54132 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

is destroyed, recolonization would be 

impossible and the population 

supported by that breeding pond would 

be extirpated. 

Habitat loss on private lands is an 

imminent threat that is compounded by 

a variety of other factors. Fire 

suppression on private lands occupied 

by the frosted flatwoods salamander 

represents one of the biggest threats to 

the species’ habitat and the continued 

existence of the species on these sites. 

However, 62 percent of frosted 

flatwoods salamander populations have 

an improved chance of surviving 

demographic and environmental 

stochasticity given that the distribution 

of breeding sites occurs within an adult 

salamander’s dispersal distance. 

We believe that, when combining the 

effects of historical, current, and 

projected habitat loss and degradation, 

historical and ongoing drought, and the 

exacerbating effects of disease, 

predation, small population size, and 

isolation, the frosted flatwoods 

salamander continues to be likely to 

become an endangered species 

throughout all of its range within the 

foreseeable future. We believe these 

threats, particularly the threats to 

populations resulting from habitat 

degradation and fragmentation, small 

population size, and drought, are 

current and are projected to continue 

into the future. We have determined 

that these threats are operating on the 

species and its habitat with a moderate 

degree of magnitude throughout most of 

its range and with a moderate degree of 

severity, as discussed above. 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we have 

determined that the preferred action is 

for the frosted flatwoods salamander to 

retain its status as a threatened species 

under the Act. Without the protection of 

the Act, significant management of 

threats would likely occur on public 

lands; however, there is still substantial 

risk of loss of ponds to drought and 

disease and, on private lands, a variety 

of potential threats (for example, 

introduction of fish, predation, 

pesticides), and development. As 

discussed previously, declines resulting 

from drought can occur within only a 

few years. In the case of the frosted 

flatwoods salamander, 38 percent of 

populations have only one breeding 

pond. If the habitat at that site is 

destroyed, recolonization would be 

impossible and the population 

supported by that breeding pond would 

be extirpated. This could occur within 

a few years given recurring drought 

conditions and existing threats. While 

not in immediate danger of extinction, 

the frosted flatwoods salamander is 

likely to become an endangered species 

in the foreseeable future throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range if the 

present trends that negatively affect the 

species, and its limited and restricted 

habitat, continue. Furthermore, because 

these threats to the species are of 

comparable magnitude and severity 

across all of the species’ range, we have 

determined that an analysis of whether 

a specific portion of the range might 

require a different listing status is not 

warranted at this time. 

Available Conservation Measures 

For additional information on 

available conservation measures, please 

refer to the proposed rule published in 

the Federal Register on August 13, 2008 

(73 FR 47258). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this document is available upon 

request from the Field Supervisor Ray 

Aycock, Mississippi Field Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this package 

are the staff of the Mississippi Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: September 5, 2008. 

Lyle Laverty, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. E8–21878 Filed 9–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 600 

[Docket No. 0808041047–81182–01] 

RIN 0648–AW62 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Scientific and Statistical Committees; 

Peer Review; National Standard 

Guidelines 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that it is 

considering, and is seeking public 

comment on proposed rulemaking to 

revise National Standard 2 (NS2) 

guidelines regarding use of best 

scientific information available, in light 

of reauthorization of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). NMFS is considering modifying 

the language describing the content and 

purpose of the Stock Assessment and 

Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report or 

related documents, and adding language 

regarding peer review processes, the 

role of the scientific and statistical 

committees (SSCs) of the Regional 

Fishery Management Councils 

(Councils), and the relationship between 

peer reviews and SSCs. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before 5 p.m., local time, 

December 17, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648–AW62, by any one of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: Attn: William Michaels 301– 

713–1875. 

• Mail: William Michaels, NOAA 

Fisheries Service, Office of Science and 

Technology, 1315 East-West Highway, 

F/ST4, 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. Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill 

Michaels, 301–713–2363 x136. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 12, 2007, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA) 

was signed into law. The MSRA 

amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act included provisions to improve the 

use of science in decision-making, 

provide for a stronger role for Councils’ 

SSCs and enhance peer review 

processes. 

Currently, the NS2 guidelines address 

the use of best scientific information 

available to support fishery management 

actions, prescribe the content and 

purpose of SAFE reports or similar 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54133 

documents, and assign responsibility for 

the preparation and review of SAFE 

reports to the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary). SAFE reports are intended 

to provide the Councils with a summary 

of current scientific information 

available to make management 

decisions and are intended to contain 

information upon which Councils are to 

base harvest specifications, including 

annual harvest levels from each stock. 

At this time, NS2 does not specifically 

mention that the SAFE should include 

SSC recommendations for acceptable 

biological catch from either the SSC or 

peer review process (established under 

Section 302(g)(1)(E) of the MagnusonStevens Act). SSC recommendations for 

acceptable biological catch are the basis 

upon which each Council is to set 

annual catch limits (ACLs), and ACLs 

are not to exceed these fishing level 

recommendations per Section 302(h)(6) 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS is 

considering, and is seeking public 

comment on how to revise the 

discussion of SAFE reports in the NS2 

to include the scientific 

recommendations that are to be 

provided by the SSCs under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, as reauthorized. 

NMFS is inviting comment on the 

extent to which the NS2 guidelines 

should provide guidance as to what 

constitutes ‘‘best scientific information 

available.’’ In 2004, the National 

Research Council (NRC) of the National 

Academies was charged with examining 

the application of the term ‘‘best 

scientific information available’’ as the 

basis for fishery conservation and 

management measures required under 

NS2 and recommended approaches for 

a more uniform application of the 

standard within the context of current 

and future fisheries management efforts. 

The NRC recommendations can be 

found in their publication, ‘‘Improving 

the Use of the Best Scientific 

Information Available’ Standard in 

Fisheries Management’’ (NRC 

2004,http://books.nap.edu/ 

openbook.php). Although NMFS has 

informally adopted many of the NRC 

recommendations, this advanced notice 

of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) is an 

opportunity to solicit and incorporate 

recommendations into the NS2 

guidance. 

Section 302(g)(1)(E) of the MagnusonStevens Act provides that ‘‘(T)he 

Secretary and each Council may 

establish a peer review process for that 

Council for scientific information used 

to advise the Council about the 

conservation and management of the 

fishery. The review process, which may 

include existing committees or panels, 

is deemed to satisfy the requirements of 

the guidelines issued pursuant to 

section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal year 2001,’’ otherwise known as 

the Information Quality Act. At present, 

none of the 10 national standards, or 

national standard guidelines, directly 

discuss or provide guidance on peer 

review processes. 

NMFS is considering expanding NS2 

to include specific language regarding 

peer review processes. NS2 appears to 

be the logical national standard to 

provide further guidance regarding peer 

reviews, since a peer review process is 

one method for ensuring that the best 

scientific information available is 

utilized in Council decisions. This 

language may include minimum criteria 

for peer review processes, based in part 

on the public comments received. 

Furthermore, there may be a need to 

clarify the relationship between the peer 

review processes that may be 

established by the Secretary and each 

Council and the role of the SSC of that 

Council vis-a ́-vis the peer review 

process. 

Finally, NMFS seeks comments from 

the public on other issues or 

clarifications to NS2 that the public 

would like to see addressed in this 

rulemaking. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1851. 

Dated: September 15, 2008. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–21837 Filed 9–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS