3566 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices 

6. Verification of Submitted 

Information. OTEXA may, at any time, 

verify the information submitted by a 

qualifying apparel producer or its 

designee. OTEXA may require any 

textile mill or other entity located in the 

United States that exports to the 

Dominican Republic qualifying woven 

fabric, upon such export or upon 

request, documentation to OTEXA: (a) 

verifying that the qualifying woven 

fabric was exported to a producer in the 

Dominican Republic or to an entity 

controlling production; and (b) 

identifying such producer or entity 

controlling production, and the quantity 

and description of qualifying woven 

fabric exported to such producer or 

entity controlling production. OTEXA 

may also require that a producer or 

entity controlling production submit 

documentation to verify purchases of 

qualifying woven fabric. OTEXA may 

make available to each person or entity 

identified in documentation submitted 

under these provisions information 

contained in the documentation that 

relates to the purchase of qualifying 

woven fabric involving such person or 

entity. OTEXA may establish and 

impose penalties for the submission to 

OTEXA of fraudulent information under 

this program, other than a claim under 

the customs laws of the United States or 

under title 18, United States Code. 

7. Contact Information: Questions 

regarding the Earned Import Allowance 

program or the DR 2 for 1 online system 

may contact OTEXA via email at 

OTEXAlDR2for1@mail.doc.gov, or by 

phone to the Office of Textiles and 

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

(202) 482-3400. 

Dated: January 15, 2009. 

R. Matthew Priest, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles and 

Apparel. 

[FR Doc. E9–1215 Filed 1–15–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XM75 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Recovery Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the 

availability of the recovery plan for the 

U.S. Distinct Population Segment (DPS) 

of smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) 

as required by the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (ESA). 

ADDRESSES: The final plan is provided 

on NMFS’ Protected Resources Internet 

Web site at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/recovery/plans.htm. 

Requests for a copy of the recovery 

plan may be submitted to the 

Smalltooth Sawfish Plan Coordinator at: 

NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 

Protected Resources Division, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida, 

33701. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shelley Norton at (727) 824–5312, or by 

e-mail at shelley.norton@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Congress passed the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) to protect species of plants 

and animals in danger of extinction. 

NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) share responsibility for 

the administration of the ESA. NMFS is 

responsible for most endangered and 

threatened marine species, including 

the U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish 

(Pristis pectinata). Listed endangered or 

threatened species under NMFS 

jurisdiction are identified in 50 CFR 

224.101(a) and 50 CFR 223.102, 

respectively. The List of Endangered 

and Threatened Species, which contains 

species under the jurisdiction of both 

agencies, is provided in 50 CFR 

17.11(h). The U.S. DPS of smalltooth 

sawfish is listed as endangered. 

Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA requires 

that recovery plans be developed and 

implemented for the conservation and 

survival of endangered and threatened 

species, unless such plans would not 

promote the conservation of the species. 

A plan was prepared at the request of 

the Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries to promote the recovery of 

smalltooth sawfish. 

Summary of Comments Received 

Below we address the comments 

received pertaining to the Draft 

Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan 

(Plan) published August 28, 2006. In 

response to our request for public 

comments, we received over 6,000 

written responses to the Plan. The 

majority of the responses expressed 

general support for the Plan. Five 

commenting agencies and 3 scientific 

peer reviewers provided more specific 

comments. Responses to specific 

comments are provided below. 

Peer Review Comments 

Comment 1: A commenter suggested 

the use of circle hooks for recreational 

fishers as a means to reduce bycatch. 

Additionally, another commenter stated 

that studies on post-release mortality 

should be a higher priority. 

Response: Action 1.1.5 recommends 

investigating fishing devices such as 

circle hooks that may reduce the 

capture, injury, and mortality of 

smalltooth sawfish in recreational 

fisheries. NMFS agrees with the 

commenter who stated we should make 

studies on post-release mortality a 

higher priority. NMFS changed the 

priority numbers of Action 1.1.3 from a 

priority 2 to a priority 1 because new 

data on related species indicates the use 

of circle hooks may decrease postrelease mortality. 

Comment 2: A commenter noted the 

need to develop systematic sampling 

programs. Additionally, a commenter 

stated NMFS should plan for long-term 

monitoring and tagging of animals. 

Response: Action Items 3.2 and 3.4 

identify the need for surveys and NMFS 

is currently developing the specific 

sampling design programs to 

accomplish our recovery goals. The Plan 

also plans for long-term monitoring 

(Action 3.2.4) and tagging (Action 3.1.2) 

of animals to monitor the recovery 

process. 

Comment 3: A commenter suggested 

allowing additional permits for nondirected research to allow tagging of and 

release of captured animals. 

Response: Researchers working 

within the range of smalltooth sawfish 

and with gears that may incidentally 

capture the species can apply for an 

ESA permit to tag smalltooth sawfish. 

Researchers who are required to obtain 

an ESA permit for work on other 

federally endangered or threatened 

species may request authorization from 

NMFS to tag incidentally caught 

smalltooth sawfish. 

Comment 4: A commenter stated that 

NMFS needs to have a long-term 

commitment to surveying and tagging 

smalltooth sawfish. 

Response: The Plan looks forward 100 

years and includes actions and 

budgeting requirements for the 

implementation of all Action Items, 

including surveying and tagging of 

smalltooth sawfish. 

Comment 5: A commenter questioned 

the ability to detect increases in catch 

per unit effort (CPUE) data for the 

abundance criterion for juveniles in 

Objective 3. 

Response: NMFS is currently 

developing randomized, stratified 

survey methodologies that will detect 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices 3567 

changes in CPUE throughout the species 

range. Additionally, NMFS may need to 

continue to utilize recreational and 

commercial capture or sighting records 

to determine changes or trends in 

relative abundance. 

Comment 6: A commenter requested 

information regarding gillnet 

prohibitions by state. 

Response: Appendix C of the Plan 

summarizes the existing state laws or 

regulations related to gillnets within the 

species’ historic range. 

Comment 7: A commenter stated that 

the Plan did not consistently note the 

difference in population increase rates. 

They were noted as a percent or 

described as a proportion in the Plan. 

Response: NMFS has modified the 

Plan to use percent throughout. 

Comment 8: A commenter asked if the 

Everglades National Park creel data 

(Figure 7) accounted for fishing effort. 

Response: Yes, the results presented 

do take into account fishing effort. Catch 

per Unit Effort was calculated using the 

number of fishers. 

Comment 9: A commenter asked if 

sawfish were always taken as bycatch in 

nearshore fisheries. 

Response: A review of historical 

fishing records and literature on the 

species indicates no directed fisheries 

existed for the species but limited 

directed take occurred for aquaria and 

trade of sawfish parts, thus historical 

sawfish captures were predominantly as 

bycatch in fisheries targeting other 

species. 

Comment 10: A commenter stated the 

Plan does not provide adequate 

discussion on how to address a 

declining or stable population. 

Response: The Plan identifies several 

actions (1.1.1, 1.1.18, etc.) that address 

monitoring and minimization of existing 

threats. If population level monitoring 

indicates a decrease or leveling off of 

the population below target levels, 

NMFS will identify the cause and 

develop an action or actions to address 

the problem. NMFS periodically 

reviews the effectiveness of the Plan and 

the status of the species and makes 

adjustments to the Plan if necessary 

(including additional mitigation 

measures, etc.). 

Comment 11: A commenter stated that 

studying the connectivity between the 

U.S. population and populations in 

Mexico, Cuba, and the Bahamas should 

be a higher priority because the species 

is not listed in those countries. 

Response: Action 3.1 identifies the 

need to investigate the relationship 

between the U.S. population of sawfish 

and those in neighboring countries; 

however, NMFS ranked threats such as 

bycatch and habitat as being higher 

priority actions. The listed entity and 

the subject of the Plan is the U.S. DPS 

of smalltooth sawfish. While additional 

information on nearby populations is of 

scientific interest and value, NMFS 

believes, based on currently available 

information, we should focus our efforts 

on the recovery of the U.S. DPS because 

we believe the U.S. population is 

distinct from all other populations. We 

believe actions affecting smalltooth 

populations outside of the United States 

do not affect the U.S. smalltooth 

sawfish’s recovery efforts. 

Comment 12: A commenter expressed 

concern regarding the priority levels 

given the timing of various research 

activities. 

Response: NMFS addressed this 

comment by re-evaluating the research 

activities in the Plan. The research 

priorities numbers were reassessed by 

the team and were modified to match 

the timing of the action. Actions that 

must occur before others can take place 

were given higher priority based on 

timing. The action relating to (1) 

connectivity of populations (Action 3.1) 

was not a high priority because focus 

needs to be on the US DPS, so it was 

given a priority level of 3; (2) postrelease mortality (Action 1.1.3) was 

upgraded to priority level 1; and (3) 

collection of reproductive data (Action 

3.3.1) was not critical for the 

development of the PVA because 

reproductive data on a comparable 

species, the largetooth sawfish (P. 

perotteti), was used, so its priority level 

was not changed. 

Comment 13: A commenter stated that 

the lack of reproductive biology 

information on the species is a problem, 

especially when the PVA is developed. 

Response: As discussed above, 

existing reproductive data from 

largetooth sawfish (P. perotteti) can be 

and were used by NMFS internally to 

develop a preliminary PVA model for 

the smalltooth sawfish. As speciesspecific data become available, we can 

update the PVA model and examine its 

reliability with continued use of 

congener data. 

Comment 14: A commenter stated that 

NMFS should determine how many 

smalltooth sawfish fins are sold in the 

shark fin trade. The commenter also 

stated that the shark fin trade is 

increasing. 

Response: The Plan identifies the fin 

trade as a threat to sawfish but available 

fin trade data does not indicate that 

finning is a major threat to the recovery 

of the species. Action 1.2 in the Plan 

identifies the need to monitor trade of 

sawfish parts to ensure the long-term 

viability of the species. 

Comment 15: The Department of the 

Navy (DoN) has requested exemptions 

for maintenance dredging activities. 

Response: Exemptions are outside of 

the scope of the authority of recovery 

planning documents. NMFS will 

address the effects of future proposed 

DoN actions on listed species during the 

section 7 consultation process. 

Comment 16: DoN stated they may 

potentially carry more of the burden of 

recovering the smalltooth sawfish. 

Response: All Federal agencies have 

express responsibilities under section 7 

of the ESA. Section 7 (a)(1) states ‘‘all 

other federal agencies shall, in 

consultation with and with the 

assistance of the Secretary, utilize their 

authorities in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act by carrying out 

programs for the conservation of 

endangered and threatened species....’’ 

Additionally, section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA 

states ‘‘federal agencies shall, in 

consultation with and with the 

assistance of the Secretary, insure that 

any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by such agency is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered or threatened species or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of habitat of such species 

which is determined by the 

Secretary....’’ The DoN owns or manages 

some of the remaining known high 

quality sawfish habitat located within 

the current range of the species 

(Florida). However, the small percentage 

of high quality habitat under the DoN’s 

jurisdiction suggests they should not be 

unduly affected by the majority of the 

recovery efforts. 

Comment 17: The DoN expressed 

concern in regards to Recovery 

Objective ι2. This states the downlisting 

criteria of maintaining and protecting 95 

percent of mangrove shoreline habitat at 

the time of listing (2003). The DoN 

stated that the objective seems 

ambitious and unachievable and stated 

that NMFS should fund mangrove 

studies to determine the extent of the 

loss of mangrove habitats that existed in 

1940 and 2003 before determining 

recovery levels. Additionally, the DoN 

asked how NMFS would know the 

mangrove recovery criteria have been 

met. 

Response: Recovery plan levels are 

consistent with Federal and state 

regulations that protect mangrove 

habitats and require permits and 

mitigation for unavoidable impacts. 

Mangrove habitats are currently 

protected in the state of Florida under 

the Mangrove Trimming and 

Preservation Act, as amended in 1996. 

Maintaining 95 percent of remaining 

mangrove habitat should be achievable 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

3568 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices 

with the existing laws and regulations 

in place. Based on the existing data on 

juvenile smalltooth sawfish habitat 

usage patterns, mangrove habitats are 

essential for juvenile smalltooth 

sawfish. NMFS funded a mangrove 

study in 2008 to determine the changes 

in mangrove abundance within the 

range of juvenile smalltooth sawfish to 

determine the extent of habitat 

modification that occurred since the 

1940s and since the time of listing. 

NMFS will modify mangrove related 

recovery criteria based on the results of 

the study as appropriate. 

Comment 18: The DoN noted the 

focus of the Plan’s recovery efforts are 

in south Florida. 

Response: South Florida was 

historically the center of abundance for 

the species and is currently the center 

of its abundance and the only 

documented location of a reproducing 

population. Recovery actions are also 

identified for areas outside of Florida 

(North Carolina to Texas). As the 

population expands and recovers areas 

outside of south Florida will become 

increasingly important for the species. 

Comment 19: The DoN expressed 

concern over whether freshwater flow 

regimes to nursery areas have been 

established. 

Response: The Recovery Plan was 

written based on the ‘‘best available 

science’’ and since research has shown 

that estuarine areas with freshwater 

sources are important to juvenile 

smalltooth sawfish, it is considered an 

important factor. Data on specific 

freshwater flow requirements are 

lacking for the species. If and when 

improved data on the salinity 

requirements of the species are known, 

they will be incorporated into the Plan. 

Comment 20: The DoN expressed 

concern that the abundance of sawfish 

was not quantified at the time of listing. 

Response: The Plan contains recovery 

criteria based on the use of relative 

abundance because the species is 

endangered, highly mobile, and 

quantifying absolute abundance is not 

currently possible. The current 

population is estimated to consist of a 

few thousand animals (Simpfendorfer, 

2004). Absolute abundance cannot be 

determined for the species but relative 

abundance may be obtained by using 

various data sets as indices of 

abundance. The ENP creel and guide 

survey provides monitoring back to 

1989 prior to the date of listing. Other 

surveys conducted by federal and state 

agencies began prior to listing and are 

ongoing (Florida Independent 

Monitoring Program, etc.). These data 

sets will be used to document relative 

abundance through time. More baseline 

information is still required and 

increased survey and monitoring efforts 

are planned for the near future. 

Monitoring data (captures and or 

sightings) should provide us with a 

measure of increase or decrease in 

relative abundance that can be used to 

estimate the overall population size. 

Given the rate of population increase or 

decrease, these surveys will provide a 

reasonable proxy for the population 

estimate at the time of listing. Thus, the 

need to complete surveys prior to 

adopting the recovery objective is not 

required. 

Comment 21: The DoN stated the 

lower Florida Keys do not provide good 

habitat for juvenile sawfish because the 

salinity of the waters surrounding the 

area are often hyposaline or hypersaline, 

not euryhaline. 

Response: NMFS has limited and 

highly variable documented encounters 

of juvenile smalltooth sawfish in the 

Florida Keys (See Poulakis and Seitz 

[2004] and Simpfendorfer and Wiley 

[2005]). At this time, we cannot identify 

specific habitat features important to 

juveniles in the Florida Keys but we do 

know that juveniles are occasionally 

sighted or captured in the area. 

Comment 22: The DoN stated that 

riverine mangroves are functionally 

different from those found in the lower 

Florida Keys systems and are less 

important to sawfish. The DoN also 

stated that NMFS should consider 

creating a new recovery region for the 

lower Keys and classify the various 

types of mangrove habitats prior to 

designating critical habitat. 

Response: Current data on habitat 

usage by juvenile smalltooth sawfish 

indicate they primarily utilize habitats 

that contain the following features: 

shallow and euryhaline waters and red 

mangroves. These habitats are not solely 

located within rivers so we do not agree 

that riverine mangroves are more 

important to juvenile smalltooth sawfish 

than non-riverine mangroves. The 

delineation of the recovery regions is 

based primarily on biogeographical 

boundaries. Based on the encounter data 

and the similarity between habitats 

located within the upper and lower 

Florida Keys, NMFS did not consider 

changing the boundaries of Recovery 

Region I. 

Comment 23: A commenter suggested 

that NMFS establish optimum water 

quality and habitat targets for the 

Caloosahatchee River. 

Response: The Plan includes recovery 

actions to identify and maintain or 

restore appropriate water quality, 

including the timing of freshwater 

releases, for juvenile sawfish (Action 2.2 

and associated sub-actions). This 

includes the Caloosahatchee River. At 

this time there is insufficient data 

available on appropriate water quality 

levels in areas utilized by juvenile 

sawfish; however, research currently 

underway is collecting data in the 

Caloosahatchee River to address this 

need. 

Comment 24: A commenter 

recommended NMFS clearly define the 

specific importance of the 

Caloosahatchee River. 

Response: The Caloosahatchee River 

is currently an important area for 

smalltooth sawfish. The Caloosahatchee 

River falls within Recovery Region G, 

one of six where there is a requirement 

for maintaining nursery habitats. The 

plan recognizes the need to recover this 

species over a broad geographic range, 

of which the Caloosahatchee River is 

one component. 

Comment 25: A commenter stated that 

recovery actions should have 

information about the importance of 

specific areas. This information is 

requested to aid in local government 

planning processes. 

Response: NMFS has established 

ongoing research in specific areas, 

including in the Caloosahatchee River, 

which will lead to detailed information 

for management at the local level; 

however, specific detailed discussions 

within the Plan are beyond the scope of 

the Plan and were therefore not 

included. NMFS will work with local 

governments to provide guidance on 

local management strategies for 

smalltooth sawfish as the Plan is 

implemented. 

Comment 26: A commenter 

recommended specific discussion of the 

effects on smalltooth sawfish from Lake 

Okeechobee water releases. 

Response: Action 2.2 addresses the 

need to monitor and manage natural and 

freshwater flow regimes for the species. 

Freshwater releases from Lake 

Okeechobee and their effects on 

smalltooth sawfish are specifically 

identified in the Plan. Specific cause 

and effect information from water 

releases are unknown at this time. 

Comment 27: A commenter 

recommended NMFS designate critical 

habitat for the smalltooth sawfish. 

Response: NMFS proposed critical 

habitat on November 20, 2008 (73 FR 

70290). 

Comment 28: A commenter suggested 

NMFS support the funding of 

smalltooth sawfish conservation efforts. 

Response: The Plan lays out an 

implementation and cost schedule that 

will permit NMFS to set priorities for 

funding and regulatory action and 

provide for recovery of the species. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices 3569 

Actual implementation of actions in the 

Plan will depend on available funding. 

Comment 29: A commenter 

recommended the formation of a 

smalltooth sawfish implementation 

team. 

Response: NMFS has formed a 

Smalltooth Sawfish Implementation 

Team. More information on this team 

can be found at: http:// 

www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/ 

Descript/STSawfish/STSawfish.html. 

Comment 30: A commenter suggested 

that NMFS require new gear and 

equipment for release of smalltooth 

sawfish. 

Response: NMFS developed Safe 

Handling and Release Guidelines for the 

species (Appendix B), and made 

revisions to the plan to recommend use 

of circle hooks to reduce hooking injury 

and mortality. Training in safe handling 

and release methods for captured 

smalltooth sawfish is required in some 

of NMFS federally-managed fisheries. 

Additionally, specific types of release 

equipment are required to be on-board 

boats in specific federally-managed 

fisheries. 

Comment 31: A commenter stated that 

future developments should not destroy 

mangroves. 

Response: As stated in the response to 

comment ι17, federal, state, and local 

laws protect mangroves and may be 

applicable to development projects on a 

case-by-case basis. The Plan establishes 

objectives for protection and restoration 

of mangroves but the Plan itself cannot 

impose requirements on future 

development projects. 

Comment 32: One commenter 

recommended that eBay should not be 

able to sell any parts of sawfish. 

Response: Smalltooth sawfish are 

protected under Appendix 1 of the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora. Trade of parts is prohibited. 

Comment 33: Numerous (6,000) 

commenters expressed general support 

for the recovery plan. 

Summary of Changes 

Below we describe the changes made 

to the final Plan that were not discussed 

in the comment section. 

Change 1: The Recovery Criteria for 

nursery habitat was clarified to include 

the protection of non-mangrove habitats. 

Historic and current juvenile encounters 

indicate they are located in areas 

outside the range of mangroves. We 

believe we will need nursery areas 

outside of the range of mangroves to 

recover the species, but at this time 

cannot determine the specific features 

utilized by juveniles. Once we identify 

the habitat features utilized by juveniles 

in non-mangrove habitats, we need to 

protect and/or restore these areas for 

recovery of the species. 

Change 2: Section II, Recovery 

Strategy was rearranged to streamline 

the document and remove redundancy. 

Change 3: Figures 8a, 8b, and 8c were 

renamed as ‘‘Protected Areas’’ because 

they include upland areas as well as 

marine areas. 

Change 4: Citations and Recovery 

Actions were updated to reflect new 

publication dates or accomplishment of 

some actions. 

Change 5: Latitude and longitude 

locations were placed in the Recovery 

Regions Map (Figure 9) to clarify where 

each recovery region begins and ends. 

Change 6: NMFS made several 

changes to the Implementation 

Schedule. We provided additional 

comments in the ‘‘Comments’’ section of 

the table to note ongoing research. Some 

action start dates were delayed based on 

expected budget constraints. 

Additionally, some of the priority 

numbers were raised or lowered based 

on comments from the public. The 

following Actions were modified or 

added: 

• Action 1.1.3 was changed from a 

priority 2 to a priority 1. 

• Action 1.1.7 was changed from a 

priority 2 to a priority 3. 

• Action 1.1.17 start date was 

changed to FY08. 

• Action 1.5.1 was given a priority of 

3. 

• Action 2.1.3 start date was changed 

to FY09. 

• Action 2.1.6 was changed from a 

priority 2 to a priority 1. 

• Action 2.1.8 was changed to clarify 

the function of the area. 

• Action 2.1.10 start date was moved 

to FY08. 

• Action 2.1.11 was clarified to 

include nursery areas only within 

Florida because Florida is believed to be 

the center of the population. 

• Action 2.2.1 was changed from a 

priority 2 to a priority 1 and start year 

was changed to FY08. 

• Action 2.2.2 was changed from a 

priority 2 to a priority 1. 

• Action 2.3.3 start date was changed 

to FY08 

• Action 3.1.3 start date was changed 

to FY08. 

• Action 3.3.4 was changed from a 

priority 1 to a priority 3. 

• Action 3.3.5 was changed from a 

priority 2 to a priority 3. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

Dated: January 13, 2009. 

Angela Somma, 

Chief, Endangered Species Division, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–1118 Filed 1–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648-XM79 

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 public meeting of its 

Scientific and Statistical Committee on 

February 6, 2009 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 

Friday, February 6, 2009 at 8:30 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: Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC) will review the process to be used 

by the Scallop Plan Development Team 

to develop recommendations, as part of 

Amendment 15 to the Scallop Fishery 

Management Plan, for acceptable 

biological catch (ABCs), annual catch 

limits (ACLs) and accountability 

measures (AMs), as well as methods for 

analyzing the social and economic 

impacts of management measures. The 

SSC also will review recommendations 

from the Skate Plan Development Team 

regarding updated Skate Total 

Allowable Landings (TALs), as well as 

ABCs, ACLs and AMs, as part of 

Amendment 3 to the Skate Fishery 

Management Plan, using new data 

reviewed during the recent Data Poor 

Stocks Peer Review Meeting. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES