12314 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices 

outside of the envelope, ‘‘Comments on 

GMRI herring EFP.’’ Comments may 

also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 

281–9135. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cheryl McGarrity, Fishery Management 

Specialist, phone: 978–281–9174, fax: 

978–281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Science and Research Director for 

NMFS’s Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center selected the proposal submitted 

by GMRI under the 2008–2009 Atlantic 

Herring Research Set–Aside (RSA) 

Program entitled: ‘‘Effects of Fishing on 

Herring Aggregations,’’ which would 

assess the effects of midwater trawling 

on herring aggregations. An EFP was 

issued to conduct this work in 2008, 

and this EFP would authorize 

exemptions for Year 2 of this research. 

The proposed research would examine 

the ability to evaluate potential impacts 

of midwater trawling on Atlantic 

herring aggregations through the use of 

hydroacoustics. Due to concern that 

other fishing vessels, particularly other 

herring midwater trawl vessels, fishing 

in the study area could interfere with 

the survey, GMRI submitted an EFP 

application to conduct its research 

during the midwater gear restriction 

period, thereby ensuring other midwater 

trawl vessels will not be fishing in the 

study area. 

GMRI requests that a pair of trawl 

vessels perform midwater trawling for 

up to four sampling trips (each of 5-days 

duration) using standard midwater trawl 

gear in Areas 1A and 1B between June 

1 and September 30, 2008, to evaluate 

the behavioral response of isolated 

herring schools to midwater trawls. 

During a sampling trip, the research 

team would sequentially perform a 

series of acoustic surveys, conduct 

midwater pair trawling, then perform 

another series of acoustic surveys; 

which would take less than 72 hr. 

Vessels would conduct five or fewer 

tows per day, with each tow lasting 2 to 

4 hr. All trawling operations would be 

monitored by GMRI staff. All herring 

caught during the survey would be 

deducted from GMRI’s Area 1A and 1B 

herring RSA allocations of 2,976,240 lb 

(1,350 mt) and 661,380 lb (300 mt), 

respectively. Vessels conducting the 

survey would not be allowed to exceed 

their Area 1A or Area 1B RSA 

allocations. 

The subject EFP would exempt 

vessels fishing for herring in 

Management Area 1A and Management 

Area 1B from quota closures and herring 

trip possession limits, as specified at 50 

CFR 648.201 and 648.204, respectively. 

It would also exempt vessels from the 

seasonal Management Area 1A trawl 

gear restriction period (restriction 

period), as defined at § 648.202(a). Fish 

caught during research trips would be 

landed under the set–aside quota 

awarded to GMRI. Herring caught as 

part of this research would be deducted 

from the RSA quota, not from the 

commercial quota. 

Regulations under the Magnuson– 

Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act require publication of 

this notification to provide interested 

parties the opportunity to comment on 

applications for proposed EFPs. The 

applicant may place requests for minor 

modifications and extensions to the EFP 

throughout the year. EFP modifications 

and extensions may be granted without 

further notice if they are deemed 

essential to facilitate completion of the 

proposed research and minimal so as 

not to change the scope or impact of the 

initially approved EFP request. 

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

Dated: March 19, 2009. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–6409 Filed 3–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XO02 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council; Atlantic Mackerel, Butterfish, 

Atlantic Bluefish, Spiny Dogfish, 

Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea 

Bass, Tilefish, Surfclam, and Ocean 

Quahog Annual Catch Limits and 

Accountability Measures Omnibus 

Amendment; Scoping Process 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS); 

notice of public scoping meetings; 

requests for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

announces its intention to prepare, in 

cooperation with NMFS, an EIS in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act to assess 

potential effects on the human 

environment of alternative measures to 

address the new Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act requirements for annual catch limits 

(ACLs) and accountability measures 

(AMs) in an Omnibus Amendment to 

the fishery management plans (FMPs) 

for Atlantic mackerel, butterfish, 

Atlantic bluefish, spiny dogfish, 

summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, 

tilefish, surfclams, and ocean quahogs. 

Loligo and Illex squid are exempt from 

these new requirements because they 

have annual life cycles and not subject 

to overfishing. 

This notice announces a public 

process for determining the scope of 

issues to be addressed, and for 

identifying the significant issues related 

to the implementation of ACLs and AMs 

for these fisheries. This notice is to alert 

the interested public of the scoping 

process, the development of the Draft 

EIS, and to provide for public 

participation in that process. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before 5 p.m., EST, on 

May 15, 2009. Three public scoping 

meetings will be held during this 

comment period. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for dates, times, and 

locations. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

sent by any of the following methods: 

• E-mail to the following address: 

Omnibus.NOI@noaa.gov; 

• Mail or hand deliver to Daniel T. 

Furlong, Executive Director, MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council, 

Room 2115 Federal Building, 300 South 

New Street, Dover, Delaware 19904– 

6790. Mark the outside of the envelope 

‘‘Omnibus Amendment: National 

Standard 1 Requirements Scoping 

Comments’’; or 

• Fax to (302) 674–5399. 

The scoping document may also be 

obtained from the Council office at the 

previously provided address, or by 

request to the Council by telephone 

(302) 674–2331, or via the Internet at 

http://www.mafmc.org/mid-atlantic/

comments/comments.htm. 

Comments may also be provided 

verbally at any of the three public 

scoping meetings. See Supplementary 

Information for dates, times, and 

locations. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Daniel T. Furlong, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, Room 2115 

Federal Building, 300 S. New St., Dover, 

DE 19904–6790, (telephone 302–674– 

2331). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

management units for Atlantic 

mackerel, butterfish, Atlantic bluefish, 

spiny dogfish, summer flounder, scup, 

black sea bass, tilefish, surfclams, and 

ocean quahogs vary, but span the range 

from the eastern coast of Florida in the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices 12315 

western Atlantic Ocean northward to 

the U.S.-Canadian border. The specific 

management units for each species, are 

contained in the Atlantic Mackerel, 

Squid, and Butterfish; Atlantic Bluefish; 

Spiny Dogfish; Summer Flounder, Scup, 

and Black Sea Bass; Tilefish, and 

Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMPs. 

Meetings 

Three scoping meetings to facilitate 

public comment will be held on the 

following dates and locations: 

1. April 14, 2009, 7:00 p.m., The 

Sanderling Resort and Spa, 1461 Duck 

Rd., Duck, NC 27949; 

2. April 21, 2009, 7:00 p.m., NYSDEC 

Marine Resources, 205 N. Belle Mead 

Rd, Ste 1 East Setauket, NY 11733. 

3. May 4, 2009, 7:00 p.m., Crowne 

Plaza Old Town Alexandria, 901 N. 

Fairfax Street, Alexandria, Virginia 

22314; 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aid should be directed to M. 

Jan Bryan (302–674–2331 ext 18) at least 

5 days prior to the meeting date. 

Issues Identified for Discussion Under 

this Amendment 

Various Methods for Calculating 

Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) 

In an effort to be compliant with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, National 

Standard 1(NS 1), and Guidelines (50 

CFR 600.310), the Council will seek to 

develop formulaic approaches, known 

as control rules, that can be consistently 

applied to derive ABC relative to the 

status of the stock and the level of 

scientific uncertainty surrounding the 

stock status estimate. The following are 

examples of ABC control rules that the 

Council may further develop for use in 

managing the aforementioned species. 

However, the Council may deviate from 

these examples and develop additional 

ABC control rule approaches, consistent 

with their description in the NS 1 

Guidance. The Council will rely heavily 

on its Scientific and Statistical 

Committee (SSC) during development 

and implementation of ABC control 

rules and it will be the SSC that is 

responsible for application of the final 

control rules to recommend either 

annual or multi-year ABCs for target 

species stocks. 

For example, ABC for all of the target 

stocks could be prescribed through a set 

of tiers designed to classify each stock 

based on the amount or level of 

information available, type of stock 

assessment conducted, current stock 

status, and/or other relevant factors. 

Within each tier, a pre-defined set of 

control rules would be used to calculate 

the overfishing level (OFL) and ABC. In 

addition to an overarching tiered 

approach, species-specific approaches 

to developing control rules could be 

applied to one, some, or all of the stocks 

in the fisheries. For example, a 

probability-based ABC control rule 

could be applied where ABC is reduced 

from OFL based on a higher likelihood 

of achieving the target fishing mortality 

rate of FMSY, or FREBUILD if the stock is 

under a rebuilding plan. An ABC 

control rule based on a fixed percentage 

could also be applied. For example, 

ABC could be set at 75 percent of the 

OFL (ABC = 0.75 OFL) or some other 

fixed percentage value. An approach 

based on maintaining some specified 

level of maximum spawning potential 

(MSP) of a stock could also be applied. 

Various Methods for Establishing ACLs 

The Council will seek to develop 

control rules that can be consistently 

applied to derive ACLs relative to the 

status of the stock and the level of 

management uncertainty or 

implementation error surrounding the 

stock status estimate. The following are 

examples of ACL control rules that the 

Council may further develop for use in 

managing the aforementioned stocks in 

the fisheries. ACLs may be established 

at the fishery level, sector level, or sub 

sector level. The Council may deviate 

from these examples and develop other 

ACL control rule approaches, consistent 

with the NS 1 Guidelines. Approaches 

to developing ACL control rules could 

be applied to one, some, or all the stocks 

in the fisheries. For example, a 

probability-based ACL control rule 

could be applied where ACL is reduced 

from ABC based on a higher likelihood 

of achieving the target fishing mortality 

rate of FMSY, or FREBUILD if the stock is 

under a rebuilding plan. An ACL 

control rule based on a fixed percentage 

could also be applied. For example, 

ACL could be set at 75 percent of the 

ABC (ACL = 0.75 ABC) or some other 

fixed percentage value. An approach 

based on maintaining some level of MSP 

of a stock could also be applied. 

Various Approaches to Establishing 

AMs 

The Council will develop AMs that 

are designed to prevent ACLs from 

being exceeded, in the case of proactive 

AMs, and AMs that are triggered when 

an ACL is exceeded, in the case of 

reactive AMs. The Council may also 

consider development of annual catch 

target (ACT) control rules, which are 

proactive AMs, to establish catch targets 

that further insure that the ACL has a 

low likelihood of being exceeded and, 

thus, that reactive AMs will be 

triggered. The following are examples of 

the type of measures that may be 

considered by the Council. The Council 

has considerable latitude in developing 

the specific measures that will be 

considered in the Omnibus 

Amendment. 

For one, some, or all of the stocks in 

the fisheries with recreational measures 

under Council management jurisdiction 

(i.e. summer flounder, scup, black sea 

bass, Atlantic bluefish, tilefish, and 

Atlantic mackerel) the Council will 

consider reactive AMs that would be 

triggered if the ACL is exceeded or 

proactive AMs which are designed to 

prevent exceeding the ACL, or both. The 

recreational catch limit is the sum of the 

recreational catch limit and recreational 

discards. Reactive AMs could include 

the deduction of all or some of the prior 

year overage to reduce the subsequent 

year’s recreational catch limit. Proactive 

AMs for the recreational fishery could 

include the setting of an ACT that is less 

than the ACL and designed to buffer 

against exceeding the ACL. This may be 

useful in the recreational fishery, where 

timely inseason management is 

typically not possible. Percentage-based 

or probability-based approaches similar 

to those described above for ABC and 

ACL could be utilized as a mechanism 

to set ACTs. Methods that directly 

account for the frequency ACLs could 

be exceeded (performance-based), will 

also be considered, to ensure that ACLs 

are only rarely exceeded. Inseason 

fishery closures could also be 

considered. While most recreational 

data are insufficient to informatively 

predict when a closure may be 

appropriate, the current regulations for 

most recreational fisheries under the 

Council’s jurisdiction do not provide 

the ability to close the season during the 

fishing year, even if an overage has 

occurred or is projected to occur if the 

fishery remains open. While it is not 

expected that projections would be 

utilized to close recreational fisheries 

inseason, being able to reduce the 

magnitude of an overage may be a tool 

considered by the Council. 

For one, some, or all of the stocks in 

the fisheries with commercial measures 

under Council management jurisdiction, 

the Council will consider reactive AMs 

which that would be triggered if the 

ACL is exceeded, or proactive AMs that 

are designed to prevent exceeding the 

ACLs. While some stocks have these 

measures in their FMPs, others do not. 

The commercial catch limit is the sum 

of the commercial quota and 

commercial discards. Reactive AMs for 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

12316 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices 

1 7 U.S.C. 6(c). 

2 7 U.S.C. 6d. 

3A copy of the petition is available on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://www.cftc.gov/. 

4The suite of OTC agricultural swap products 

that CBOT proposes to list for clearing-only is 

comprised of corn basis swap contracts for the 

following regions: Northeastern Iowa, Northwestern 

Iowa, Southern Iowa, Eastern Nebraska, Eastern 

South Dakota, and Southern Minnesota; and corn, 

wheat, and soybean calendar swaps. 

5 17 CFR Part 35 (Commission regulations are 

hereinafter cited as ‘‘Reg. l’’). 

6 Jurisdiction is retained for, among other things, 

provisions of the Act proscribing fraud and 

manipulation. See Reg. 35.2. 

7Reg. 35.1(b)(1)(i). ‘‘Commodity’’ is defined in 

Section 1a(4) of the Act to include a variety of 

specified agricultural products, ‘‘and all other goods 

and articles, except onions... and all services, rights, 

and interests in which contracts for future delivery 

are presently or in the future dealt in.’’ 

8See 58 FR 5587 (Jan. 22, 1993). Section 4(c) of 

the Act was added by Section 502(a) of the Futures 

Trading Practices Act of 1992, Public Law 102–546, 

106 Stat. 3590 (1992). 

9Public Law 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000). 

10See, e.g., Sections 2(d), (g) and (h) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. 2(d), (g), and (h). 

the commercial fishery could include 

deducting all or some of the prior year 

commercial overage (in weight) from the 

subsequent year’s commercial catch 

limit. 

Proactive AMs for the commercial 

fishery could include adjustable trip 

limits, as a method to prevent ACLs 

from being exceeded. When a given 

percent of the commercial catch limit 

(in weight) is reached, trips limits in the 

fishery for that species could be 

decreased until the total commercial 

catch limit is reached. The fixed 

percentage at which trip limits would 

drop would vary depending on which 

species the limit applies to, and the trip 

limits themselves would be speciesspecific. Other proactive AMs could 

include inseason closures when quotas 

are projected to be attained. Many 

Council-managed species already have 

in place such measures; however, the 

Council may consider additional 

approaches or modification of existing 

reporting requirements in support of 

improving inseason fishery 

management. 

Other Considerations 

The Council could consider 

establishing a periodic formal review by 

the SSC, which would provide the 

opportunity to revise ABC control rules 

every few years after a control rule has 

been implemented. For example, a 5- 

year time period could be used. The 

Council may also identify a broader 

approach to inclusion of species in its 

FMPs that may or may not require 

conservation or management, but that 

may be relevant in trying to further 

ecosystem management in the fishery. 

While not required, the Council could 

identify and include non-target stocks 

and/or ecosystem components in its 

FMPs. The Council may also consider 

ecosystem issues in the development of 

the catch limit framework for any of the 

stocks in the fisheries. Any allocation 

issues relating to the development of 

ABC, ACL, or AMs could also be 

considered by the Council. 

The Council may deviate from these 

examples and develop additional 

approaches, consistent with their 

description in the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, NS1, and the NS 1 Guidelines. The 

above issues under consideration are 

described in greater detail in the 

scoping document itself; copies may be 

obtained from the Council (see 

ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at http:// 

www.mafmc.org.mid-atlantic/

comments/comments.htm. 

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

Dated: March 19, 2009 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–6468 Filed 3–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Order (1) Pursuant to Section 4(c) of 

the Commodity Exchange Act, 

Permitting the Chicago Mercantile 

Exchange to Clear Certain Over-theCounter Agricultural Swaps and (2) 

Pursuant to Section 4d of the 

Commodity Exchange Act, Permitting 

Customer Positions in Such ClearedOnly Contracts and Associated Funds 

To Be Commingled With Other 

Positions and Funds Held in Customer 

Segregated Accounts 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Order. 

SUMMARY: By petition dated April 21, 

2008 (Petition), the Chicago Mercantile 

Exchange Inc. (CME), a registered 

derivatives clearing organization (DCO), 

and the Board of Trade of the City of 

Chicago, Inc. (CBOT), a designated 

contract market, requested permission 

to clear certain over-the counter (OTC) 

swap agreements (swaps) in corn, 

wheat, and soybeans. Authority for 

granting this request is found in Section 

4(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act 

(Act).1 The Petition also requested 

permission pursuant to Section 4d of 

the Act 2 to allow CME and futures 

commission merchants (FCMs) clearing 

through CME to commingle positions in 

those cleared-only OTC swaps (clearedonly contracts) and funds associated 

with those positions with positions and 

funds otherwise required to be held in 

a customer segregated account. The 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (Commission) has 

reviewed public comments and the 

entire record in this matter and it has 

determined to issue an order granting 

the requested permission, subject to 

certain terms and conditions. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 18, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Phyllis P. Dietz, Associate Director, 

202–418–5449, pdietz@cftc.gov, 

Division of Clearing and Intermediary 

Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. The CME/CBOT Petition 

CME, the DCO that provides clearing 

services for CBOT, and CBOT jointly 

submitted a Petition requesting that the 

Commission issue an exemptive order 

under Section 4(c) of the Act.3 The 

order would grant CME approval to 

clear OTC corn basis swaps and corn, 

wheat, and soybean calendar swaps, and 

it would permit CBOT to list those 

products for ‘‘clearing-only.’’ 4 The 

contract size for the basis and calendar 

swaps would be the same as that for 

corn, wheat, and soybean futures—5,000 

bushels. Each of the proposed clearedonly contracts would be cash settled, in 

contrast to the corresponding futures 

contracts which are physically settled. 

Part 35 of the Commission’s 

regulations 5 exempts, subject to 

conditions, swap agreements and 

eligible persons entering into such 

agreements from most provisions of the 

Act.6 The term ‘‘swap agreement’’ is 

defined to include, among other types of 

agreements, a ‘‘basis swap’’ and a 

‘‘commodity swap.’’ 7 Part 35 was 

promulgated pursuant to authority 

conferred upon the Commission in 

Section 4(c) of the Act to exempt certain 

transactions in order to explicitly permit 

certain off-exchange derivatives 

transactions and thus promote 

innovation and competition.8 A number 

of exemptions and exclusions for offexchange derivatives transactions were 

subsequently added to the Act by the 

Commodity Futures Modernization Act 

of 2000,9 but none apply to agricultural 

contracts.10

Part 35 requires, among other things, 

that a swap agreement not be part of a 

fungible class of agreements that are 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES