research Set-Aside 

(RSA) priorities for 2016. The 

Committee may also discuss other 

business as necessary, e.g. the RSA 

program. 

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 

listed in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at 

(978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to 

the meeting date. 

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

Dated: March 16, 2015. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06307 Filed 3–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD840 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council’s (Council) 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC) will meet to consider actions 

affecting New England fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 9 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Courtyard by Marriott/Boston Logan 

Airport, 225 McClellan Highway, 

Boston, MA 02128; telephone: (617) 

569–5250. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda items: 

The Committee will receive a report 

from Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Regime Shifts Working Group and 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES