9208 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

SUMMARY: NMFS published a proposed 

rule for developing identification and 

certification procedures to address 

illegal, unreported, or unregulated (IUU) 

fishing activities and bycatch of 

protected living marine resources 

(PLMRs) pursuant to the High Seas 

Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection 

Act (Moratorium Protection Act). This 

notice is to announce five public 

hearings and to discuss and collect 

comments on the issues described in the 

proposed rule. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received no later than 5:00 pm Eastern 

time on May 14, 2009. Public hearings 

will be held in March, April, and May 

of 2009. For specific dates and times, 

see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: Public hearings will be held 

in Boston, MA; Silver Spring, MD; La 

Jolla, CA; Seattle, WA; and Miami, FL. 

For specific locations, see 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Written 

comments on this action, identified by 

RIN 0648–AV51, may be submitted by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: Laura Cimo, Trade and 

Marine Stewardship Division, Office of 

International Affairs, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields, if you wish to 

remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Cimo (ph. 301–713–9090, fax 

301–713–9106, e-mail 

Laura.Cimo@noaa.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 14, 2009 (74 FR 2019), NMFS 

published a proposed rule for 

developing certification procedures to 

address IUU fishing activities and PLMR 

bycatch pursuant to the Moratorium 

Protection Act. The regulatory measures 

proposed in this rule encourage nations 

to cooperate with the United States 

towards ending IUU fishing and 

reducing the bycatch of PLMRs. 

Under the proposed rule, NMFS is 

required to identify foreign nations 

whose fishing vessels are engaged in 

IUU fishing or fishing activities or 

practices that result in bycatch of 

PLMRs in a biennial report to Congress. 

Once a nation has been identified in the 

biennial report, a notification and 

consultation process will be initiated. 

Subsequent to this process, NMFS will 

initiate a certification process regarding 

identified nations that considers 

whether the government of an identified 

nation has provided evidence that 

sufficient corrective action has been 

taken with respect to the activities 

described in the report or whether the 

relevant international fishery 

management organization has 

implemented measures that are effective 

in ending the IUU fishing activity by 

vessels of that nation. Nations will 

either receive a positive or a negative 

certification. 

The absence of sufficient action by an 

identified nation to address IUU fishing 

and/or PLMR bycatch may lead to the 

denial of port privileges for vessels of 

that nation, prohibitions on the 

importation of certain fish or fish 

products into the United States from 

that nation, or other measures. 

Identified nations that are not 

positively certified by the Secretary of 

Commerce could be subject to 

prohibitions on the importation of 

certain fisheries products into the 

United States and other measures, 

including limitations on port access, 

under the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries 

Enforcement Act (Enforcement Act)(16 

U.S.C. 1826a). 

Request for Comments 

NMFS will hold five public hearings 

to receive oral and written comments on 

these proposed actions. Comments 

received on the proposed rule will assist 

NMFS in developing a final rule. 

Dates, Times, and Locations 

The public hearings will be held as 

follows: 

1. Monday, March 16, 2009, 9:00– 

11:00 a.m., Boston Convention & 

Exhibition Center, 415 Summer Street, 

meeting room 203, Boston, MA 02210; 

phone 617–954–2000. 

2. Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:30–8:30 

p.m., Hilton Hotel, 8727 Colesville 

Road, Lincoln Ballroom, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910; phone 301–589–5200. 

3. Monday, April 13, 2009, 4:00–6:00 

p.m., NMFS Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center, 3333 N. Torrey Pines 

Court, meeting room 370, La Jolla, CA 

92037; phone 858–546–7000. 

4. Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 4:00–6:00 

p.m., NMFS Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center, 2725 Montlake 

Boulevard East, Auditorium, Seattle, 

WA 98112; phone 206–860–3200. Proof 

of identification will be required for 

entry. 

5. Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 6:30–8:00 

p.m., Miami Airport Marriott, 1201 NW 

LeJeune Road, Caribbean Room, Miami, 

FL 33126; phone 305–649–5000. 

Special Accommodations 

The sessions are physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Laura Cimo (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days 

prior to the session. 

Dated: February 25, 2009. 

Rebecca J. Lent, 

Director, Office of International Affairs, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–4478 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 090129076–9092–01] 

RIN 0648–AX56 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Spiny Dogfish; Framework 

Adjustment 2 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to implement 

Framework Adjustment 2 (Framework 

2) to the Spiny Dogfish Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP), developed by 

the Mid-Atlantic and New England 

Fishery Management Councils 

(Councils). Framework 2 would broaden 

the FMP stock status determination 

criteria for spiny dogfish, while 

maintaining objective and measurable 

criteria to identify when the stock is 

overfished or approaching an overfished 

condition. The framework action would 

also establish acceptable categories of 

peer review of new or revised stock 

status determination criteria for the 

Council to use in its specificationsetting process for spiny dogfish. This 

action is necessary to ensure that 

changes or modification to the stock 

status determination criteria, 

constituting the best available, peerVerDate Nov<24>2008 16:19 Mar 02, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM 03MRP1

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9209 

reviewed scientific information, are 

accessible to the management process in 

a timely and efficient manner, 

consistent with National Standards 1 

and 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received no later than 5 p.m. local time 

on April 2, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 0648–AX56, by any 

one of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov 

• Fax: 978–281–9135, Attn: Jamie 

Goen 

• Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS, Northeast 

Regional Office, 55 Great Republic 

Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the 

outside of the envelope: ‘‘Comments on 

Dogfish Framework Adjustment 2.’’ 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

Copies of Framework Adjustment 2 

are available from Daniel T. Furlong, 

Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, Room 

2115, Federal Building, 300 South New 

Street, Dover, DE 19904–6790. The 

framework document is also accessible 

via the Internet at http:// 

www.nero.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jamie Goen, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

(978) 281–9220. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The current stock status 

determination criteria for spiny dogfish 

is found in the FMP. To modify or 

replace these stock status determination 

criteria, the Council must enact a 

framework adjustment or an amendment 

to the FMP. 

The regulations at § 648.230 outline 

the management processes for spiny 

dogfish (Squalus acanthias). Stock 

assessment information is used in the 

management process that is used to 

derive annual catch limits (e.g., Total 

Allowable Landings (TAL)). Stock 

assessments for spiny dogfish undergo 

periodic formal scientific peer review as 

part of the Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center’s (NEFSC) Stock Assessment 

Workshop (SAW) and Stock Assessment 

Review Committee (SARC) process. 

These and other periodic formal peer 

reviews may result in recommendations 

to revise or use different stock status 

determination criteria as different or 

new approaches are applied to 

previously existing data, or to new, 

previously unexamined data. Currently, 

these recommendations are 

incorporated into the management 

scheme through a framework 

adjustment or amendment to the FMP. 

Given the time necessary to develop 

FMP framework adjustments and 

amendments, it is likely that, should 

such new stock status determination 

criteria result from a formal SAW/SARC 

peer review, the new criteria would not 

be available for the Councils’ use for at 

least 1 year. 

In addition, groups such as the 

Councils, the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission (Commission), 

academic institutions, and other 

interested parties have periodically 

contracted with outside parties or 

conducted in-house formal peer reviews 

of the stock status determination 

criteria. In such instances, it has not 

been clear how the results of these 

independently conducted peer reviews 

should be viewed by the Councils in 

regards to National Standard 2 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, which specifies 

that management decisions shall be 

based upon the best scientific 

information available. 

In response, the Council has 

developed and submitted for review by 

the Secretary of Commerce, Framework 

2 to the Spiny Dogfish FMP. This 

framework, if adopted, would enact the 

following actions, designed to improve 

the time frame in which peer reviewed 

information can be utilized in the 

management process, as well as 

providing guidance on peer review 

standards and how to move forward in 

the management process when peer 

review results are not clear. The 

principal actions proposed by 

Framework 2 are to: 

1. Redefine in general terms, while 

maintaining objective and measurable 

criteria, the stock status determination 

criteria for spiny dogfish; 

2. Define what constitutes an 

acceptable level of peer review; and 

3. Provide guidance on how the 

Council may engage its Scientific and 

Statistical Committee (SSC), including 

cases when approved peer review 

processes fail to provide a consensus 

recommendation or clear guidance for 

management decisions. 

These changes, proposed in 

Framework 2, are discussed in detail in 

the following sections. This action is 

similar to Framework Adjustment 7 to 

the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black 

Sea Bass FMP that was implemented in 

2007. 

Redefined Stock Status Determination 

Criteria 

Framework 2 would redefine the 

stock status determination criteria for 

spiny dogfish in the FMP. The 

maximum fishing mortality rate (F) 

threshold is defined as FMSY; which is 

the fishing mortality rate associated 

with the maximum sustainable yield 

(MSY) for spiny dogfish. The maximum 

fishing mortality rate threshold (Fmsy), 

or a reasonable proxy thereof, may be 

defined as a function of (but not limited 

to): Total stock biomass, spawning stock 

biomass, or total pup production; and 

may include males and/or females, or 

combinations and ratios thereof, that 

provide the best measure of productive 

capacity for spiny dogfish. Exceeding 

the established fishing mortality rate 

threshold constitutes overfishing. 

The minimum stock size threshold is 

defined as 1/2 of the biomass at MSY 

(Bmsy) (or a reasonable proxy thereof) as 

a function of productive capacity. The 

minimum stock size threshold may be 

defined as (but not limited to): Total 

stock biomass, spawning stock biomass, 

or total pup production; and may 

include males and/or females, or 

combinations and ratios thereof, that 

provide the best measure of productive 

capacity for spiny dogfish. The 

minimum stock size threshold is the 

level of productive capacity associated 

with the relevant 1/2 Bmsy level. Should 

the measure of productive capacity for 

the stock or stock complex fall below 

this minimum threshold, the stock or 

stock complex is considered overfished. 

The target for rebuilding is specified as 

Bmsy, under the same definition of 

productive capacity as specified for the 

minimum stock size threshold. 

Under Framework 2, the stock status 

determination criteria are proposed to 

be made more general by removing 

specific references to how maximum 

fishing mortality threshold, minimum 

stock size threshold, and biomass are 

calculated. By making the stock status 

determination criteria more general, the 

results of peer reviewed best available 

science could be more readily adopted 

through the specification-setting 

process. The Councils would still 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
9210 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

provide specific definitions for the stock 

status determination criteria in the 

specifications and management 

measures, future framework 

adjustments, and amendments, 

including, where necessary, information 

on changes to the definitions. 

Peer Review Standards 

While the NEFSC SAW/SARC process 

remains the primary process utilized in 

the Northeast Region to develop 

scientific stock assessment advice, 

including stock status determination 

criteria for federally managed species, 

Framework 2 proposes several 

additional scientific review bodies and 

processes that would constitute an 

acceptable peer review to develop 

scientific stock assessment advice for 

spiny dogfish stock status determination 

criteria. These periodic reviews outside 

the SAW/SARC process could be 

conducted by any of the following, as 

deemed appropriate by the managing 

authorities: 

• Transboundary Resource 

Assessment Committee (TRAC), 

composed of both U.S. and Canadian 

scientists 

• MAFMC SSC Review 

• MAFMC Externally Contracted 

Reviews with Independent Experts (e.g., 

Center for Independent Experts– CIE) 

• NMFS Internally Conducted Review 

(e.g., Comprised of NMFS Scientific and 

Technical Experts from NMFS Science 

Centers or Regions) 

• NMFS Externally Contracted 

Review with Independent Experts (e.g., 

Center for Independent Experts–CIE) 

Guidance on Unclear Scientific Advice 

Resulting from Peer Review 

In many formal peer reviews, the 

terms of reference provided in advance 

of the review instruct the reviewers to 

formulate specific responses on the 

adequacy of information and to provide 

detailed advice on how that information 

may be used for fishery management 

purposes. As such, most stock 

assessment peer reviews result in clear 

recommendations on stock status 

determination criteria for use in the 

management of fish stocks. However, 

there are occasional peer review results 

where panelists disagree and no 

consensus recommendation is made 

regarding the information. The terms of 

reference may not be followed and no 

recommendations for the suitability of 

the information for management 

purposes may be made. In such 

instances, it is unclear what then 

constitutes the best available 

information for management use. 

Framework 2 proposes that, when 

clear consensus recommendations are 

made by any of the acceptable peer 

review groups, the information is 

considered the best available and may 

be utilized by the Council in the 

management process for spiny dogfish. 

Similarly, when the consensus results of 

a peer review are to reject proposed 

changes to the stock assessment 

methods or the stock status 

determination criteria, Framework 2 

proposes that the previous information 

on record would still continue to 

constitute the best available information 

and should be used in the management 

process. 

When peer review recommendations 

do not result in consensus, are unclear, 

or do not make recommendations on 

how the information is to be used in the 

management process, Framework 2 

proposes that the Councils engage their 

SSCs or a subset of their SSCs with 

appropriate stock assessment expertise, 

to review the information provided by 

the peer review group. The SSC would 

then seek to clarify the information and 

provide advice to the Councils to either 

modify, change, or retain the existing 

stock status determination definitions as 

the best available information for use in 

the development of specifications and 

management measures. 

Classification 

NMFS has determined that this 

proposed rule is consistent with the 

FMP and has preliminarily determined 

that the rule is consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

The Regional Administrator has 

determined that this proposed rule is an 

administrative framework adjustment to 

the FMP and is, therefore, categorically 

excluded from the requirement to 

prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement or equivalent document 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act. 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel 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. 

This proposed rule deals only with how 

the best available, peer-reviewed 

scientific information can be more 

quickly and efficiently incorporated into 

the Councils’ specification-setting 

process for spiny dogfish. This is 

achieved by broadening the descriptions 

of the stock status determination criteria 

in the FMP, so updated and peerreviewed information can be more 

readily adopted for use in the 

management process. The proposed 

change is to how the stock status 

determination criteria are defined; there 

is no change to the existing 

determination criteria. Additionally, the 

Framework identifies acceptable levels 

of peer review that must be satisfied 

before new or revised information is 

accepted as the best available science. 

These are administrative changes to the 

FMP that serve to improve the quality 

of data used in management decisions, 

consistent with National Standards 1 

and 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As 

such, the rule will not have significant 

direct or indirect economic impacts on 

small entities. 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: February 25, 2009. 

James W. Balsiger, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–4480 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS