28018 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 

H–4888, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via e-mail to 

cbeck@ntia.doc.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The purpose of the Public 

Telecommunications Facilities Program 

is to assist, through matching funds, in 

the planning and construction of public 

telecommunications facilities in order to 

achieve the following objectives: 

• Extend delivery of public 

telecommunications services to as many 

citizens in the United States as possible 

by the most efficient and economical 

means, including the use of broadcast 

and nonbroadcast technologies; 

• Increase public telecommunications 

services and facilities available to, 

operated by, and owned by minorities 

and women; and 

• Strengthen the capability of existing 

public radio and television stations to 

provide public telecommunications 

services to the public. 

The reports submitted by the grantees 

include: 

• Construction schedule/planning 

timetable (one time). 

• Performance reports (quarterly). 

• Close-out materials after completion 

of the project (one time). 

• Annual reports for the duration of 

the government’s interest in the 

equipment (annually for a ten-year 

period). 

II. Method of Collection 

The reports may be submitted by 

mail, fax, or the Internet (beginning in 

FY 2010, all reports will be submitted 

over the Internet). 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0660–0001. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Not-for-profit 

institutions, state or local government 

agencies. 

Estimated Number of Total 

Respondents: 1,940. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 2 hours 

and 30 minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 5,080. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to the 

Public: $0. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, e.g., the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of the information collection. 

Comments will also become a matter of 

public record. 

Dated: June 9, 2009. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–13805 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–331–802] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from Ecuador: Notice of Extension of 

Time Limit for the Final Results of the 

Third Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 12, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gemal Brangman at (202) 482–3773, or 

David Goldberger at (202) 482–4136, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 9, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) published a 

notice for the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador 

covering the period February 1, 2007, 

through August 14, 2007. See Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Ecuador: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 9983 (March 9, 2009). 

The final results for this administrative 

review are currently due no later than 

July 7, 2009, 120 days from the date of 

publication of the preliminary results of 

review. 

Extension of Time Limit for the Final 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to issue the final results 

of an administrative review within 120 

days after the date on which the 

preliminary results are published. If it is 

not practicable to complete the review 

within that time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend the deadline for 

the final results to a maximum of 180 

days after the date on which the 

preliminary results are published. 

The Department determines that 

completion of the final results of the 

review within the original time limit is 

not practicable. Due to the complexity 

of the issues raised in this review, the 

Department requires additional time to 

review and analyze them in order to 

complete this review. Therefore, the 

Department is extending the time limit 

for completion of the final results of this 

review by 60 days, in accordance with 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final 

results are now due no later than 

September 8, 2009. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: June 8, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–13875 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–AV00 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Essential Fish Habitat 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of a final 

integrated environmental impact 

statement and fishery management plan 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 

availability of a final integrated 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

and fishery management plan (FMP) 

amendment pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that 

revises existing Highly Migratory 

Species (HMS) Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH); establishes a new Habitat Area of 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 28019 

Particular Concern (HAPC) for bluefin 

tuna (BFT) in the Gulf of Mexico; and 

includes conservation recommendations 

for fishing and non-fishing impacts on 

EFH consistent with the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act) and other relevant Federal laws. 

Approval of the amendment will be 

concurrent with approval of the Record 

of Decision and will occur following the 

30–day waiting period on the FEIS. 

DATES: Please refer to an upcoming U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Federal Register notice regarding this 

action, EPA’s notice is expected to 

publish in the Federal Register within 

the next week. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the integrated 

EIS/FMP amendment are available from 

the Highly Migratory Species 

Management Division, NMFS/SF1, 1315 

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910, or by contacting Chris Rilling at 

(301) 713–2347 or by emailing 

chris.rilling@noaa.gov. Electronic copies 

are also available on the HMS website 

under Breaking News at http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chris Rilling or Sari Kiraly by phone at 

(301) 713–2347 or by fax at (301) 713– 

1917. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq.) as amended by the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 

104–297) requires the identification and 

description of EFH in FMPs and the 

consideration of actions to ensure the 

conservation and enhancement of such 

habitat. The EFH regulatory guidelines 

(50 CFR 600.815) state that NMFS 

should periodically review and revise 

EFH, as warranted, based on available 

information. 

EFH, including HAPCs, for HMS was 

first identified and described in the 

1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, 

Swordfish, and Sharks, and in the 1999 

Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish 

FMP. EFH for five shark species was 

updated in the 2003 Amendment 1 to 

the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, 

Swordfish, and Sharks. NMFS reviewed 

all new and existing EFH data in the 

2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and 

determined that revisions to existing 

EFH for some Atlantic HMS may be 

warranted. This final amendment to the 

2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (hereafter 

Final Amendment 1) amends the 

existing EFH identifications and 

descriptions, and designates a new 

HAPC for BFT in the Gulf of Mexico. 

On November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65088), 

NMFS published a Notice of Intent to 

prepare an EIS to examine alternatives 

for updating existing HMS EFH, 

consider additional HAPCs, analyze 

fishing gear impacts, and if necessary, 

identify ways to avoid or minimize, to 

the extent practicable, adverse fishing 

impacts on EFH consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

relevant Federal laws. On the same day, 

NMFS also made available a Pre-Draft of 

Amendment 1 that included a general 

description of the approaches being 

considered to update EFH, considered 

new HAPCs, and where applicable, 

recommendations to minimize fishing 

impacts. The Pre-Draft also served to 

obtain additional information and input 

from the public and Atlantic HMS 

Consulting Parties on potential options 

or alternatives to consider prior to 

development of the Draft EIS for 

Amendment 1 of the Consolidated HMS 

FMP. Two scoping meetings were held 

in conjunction with the HMS Advisory 

Panel (AP) meetings in March 2007 (72 

FR 7860; February 21, 2007) and 

October 2007 (72 FR 49264; August 28, 

2007). 

Based in part on the comments 

received during scoping and from the 

HMS AP, on September 19, 2008, NMFS 

released Draft Amendment 1 to the 

Consolidated HMS FMP and the 

associated Notice of Availability (73 FR 

54384). The public comment period was 

originally scheduled to end on 

November 18, 2008, however it was 

subsequently extended (73 FR 66844, 

November 12, 2008) and reopened until 

December 12, 2008, to provide the 

Regional Fishery Management Councils, 

the Interstate Marine Fisheries 

Commissions, and the public additional 

opportunity to submit comments. 

Draft Amendment 1 proposed to 

update HMS EFH boundaries using new 

data and a new approach for mapping 

EFH, and proposed to designate a new 

HAPC for BFT in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Draft Amendment 1 also included an 

analysis of fishing and non-fishing 

impacts on EFH as required by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and the EFH 

regulations. NMFS consulted with the 

HMS AP; the New England, MidAtlantic, South Atlantic, Caribbean, and 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Councils; and the Gulf and Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commissions. 

Since NMFS was not proposing new 

regulations with respect to EFH, NMFS 

did not prepare a proposed rule in 

conjunction with the DEIS. The 

summary of the comments received and 

NMFS’ responses are provided below. 

Based on these public comments, NMFS 

made some changes to the EFH and 

HAPC boundaries as outlined in Final 

Amendment 1. 

Changes from the Draft Amendment 1 

1. Draft Amendment 1 considered 

several alternatives for updating HMS 

EFH. The preferred alternative to 

identify EFH based on the 95 percent 

probability boundary was not changed 

in Final Amendment 1. This approach 

was selected as the preferred alternative 

because it is based on the actual data 

points and provides a standardized, 

transparent, and reproducible method 

for delineating EFH. However, in some 

cases, the 95 percent probability 

boundaries were modified following 

additional analysis of the data and 

consultation with NMFS scientists 

familiar with the biology, life history, 

and habitat requirements of the species. 

These changes may have incorporated 

new areas known by species experts to 

be EFH, or conversely, may have 

removed areas that were not considered 

EFH for some species. The final 

boundaries are available as maps in the 

Final Amendment 1 and on the 

interactive webpage at http:// 

sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/ 

EFHlMapper/HMS/map.aspx. 

2. To further the conservation and 

enhancement of EFH, the EFH 

guidelines encourage the identification 

of HAPCs. HAPCs are areas within EFH 

that should be identified based on one 

or more of the following considerations: 

1) the importance of the ecological 

function provided by the habitat; 2) the 

extent to which the habitat is sensitive 

to human-induced environmental 

degradation; 3) whether, and to what 

extent, development activities are, or 

will be stressing the habitat type; and 4) 

the rarity of the habitat type. HAPCs can 

be used to focus conservation efforts on 

specific habitat types or areas that are 

especially important ecologically or 

particularly vulnerable to degradation. 

HAPCs are not required to have any 

specific management measures and a 

HAPC designation does not 

automatically result in closures or other 

fishing restrictions. Rather, the areas are 

intended to focus conservation efforts 

and bring heightened awareness to the 

importance of the habitat being 

considered as a HAPC. 

Draft Amendment 1 considered 

several alternatives for designating 

HAPCs for BFT spawning areas in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Data used to delineate 

the HAPC boundary included NMFS 

observer program data, NMFS larval 

surveys, pop-up archival tag (PAT) data, 

pop-up satellite archival tag (PSAT) 

data, and peer-reviewed publications 

that include information highlighting 

the importance of the central Gulf of 

28020 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 

Mexico as a BFT spawning area. 

Although there are no direct 

environmental effects of designating the 

BFT HAPC, the designation could help 

identify additional conservation efforts 

to minimize the impacts on BFT 

spawning habitat. Based on public 

comment, additional analysis of the 

data, and consultation with NMFS 

scientists familiar with the biology, life 

history, and habitat requirements of the 

species, NMFS modified the BFT HAPC 

boundary west of 86 degrees West 

longitude to follow the 100 meter 

isobath in the Gulf of Mexico and 

extending to the Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) boundary. The final HAPC 

boundary is available as a map in the 

Final Amendment 1 and on the 

interactive webpage at http:// 

sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/ 

EFHlMapper/HMS/map.aspx. 

Fishing and Non-Fishing Activities 

In addition to considering revisions to 

existing EFH and designating new 

HAPCs, the EFH guidelines require that 

FMPs identify fishing and non-fishing 

activities that may adversely affect EFH. 

Each FMP must include an evaluation of 

the potential adverse impacts of fishing 

on EFH designated under the FMP, 

effects of each fishing activity regulated 

under the FMP, as well as the effects of 

other Federal FMPs and non-federally 

managed fishing activities (i.e., state 

fisheries) on EFH. The FMPs must 

describe each fishing activity and 

review and discuss all available relevant 

information such as the intensity, 

extent, and frequency of any adverse 

effects on EFH; the type of habitat 

within EFH that may be adversely 

affected; and the habitat functions that 

may be disturbed (50 CFR 

600.815(a)(2)). If adverse effects of 

fishing activities are identified, then the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the 

effects of such fishing activities on EFH 

to be minimized to the extent 

practicable (Magnuson-Stevens Act 

section 303(a)(7)). 

NMFS completed the original analysis 

of fishing and non-fishing impacts in 

the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, 

Swordfish, and Sharks, and included a 

comprehensive review of all fishing 

gears and non-fishing activities that 

could potentially impact EFH in the 

2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. In that 

FMP, NMFS preliminarily concluded 

that no HMS gear, other than bottom 

longline, was likely to have an effect on 

HMS or other managed species’ EFH 

since most HMS gears such as rod and 

reel, handline, and pelagic longline, are 

fished in the water column where they 

are unlikely to affect either the water 

column or benthic habitat that define 

EFH for managed species. Bottom 

longline gear is used predominantly in 

the Atlantic commercial shark fishery to 

target large and small coastal sharks. 

The 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP also 

indicated that additional analyses 

would be initiated to determine the 

extent to which bottom longline gear 

might be impacting specific habitats 

such as coral reefs, which are generally 

considered the habitat type most likely 

to be adversely affected by bottom 

longline gear. 

The Draft Amendment 1 included an 

assessment of whether HMS bottom 

longline gear is used in EFH; an analysis 

of the intensity, extent, and frequency of 

such impacts; and a determination as to 

whether those impacts are more than 

minimal and not temporary. The ‘‘more 

than minimal and not temporary’’ 

threshold was established by NMFS as 

the necessary threshold for taking 

additional action to minimize such 

impacts. Based on the analysis, NMFS 

has determined that while BLL gear in 

general may have an effect on EFH, 

shark BLL gear as currently used in the 

shark fishery was not having more than 

a minimal and temporary effect on EFH. 

As a result, NMFS did not propose or 

finalize any measures to regulate shark 

BLL fishing in association with EFH. 

The findings are based on shark bottom 

longline observer program data which 

indicate that only a small fraction of 

bottom longline sets occur within coral 

reef habitat in addition to other recent 

measures implemented in Amendment 

2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP 

for the Atlantic shark fishery, which 

greatly reduced fishing effort in the 

Atlantic shark fishery (73 FR 35778; 

June 24, 2008, and corrected at 73 FR 

40658; July 15, 2008). NMFS will 

continue to work with the Regional 

Fishery Management Councils to 

identify areas where bottom longline 

gear used in the reef fish fishery or 

snapper grouper fishery may be having 

an adverse effect on habitat, and where 

the Councils may consider measures to 

reduce impacts. In those cases, NMFS 

may consider complementary 

regulations to prohibit shark bottom 

longline gear as was done in the 

Caribbean (72 FR 5633, February 7, 

2007) and most recently in the South 

Atlantic Marine Protected Areas (73 FR 

40658, July 15, 2008). 

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council is currently 

developing a final programmatic 

environmental impact statement 

(FPEIS)/FMP for offshore aquaculture in 

the Gulf of Mexico. Based on public 

comments concerning the impacts of 

aquaculture projects on EFH and the 

BFT HAPC in particular, NMFS 

included a section in Chapter 6 of the 

FEIS describing the Aquaculture FPEIS, 

the potential impacts of offshore 

aquaculture, and recommended 

conservation measures. 

Response to Comments 

Public comments on Draft 

Amendment 1 were accepted at the 

HMS AP meeting, Fishery Management 

Council meetings, and public hearings, 

as well as written comments submitted 

electronically to HMSEFH@noaa.gov or 

mailed during the comment period. A 

total of 34 comment letters or postings 

were received from Federal and state 

resource and environmental agencies, 

fishing industry, environmental groups, 

recreational fishing interests, and the 

public. In addition, NMFS received 

1,035 form letters expressing support for 

the BFT HAPC in the Gulf of Mexico (an 

example is provided in Appendix 2 of 

the FEIS). All comments were 

considered by NMFS in development of 

this FEIS and are included in Appendix 

2. For purposes of indicating how 

comments were considered in 

development of this FEIS and Final 

Amendment 1, the comments are 

grouped into subject headings of EFH 

designations, HAPCs, and impacts on 

EFH. 

1. Essential Fish Habitat Designations 

Comment 1: NMFS should include 

information from catches of blacktip, 

sandbar, and dusky sharks that appear 

to overwinter in Mexican waters. The 

data would indicate that NMFS should 

consider a secondary sandbar shark 

nursery ground off Brownsville, Texas. 

Response: While NMFS agrees that 

considering habitat use by HMS and 

other federally managed species outside 

the U.S. EEZ is important, EFH cannot 

be designated outside the U.S. EEZ and 

therefore NMFS did not seek 

information on sharks from countries 

other than the United States. In fact, 

BFT is the only HMS for which NMFS 

has data from within Mexican waters. 

Blacktip shark is the only shark species 

referred to be the commenter where 

available U.S. information was 

sufficient to identify EFH for all three 

life stages. Although there were isolated 

catches of sandbar and dusky sharks off 

southern Texas, there was insufficient 

information to identify EFH for either 

species off Brownsville, Texas. NMFS 

would need additional data or 

information to support an EFH 

designation for sandbar or dusky sharks 

off Brownsville. 

Comment 2: NMFS should consider 

separate EFH areas for blacknose sharks 

in the Gulf of Mexico and those in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 28021 

Atlantic, and consider incorporating 

shrimp trawl data. 

Response: In the 2007 blacknose shark 

stock assessment, the assessment 

scientists decided after reviewing the 

available data, that blacknose sharks 

should be assessed as a single stock. The 

scientists noted that there was 

conflicting genetic data regarding the 

existence of two separate stocks, and 

they recognized the potential 

differences in the reproductive cycle for 

South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

populations. However, given that the 

stock assessment did not consider 

blacknose to be comprised of two 

separate stocks, NMFS has decided to 

keep the EFH areas for blacknose sharks 

as a single EFH designation. It should be 

noted that the EFH boundaries in the 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are similar 

in size and scope, indicating that both 

areas play an important role in the life 

history and habitat requirements for 

blacknose sharks. 

Comment 3: The disadvantage of the 

preferred alternative (alternative 3) is 

that data-poor species result in smaller, 

discontinuous areas of EFH than datarich species. The species with limited 

habitat data should be clearly listed, as 

well as an approach to try to verify or 

modify these EFH boundaries to ensure 

they are protective; the DEIS does not 

provide adequate information to show 

that this is a protective approach for all 

species covered. 

Response: NMFS agrees that, 

depending upon the number of data 

points, data poor species tend to result 

in smaller, discontinuous areas of EFH 

than data rich species. To help address 

this concern, NMFS combined data from 

all three life stages for some of the data 

poor species. Examples include angel 

shark, basking shark, and bigeye 

thresher, among others. NMFS has 

provided a complete list of species for 

which data from two or more life stages 

were combined in Table 5.3 of the FEIS. 

In some cases, the increase in the 

number of data points helped alleviate 

some of the patchiness in the EFH 

boundaries. In other cases, it may not 

have helped, and NMFS scientists 

familiar with the habitat requirements 

for the species may have recommended 

that, where appropriate, and where 

there was specific knowledge of the 

habitat utilized by certain life stages, 

that the smaller discontinuous areas be 

manually combined into a single 

continuous area. Examples where this 

approach was used include smooth 

hammerhead sharks and common 

thresher shark. There may have been 

some species for which NMFS was 

unable to make further adjustments due 

to lack of additional data and smaller, 

discontinuous areas may still be 

evident. 

Comment 4: A discussion should be 

provided to discuss the monitoring 

plans, data gaps, and how future EFH 

related data will be obtained and used. 

Response: Chapter 7 of the FEIS 

provides an update of research and 

information needs for each of the major 

HMS stocks (tunas, swordfish, billfish, 

and sharks) as well as the information 

gaps and how best to address them. 

Comment 5: How can NMFS illustrate 

EFH in state waters? Has NMFS ground 

truthed EFH in state waters with the 

research surveys being done by the 

states? 

Response: Depending upon the 

species and life stage, NMFS may have 

identified portions of state waters as 

EFH. This is more likely to be the case 

for sharks, which use coastal bays and 

estuaries as nursery and pupping 

grounds, than for other HMS such as 

tunas and billfish which tend to be 

further offshore and occur less 

frequently in state waters. It may also 

depend upon the extent of the state’s 

seaward boundary. Both Florida (west 

coast) and Texas have 9 nautical mile 

territorial sea boundaries which may 

encompass EFH for a number of HMS. 

For sharks that occur in state waters, 

many of the data points used to 

designate EFH were drawn from 

individual researchers who may have 

contributed to the NMFS Cooperative 

Atlantic States Shark Pupping and 

Nursery Areas (COASTSPAN) program 

and the synthesis document ‘‘Shark 

nursery grounds of the Gulf of Mexico 

and the east coast waters of the United 

States’’ (McCandless et al., 2007). 

Although not every research survey 

done in a state may have been included 

in the analysis, a considerable amount 

of data was included from surveys or 

data collected by other means in state 

waters, including fishery independent 

surveys conducted by states. 

Comment 6: What kind of data was 

used to map EFH in estuaries? 

Response: As described in the 

previous response and more thoroughly 

in Chapters 2 and 4 of the FEIS, NMFS 

used observer program data, data from 

individual researchers, scientists 

participating in the COASTSPAN 

program, tag/recapture data from 

various tagging programs, and state 

fishery independent monitoring to 

generate the initial probability 

boundaries. NMFS then consulted with 

scientists familiar with the habitat 

requirements for the species to 

determine whether specific bays and 

estuaries should be included as EFH 

boundaries. NMFS also cross-checked 

the resulting probability boundaries 

with scientific data from peer-reviewed 

publications and collaborated with 

scientists to ensure the correct data were 

used and that appropriate areas were 

delineated. Finally, NMFS had an 

extended 90–day comment period for 

the DEIS during which all of the 

proposed boundaries were available for 

viewing in hard copy and electronic 

format, and on an interactive internet 

mapping site. NMFS received a number 

of comments during that period which 

further helped to determine whether 

specific estuaries should be included. 

Comment 7: Does HMS EFH 

encompass the entire water column? 

Response: Yes, at this point, HMS 

EFH is considered to encompass the 

entire water column. At some point in 

the future, NMFS may have the 

necessary data and technology to 

differentiate between different water 

depths utilized by HMS and further 

refine the exact habitat within the water 

column that is essential; however, 

NMFS does not yet have that capability. 

EFH from some species of sharks also 

includes benthic habitat in coastal areas 

for shark pupping and nursery grounds. 

Comment 8: Do the lead weights used 

on deep sea trawls have an impact on 

HMS EFH? 

Response: No, lead weights used on 

deep sea trawls do not have an impact 

on HMS EFH because HMS EFH does 

not include benthic habitat in deep sea 

areas. HMS EFH is instead defined by 

the water column and not benthic 

habitat. 

Comment 9: Were the bottom longline 

vessel locations near the coral reefs 

collected with GPS or some other 

means? The locations may not be 

accurate depending on how the 

locations were obtained or recorded. 

Response: Depending on the year, 

latitude and longitude coordinates may 

have been collected using either a 

Global Positioning System (GPS) or U.S. 

Coast Guard Long Range Aid to 

Navigation (LORAN-C). LORAN was 

used widely throughout the 1980s and 

early 1990s before most vessels began to 

switch to GPS. Since the data are from 

the mid 1990s it is possible that some 

data were collected by LORAN-C which 

may be subject to error. 

Comment 10: Did NMFS use vessel 

trip reports or pelagic longline logbook 

data in the analysis? 

Response: NMFS did not use vessel 

trip reports or pelagic longline logbook 

data because neither data set includes 

size information which is necessary to 

identify EFH by life stage as required by 

the EFH regulations. 

Comment 11: The EFH mapper is 

great, loads quickly, and is a good way 

to present the data. 

28022 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 

Response: NMFS received many 

favorable comments about the EFH 

mapping tool. NMFS considers the EFH 

mapper to be an effective way to make 

HMS EFH boundaries available to the 

public, state, and federal agencies that 

need to consider whether a proposed 

project may occur within EFH 

boundaries. The high resolution and 

detail that is available on the EFH 

mapper is far superior to static, 

hardcopy maps. By zooming in and out 

on specific coastal areas, it is possible 

for interested parties to determine the 

exact location of HMS EFH boundaries. 

This in turn will help applicants 

determine whether consultation may be 

required. In addition, the internet 

mapping site provides a cost-effective 

alternative to the high cost associated 

with printing color maps. 

Comment 12: Will NMFS be able to 

provide the spatial EFH files to the 

public or interested parties? 

Response: Yes, NMFS plans to 

continue using the EFH mapping site 

that was used during the DEIS comment 

period. In addition, maps and 

downloadable spatial EFH files for all 

federally managed species can be found 

on the NMFS EFH Mapper at http:// 

sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/ 

EFHlMapper/map.aspx. NMFS will 

continue to provided spatial Geographic 

Information System (GIS) EFH files to 

interested parties upon request. Even 

prior to development of the internet site, 

NMFS regularly provided spatial 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

EFH files to interested parties upon 

request, and will continue to do so. 

Comment 13: Did NMFS do a 

statistical analysis of whether there 

were sufficient points or adequate 

sample size to determine EFH based on 

presence/absence data? If not, at the 

least, NMFS should include the number 

of data points used for each of the 

species. 

Response: NMFS did not perform a 

statistical analysis to determine whether 

there were sufficient data points to 

determine EFH, but did provide the 

number of data points used by data 

source for each species on the hardcopy 

maps in the FEIS. NMFS also included 

the number of data points represented 

by each species and life stage in the 

electronic PDF versions of the maps, but 

could not include them on the EFH 

internet mapping site. 

Comment 14: Are there any plans to 

consider HAPCs for any other species? 

Response: NMFS is not considering 

additional HAPCs at this time, however 

this does not preclude future HAPC 

designations. 

Comment 15: NMFS should consider 

forage species as EFH. 

Response: According to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, EFH is defined 

as areas necessary for spawning, 

breeding, feeding, and growth to 

maturity. As part of the analysis in 

determining EFH, NMFS considered 

areas that were important feeding areas 

and where prey species play an 

important role. However, NMFS is not 

required to designate EFH for a 

particular species based purely on the 

availability, or primary habitat of, prey 

species. Prey species are one component 

that is taken into consideration when 

determining EFH. 

2. Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

(HAPCs) 

Comment 1: NMFS received 

numerous comments in support of the 

HAPC designation for BFT in the Gulf 

of Mexico including 1,035 letters from 

members of the Monterey Aquarium’s 

Ocean Action Team. 

Response: NMFS recognizes that 

HAPCs are intended to focus 

conservation efforts and bring 

heightened awareness to the ecological 

importance of special areas and their 

vulnerability to degradation through 

fishing and non-fishing activities. 

Designating the bluefin tuna spawning 

area in the Gulf of Mexico should 

highlight the importance of the area and 

foster added conservation measures to 

reduce impacts from these activities. By 

establishing the EFH provisions, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act clearly 

recognized and acknowledged the 

importance of habitat in maintaining 

healthy fish stocks. The EFH provisions 

provide a tool by which NMFS has 

greater oversight of development 

activities that have the potential to 

impact EFH. Specifically, section 

305(b)(1)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act requires all Federal agencies to 

consult with the Secretary on all actions 

or proposed actions authorized, funded, 

or undertaken by the agency that may 

adversely affect EFH. 

Comment 2: We support designation 

of the HAPC for BFT in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Each of the criteria under the 

EFH HAPC guidelines is satisfied. 

Bluefin tuna spawning habitat in the 

Gulf of Mexico is vulnerable to a 

number of sources of human-induced 

degradation, including: 1) reduced 

availability of prey fish for feed should 

offshore aquaculture be developed (EFH 

guidelines identify actions that reduce 

the availability of major prey species as 

adverse effects on EFH); 2) expanded 

offshore oil drilling and liquefied 

natural gas development; 3) threats to 

sargassum habitat, which studies have 

found support larvae of BFT and other 

pelagic species; 4) and dead zones that 

potentially could pose a long-term 

threat to spawning success. The area 

designated for HAPC is in need of 

additional levels of protection from 

such adverse impacts. 

Response: NMFS agrees that there are 

a number of activities that have the 

potential to impact EFH and HAPCs, not 

just in the Gulf of Mexico, but in all 

areas. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council (GMFMC) is 

currently developing an Aquaculture 

FPEIS. The purpose of the plan is to 

establish a regional permitting process 

to manage the development of an 

environmentally sound and 

economically sustainable aquaculture 

industry in federal waters of the Gulf of 

Mexico. Aquaculture projects for 

council managed species in federal 

waters of the Gulf of Mexico would 

need to be authorized and receive a 

permit from the GMFMC. Permit 

applicants would be required to conduct 

a baseline environmental assessment of 

the proposed site prior to permit review 

by NMFS. If a permit is authorized, 

permittees would have to conduct 

routine monitoring of a site based on 

NMFS protocols and procedures 

developed in coordination with other 

federal agencies. Aquaculture 

operations would also be required to 

report to NMFS within 24 hours of the 

discovery of: major escapement; 

entanglements or interactions with 

marine mammals, endangered species 

and migratory birds; and findings or 

suspected findings of pathogens. Other 

activities such as oil and gas 

development are subject to the 

consultation provisions under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Section 

305(b)(1)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act requires all federal agencies to 

consult with the Secretary on all actions 

or proposed actions authorized, funded, 

or undertaken by the agency that may 

adversely affect EFH. 

Comment 3: Designating a HAPC for 

BFT populations will be a critically 

important step if it is to have any 

semblance at returning to viability. 

Other actions NMFS should take 

include: 1) developing an EIS for 

offshore aquaculture in federal waters; 

2) reigning in permits for offshore 

aquaculture in federal waters; 3) 

reducing fishing for feedfish; and 4) 

designating the area identified as 

preferred alternative 2 as a HAPC. 

Response: As discussed in the 

previous response, the GMFMC 

prepared a FPEIS for offshore 

aquaculture, which evaluates the 

potential environmental impacts of a 

range of alternatives and describes 

potential impacts to water quality, wild 

stocks, and fishing communities. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 28023 

Potential impacts resulting from 

offshore aquaculture may include 

increased nutrient loading, habitat 

degradation, fish escapement, 

competition with wild stocks, 

entanglement of endangered or 

threatened species and migratory birds, 

spread of pathogens, user conflicts, 

economic and social impacts on 

domestic fisheries, and navigational 

hazards. The preferred alternatives 

selected by the Gulf Council are 

intended to prevent or mitigate to the 

extent practicable these potential 

adverse environmental impacts. 

Comment 4: We believe that recent 

studies by Dr. Barbara Block of Stanford 

University indicate designation of the 

Atlantic BFT HAPC is necessary to 

prevent further depletion of the western 

population. 

Response: In addition to Dr. Block’s 

research, a number of other 

publications, studies, and data collected 

by NMFS as well as other state and 

Federal institutions, have highlighted 

the importance of the Gulf of Mexico for 

spawning BFT. Combined, all of these 

sources provide support for the 

designation of a HAPC for BFT in the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

Comment 5: We support the 

designation of the BFT HAPC in the 

Gulf of Mexico, but recommend that the 

area be amended to include all waters 

west of 86 degrees West longitude and 

off the continental shelf (e.g., offshore of 

the 200 m contour) to the boundary of 

the U.S. EEZ, which is more 

scientifically accurate and is based on 

analyses of the combined electronic 

tagging and fishery data sets. 

Response: Based on public comment, 

and further review of the data, NMFS 

has modified the HAPC boundary that 

was originally proposed in Draft 

Amendment 1 to follow the 100 meter 

(m) isobath west of 86 degrees West 

longitude in the Gulf of Mexico, and 

include all waters seaward of the 100m 

isobath to the EEZ boundary. NMFS 

believes that the changes to the 

boundary reflect the areas that are most 

important for BFT spawning in the Gulf 

of Mexico. 

Comment 6: Why are there straight 

lines for the BFT HAPC in the Gulf of 

Mexico? Does NMFS have data to 

support a BFT HAPC in waters off 

western Louisiana? Spawning areas do 

not follow straight lines, and the 

northernmost portion should be moved 

further south. It would be better to 

follow existing contour lines. 

Response: As described in the 

previous response, NMFS has modified 

the HAPC boundary to follow the 100m 

isobath in the Gulf of Mexico. Although 

straight lines are sometimes useful for 

management and enforcement purposes, 

NMFS agrees that in this case, the best 

representation of the HAPC boundary in 

the Gulf would be to follow existing 

contour lines to better reflect habitat 

useage by BFT. 

Comment 7: Is using larval data as a 

proxy for adult BFT spawning areas 

appropriate? 

Response: NMFS used a variety of 

data sources to establish the HAPC 

boundary for BFT spawning areas in the 

Gulf of Mexico. As described in the 

FEIS, a number of alternatives were 

proposed, including a non-preferred 

alternative of using the 95 percent 

probability boundary for BFT larval data 

collections to which the commenter is 

referring. Instead, NMFS preferred 

alternative 2 which relied on a number 

of data sources, one of which included 

BFT larval data collections. 

Comment 8: We support NMFS 

preference of HAPC alternative 2 over 

Alternatives 3 and 4; alternative 3 is 

biased due to larval sampling stations, 

and alternative 4 does not capture the 

entire spawning ground. 

Response: NMFS agrees that 

alternative 2 is the best alternative for 

designating a HAPC for BFT spawning 

areas in the Gulf of Mexico because it 

encompasses the most important areas 

where BFT spawning is occurring rather 

than the areas where BFT eggs and 

larvae may be dispersed. 

Comment 9: We request that you 

remove the Teo et al. (2007) overlay 

from the HAPC maps, as it 

misrepresents the data, the layers are 

not digitized accurately, and including 

the data overemphasizes the location of 

28 individuals displaying breeding 

behavior as compared to thousands of 

points from the observer program, 

logbooks, and electronic tagging. 

Response: NMFS has removed the Teo 

et al. (2007) overlay from the HAPC 

maps in the FEIS. The original intent of 

including the area in the Draft 

Amendment was to demonstrate the 

importance of the western Gulf of 

Mexico as one of the key areas for BFT 

spawning, and to indicate that the 

HAPC preferred alternative would 

encompass portions of the area within 

the U.S. EEZ considered primary 

breeding areas in the Teo et al. (2007). 

publication. 

Comment 10: I support the creation of 

a HAPC for BFT in the Gulf of Mexico; 

I think NMFS should put the entire area 

off limits to development, fishing, and 

oil drilling. 

Response: Section 305(b)(1)(D) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires all 

federal agencies to consult with the 

Secretary on all actions or proposed 

actions authorized, funded, or 

undertaken by the agency that may 

adversely affect EFH. Sections 305(b)(3) 

and (4) direct the Secretary and the 

Councils to provide comments and EFH 

conservation recommendations to 

federal or state agencies on actions that 

affect EFH. Such recommendations may 

include measures to avoid, minimize, 

mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse 

effects on EFH resulting from actions or 

proposed actions authorized, funded, or 

undertaken by the agency or the 

activities of other agencies such as the 

Army Corps of Engineers or Mineral 

Management Service for development or 

offshore drilling. Section 305(b)(4)(B) 

requires federal agencies to respond in 

writing to such comments. Although 

NMFS has the regulatory authority to 

minimize fishing activities that are 

demonstrated to have more than a 

minimal and not temporary effect on 

EFH, NMFS has not proposed, nor 

implemented any measures to minimize 

fishing impact on EFH in this FEIS 

because NMFS has determined that BFT 

EFH is in the water column and fishing 

is not having more than a minimal 

impact on water column properties. 

Further, the Department of Commerce 

does not have the legal authority to 

regulate oil drilling. 

Comment 11: NMFS received a 

number of comments regarding the 

HAPC and fishing effort including: (1) I 

support the HAPC and recommend 

closure of the Gulf of Mexico and 

Atlantic to longlining of any type; (2) 

this type of fishing is non selective and 

is destroying the fish and other wildlife 

indiscriminately; (3) BFT spawning 

grounds in the Gulf of Mexico need to 

be closed to purse seine and longline 

commercial fishing during the breeding 

season; and 4) NMFS should consider a 

seasonal closure for pelagic longlining 

in the HAPC during the bluefin 

spawning season. 

Response: The EFH guidelines require 

NMFS to identify fishing and nonfishing activities that may adversely 

affect EFH. Since most HMS EFH is 

comprised of the water column, of 

which the characteristics of 

temperature, salinity, and dissolved 

oxygen are unlikely to be affected by 

fishing gears, NMFS concluded that 

fishing gears were not having a negative 

effect on most HMS EFH. As a result, 

NMFS did not propose any measures to 

regulate fishing in association with EFH. 

NMFS has provided a list of 

conservation recommendations for 

fishing and non-fishing activities that 

have the potential to impact EFH in the 

FEIS. Since the focus of this amendment 

is EFH, NMFS did not consider any 

alternatives or regulatory measures to 

limit fishing effort in order to reduce 

28024 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 

bycatch. Such an action would need to 

be considered in a separate rulemaking 

or amendment. The Consolidated HMS 

FMP did include measures to reduce 

bycatch. NMFS is continuing to monitor 

bycatch of BFT in the Gulf of Mexico, 

and has implemented 100 percent 

observer coverage on pelagic longline 

vessels during the spawning season. 

Although NMFS issues permits for tuna 

purse-seining, targeting of BFT in the 

Gulf of Mexico is prohibited and purseseining for BFT, or any other HMS, is 

not authorized in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Comment 12: Despite the clearly 

recognized importance of Gulf 

spawners, NMFS has allowed continued 

bycatch mortality of mature BFT on 

their spawning ground by the U.S. 

pelagic longline fleet. We hope that by 

deciding to focus future conservation 

efforts for BFT on the Gulf of Mexico, 

NMFS will take even more proactive 

steps towards protecting these 

spawners. 

Response: Targeting BFT is prohibited 

in the Gulf of Mexico. Vessels are 

currently subject to target catch 

requirements in order to retain any 

incidentally caught BFT. As indicated 

in the previous response, NMFS has 

implemented 100 percent observer 

coverage in the Gulf of Mexico during 

BFT spawning season (April-June) 

during the previous two years and will 

have 100 percent observer coverage 

again this year. This information will 

help NMFS to better understand the 

scope of the bycatch, the areas most 

likely to result in incidental catch of 

BFT, and the temporal variability in 

bycatch. 

Comment 13: NMFS has incorrectly 

stated that the HAPCs for sandbar 

sharks in the Chesapeake Bay as being 

in the State of Maryland. In actuality, 

the HAPCs were identified in waters of 

Virginia. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

that the majority of the HAPC for 

sandbar sharks is in Virginia state 

waters; however a portion of the HAPC 

is also located in Maryland state waters. 

As a result, NMFS has amended the 

language in the FEIS to say that the 

HAPC for sandbar sharks occurs in both 

Maryland and Virginia state waters of 

the Chesapeake Bay. 

3. Fishing and Non-Fishing Impacts on 

Essential Fish Habitat 

Comment 1: NMFS states that if future 

analyses indicate certain fishing gears 

are having a more than minimal and not 

temporary effect on EFH, NMFS will 

propose alternatives to avoid or 

minimize those impacts in a subsequent 

rulemaking; in this regard, we note that 

Atlantic BFT are subject to indirect 

fishing pressure within the spawning 

grounds during the spawning season, in 

particular as bycatch in pelagic longline 

fisheries targeting other species. 

Response: NMFS is aware of the 

incidental catch of BFT in the Gulf of 

Mexico and is continuing to monitor the 

situation in the Gulf of Mexico with 100 

percent observer coverage on pelagic 

longline vessels during the spawning 

season. Since the focus of this 

amendment is habitat, NMFS did not 

consider any alternatives or regulatory 

measures to limit fishing effort in order 

to reduce bycatch. Such an action 

would need to be considered in a 

separate rulemaking or amendment, as 

appropriate. 

Comment 2: We are concerned that 

NMFS’ evaluation of the non-fishing 

threats to the proposed BFT HAPC in 

the Gulf of Mexico is incomplete - 

NMFS has completely failed to address 

the potential threat posed by seismic 

exploration activities associated with 

the expansion of oil and gas 

development in the Gulf. 

Response: NMFS agrees that seismic 

exploration has the potential to affect 

habitat use by a number of species 

including HMS, and has therefore 

included conservation 

recommendations in the FEIS for 

seismic exploration activities associated 

with the expansion of oil and gas 

development in the Gulf of Mexico. 

During the normal course of 

consultation, habitat experts would 

review all available data to determine 

whether potentially harmful habitat 

effects had been adequately addressed 

prior to approval of any applications. 

Comment 3: Additional information 

should be provided on how 

determinations will be made regarding 

impacts from fishing gear; further 

assurance should be given as to how any 

impacts will be addressed. 

Response: Determination of impacts 

from fishing gears would be done in a 

manner similar to the analysis 

completed in the current Amendment 

for shark bottom longline gear. That is, 

NMFS would analyze the nature, scale, 

scope, duration, and frequency of 

impacts of fishing gears on specific 

habitat types and make a determination 

as to whether the impacts are 

considered more than minimal and not 

temporary in nature. If such an effect is 

demonstrated, then NMFS would 

propose measures to minimize those 

impacts. Impacts would be addressed on 

a case-by-case basis based on analysis of 

existing data. 

Comment 4: The GMFMC is 

considering offshore aquaculture 

projects that should be considered a 

fishing impact, and could have an 

impact on BFT EFH. 

Response: NMFS is aware of the 

Programmatic EIS for offshore 

aquaculture that the GMFMC is 

finalizing and has included a discussion 

of offshore aquaculture, including 

conservation recommendations, in the 

Final EIS. 

Comment 5: Did the EFH analysis 

include fishing effort? If not, this could 

be why there is no EFH identified for 

adult swordfish off the southeast corner 

of Florida. 

Response: NMFS provided a detailed 

description of the data and approach 

used to update EFH boundaries in 

Chapter 4 of the FEIS, including 

inherent limitations in certain data sets 

and why others were not included. To 

summarize, NMFS did not include 

fishing effort in the EFH analysis for a 

variety of reasons. Most of the presence/ 

absence data available for HMS does not 

include fishing effort. Some of the data 

sets that do include fishing effort, such 

as the Pelagic Longline Logbook data, do 

not include the size information 

required to identify EFH by lifestage as 

required by the EFH regulations. Other 

data sets that include fishing effort, such 

as the Pelagic Observer Program (POP) 

data, comprise only a small proportion 

of the overall data available for pelagic 

species. Thus, relying on fishing effort 

from the POP data alone would have 

precluded the use of other datasets and 

would have reduced the potential range 

of EFH. 

Comment 6: ‘‘Dead zones’’ due to 

hypoxia could pose a significant longterm threat to spawning success for 

BFT. NMFS should include additional 

information on the dead zone in the 

Gulf of Mexico and potential impacts on 

BFT EFH and the HAPC. 

Response: NMFS is aware of dead 

zones due to hypoxia in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Dead zones typically occur in 

benthic or near-benthic environments 

where they would be unlikely to affect 

BFT habitat. NMFS has examined this 

issue in more detail and included a 

discussion on hypoxia in the Final EIS. 

Comment 7: What would the process 

be if there is a proposed aquaculture 

project in the BFT HAPC? Would the 

project still be allowed to happen? 

Response: The GMFMC regulates nonHMS fisheries, including aquaculture, 

in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico EEZ, which 

extends from state waters to 200 

nautical miles offshore. Landings or 

possession of species managed under an 

FMP for purposes of commercial marine 

aquaculture production in the EEZ 

constitutes ‘‘fishing’’ as defined in the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Permit 

applicants would be required to conduct 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 28025 

a baseline environmental assessment of 

the proposed site prior to permit review 

by NMFS. If a permit is authorized, 

permittees would have to conduct 

routine monitoring of a site based on 

NMFS protocols and procedures 

developed in coordination with other 

federal agencies. Aquaculture 

operations would also be required to 

report to NMFS within 24 hours of the 

discovery of: major escapement; 

entanglements or interactions with 

marine mammals, endangered species 

and migratory birds; and findings or 

suspected findings of pathogens. 

Comment 8: Has NMFS considered 

harmful algal blooms (HABs) in the nonfishing impacts section? 

Response: While HABs are a concern 

for a number of species, in general they 

are less likely to affect habitat for HMS 

because HABs tend to occur closer to 

shore in areas where HMS are less likely 

to occur. In addition, given their highly 

mobile nature, HMS are more likely to 

avoid prolonged contact with HABs in 

affected areas. However, NMFS 

considers this an important issue and 

has included additional information on 

HABs in the non-fishing impact section 

of the FEIS. 

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

Dated: June 9, 2009. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–13866 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN: 0648–XP78 

Pacific Fishery Management Council; 

Public Meeting/Workshop 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of three public meetings. 

SUMMARY: Three Groundfish Stock 

Assessment Review (STAR) Panel 

meetings will be held to review new 

assessments for groundfish species. The 

first STAR Panel meeting will review 

new assessments for bocaccio and 

widow rockfish. The second STAR 

Panel meeting will review new 

assessments for lingcod and cabezon. 

The third STAR Panel meeting will 

review new assessments for yelloweye 

and greenstriped rockfish. All three 

STAR Panel meetings are work sessions 

which are open to the public. 

DATES: The bocaccio and widow 

rockfish STAR Panel meeting will be 

held beginning at 8:30 a.m., Monday, 

July 13, 2009. The meeting will 

continue on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 

beginning at 8:30 a.m. through Friday, 

July 17, 2009. The meeting will end at 

5:30 p.m. each day, or as necessary to 

complete business. 

The lingcod and cabezon STAR Panel 

meeting will be held beginning at 8:30 

a.m., Monday, July 27, 2009. The 

meeting will continue on Tuesday, July 

28, 2009 beginning at 8:30 a.m. through 

Friday, July 31, 2009. The meeting will 

end at 5:30 p.m. each day, or as 

necessary to complete business. 

The yelloweye and greenstriped 

rockfish STAR Panel meeting will be 

held beginning at 8:30 a.m., Monday, 

August 3, 2009. The meeting will 

continue on Tuesday, August 4, 2009 

beginning at 8:30 a.m. through Friday, 

August 7, 2009. The meeting will end at 

5:30 p.m. each day, or as necessary to 

complete business. 

ADDRESSES: The bocaccio and widow 

rockfish STAR Panel meeting will be 

held at the NMFS Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center, Meeting Room 188, 110 

Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060; 

telephone: (831) 420–3900. 

The lingcod and cabezon STAR Panel 

meeting, as well as the yelloweye and 

greenstriped rockfish STAR Panel 

meeting, will be held at the Hotel Deca, 

4507 Brooklyn Avenue N.E., Seattle WA 

98105; telephone: 1–800–899–0251. 

Council address: Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, 

OR 97220–1384. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Stacey Miller, Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center (NWFSC); telephone: 

(206) 437–5670; or Mr. John DeVore, 

Pacific Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (503) 820–2280. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of the three STAR Panel 

meetings is to review draft stock 

assessment documents for these species 

and any other pertinent information, 

work with the Stock Assessment Teams 

to make necessary revisions, and 

produce STAR Panel reports for use by 

the Council family and other interested 

persons. No management actions will be 

decided by these STAR Panels. The 

STAR Panels’ role will be development 

of recommendations and reports for 

consideration by the Council at its 

September meeting in Foster City, CA. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agendas may 

come before the STAR Panel 

participants for discussion, those issues 

may not be the subject of formal STAR 

Panel action during these meetings. 

STAR Panel action will be restricted to 

those issues specifically listed in this 

notice and any issues arising after 

publication of this notice that require 

emergency action under Section 305(c) 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

provided the public has been notified of 

the STAR Panel participants’ intent to 

take final action to address the 

emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter 

at (503) 820–2280 at least 5 days prior 

to the meeting date. 

Dated: June 9, 2009. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–13839 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN: 0648–XP77 

Pacific Fishery Management Council; 

Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s (Council) 

Salmon Technical Team (STT) will hold 

a meeting to initiate planning and make 

assignments for developing an 

overfishing review for Queets River and 

Strait of Juan de Fuca natural coho. STT 

meeting to be held June 30, 2009 to plan 

development of an assessment of the 

causes and implications of Queets River 

and Strait of Juan de Fuca natural coho 

stocks failing to meet their conservation 

objective for three consecutive years. 

This meeting of the STT is open to the 

public. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

Tuesday, June 30, 2009, from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife office, located in the Natural 

Resources Building at 1111 Washington