7016 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Notices 

motherboards after importation. The 

scope of this order does not include 

DRAMS or memory modules that are re–

imported for repair or replacement. 

The DRAMS subject to this order are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

8542.21.8005 and 8542.21.8020 through 

8542.21.8030 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). The memory modules 

containing DRAMS from the ROK, 

described above, are currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

8473.30.10.40 or 8473.30.10.80 of the 

HTSUS. Removable memory modules 

placed on motherboards are classifiable 

under subheadings 8471.50.0085, 

8517.30.5000, 8517.50.1000, 

8517.50.5000, 8517.50.9000, 

8517.61.0000, 8517.62.0010, 

8517.62.0050, 8517.69.0000, 

8517.70.0000, 8517.90.3400, 

8517.90.3600, 8517.90.3800, 

8517.90.4400, 8542.31.00, 8542.32.0001, 

8542.32.0020, 8542.32.0021, 

8542.32.0022, 8542.32.0023, 

8542.33.0000, 8542.39.0000, and 

8543.89.9600 of the HTSUS. 

Scope Rulings 

On December 29, 2004, the 

Department received a request from 

Cisco Systems, Inc. (‘‘Cisco’’), to 

determine whether removable memory 

modules placed on motherboards that 

are imported for repair or refurbishment 

are within the scope of the CVD Order. 

See Notice of Countervailing Duty 

Order: Dynamic Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors from the 

Republic of Korea, 68 FR 47546 (August 

11, 2003) (‘‘CVD Order’’). The 

Department initiated a scope inquiry 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(e) on 

February 4, 2005. On January 12, 2006, 

the Department issued a final scope 

ruling, finding that removable memory 

modules placed on motherboards that 

are imported for repair or refurbishment 

are not within the scope of the CVD 

Order provided that the importer 

certifies that it will destroy any memory 

modules that are removed for repair or 

refurbishment. See Memorandum from 

Stephen J. Claeys to David M. Spooner, 

regarding Final Scope Ruling, 

Countervailing Duty Order on DRAMs 

from the Republic of Korea (January 12, 

2006). 

Period of Review 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’), is January 1, 2004, 

through December 31, 2004. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

administrative review are addressed in 

the February 7, 2007, Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Results in the Second Administrative 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order 

on Dynamic Random Access Memory 

Semiconductors from the Republic of 

Korea (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, to 

David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. Attached 

to this notice as an appendix is a list of 

the issues which parties have raised and 

to which we have responded in the 

Decision Memorandum. Parties can find 

a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Department’s Central Records Unit, 

Room B–099 of the main Department 

building. In addition, a complete 

version of the Decision Memorandum 

can be accessed directly on the Internet 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(5), we calculated an 

individual subsidy rate for the 

producer/exporter, Hynix. For the 

period January 1, 2004, through 

December 31, 2004, we find the ad 

valorem net subsidy rate for Hynix is 

31.86 percent. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will instruct CBP to 

liquidate shipments of DRAMS by 

Hynix entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption from 

January 1, 2004, through December 31, 

2004, at 31.86 percent ad valorem of the 

entered value. 

Cash Deposits 

The Department also intends to 

instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of 

estimated countervailing duties at 31.86 

percent ad valorem of the entered value 

on all shipments of the subject 

merchandise from Hynix, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review. 

We will instruct CBP to continue to 

collect cash deposits for non–reviewed 

companies at the most recent company–

specific rate applicable to the company. 

The Department has previously 

excluded Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 

from this order. See Notice of Amended 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Dynamic Random 

Access Memory Semiconductors from 

the Republic of Korea, 68 FR 44290 (July 

28, 2003). Thus, the ‘‘all others’’ rate 

shall apply to all non–reviewed 

companies until a review of a company 

assigned this rate is requested. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

This administrative review and notice 

are issued and published in accordance 

with section 751(a)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 7, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. 

Appendix I 

Comments in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum 

Comment 1: Benefit to Hynix of the 

2004 Cash Buyout Program. 

Comment 2: The Department’s Failure 

to Investigate Thoroughly the GOK’s 

Entrustment or Direction of Hynix’s 

Creditors in Connection with the CBO 

Components of the Non–Memory Asset 

Sale. 

Comment 3: Entrustment or Direction of 

Hynix’s Creditors in Connection with 

the Tranche A Acquisition Financing 

and CBO Components of the Non–

Memory Asset Sale. 

Comment 4: Whether the Department 

Should Have Investigated Hynix’s Sale 

of Its LCD and Non–Memory Assets. 

Comment 5: Uncreditworthy Benchmark 

Interest/Discount Rate. 

[FR Doc. E7–2562 Filed 2–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 020707B] 

National Standard 1 Guidelines; Notice 

of Intent to Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of intent (NOI) to prepare 

an environmental impact statement 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PRELIMS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Notices 7017 

(EIS); request for comments; notice of a 

public scoping meeting. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces its intent to 

prepare an EIS and commencement of a 

scoping period in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 to analyze alternatives 

for guidance regarding annual catch 

limit (ACL) and accountability measures 

(AM) and other overfishing provisions 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA). 

Such guidance would be added to the 

National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by April 2, 2007. A public 

scoping meeting will be held at the 

NMFS Silver Spring headquarters office 

on March 9, 2007 (see ADDRESSES) from 

9a.m. through 3p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The scoping meeting will be 

held at 1315 East-West Highway; Room 

4527; Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910. 

NMFS may hold additional scoping 

meetings and informal public meetings 

during the scoping period. 

You may submit comments on issues 

and alternatives, by any of the following 

methods: 

• E-mail: 

annual.catch.limitDEIS@noaa.gov. 

Include ‘‘Scoping comments on annual 

catch limit DEIS’’ in the subject line of 

the message. 

• Fax: 301–713–1193. 

• Mail: Mark Millikin; National 

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA; 1315 

East-West Highway; Silver Spring, 

Maryland 20910. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Millikin, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 301–713–2341. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

This Federal Register document is 

available on the Government Printing 

Office’s website at: www.gpoaccess.gov/ 

fr/index/html. 

Background 

The MSRA, signed into law by 

President Bush on January 12, 2007, set 

forth new requirements related to 

overfishing, including new ACL and 

AM provisions for federally managed 

fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic 

zone (EEZ). NMFS is initiating this 

action to develop guidance related to 

these new provisions, specifically, 

requirements set forth under sections 

103(b)(1) and (c)(3), 104(a)(10), (b), and 

(c) of the MSRA. NMFS intends to 

revise the National Standard 1 (NS1) 

Guidelines, 50 CFR 600.310, through a 

proposed and final rule to incorporate 

guidance of these MSRA sections before 

the end of 2007. Because of potential 

policy implications of these MSRA 

provisions on Federal fishery 

management plans (FMPs and plans) 

and their stocks, NMFS has decided to 

issue this NOI. However, as it develops 

this action, NMFS will continue to reevaluate the environmental review and 

analyses needed for NEPA purposes. 

Public Scoping Process 

To help determine the scope of issues 

to be addressed and to identify 

significant issues related to this action, 

NMFS is soliciting written comments on 

this NOI through April 2, 2007, and will 

hold a public scoping meeting at the 

NMFS Silver Spring Headquarters, 

Building III, Room 4527, 9a.m. through 

3p.m. on March 9, 2007. After 

considering comments received during 

the scoping process, NMFS will either 

develop a draft environmental impact 

statement (DEIS) and proposed rule or 

an environmental assessment (EA) and 

proposed rule. If NMFS issues a DEIS, 

it will provide for a 45-day comment 

period concurrent with public hearings. 

If NMFS issues a DEIS, then it will also 

issue a final environmental impact 

statement (FEIS). Following an EIS or 

EA and proposed rule, NMFS will issue 

a final rule in the Federal Register. 

Magnuson-Stevens Act 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) amended in 

1996 by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, is 

the chief authority for fisheries 

management in the U.S. EEZ. The Act 

requires, among other things, achieving 

optimum yield on a continuing basis, 

preventing overfishing, and rebuilding 

overfished stocks in as short a time as 

possible. Section 301(a) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act contains 10 

national standards (NS) with which all 

FMPs and their amendments and 

implementing regulations must be 

consistent. Section 301(b) requires that 

‘‘the Secretary establish advisory 

guidelines (which shall not have the 

force and effect of law), based on the 

national standards to assist in the 

development of fishery management 

plans.’’ Conforming to the NS guidelines 

(50 CFR part 600, subpart D) when 

preparing an FMP, FMP amendment 

and regulations is essential to properly 

addressing the intentions of Congress 

when it established and revised the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. The NS 

guidelines, most notably NS1, are often 

cited in Court cases, and judges 

frequently refer to them when 

considering the merits of an FMP or 

FMP amendment and its regulations. 

NS1 provides that ‘‘Conservation and 

management measures shall prevent 

overfishing while achieving, on a 

continuing basis, the optimum yield 

from each fishery for the United States 

fishing industry.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1). 

As this action focuses on MSRA’s 

overfishing provisions, NMFS believes 

that it is appropriate to incorporate 

guidance on those provisions in the NS1 

guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310. 

Ending overfishing of stocks 

undergoing overfishing, preventing 

overfishing of stocks approaching 

overfishing, and rebuilding overfished 

stocks to levels of abundance that can 

produce maximum sustainable yield 

(MSY) on a continuing basis, are 

essential to achieving the objectives and 

goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Ending overfishing is paramount to 

more rapid and more certain rebuilding. 

According to the NS1 guidelines, 

overfishing occurs whenever the annual 

fishing mortality rate (F) is greater than 

the maximum fishing mortality 

threshold (MFMT), 50 CFR 

600.310(d)(2)(i). Continued overfishing 

will depress a stock, on average, below 

the level that can produce MSY. While 

some rebuilding of stock abundance can 

occur if F is slightly greater than MFMT, 

rebuilding rates are more rapid when 

overfishing does not occur, and 

rebuilding occurs faster, the more that F 

is reduced below MFMT. 

MSRA Section 104(a)(10): ACLs and 

AMs 

During the comment period on this 

NOI, and throughout development of 

this action, NMFS will seek input from 

the Councils and the public on 

implementation of the new MSRA 

overfishing provisions. To facilitate 

public comment in the following 

sections NMFS provides its preliminary 

interpretation of the new provisions, 

followed by an explanation of statutory 

deadlines and other timing 

considerations. 

Section 104(a)(10) of the MSRA 

amends section 303(a) of the MagnusonStevens Act to require that any FMP 

shall ‘‘establish a mechanism for 

specifying annual catch limits in the 

plan (including a multi-year plan), 

implementing regulations and annual 

specifications, at a level such that 

overfishing does not occur in the 

fishery, including measures to ensure 

accountability.’’ Species that have a life 

cycle of approximately 1 year (e.g., 

possibly some shrimp or squid species) 

are exempt from the requirements, 

unless the Secretary determines the 

species is undergoing overfishing. In 

addition, the ACL/AM requirements 

would not apply if ‘‘otherwise provided 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PRELIMS
7018 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Notices 

for under an international agreement.’’

Thus, the ACL/AM requirements may be 

applicable for some species managed 

under international agreements. 

Apart from the above exemptions, 

NMFS believes that section 104(a)(10) 

requires ACL/AM mechanisms for each 

federally-managed ‘‘stock or stock 

complex’’ contained in an FMP. Under 

the NS guidelines, ‘‘stock or stock 

complex’’ is used as a synonym for 

‘‘fishery,’’ and is defined as ‘‘one or 

more stocks of fish that can be treated 

as a unit for purposes of conservation 

and management and that are identified 

on the basis of geographic, scientific, 

technical, recreational, or economic 

characteristics...’’ (50 CFR 

600.305(c)(12)). 

NMFS understands an ACL to mean a 

specified amount of a fish stock (e.g., 

measure of weight or numbers of fish) 

for a fishing year that is a target amount 

of annual total catch that takes into 

account projected estimates for landings 

and discard mortality from all user 

groups and sectors. Per the MSRA, the 

ACL must be set ‘‘at a level such that 

overfishing does not occur in the 

fishery.’’ Under the NS1 guidelines, 

overfishing of the stock occurs when 

MFMT is exceeded (50 CFR 

600.310(d)(2)(i)). Thus, it is important to 

clarify the relationship between the ACL 

and the MFMT. While the MFMT is 

expressed as a rate of fishing, NMFS 

may recommend that FMPs be amended 

so that annual catch levels 

corresponding to MFMT—an 

overfishing level (OFL)—are specified 

along with ACLs in comparable units 

(e.g., weight or numbers of fish) to 

ACLs, to facilitate subsequent 

monitoring against the ACL. The OFL 

would be the maximum amount of 

annual catch from all sources (landings 

and discard mortality from all sectors) 

which does not result in overfishing. 

Once the ACL is reached, or projected 

to be reached, AMs established in the 

FMP will ensure that overfishing does 

not occur, or is appropriately mitigated 

(e.g., through payback provisions). 

NMFS believes that the extent of 

future management success using ACLs 

will depend largely upon ACLs being 

set sufficiently below the OFL for a fish 

stock, i.e., the size of the buffer needed 

between the OFL and ACL, to reduce 

the chance of exceeding the OFL. The 

types of ACLs used for a stock may vary 

depending upon the quality of data 

available for a fish stock and the fishery 

management goals. The size of the 

buffer needed between the ACL and 

OFL would depend upon quality of data 

available including: Knowledge of the 

stock’s life history; availability and 

accuracy of current fishing year 

landings and historical landings data; 

accuracy and precision of fishery 

independent surveys; accuracy and 

precision of fishery dependent data; 

time since last stock assessment or 

update; frequency of stock assessments; 

discard mortality; recreational catches; 

and the extent of knowledge of the rate 

and magnitude of success or failure of 

recent management measures in ending 

or preventing overfishing for a fish 

stock. For discussion purposes in this 

NOI, ‘‘data poor stocks’’ are those stocks 

for which stock abundance is unknown 

or stock status with respect to 

overfishing and overfished is unknown. 

‘‘Data rich’’ stocks are those for which 

annual catch values are known, and 

estimates of stock abundance or its 

proxy are available and sufficient to 

make overfishing and overfished status 

determinations. A broad gradation of 

data quality, quantity, and timeliness 

exists for various stocks which affects 

the accuracy and precision of 

‘‘overfishing’’ and ‘‘overfished’’ status 

determinations. 

With regard to ‘‘measures of 

accountability’’ (referred to herein as 

accountability measures or AMs) 

required by MSRA section 104(a)(10), 

NMFS’ initial interpretation is that they 

are part of the ACL mechanism and 

FMPs should contain AMs for each 

stock. AMs could also be used for each 

fishery sector. Because there are 

variances in: operation of fisheries, 

monitoring of a fishery within a fishing 

year, and availability of stock 

abundance information, it may not be 

feasible to set ACLs with the same level 

of precision for all stocks. AMs thus are 

intended to work with their associated 

ACLs to prevent overfishing of a stock 

from occurring. AMs could take the 

form of inseason management 

techniques that prevent the ACL from 

being exceeded in a given year (e.g., 

closures, or restrictions on retention of 

a stock), and/or corrective actions that 

will be implemented in subsequent 

fishing years to address overages of a 

stock’s OFL in previous fishing years 

(e.g., reduction of a subsequent year’s 

ACL), and to ensure that overfishing is 

ended. 

MSRA Section 103(b) and (c)(3): 

Scientific and Statistical Committees 

(SSCs) 

Section 103(b) of MSRA includes new 

provisions relating to SSCs and peer 

review processes. Among other things, it 

specifies that SSCs shall provide their 

Councils with ‘‘ongoing scientific 

advice for fishery management 

decisions, including recommendations 

for acceptable biological catch, 

preventing overfishing, maximum 

sustainable yield, and achieving 

rebuilding targets, and reports on stock 

status and health, bycatch, habitat 

status, social and economic impacts on 

management measures, and 

sustainability of fishing practices.’’

Section 103(b) also provides for the 

establishment of peer review processes. 

With regard to ACLs, section 103(c)(3) 

provides that a Council shall ‘‘develop 

ACLs for each of its managed fisheries 

that may not exceed the fishing level 

recommendations of its scientific and 

statistical committee or the peer review 

process established under subsection 

(g).’’

NMFS views these provisions as 

providing the SSCs or peer review 

processes with an important role in 

Council development of ACL 

mechanisms. NMFS would expect that 

SSCs or peer review processes would 

not only need to produce calculations of 

ACL and OFL, but also the probability 

that an ACL in combination with other 

factors such as retrospective patterns in 

stock assessments, e.g., overestimating 

stock abundance and underestimating 

actual fishing mortality rate (F), would 

or would not result in OFL being 

exceeded. 

MSRA Section 104(c) revises the 

rebuilding provisions of section 304(e) 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to require 

that, when a Council is notified that a 

stock is overfished, the Council shall —

within 2 years after such notification —

submit and implement an FMP, FMP 

amendment, or proposed regulations to 

end overfishing ‘‘immediately,’’ and 

rebuild the overfished stock in as short 

a time as possible. NMFS’ preliminary 

review is that, because an FMP, FMP 

amendment, or regulations need to be 

implemented within 2 years of 

notification, a Council would need to 

submit the relevant action sufficiently 

in advance of the 2-year deadline (i.e., 

approximately one year and six months 

after notification) to ensure sufficient 

time (six months) for NMFS, on behalf 

of the Secretary, to finalize and 

implement the action. 

Statutory Deadlines and Other Timing 

Considerations 

Per MSRA section 104(b), the ACL 

and AM requirements take effect in 

fishing year 2010, for stocks determined 

by the Secretary to be undergoing 

overfishing. Thus, NMFS believes that 

the Councils and NMFS would have to 

plan to have ACL and AM mechanisms 

in place for all stocks in their FMPs that 

can be used beginning with the 2010 

fishing year, because it is unknown 

what stocks NMFS will have 

determined as undergoing overfishing 

just before the beginning of the 2010 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PRELIMS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Notices 7019 

fishing year. Stocks not determined to 

be undergoing overfishing will need 

ACLs and AMs by the 2011 fishing year, 

including stocks with unknown or 

undefined status regarding overfishing 

(i.e., the new requirement applies also 

to data poor stocks). 

MSRA section 104(c), which revises 

the requirements for rebuilding 

overfished fisheries, takes effect 30 

months after the enactment of the 

MSRA, i.e., effective date of July 12, 

2009. Thus, any fisheries determined to 

be overfished by the Secretary after that 

date would fall under the MSRA 

amendments to the rebuilding 

provisions of section 304(e)(3), instead 

of the current Magnuson-Stevens Act 

section 304(e)(3) provisions. Pursuant to 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 

304(e)(3), within one year of being 

notified by NMFS, that a stock is 

overfished, a Council needs to prepare 

and submit an FMP, FMP amendment, 

or proposed regulations to rebuild the 

overfished stock and end overfishing. 

As discussed earlier, under the MSRA 

amendments to section 304(e)(3), within 

two years of being notified by NMFS, 

anytime on or after July 12, 2009, that 

a stock is overfished, a Council needs to 

prepare and NMFS needs to implement 

an FMP, FMP amendment, or proposed 

regulations to rebuild the overfished 

stock and end overfishing immediately. 

NMFS intends to complete its 

revisions of the NS1 guidelines 

pertaining to this action before the end 

of 2007. Upon implementation of the 

final rule, NMFS will review each 

Council’s current provisions for ACLs 

and AMs and recommend any revisions 

it deems are appropriate. Some FMPs 

may already contain management 

measures that will meet the definition 

(or forthcoming criteria) of ACLs and 

AMs. If not, the FMPs will need to be 

amended to establish or revise ACLs 

and associated AMs consistent with the 

MSRA requirement and revised NS1 

guidelines, by the relevant statutory 

deadlines. 

NMFS previously issued an advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking (68 FR 

7492, February 14, 2003), and a 

proposed rule (70 FR 36240, June 22, 

2005), to revise the NS1 guidelines. 

NMFS did not issue a final rule because 

it decided to wait to see if the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act would be 

reauthorized before revising the NS1 

guidelines. This action is not expected 

to make the full set of revisions to the 

NS1 guidelines as was proposed in 

2005, because of the urgency to 

establish guidance related to new 

provisions in the MSRA. 

Issues Under Consideration 

In considering potential guidance 

related to MSRA’s overfishing 

provisions, NMFS has identified the 

following list of issues related to ACLs, 

AMs, and overfishing. NMFS seeks 

public comment on the scope of this 

NOI generally and the list of issues and 

potential alternatives for this action set 

forth below. 

Issues for Developing Guidance for 

ACLs and AMs 

•The role of the SSC and other peer 

review processes in setting ACLs and 

AMs 

•The relationship between ACL and 

OY 

•Revision of existing overfishing 

definitions to include OFL 

• Variability in data currently 

available for each stock (e.g., data rich, 

data poor, and stocks with data quality 

falling between data rich and data poor) 

• Setting ACLs for stocks with 

unknown status 

•Circumstances in which a numerical 

ACL can not be set for a stock, and in 

such situations, recommendations for 

adequate and appropriate alternatives to 

setting a numerical ACL (e.g., 

prohibitions) 

• Setting ACLs for stock complexes, 

stock assemblages, and similar stock 

groupings 

• Variability in the accuracy of 

management approaches in achieving 

target fishing levels 

• Setting a buffer between ACL and 

OFL to prevent overfishing, and how to 

determine the size of the buffer needed 

• Establishing the appropriate 

probability that an ACL will prevent 

overfishing for a stock 

• Establishing recommendations for 

inseason management authority and 

methods to be used as AMs to prevent 

overfishing 

• Limiting the extent of overfishing, 

should it occur 

• Establishing corrective actions to 

ensure accountability in a subsequent 

year for an overage of the OFL for a 

stock in a previous year 

• Establishing AMs for various sectors 

of a stock, if an ACL is subdivided for 

a stock, and the need to still prevent 

exceeding the overall OFL for the stock 

Preliminary ACL and AM alternatives 

• No action. Do not publish ACL and 

AM guidelines. Councils are statutorily 

required to implement ACLs and AMs, 

but the statute provides little specificity 

about the meaning of these terms. 

Without guidelines, Councils may 

develop and submit FMP amendments 

that the Secretary determines to be 

inadequate. Secretarial disapproval of 

an FMP amendment will require the 

Council to modify their amendment and 

resubmit it, making it unlikely that 

measures can be implemented by the 

statutory deadline of 2010, for stocks 

subject to overfishing and 2011, for all 

other stocks. 

• Alternative 2. Develop ACL and AM 

guidelines that provide performance 

standards that ACLs and AMs must 

meet, but do not provide guidance on 

specific mechanisms. Performance 

standards may be hard to develop, or it 

may be hard to adequately judge the 

degree to which proposed mechanisms 

will satisfy the performance standards. 

• Alternative 3. Develop ACL and AM 

guidelines that provide performance 

standards that ACLs must meet, and 

develop ACL and AM guidelines that 

provide specific guidance on one or 

more mechanisms to implementing 

ACLs and AMs that NMFS considers to 

meet the statutory requirement and the 

standards for Secretarial approval. 

Special Accommodations 

The public meeting to be held in 

NMFS Silver Spring headquarters on 

March 9, 2007, will be accessible to 

people with physical disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Mark Millikin 

(301–713–2341), by March 4, 2007. 

Dated: February 9, 2007. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–681 Filed 2–9–07; 2:12 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Information Collection; Submission for 

OMB Review, Comment Request 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (hereinafter the 

‘‘Corporation’’), has submitted a public 

information collection request (ICR) 

entitled the Application for the 

President’s Higher Education 

Community Service Honor Roll to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13, 

(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this 

ICR, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained by 

calling the Corporation for National and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PRELIMS